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

[5DManiac]

Now first I don't pretend to be an "expert" on photography or anything like that. But my pet peeve (at least when it comes to photography) is when people post the crappiest photos and border and sig them. By crappy photos, I don't mean not up to Ansel Adam spec, I mean photos which the photographer obviously failed to take any time or execute any thought and just saw something in the viewfinder and hit the shutter. I see crooked photos (not intentionally trying to be artistic) but obvious tilts. I see out of focus photos. Photos with bad composition (subject dead smack in the middle of the frame), photos with distracting elements, etc etc etc. Not to mention overprocessed photos, or photos with extreme color casts and/or uncorrected distortion. Basically photos that look like they were taken while the person was running blindfolded

All of the above is FINE if you are trying to learn and are asking tips and for C&C, but too often people make the same mistakes again and again and again and they just overall rush photography. I think the digital age is to blame for photography-sloppyness.

I hope I do not come off "arrogant" or anything like that cause that's not my intention. I think people need to rethink putting signatures and borders around their pics and pay attention to basic elements of photography such as composition and lighting. Only then you should be allowed to put a signature on your pic :greenpbl:

Thankfully I see a good amount of nice photos here. :thumbup:

 

[Dagwood56]

Well, everyone perceives things differently and i suppose that when some purchase their first camera and take their first photos they "think" they are worthy of frames. Then they also add their names to prevent theft with the idea that everyone else will think their work is good....then they come here and find out the bitter truth.

 

[Overread]

Now first I don't pretend to be an "expert" on photography or anything like that. But my pet peeve (at least when it comes to photography) is when people post the crappiest photos and border and sig them.

Hmm I don't see any thing wrong in people taking a pride in their work. Sure maybe they are not very good at all and the sig is a waste of time since no one will ever steal the images, but still a pride in ones work is no bad thing. Nor is it a bad thing to get into good practice early - I know no photographer who simply goes from being bad to being good over one night - so having a good signature policy from the start really helps as they develop and grow in their skills.

By crappy photos, I don't mean not up to Ansel Adam spec, I mean photos which the photographer obviously failed to take any time or execute any thought and just saw something in the viewfinder and hit the shutter. I see crooked photos (not intentionally trying to be artistic) but obvious tilts. I see out of focus photos. Photos with bad composition (subject dead smack in the middle of the frame), photos with distracting elements, etc etc etc. Not to mention overprocessed photos, or photos with extreme color casts and/or uncorrected distortion. Basically photos that look like they were taken while the person was running blindfolded

Heh we all start somewhere - and when most people start their eye for quality is far different from one looking from a more "experienced angle". We all go through this phase, its totally normal. The differences are that whlist some are content with what they produce, others are not and they seek to improve upon what they have created. They are no less proud of what they have done, but they know they can do better with the tools they have.
Best thing the rest of us can do is nurture the interest, encourage it and help it grow - help the people along in seeing with a more critical eye and to correct the basic mistakes they make

All of the above is FINE if you are trying to learn and are asking tips and for C&C, but too often people make the same mistakes again and again and again and they just overall rush photography. I think the digital age is to blame for photography-sloppyness.

I don't think the digital age is any more to blame for this than people today - what is has done though is broadcast this to teh world at large. In the past people could only show thier images to a limited audience - and only the best got into national publications. Giving that false idea that all the older film shooters were "masters" compared to the masses of poorer shooters today. Truth was they were there then (though in lesser numbers) just that they were not seen as widly.

 

[5DManiac]

Right. as I said all the above "bad" photography is fine if you are learning. But again my pet peeve is when people rush their photos and pass them off to the world with signatures. If you're able to rush it and come out with good images then more power to you. But generally, this is not how good photography is done. Look at press photos or paparazzi..

And I still think digital photography encourages sloppier results than with what you would get with film. Afterall, with digital, film is free and your photos are instant. *Some* people get the idea that because they spent big $$$ on a DSLR, that the camera will do all the work and all they have to do is press the magic button. We should encourage those who are looking to learn obviously (including myself) but as I said, there's a lot of careless photography and it irks me when theres a signature attached to it.

