I am pretty new to this forum so please indulge me.
I basically have two pet peeves in photography.
1. People that take really long exposures of waterfalls. I personally think that flowing water should look like flowing water, not some form of white cotton, foam, etc. You can take a long exposure. Big deal. I don't think that I am alone in thinking that this looks stupid. And that goes double for something that is commonly called "soft focus". No, it's not soft focus, it's called blurred. It's either in focus or it isn't.
2. The people that generally inhabit forums like this. Personally I stumbled upon this application searching the App Store looking for a better application to organize my photos. It looked interesting so I explored around a bit, read a few posts, and even posted a couple of photos myself. It is obvious that there are a lot of extremely talented photographers on this forum. Unfortunately there are not an equal number of people that are even remotely helpful to those that post a question. Way too may responses could be not only characterized as not being at all helpful but would be more accurately called smarmy, ignorant, and downright rude.
At one time I joined a local photography club, hoping to learn more about the nuances of photography. Unfortunately the first words that I remember hearing were "You need to buy a better camera". Excuse me? I think at the time I owned a 35mm Canon AE1 SLR, back in the film days. Of course there were those that looked downwards on us "film shooters" and insisted that we shoot only on slide film. Because, of course, slides are superior to the film that pedestrian types like me were using. Having 4 kids, a mortgage, car payments etc. along with not the best job in the world, kind of made buying a better camera a pipe dream.
It didn't seem too promising, but I had already paid the $50 so I figured I would give it a shot. I didn't learn a whole lot of photography but I did learn a lot about people. In this particular club they conducted monthly "contests" earning points towards their annual "Photographer of the Year" award. Interestingly the only photos permitted to be entered in these so called "contests" had to be printed and mounted with a minimum size of 11x14. Even more interesting was the fact that each month members of this club's elite took turns judging each other's work. But the ultimate was the fact that each entry had to have the name of the photographer printed on the back, meaning that the "judge" knew which of his buddies had taken which photo even before this monthly "judging" began. At least half of the entries were of kittens in a basket. You can't make this stuff up.
At some point a representative of Kodak came to speak, and was invited to be the guest judge. You can only imagine what followed. Needless to say, he was not invited to return. Maybe 6 months later a representative from Canon came to speak and was afforded the same honor of being the guest judge. After about an hour of critiquing these entries, although another observer may have used the term "eviscerating", he was asked to wrap it up, because it was getting late. Needless to say it was my favorite, and also the last meeting that I went to, believing that it couldn't possibly get any better than that. But I digress.
There are a few different types of people that seem to populate these forums. This is not to say that there are not a few wonderful people that offer up real advice, good ideas, and some very constructive criticism. As in the example above there are the hardware snobs, those who's only answer to everything is basically "Go buy some better equipment." "If you want to shoot wildlife you NEED to get a Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM lens, because that's what I have, and look how great I am. Just look at how awesome my photos are". Answering someone who posts: "I am just a beginner, what is a good camera to buy?" Will no doubt elicit this response: "How can you ask something so stupid? What is your budget? How can I be expected to answer such a stupid, dumb, ignorant question? (Translation
After all, I have more important things to do like pontificating on the relative merits of a Nikon 4.0 lens vs a 2.8 (ad nauseam)". Some times it would be best if you remained silent. Obviously the poster is a beginner, since he or she opened the post by saying just that. But go ahead and jump right down their throat because obviously, you know more than they do. Why don't you ask me something about factory automation or industrial instrumentation and control systems and I guarantee that I can make you feel Ike an idiot too.
There are the technical snobs, the people that feel compelled to point out that their view of the world is the one and only thing that counts. They can tear apart any photo because the contrast, the white balance, the depth of field etc. are not only not what they would have chosen, but flat out wrong.
Then there are the know-it-alls, who's answer to everything is "Why don't you go and buy a book about photography?" "You need to learn the basics." "How can you come into this exalted realm and ask such a pedestrian question (don't you know who we are?)?" "You need to go out and learn how to shoot in manual, it's the only way to learn. (You know nothing)."
Not surprisingly I hadn't known of anyone that emerged from the womb knowing all that there is to know about the art and craft that is photography. But apparently there are some people here that were ever so lucky. Nobody ever had to teach them anything, nobody ever had to show them anything, and nobody ever had to explain anything to them simply because they not only already knew everything, but will take every opportunity to show off that knowledge in order to impress their friends, and hopefully managing to belittle the questioner in the process.
