Pet peeve... anyone with me on this? (Crappy pics with sigs on them)

[Dagwood56]

Hahaha clearly you are trying to indirectly say that I posted a crappy photo. Do share, please.

No, I was just using bad HDRs as an example. I take a lot of crappy photos, but I don't post them and I certainly don't sig them.

There is an old saying - "One man's trash is another man's treasure." Just because you don't like someone's photo and feel it should not contain a frame etc. doesn't mean the person who took it feels that way about it. It's quite possible that something you have posted here that you felt was a good photo was considered by someone else to be a "crappy photo" also....

No, I merely pointed out that it was "possible". :er:

 

[Dwig]

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused.

So posting crappy photos (in your opinion) is okay as long as they don't place a border or signature in the image. Does that mean that if the border and signature were left off, then the crappy photos hold more merit?

Do you just have an aversion towards borders and signatures or should crappy photographs taken by crappy photographers not even bother? Much akin to placing lipstick on a pig.

I can't get my head wrapped around that concept, much less see a parallel between the two.

you took the words out of my mouth ...

 

[5DManiac]

I've answered this already. But again it's simple:

Crappy photos: OK:thumbup: (we're here to learn and help others to learn.)

Crappy photos with signature: Not OK.:thumbdown:

Putting your signature on a photo means you think there's no significant room for improvement. I realise photography is mostly subjective, but having a photo with poor composition, focus, exposure, etc. is NOT.

/end thread

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused.

So posting crappy photos (in your opinion) is okay as long as they don't place a border or signature in the image. Does that mean that if the border and signature were left off, then the crappy photos hold more merit?

Do you just have an aversion towards borders and signatures or should crappy photographs taken by crappy photographers not even bother? Much akin to placing lipstick on a pig.

I can't get my head wrapped around that concept, much less see a parallel between the two.

you took the words out of my mouth ...

 

[PhotoXopher]

I realise photography is mostly subjective, but having a photo with poor composition, focus, exposure, etc. is NOT.

/end thread

So you're the be all, end all judge on how a photo should be composed, focused, and exposed?

I do get what you're saying, but the fact is - someone likes that photo, for whatever reason - so who cares if it's not technically 'proper', and who is anyone to judge what someone else can or should take pride in? They're not asking you to buy it, nor do you have any vested interest in the photo - so why does it bother you so much?

 

[5DManiac]

Pet peeve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It bugs me for probably the same reason my thread bugs you. This thread wasn't to point the finger at any particular person, nor force my opinions down someones throat, so all of you people getting defensive: chill. I expect a civil discussion. If you agree, fine. If you don't, also fine. No need to get hostile now

I realise photography is mostly subjective, but having a photo with poor composition, focus, exposure, etc. is NOT.

/end thread

So you're the be all, end all judge on how a photo should be composed, focused, and exposed?

I do get what you're saying, but the fact is - someone likes that photo, for whatever reason - so who cares if it's not technically 'proper', and who is anyone to judge what someone else can or should take pride in? They're not asking you to buy it, nor do you have any vested interest in the photo - so why does it bother you so much?

 

[PhotoXopher]

Probably

 

[Dagwood56]

I've answered this already. But again it's simple:

Crappy photos: OK:thumbup: (we're here to learn and help others to learn.)

Crappy photos with signature: Not OK.:thumbdown:

Putting your signature on a photo means you think there's no significant room for improvement. I realise photography is mostly subjective, but having a photo with poor composition, focus, exposure, etc. is NOT.

/end thread

Sorry, but I'm a bit confused.

So posting crappy photos (in your opinion) is okay as long as they don't place a border or signature in the image. Does that mean that if the border and signature were left off, then the crappy photos hold more merit?

Do you just have an aversion towards borders and signatures or should crappy photographs taken by crappy photographers not even bother? Much akin to placing lipstick on a pig.