 

[5DManiac]

i agree with you on all that! that's what I also perceive to be one's train of thought :greenpbl:

Well, everyone perceives things differently and i suppose that when some purchase their first camera and take their first photos they "think" they are worthy of frames. Then they also add their names to prevent theft with the idea that everyone else will think their work is good....then they come here and find out the bitter truth.

 

[bigtwinky]

I think most people who put overprocessed images in their sigs dont really care about photography, composition and such. They are mostly, IMO, point and shooters taking snapshots, which is totally fine.

Not everyone strives to get an award winning photo. If they are pasing it off as photographic art, you have a point, else, whatever.

 

[Mendoza]

I would personally call it an occasional annoyance vs. a pet peeve. Sometimes signatures on crappy photos annoy me -- particularly if the signature seems to be placed arbitrarily and more particularly if the signature is just a cursive computer font and not from the hand of the photographer. What bugs me a little more are watermarks on crappy photos, since their placement usually is ridiculous--e.g. in the center of the photograph.
But none of this really bugs me that much since it often seems attributable to youth or inexperience.
But yea, the traditional interpretation of a signature on a piece of visual art is A) That is is a work of art, and B) That it is so good you would want to remember the name of the person who created it, and C) That the person who created it claims ownership (without implied financial incentive)... Not that the underexposed, out-of-focus, hyperprocessed shot of your cat next to a pile of electric cable warrants a signature.

 

[kundalini]

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.

 

[dizzyg44]

I'm kind of on Kundalini's side on this.....

My photos suck but I'm still trying my best to learn more.....but anything I post online I add a watermark.....not to make it seem better but to show that it's my photo (not that it will really stop anyone that wants it bad enough).

Besides, who really cares what others are doing as long as they aren't hurting you in the process.

 

[5DManiac]

Placing a signature on a crappy photo implies that you put your seal of approval on it and are trying to prevent photo theft.

Who cares what the subject matter is that's up for debate. But an underexposed, overprocessed, tilted HDR photo with a signature on it is not!

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.

 

[5DManiac]

Bad photos with sigs on them hurt me. :mrgreen:

I'm kind of on Kundalini's side on this.....

My photos suck but I'm still trying my best to learn more.....but anything I post online I add a watermark.....not to make it seem better but to show that it's my photo (not that it will really stop anyone that wants it bad enough).

Besides, who really cares what others are doing as long as they aren't hurting you in the process.

 

[table1349]

Personally I could care less. I mean who is to decide what is and what is not a "crappy" photo?

Me, I personally think that Picasso sucked as a painter and I dislike his work. However if someone gives me an original Picasso I sure ain't throwin it in da trash. :mrgreen: I may not hang it on the wall, but I'm not throwing it away.

Like a very famous art critic once said when asked about what was and what was not art when it came to painting. "I don't know what is and is not art, but I know what I like."

 

[PhotoXopher]

Who cares.

Critique the photo if they ask, otherwise ignore it and enjoy your day.

They're proud of it, good for them.

 

[5DManiac]

Right we all know photography and other art forms are subjective. But there is nothing subjective about a crappy photo. Subjectivity can only run so far.

Personally I could care less. I mean who is to decide what is and what is not a "crappy" photo?

Me, I personally think that Picasso sucked as a painter and I dislike his work. However if someone gives me an original Picasso I sure ain't throwin it in da trash. :mrgreen: I may not hang it on the wall, but I'm not throwing it away.

Like a very famous art critic once said when asked about what was and what was not art when it came to painting. "I don't know what is and is not art, but I know what I like."

 

[kundalini]

Placing a signature on a crappy photo implies that you put your seal of approval on it and are trying to prevent photo theft.

Makes sense to me.

Who cares what the subject matter is that's up for debate. But an underexposed, overprocessed, tilted HDR photo with a signature on it is not!

Correct, who cares........ and the remainder of your comment is incoherent. So is it crappy HDR photos with a border and a signature that really sets you off? I don't do HDR myself, but my understanding is that part of the process is to have at least one image that is underexposed. The overprocessed aspect is a subjective matter and I think most people generally tone down the cartoonish effect that is easily produced.

Personally, I don't place border, a signature or watermark on my images (mostly because I can't be bothered), but have no real opinion on those that do, it's matter of choice..... unless it interferes with viewing and assessing the image for requested C&C.