Irrational dislikes?

[pdxflint]

Watermarks

Watermarks on the other hand, I cannot effing stand! Honestly, you think someone's going to steal your picture of an escalator? Take a moment, step back, and realize you're not God's gift to photography. It ruins the picture anyways! I think it is incredibly pretentious.

... "effing??" I guess one of my peeves is people not saying what they really mean...

However, for you to think putting a watermark on a photo somehow implies someone thinks they're "God's gift to photography" is a bit short-sighted. Obviously in the amateur world... who friggin' cares, right (okay, guilty of not saying what I really mean, also.) People give their stuff away happily. But if someone wants to put a watermark on their photo, that's really their choice... you don't have to like it, as you might not like pictures of babies or flowers, but let's not be judgmental about why they do it. Maybe there is a valid reason... it might even be just to tick you off, but I doubt most watermarkers really can be bothered with that reason. More likely it's to discourage false crediting of their shot in this day of re-blogging with the likes of tumblr.com.

I think it's a personal choice.

For instance, I don't watermark small images that I contribute to these types of forums, which are fairly anonymous (even though my website is right there in my signature) and really just about sharing images.

On the other hand, when I post images to a forum that may be seen by potential clients or that are about posting a body of professional work, I definitely watermark. It's not about image theft; it's about branding. Oh, and any time that full-sized images are available, I watermark (though that's not very common).

All the shots I post here are linked from another gallery that is viewed by potential buyers of my images, so I watermark. As Edge100 states clearly, it's not so much about theft as it's about branding and name recognition within the fairly small world of photographers and clients some of us live in. I do think watermarking should be fairly innocuous to the image, but some genres of photos dealing with extreme sports and other things are commonly abused by the very market one is serving, unless the watermark makes the image practically useless -- not pretty, but effective in a catalog sales gallery. And finally, there's the issue of simple identity of the photographer... why do painters sign their work? Why do artists sign their limited edition prints? Why do posters here have sigs under their posts? It's a way of identifying ourselves somehow as unique individuals, and in the end it all goes back to ego, somehow. Healthy amounts of ego are vital for success, but too much, too little, or a false ego entirely... tends to reflect itself as strong judgement of others.

Doylem... see what you started. It's really all your fault, kind sir!

 

[kallisti]

Photos of camera gear
My Advice: Use it, please.
Kallisti is excused from this one. His "Fool and his Money" was, um...priceless.

Dale

Thanks

 

[avro707]

Large Watermarks
My advice: If you really need to advertise yourself, learn what 10 point type is and where the lower corners are. The top five photographers posting to POTD don't use watermarks at all.
Caveat: Place a copyright in your EXIF data.

Dale

A watermark through the middle of the image is the better solution for newsworthy images. Otherwise a lower corner one will be cropped out. Or, in the case of an EXIF, someone will load the image and export it without that.

There are too many examples of news websites ripping off with a news-worthy image without paying for it, and then the photographer has to go chasing payment. A robust watermark is a good idea.

I'll continue to use a watermark for some images.

 

[chrono1081]

Here are MY irrational dislikes however I think they are quite rational.

-Boat and or stick in the water shots. NO ONE CARES!!! Its been done a trillion times. Your boat and or stick will never be interesting. No we don't care about the reflection.

-Oversharpened wrinkly faced people shots. No it does not show the "character" of the person it shows you can't stay away from the sharpen tool and you have no imagination since you captured the exact shot of someone millions of other people did.

-Abstracts created with shadows...or pretty much abstracts in general. The only thing those shots are useful for is making textures. Very VERY rarely does an abstract turn out good. Stewie Griffin hit the nail in the head with the segment making fun of lawn chair shadows.

-Birds. Birds are NOT difficult to get good shots of so please quit talking it up like it is. Bird shots are boring to everyone who is not a bird enthusiast. Unless the bird is doing something awesome or pooping in midair no one cares.

/rant

EDIT: I also hate the luminious landscape website. In the who knows how many years and years I've done photography I've seen that crap site recommended to people over and over and I don't know why. There is a LOT of bad information on there. (Such as the article on how to shoot lightning that talks about needing sensors and all this equipment and stuff that is not necessary what so ever to get lightning shots.)

 

[H2Ockey]

Here are MY irrational dislikes however I think they are quite rational.

-Boat and or stick in the water shots. NO ONE CARES!!! Its been done a trillion times. Your boat and or stick will never be interesting. No we don't care about the reflection.

