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

[c.cloudwalker]

Darn! I missed the boat.

The crappiest thread and I didn't even think to break out the popcorn. :lmao:

A self-professed non expert judges what is crappy. Is it just me or is there something a bit weird about this proposition?



Maybe it's not too late. Another couple pages is always possible. :meh:

 

[musicaleCA]

Don't feel back cloud. I broke out my own batch of popcorn when this one started.

 

[Joves]

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.

I dont get it myself. What is the big difference as to wether it is in your mind a crappy photo and, that it has the shooters sig on it. If you dont like it then move on, it is just that simple. That it bothers you all that much tells me you have too much time on your hands if it bothers you that much.