What are your photography pet hates?

[zen]

+1.

Zen

[Brev00]

Dual subjects. A strong foreground with a complicated sky each given similar space. Just an example. Any time the photographer could not decide between two subjects and decided to include both. This can also be a portrait of a beautiful woman with dazzling bokeh effects all around her. It is closely related to overkill.

[FlyingSquirrel]

A few comments I'd like to add, in response to some things that were said earlier.

I get a bit disheartened when I see people with bigger lenses then me as their shots will be better then mine.

Other people have replied to this already, but I'll put my comments in, just for good measure. Here's the deal: It ALWAYS comes down first to who is using the equipment, and then to the equipment itself. Which means, a knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced photographer WILL take better photos if they have access to better equipment. But someone that is not skilled, will not take better photos, regardless of how good the equipment is. As a matter of fact, if someone is not skilled, they will likely take worse photos with better equipment, because it's more complicated to use properly. It's quite common for people to have $10K to 20K or more worth of "pro" equipment, and take horrible photos (either technically, artistically, or usually, both). That's because they think the gear is going to get them better photos, and don't bother to learn how to use it and hone their skills.

On a somewhat related note, I want to reply to the comments some have made about "gear snobs" and/or people that "look down upon" others that don't have expensive equipment. I've experienced this behavior in the past, however, anyone that has brought that up in this thread should be careful not to be prejudice against people with nice equipment, simply because they have nice equipment. There are many people who have very expensive, fancy gear, but who are extremely friendly and kind people. I own a Canon 500mm f4 lens and a bunch of other nice equipment, but I certainly don't look down upon people that have "lesser" equipment; first of all because I used to be "the little guy" myself, and secondly, because I know that it's the photographer, not the gear, as I explained earlier.

At the risk of causing an explosion, I never saw the point of pixel peeping until I started birding. .... once the photo has been cropped, anyone who views it will end up being a pixel-peeper, too.

So true, so true. People that don't shoot wildlife, especially birds and small animals, just can't know exactly what we are dealing with. Bird feathers, animal fur, and other such details will not stand up to anything less than the very best field/equipment technique, and post-processing (superb equipment helps, too, if you have the skill to use it). Couple all of that with the fact that we crop often, and sometimes hard (though there is a limit to how small the animal can be in the frame, after which point I just delete the shot), and we end up with pixel-peeping as a requirement, IF we have high standards for our work. That's just how it goes with high-end wildlife photography.