-Oversharpened wrinkly faced people shots. No it does not show the "character" of the person it shows you can't stay away from the sharpen tool and you have no imagination since you captured the exact shot of someone millions of other people did.

-Abstracts created with shadows...or pretty much abstracts in general. The only thing those shots are useful for is making textures. Very VERY rarely does an abstract turn out good. Stewie Griffin hit the nail in the head with the segment making fun of lawn chair shadows.

-Birds. Birds are NOT difficult to get good shots of so please quit talking it up like it is. Bird shots are boring to everyone who is not a bird enthusiast. Unless the bird is doing something awesome or pooping in midair no one cares.

/rant

Wow, I agree with the over-sharpen bit. That and over-saturation as well. But for the most part, when done well, I like all of those types of photos.
But yeah they have to be done right, lawn chair shadows not right.

 

[compuwar]

-Birds. Birds are NOT difficult to get good shots of so please quit talking it up like it is. Bird shots are boring to everyone who is not a bird enthusiast. Unless the bird is doing something awesome or pooping in midair no one cares.

I've got about three Bald Eagle shots I'm happy with and it'll probably be another year or two before that number goes up- and I've shot thousands of frames. Of course, a lot depends on your definition of "good shot." No matter how hard I try, they just don't listen to me when I tell them which direction to fly in, and pointing the wind in different directions isn't working for me either. I'd love to see your gallery of bird shots since they're so "easy" to shoot though- and yes, half the trouble is getting a capture when they're "doing something awesome" in the right direction with the right light at the right distance. Of course, once you get all that and you have the camera set right, it's "easy!"

Paul

 

[Designer Dale]

I sense a disturbance in the Force brewing. Try to keep this thread in the spirit of the OP. Doylem is asking for the types of photos that you pan over in the POTD thread and why. If someone says they don't like your style of photo, it's not necessary to defend your particular bag. Unless it's the one with your glass in it... Try to be descriptive and hold the judgment. Bird photos may be dull to you and it's OK to state that, but don't say they are easy/stupid/whatever. No well executed photograph is easy.

Excuse me for being mini-mod.

Dale

 

[luminosity]

I guess one of my pet peeves is/are easily impressed people. That includes people (particularly family members) who are impressed with something I've done that I consider mediocre. I know when I've done something well and I don't mind saying so, even if just to myself.

These days, just getting something in focus that's reasonably well exposed seems to be a cause for celebration for too many people.

 

[Doylem]

-Boat and or stick in the water shots. NO ONE CARES!!! Its been done a trillion times. Your boat and or stick will never be interesting. No we don't care about the reflection.

Oof, I plead guilty as charged...

A lot of photographic techniques look fascinating... for five minutes. The first time I saw one of those tilt/shift shots I was intrigued: wow, it's real, but it looks like a table-top model! Then I saw another and another and, well, once you've seen one, you've seen them all. Yawn... I feel much the same about fish-eye shots.

Interesting how watermarks inspire such strong feelings. I sell pix over the internet (online library, Alamy), and I've also had images used without permission (and payment). But I refuse to get worried about it, because the sales and the 'misappropriations' are two sides of the same coin... which is the ease with which images can be shared over the internet. I got up this morning, found two picture sales via Alamy, and one via my website. So before I do any work, I've made my rent money. If I never wanted to risk one of my pictures ending up on someone's blog, I wouldn't post any online. So no watermarks for me.

 

[chrono1081]

Oof, I plead guilty as charged...

Lol! No worries I'm guilty as charged too with every cliche shot I posted (except old wrinkly faces, I don't think I did any of those ever). I always found that identifying cliches and avoiding them really helps creative shooting.

As to my post a few posts above, I see some people were taking offense but I mean none. My post was meant to be a joking style. Those are simply the most common shots I see all the time. (Not on Mac Rumors per se but on Fred Miranda where I usually haunt).

 

[Doylem]

Lol! No worries I'm guilty as charged too with every cliche shot I posted

I showed some pix to a guy years ago, include a sunset shot. "Ugh, what a cliché", he said. So I'm not quite what what's a 'cliché' and what isn't. Pretty much everything has been photographed by now, in many different ways, but when I'm out with my camera, and the sun's going down, I'm not thinking cliché... I'm thinking how lucky I am to witness something as beautiful as this.

 

[glocke12]

The only images that I don't particularly care for are the over the top HDR images....

 

[Phrasikleia]

No well executed photograph is easy.

Truer words were never spoken.

I always found that identifying cliches and avoiding them really helps creative shooting.