I can't get my head wrapped around that concept, much less see a parallel between the two.

you took the words out of my mouth ...

Putting your signature on a photo means you think there's no significant room for improvement. No it does not! It simply means the person who took it feels its a nice photo and they are proud of it! There is nothing at all wrong with that!

This thread is pointless now - I think most of us know where its headed now so I'm through posting in it.

 

[5DManiac]

:thumbup:

This thread is pointless now - I think most of us know where its headed now so I'm through posting in it.

 

[Dwig]

I've answered this already. ...
Putting your signature on a photo means you think there's no significant room for improvement. ...

That's a ludicrous definition. Putting a signature on a piece of art, good or bad, merely says "I did this", period. You are reading something into the signature that is not there.

It might be plausible to extend the "I did this" to "I did this and its the best I can do right now", but to take it as far as meaning "there's no significant room for improvement" is idiotic.

 

[LokiZ]

It was said that the op is just trying to help other photographers advance their skills in photography...

I myself see absolutely no link whatsoever with how a frame, border, or sig would or could change my opinion on how I feel about a photograph. (Unless the sig was too big and covered up the image, in same way that posting a photo that is too small for critique deters my C & C)

So what does it matter then if we are truly only looking at the image to help out photographer. I am not in the habit of seeing those with frames asking if I feel their frame goes with the photo they have taken. Rather they ask what I think about their photo and the photo alone. In or out of border does not matter. A crooked photo is a crooked photo regardless of how it displayed. I simply have to decide did they mean to do that and do I like it.

To quote a friend while asking what speaker has the best sound... "I can't tell you what sounds best to you, I can only tell you what sounds best to me." In other words I will tell you what I like or dislike about your image you then have to decide if my opinion is worth enough for you to re-think your opinion as the photographer. I will tell you one thing though. Too many post of a negative nature and others opinions of you wrong or right goes south real quick.

I am defensive because I believe positive re-enforcement is the way to go and that is just my opinion at this point in time.

 

[Jaszek]

O man. I can't put a signature on my photos anymore? Now I know the secret to all those great photos I have seen. From now on I will never put a signature on my photos, maybe they will make me money

 

[fokker]

I see in this thread references to 'people who are still learning'.

Does anybody on here actually think they know everything there is to know about photography? I'd sure love to meet them...

 

[Johan13]

I think its all in the eye of the beholder. For one, I bet the worlds best would probably think a lot of pics here are crap. I find certain forms of photography crap--i just don't like certain styles. I think that hods true for all forms of art.

Noobs may also be trying out the software to make the frames and such-so the whole thing is practice. I find photography is a lot like biking. If your doing it I think it is good. Its not about what bike, camera, your skill lv or anything. Just get out there and have fun. By the way I like biking too

 

[MelissaMarieImagery]

If it's my photo, who cares if it's good or bad? It's still my work, and I want my name on it.


And, besides, You never know what kind of image a person may want to steal. Regardless of if it's a good or bad image, who knows what use they may have for it. Is it hurting you by them having their watermark on it?

 

[LokiZ]

I for one think that the worlds best are professionals through and through and that does not just cover the work they produce. As it is in any professional business the true professionals are not going to belittle themselves first off by using terms like "crap" to define others work in the first place. They don't need to, their work speaks for itself. They are not threatened by others so there is no need to unprofessional about it only a need to be tactful if they truly wish to help.

Sure I realize this is a place to vent, but you also must realize that it is an open forum right? There is no "professional" license one has to flash here to gain access to any and all of our threads. You could be spouting off in front of would be clients. I know if I was looking for some one to do work for me I would check here as well as other places.

To put it another way if a client comes up to you and asks you to give them reasons why they should pick you over someone falling in to the category of a framer / sigmaster who's work you feel is poor... I highly doubt the first words from your mouth will be "Because their work is crap! And on top of that they put their crap in a frame and sign it!" If it is then I my self would probably move on and not choose you or the other person.