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



## 5DManiac (Sep 16, 2009)

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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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 (Sep 16, 2009)

5DManiac said:


> 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.



5DManiac said:


> 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



5DManiac said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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



Dagwood56 said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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!





kundalini said:


> 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?
> 
> ...


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 16, 2009)

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



dizzyg44 said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2009)

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 (Sep 16, 2009)

Who cares.

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

They're proud of it, good for them.


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 16, 2009)

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. 




gryphonslair99 said:


> 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 (Sep 16, 2009)

5DManiac said:


> 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.



5DManiac said:


> *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.


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 16, 2009)

To each his own


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 16, 2009)

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. 



5DManiac said:


> .  So is it crappy HDR photos with a border and a signature that really sets you off?


----------



## CSR Studio (Sep 16, 2009)

I agree with you Maniac. It also bugs me when people take a photograph of two distant people in a field and call it a portrait or when they photograph someone on a white background and call it high key. People need to understand what they are talking about or at least ask.


----------



## epp_b (Sep 17, 2009)

OP: Have some examples?


----------



## Dagwood56 (Sep 17, 2009)

5DManiac said:


> 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....


----------



## SrBiscuit (Sep 17, 2009)

if someone likes a pic they take, i just dont see the harm in taking pride in it.


----------



## bigtwinky (Sep 17, 2009)

I agree with the last few posters.
Irritating, annoying and so on has never crossed my mind when seeing people's photos in their sigs


----------



## twozero (Sep 17, 2009)

SrBiscuit said:


> if someone likes a pic they take, i just dont see the harm in taking pride in it.


pride is exactly what its all about. obviously, one wouldn't post the photo if they thought it was crap (unless they are posting asking: "this is a bad photo, what can I do to fix it?").

get over it, one day they may be better than you. we all have to take steps to get where we want to be, some are just able to run faster than others.

now, i personally don't like borders, but that is a whole different story.


----------



## Big (Sep 17, 2009)

So I take it this is just too terrible to look at...


----------



## bigtwinky (Sep 18, 2009)

I don't think its about one being better than someone else.  

Instead of thinking one is better, one is worse, putting people at different levels, I like to think that, for this discussion, people are simply different.  They have different levels of expertise, different expected results, different methods to work, different opinions, and its about understanding that they there are many types of photography, not just good or bad.


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 18, 2009)

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

I've not posted anything with a signature on it.  This isn't about crappy photos, but crappy photos with sigs.  Some even post a crappy photo with a sig (which is half fine) if you aren't sure if it's good, why put a signature on it?  That's another level of this.



Dagwood56 said:


> 5DManiac said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 18, 2009)

Oh I could fetch TONS.  But that'd be rude.  TONS and TONS to say the least.  

TONS



epp_b said:


> OP: Have some examples?


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 18, 2009)

5DManiac said:


> Oh I could fetch TONS.  But that'd be rude.  TONS and TONS to say the least.
> 
> TONS
> 
> ...



You have too much time on your hands


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 18, 2009)

Exactly.  If they're asking for critique and are learning that's one thing.  But once you put your signature on your picture, you're pretty much dismissing any advancement.  (which is fine if your picture is fine) but if it's a totally bad photo, then that's a different story.  

Again this has nothing to do with being arrogant, or amount of money put into gear.  as I said before, you can take totally awesome pics with a $3 disposable camera.  

People use really expensive gear for the sake of using expensive gear, rush their photography (literally) and post the same photos over and over without improvement and WITH signatures.  

Again I would post examples, but that'd be rude.  Imagine terribly overexposed pictures with lots of blown highlights taken in the bright sun, tilted, out of focus with a signature "JOE BLOW PHOTOGRAPHY"

I'm sure you've seen em :er:

Again I don't know why alot of you are getting defensive... I didn't say it was any of you did I?  

Shouldn't we all encourage eachother to keep advancing our skill?  That's precisely what I'm trying to do.



CSR Studio said:


> I agree with you Maniac. It also bugs me when people take a photograph of two distant people in a field and call it a portrait or when they photograph someone on a white background and call it high key. People need to understand what they are talking about or at least ask.


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 18, 2009)

Hahaha.  I said I COULD fetch tons, not that I WOULD.  

Besides this is what I do to kill time at work. 




N0YZE said:


> 5DManiac said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I could fetch TONS. But that'd be rude. TONS and TONS to say the least.
> ...


----------



## Dagwood56 (Sep 18, 2009)

5DManiac said:


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


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


----------



## Dwig (Sep 18, 2009)

kundalini said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



you took the words out of my mouth ...


----------



## 5DManiac (Sep 18, 2009)

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



Dwig said:


> kundalini said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I'm a bit confused.
> ...


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 18, 2009)

5DManiac said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2009)

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 



N0YZE said:


> 5DManiac said:
> 
> 
> > I realise photography is mostly subjective, but having a photo with poor composition, focus, exposure, etc. is NOT.
> ...


----------



## PhotoXopher (Sep 18, 2009)

Probably


----------



## Dagwood56 (Sep 18, 2009)

5DManiac said:


> I've answered this already. But again it's simple:
> 
> *Crappy photos: OK:thumbup: (we're here to learn and help others to learn.) *
> 
> ...


 
*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 (Sep 18, 2009)

:thumbup:




Dagwood56 said:


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


----------



## Dwig (Sep 18, 2009)

5DManiac said:


> 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 (Sep 18, 2009)

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 (Sep 18, 2009)

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 (Sep 19, 2009)

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 (Sep 23, 2009)

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 (Sep 23, 2009)

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 (Sep 24, 2009)

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.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Sep 24, 2009)

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 (Sep 24, 2009)

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


----------



## Joves (Sep 24, 2009)

5DManiac said:


> I've answered this already. But again it's simple:
> 
> *Crappy photos: OK:thumbup: (we're here to learn and help others to learn.) *
> 
> ...


 
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.


----------