There are so many photographic clichés now that "avoiding" them completely could be an ongoing exercise in futility. Another strategy is to execute them masterfully--to produce something that is so visually stimulating that it transcends its status as a cliché. Either route is extremely challenging and worth pursuing.

For example, here is a list of photographic clichés that come to mind for me:

(clichés in no particular order)

Photographer self portrait using a mirror.

Photographer's own, long shadow.

Photographer's own feet.

Hay bales in a field.

Insect on a flower.

Homeless person sleeping on a bench (almost always in B&W).

Homeless children in third-world country squatting on street.

Reflections in the windows of a tall building.

Birds on telephone wires.

Post-sunset mountain scene with only tips of peaks illuminated.

Seascape at sunrise/sunset.

Lone tree in big field.

Dilapidated wooden building in a big field.

Doorway of an old building.

Rusted old car in the desert.

Train tracks extending into the distance.

Wooden pier extending out into a lake.

Person on street walking past a wall (almost always in B&W).

Just about anything shot in Antelope Canyon.

Just about any shot of Horseshoe Bend.

B&W shot of El Capitan.

Nude, pregnant mother covering breasts and holding hand to belly.

Spire of water rising after water droplet fell into sink/tub/bowl.

Reflections in water droplets.

Parked bicycle without rider.

Gondolas docked in a row along Venetian pier.

Skateboarder/Snowboarder caught in the air.​

(...etc, etc...I'm sure we could make this list ten times longer without much effort.)


I'm guilty of committing at least half of these clichés myself and am not above trying my hand at the other half eventually. But when I do, I'll try my best to make a real visual feast out of each shot. Sometimes the greatest of efforts can make even the most ordinary scenes seem wonderfully strange. It's a great thing when someone can find some angle or subject that really ventures into original territory, but it's equally great to see something familiar made absolutely radiant by virtue of its superb execution.

 

[El Cabong]

Two-in-one.

 

[TheReef]

I agree with the watermarking, I can live with a small watermark in a corner but I don't like when people put obnoxious text over the whole photo, even worse when the photo isn't very appealing itself.
As pdxflint mentions I see it more a branding identifier.
If someone wants to steal your photo they will.


For the most part I'm not attracted to HDR/fisheye but they don't bother me, you can always skip them if you dislike them so much, it's all a learning experience, a lot of people can learn a lot here about what people think and a good way to learn is to get feedback.
HDR is an easy thing for newcomers to mess up, I don't think HDR/fisheye/etc is bad, there is a time and place for everything.
I'm sure there are excellent HDR (I remember Valdore used to post some good ones, perhaps some of the irrationality with HDR caused him to leave?) and fisheye shots out there, just an awful lot more worse ones


I'm interested as to what causes the irrationality. Here's some rambling and thoughts...
A lot of people doing bad jobs with a certain "tool".
HDR, Fisheye, Tilt-shift, selective colour, cat shots, kid shots, car shots, bokeh shots, DOF shots etc...all in themelves aren't bad - people (in masses) give them bad rep.
Why? Some types of shots done well can be very compelling (and attractive to a larger audience) so more people want to imitate this technique (and usually fail or forget what the technique was designed for and apply it to the wrong situation).

If for some mysterious reason the focal length of 50mm was extremely compelling, I'm sure there'd be a lot of people imitating using 50mm, producing bad shots, and forming a lot of irrational hate for the 50mm focal length (not an ideal example, some techniques or tools are easier to fail with than others)
Anyways, there's one hypothesis from one Aussie, there's more rambling I've posted here than I've done all year


I don't want to detract from the really positive attitude and level of quality POTD has risen too...

[MOTIVATION]
Well done all, and keep the great pics coming!!
[/MOTIVATION]

 

[TheDrift-]

I know the cliched shots are well kinda chliced....but as someone at the bottom of the learning curve, you see these shots and want to try to reproduce them.

While not artistically great it does provide a learning experience, for example the next time i get chance to go out and shoot, I'm goning to a local waterfall and doing one of the most cliched shots of all, slow shutter speed + moving water!

Now I know it wont be orginial but hopefully I'll learn from it, I suspect most of the better photographers here will have some point, shot most of the cliche's mentioned?

Anyhow, not to go agaist the spirit of this thread a few from me are:

Computer Keyboards
DOF Piano keybaord shots
Peoples camera lenses/boxes/filters..