There are some people, mostly I think who are clerks in used record stores that insist that the sound, the warmth and the overall effect that vinyl has is far superior to digital. Since I ant carry a turntable around with me, I guess I'll vote digital. Not to mention that I can't hear any difference between the two. But that's just me. Along the same lines, I own any number of books on photography which always try to point out the differences in "tone, color, contrast, white balance, etc." between figures 6 and 7. I confess to not only not seeing any difference, but after reflection, not really caring about it any more. I'm sure that when I'm dead and gone people will be at my home after the funeral, and will be looking at the photo of Amsterdam on the wall and they will likely be saying in unison: "He should have closed off that f stop a half more, then his depth of field would have been perfect." If you can see these differences, may God bless you, but does any of it really matter?
As an aside I always leave my camera in the Auto mode, because you never know when a bald eagle is going to fly straight down 5th Avenue in Manhattan, and I for one would hate to miss the shot. Maybe I'm getting old but adjusting the shutter speed, the f stop, the white balance, etc. in the blink of an eye is pretty much beyond me these days, if it ever were possible. Now will I get the "PERFECT SHOT"? Probably not. However, sitting in the studio, controlling the lights, the room temperature, and the music playing in the background while adjusting the position of a bunch of apples on a plate is not the same thing.
And last but certainly not least are the rude, the crude, and the ignorant. A person posted a link to a picture of an apple with drops of water on it, asking for suggestions on how to duplicate this particular photo. Someone responded with something about mixing some glycerine with the water and spraying that mixture on the apple in order to duplicate that effect. Some great advice, at least to me it was, not knowing anything about something like that. Some dope responded with something along the lines of "Why don't you eat the apple and be done with it" or words to that effect. How clever. I am really, really impressed. Not only with the quality of the answer, but with its overall usefulness as well. I'm sure that all of your pals that you are on a first name basis with will be impressed with your outstanding humor. Another time there was a discussion about art. What is art, etc. always a subject that will elicit any number of thoughtful responses. But one tool bag, clown, moron, cretin, imbecile chose to respond with this gem: "Art is the guy that works in my butcher shop, etc." or words to that effect.
If you are not a member of one of the above groups, please accept my sincerest of apologies. If you are then maybe you should just grow up, lighten up, or better yet just STFU.
I have to go, I think I might have heard a bald eagle screeching outside.
Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
I basically have two pet peeves in photography.
1. People that take really long exposures of waterfalls. I personally think that flowing water should look like flowing water, not some form of white cotton, foam, etc. You can take a long exposure. Big deal. I don't think that I am alone in thinking that this looks stupid. And that goes double for something that is commonly called "soft focus". No, it's not soft focus, it's called blurred. It's either in focus or it isn't.
2. The people that generally inhabit forums like this. Personally I stumbled upon this application searching the App Store looking for a better application to organize my photos. It looked interesting so I explored around a bit, read a few posts, and even posted a couple of photos myself. It is obvious that there are a lot of extremely talented photographers on this forum. Unfortunately there are not an equal number of people that are even remotely helpful to those that post a question. Way too may responses could be not only characterized as not being at all helpful but would be more accurately called smarmy, ignorant, and downright rude.
At one time I joined a local photography club, hoping to learn more about the nuances of photography. Unfortunately the first words that I remember hearing were "You need to buy a better camera". Excuse me? I think at the time I owned a 35mm Canon AE1 SLR, back in the film days. Of course there were those that looked downwards on us "film shooters" and insisted that we shoot only on slide film. Because, of course, slides are superior to the film that pedestrian types like me were using. Having 4 kids, a mortgage, car payments etc. along with not the best job in the world, kind of made buying a better camera a pipe dream.
It didn't seem too promising, but I had already paid the $50 so I figured I would give it a shot. I didn't learn a whole lot of photography but I did learn a lot about people. In this particular club they conducted monthly "contests" earning points towards their annual "Photographer of the Year" award. Interestingly the only photos permitted to be entered in these so called "contests" had to be printed and mounted with a minimum size of 11x14. Even more interesting was the fact that each month members of this club's elite took turns judging each other's work. But the ultimate was the fact that each entry had to have the name of the photographer printed on the back, meaning that the "judge" knew which of his buddies had taken which photo even before this monthly "judging" began. At least half of the entries were of kittens in a basket. You can't make this stuff up.
At some point a representative of Kodak came to speak, and was invited to be the guest judge. You can only imagine what followed. Needless to say, he was not invited to return. Maybe 6 months later a representative from Canon came to speak and was afforded the same honor of being the guest judge. After about an hour of critiquing these entries, although another observer may have used the term "eviscerating", he was asked to wrap it up, because it was getting late. Needless to say it was my favorite, and also the last meeting that I went to, believing that it couldn't possibly get any better than that. But I digress.