 

[avro707]

I showed some pix to a guy years ago, include a sunset shot. "Ugh, what a cliché", he said. So I'm not quite what what's a 'cliché' and what isn't. Pretty much everything has been photographed by now, in many different ways, but when I'm out with my camera, and the sun's going down, I'm not thinking cliché... I'm thinking how lucky I am to witness something as beautiful as this.

It's not a cliche if you haven't done it before. Same with the comments about someone saying "oh, it's been done to death before". But you haven't done it to death.

That last reference was someone talking about the famous plane landing photos at St Maarten (Netherlands Antilles) with the huge planes roaring over the beach filled with scantily clad people.

 

[Doylem]

Photographer self portrait using a mirror. Photographer's own, long shadow. Photographer's own feet. Hay bales in a field. Insect on a flower. Homeless person sleeping on a bench (almost always in B&W). Homeless children in third-world country squatting on street. Reflections in the windows of a tall building. Birds on telephone wires. Post-sunset mountain scene with only tips of peaks illuminated. Seascape at sunrise/sunset. Lone tree in big field. Dilapidated wooden building in a big field. Doorway of an old building. Rusted old car in the desert. Train tracks extending into the distance. Wooden pier extending out into a lake. Person on street walking past a wall (almost always in B&W). Just about anything shot in Antelope Canyon. Just about any shot of Horseshoe Bend. B&W shot of El Capitan. Nude, pregnant mother covering breasts and holding hand to belly. Spire of water rising after water droplet fell into sink/tub/bowl. Reflections in water droplets.Parked bicycle without rider. Gondolas docked in a row along Venetian pier. Skateboarder/Snowboarder caught in the air.​

I think a lot of photographic clichés come from photographic magazines, which most people read (?) when they're starting out. I used to work on a photo mag, years ago, even though I wasn't really into photography at the time. A lot of the pix in the mag were used to illustrate themes and seasons: you know, how to photograph fall colours, Christmas lights, Spring flowers, etc, how to do macro, use filters, understand flash.

So there'd be pix of coloured pencils laid out in a fan shape, landscapes where the sky was an awful magenta or 'tobacco' colour (thanks, Mr Cokin), and, yes, Phrasiklea, a lone tree in a field, train tracks heading into the distance and - gulp - a pier jutting out into a lake. There are pix which only appear in photographic magazines... for the simple reason that no-one else has a use for them...

 

[TheReef]

(I hope this is relevant, it's an irrational dislike - examples aren't usually found within these forums though )

One thing I don't really get is "tasteful nudes".
Am I missing something? Is being nude supposed to convey something about the female figure as pure and (I really don't know I'll stop there....), sometimes it probably is and there is underlying meaning, other times I wonder?

When someone says "I'm going to shoot a [tasteful] nude" what are their intentions? Often I wonder if people do it for the sake of it,
"Yeah mate, I'm going to go and shoot a [tasteful] nude".
Is it because it's a bit "further out there" than say shooting a portrait and has a bit of exclusivity about it?
Is it just like "I shoot medium format film for that, you know, medium format look" ?

 

[Phrasikleia]

I should probably underscore my point about clichés: they are worth pursuing. Even the most tired ones can result in a gem of a photo, if done well. And I agree with TheDrift-, beginning photographers should take a whack at any and all of them that come to mind, if for no other reason than to learn just how hard it is to pull them off with any kind of finesse.

There are pix which only appear in photographic magazines... for the simple reason that no-one else has a use for them...

You can't really believe that. All of those types of photos are useful to somebody and are delightful to many (when done well).

 

[Doylem]

One thing I don't really get is "tasteful nudes".

What's that noise? Ah, it's a can of works being opened.

And these 'tasteful nudes' will be in b/w, I trust...

You can't really believe that. All of those types of photos are useful to somebody and are delightful to many (when done well).

I mean that there are pictures you see in photo mags that you really see nowhere else... but beginners get the idea that these are the kind of subjects they should be taking. When I started taking pix I really didn't know what I wanted to photograph...

 

[Padaung]

Watermarks annoy me when the text is too strong and repeated over the whole image. I know the owner doesn't want it to be used without their consent but I also want to see the image too.

However, they are a necessary evil. A few years ago I worked for a multinational company. We got a job order come through saying to print some flyers off that were to be distributed to customers (members of the public, not business to business). The image used in the flyer still had the image library's water mark on it. Now, for it to have to to the print stage means it had been designed, amended by a senior designer, approved by a manager, and approved by the head of marketing. When it arrived in my inbox I immediately saw the watermark, and sent it back to the office stating why I couldn't print.