There are a few different types of people that seem to populate these forums. This is not to say that there are not a few wonderful people that offer up real advice, good ideas, and some very constructive criticism. As in the example above there are the hardware snobs, those who's only answer to everything is basically "Go buy some better equipment." "If you want to shoot wildlife you NEED to get a Canon EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS USM lens, because that's what I have, and look how great I am. Just look at how awesome my photos are". Answering someone who posts: "I am just a beginner, what is a good camera to buy?" Will no doubt elicit this response: "How can you ask something so stupid? What is your budget? How can I be expected to answer such a stupid, dumb, ignorant question? (Translation
After all, I have more important things to do like pontificating on the relative merits of a Nikon 4.0 lens vs a 2.8 (ad nauseam)". Some times it would be best if you remained silent. Obviously the poster is a beginner, since he or she opened the post by saying just that. But go ahead and jump right down their throat because obviously, you know more than they do. Why don't you ask me something about factory automation or industrial instrumentation and control systems and I guarantee that I can make you feel Ike an idiot too. There are the technical snobs, the people that feel compelled to point out that their view of the world is the one and only thing that counts. They can tear apart any photo because the contrast, the white balance, the depth of field etc. are not only not what they would have chosen, but flat out wrong.
Then there are the know-it-alls, who's answer to everything is "Why don't you go and buy a book about photography?" "You need to learn the basics." "How can you come into this exalted realm and ask such a pedestrian question (don't you know who we are?)?" "You need to go out and learn how to shoot in manual, it's the only way to learn. (You know nothing)."
Not surprisingly I hadn't known of anyone that emerged from the womb knowing all that there is to know about the art and craft that is photography. But apparently there are some people here that were ever so lucky. Nobody ever had to teach them anything, nobody ever had to show them anything, and nobody ever had to explain anything to them simply because they not only already knew everything, but will take every opportunity to show off that knowledge in order to impress their friends, and hopefully managing to belittle the questioner in the process.
There are some people, mostly I think who are clerks in used record stores that insist that the sound, the warmth and the overall effect that vinyl has is far superior to digital. Since I ant carry a turntable around with me, I guess I'll vote digital. Not to mention that I can't hear any difference between the two. But that's just me. Along the same lines, I own any number of books on photography which always try to point out the differences in "tone, color, contrast, white balance, etc." between figures 6 and 7. I confess to not only not seeing any difference, but after reflection, not really caring about it any more. I'm sure that when I'm dead and gone people will be at my home after the funeral, and will be looking at the photo of Amsterdam on the wall and they will likely be saying in unison: "He should have closed off that f stop a half more, then his depth of field would have been perfect." If you can see these differences, may God bless you, but does any of it really matter?
As an aside I always leave my camera in the Auto mode, because you never know when a bald eagle is going to fly straight down 5th Avenue in Manhattan, and I for one would hate to miss the shot. Maybe I'm getting old but adjusting the shutter speed, the f stop, the white balance, etc. in the blink of an eye is pretty much beyond me these days, if it ever were possible. Now will I get the "PERFECT SHOT"? Probably not. However, sitting in the studio, controlling the lights, the room temperature, and the music playing in the background while adjusting the position of a bunch of apples on a plate is not the same thing.
And last but certainly not least are the rude, the crude, and the ignorant. A person posted a link to a picture of an apple with drops of water on it, asking for suggestions on how to duplicate this particular photo. Someone responded with something about mixing some glycerine with the water and spraying that mixture on the apple in order to duplicate that effect. Some great advice, at least to me it was, not knowing anything about something like that. Some dope responded with something along the lines of "Why don't you eat the apple and be done with it" or words to that effect. How clever. I am really, really impressed. Not only with the quality of the answer, but with its overall usefulness as well. I'm sure that all of your pals that you are on a first name basis with will be impressed with your outstanding humor. Another time there was a discussion about art. What is art, etc. always a subject that will elicit any number of thoughtful responses. But one tool bag, clown, moron, cretin, imbecile chose to respond with this gem: "Art is the guy that works in my butcher shop, etc." or words to that effect.
If you are not a member of one of the above groups, please accept my sincerest of apologies. If you are then maybe you should just grow up, lighten up, or better yet just STFU.
I have to go, I think I might have heard a bald eagle screeching outside.
Sent from my iPad using ThePhotoForum.com mobile app
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31752-fcbc5aa4a94154b9c273592aa37b8b1e.jpg?1619734991)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32632-476f3d925401f13cffe1cc2b41945614.jpg?1619735553)