It arrived back in my inbox 2 days later with the watermark gone. How it got to me originally with the watermark I do not know - designers and marketing professionals 'should' know better.

A well placed single watermark, blended at a sensible level of opacity does serve a purpose. Watermarks at the edge of the image like the one in the Ken Rockwell photo someone posted aren't really watermarks in my opinion (they are the equivalent of a name tag saying who took the photo) because they are too easy to crop out.

Anyway, my pet hate?


Bad HDR (I do believe there is a place for it when done well).

 

[avro707]

Padaung: That's pretty common for huge issues to creep through past multiple stages of review... Imagine the big report, the company wanted to portray equal opportunity and someone found a photo of a lady operating chain-saw! What's the problem? She had long hair hanging down in front of her!

Somehow it got through all the stages of review and went to print. Then someone saw it and presumably had the mother of all OMG moments. Stickers were placed over that image in every copy if I remember right!

Probably not quite the same thing as in your case, but in hind-sight, equally amazing.

 

[Artful Dodger]

(I hope this is relevant, it's an irrational dislike - examples aren't usually found within these forums though )

One thing I don't really get is "tasteful nudes".
Am I missing something? Is being nude supposed to convey something about the female figure as pure and (I really don't know I'll stop there....), sometimes it probably is and there is underlying meaning, other times I wonder?

When someone says "I'm going to shoot a [tasteful] nude" what are their intentions? Often I wonder if people do it for the sake of it,
"Yeah mate, I'm going to go and shoot a [tasteful] nude".
Is it because it's a bit "further out there" than say shooting a portrait and has a bit of exclusivity about it?
Is it just like "I shoot medium format film for that, you know, medium format look" ?

I guess I'll jump in however it is to help out and not stir things up
So my background comes from being trained as a fine art painting major and I was blessed by having some great teachers at college to explain a few important lessons, rules and respect for the human body be it a woman or a man posing for you and your painting or a photo. I was taught that tasteful was in the way the body was not "used" but embraced for a composition (I think we all get that here). Most would consider a tasteful nude as pure appreciation of the human body itself and as it's form such as the subtle curves, angles and shadows it casts upon itself or light from the surrounding area which it shares.

This could range from not having most of the focus concentrated between the legs or only on the breasts, suggesting the form as tasteful and the only areas that matter without the reaction of think sex right away. Some will say tasteful would be having cloth of some sort over the private areas because most of the population can not and doesn't see the human form as a form but what we have been exposed to hearing from others. Example of non tasteful, and this is from some of my teachers because of the background of the artist would be some of Freuds work. I like his brush work, but most will scream he degrades, disrespects and demeans a human being and therefor destroys the form so that no one that sees this can get past that to see the techniques applied. Did he do this with everything, no, men, sometimes, women, a lot. Just an example…

I think that a tasteful nude conveys the subject being or showing empowerment at some core level that anyone could see even if they never studied art before. I agree some people feel different about what is tasteful and seem to confuse free will with tasteful and everyone has the right to… argument but over time the term tasteful in it's true sense has been lost as with many terms many times. Also, this is to me the biggest issue with tasteful, how is the photo used? Where, when and why. Take one photo and use it in a certain way, then that same photo that would be tasteful in every sense in the first place is now put in a less than desirable setting and because of only that placement it becomes polluted and is no longer what it started out as, tasteful. I also feel that people just (as you pointed out) do it for the effect of what will happen. We all know those disturbers of the peace a time or two in our life's journey.

Sure, you could have anyone sitting or laying there with clothes, a bed sheet or whatever but the only time I've heard a general consensus about a tasteful nude would be when a baby has a photo or painting taken/made. Is that only because we see them up to a certain point as pure (implying it's tasteful) and after some fictitious arbitrary age a human looses that quality? I think Maximillion had a photo in POTD of a baby that was by far the best I've ever seen. It was in every sense tasteful, beautiful and a human displaying only a form that a human can.

I always think back to the Roman and Greek times when people didn't where much and that in itself was considered tasteful as was laying around nude during those times. Since then as I said before, the word is what has been skewed and disconnected from the actions it was intended for.
You know a phone call would have been much easier for this, lol, but everyone has a different take and in the mean time I'll mutter to myself a "seriously" or "are you kidding me" when I see or hear the tastefully nude statement and it's another display of degrading for the shock value or to make a name for one's self.

Peace

 

[allmIne]

Landscapes. While I like some, I glaze over 95% of them, particularly if it's just countryside / desert or the like.