Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Do you?
Page <<first <prev 16 of 20 next> last>>
Apr 17, 2012 15:41:18   #
ngc1514 Loc: Atlanta, Ga., Lancaster, Oh. and Stuart, Fl.
 
Roger Hicks wrote:
camerabuff58 wrote:
My BIGGEST Peeve is PP altogether. A picture is only a picture without it. Period


How are you going to see it, then?

The camera processes it.

The computer processes it.

The screen presents one version of it.

The printer presents another.

For film, the lab processes it and prints it.

You can rely on the defaults and algorithms installed by the manufacturers of each, or, if you can be bothered to take the trouble to learn what you are doing, you can take control. What's wrong with taking control?

Cheers,

R.
quote=camerabuff58 My BIGGEST Peeve is PP altoget... (show quote)

And chances are excellent that NONE of them look like what you actually saw. Your brain does a lot of image processing itself...

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 15:43:42   #
wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ
 
ngc1514 wrote:
Bad photographs of pets... especially when they are called "fur kids." Nothing makes me want to gouge my eyes out with pencils more than a close-up, out of focus image of some little yappy dog with bows in its fur sitting in someone's lap.

And, of course, it will have zombie eyes from the on camera flash.

Unfortunately, not real big on good photos of pets, either.


Shocking how many out of focus pix with automatic focus cameras.

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 15:45:17   #
CocoaRoger Loc: Cocoa Florida
 
Aren't all photo's subject to PP? After all, as has been mentioned both by myself and others, to accept the download of the JPEG is to accept the PP of the camera designer and algorithms written within it by someone else anyway. And since RAW is not a photo but a file written to be processed post photographing by the person taking the photo and producing that file as an image then isn't the whole point moot? And if someone wants to produce it as an excellent 'natural' looking photo or as an attempted work of art with colors and other settings changed manually manipulated as such doesn't that mean that literally ALL digital photo's are the result of PP???

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2012 15:45:52   #
mort Loc: california
 
when photos are not edited and you have to go through numerous images of the same subject , the next equally as bad as the first !

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 15:48:03   #
RMM Loc: Suburban New York
 
photo guy wrote:
Too Much PP with some photos so they look like paintings
HDR on some things that should not have it
Sometimes egos
Giving DSLR settings for lenses to a person with a bridge camera as it won't help any

If the objective is to make it look like a painting, no problem! If it's supposed to pass as a photograph, I can see your point.

Along with settings for DSLRs, telling someone to switch to a macro lens on the P&S. And telling someone with Picasa to use advanced Photoshop techniques.

Along with "RTFM," we need an expression like "RTFOP" for "Read The Original Post" around here. :)

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 15:51:49   #
MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy
 
RMM wrote:
photo guy wrote:
Too Much PP with some photos so they look like paintings
HDR on some things that should not have it
Sometimes egos
Giving DSLR settings for lenses to a person with a bridge camera as it won't help any

If the objective is to make it look like a painting, no problem! If it's supposed to pass as a photograph, I can see your point.

Along with settings for DSLRs, telling someone to switch to a macro lens on the P&S. And telling someone with Picasa to use advanced Photoshop techniques.

Along with "RTFM," we need an expression like "RTFOP" for "Read The Original Post" around here. :)
quote=photo guy Too Much PP with some photos so t... (show quote)



Sometimes we need RTWFT as people jump in and give their 2 cents on a subject that has been resolved, moved in a different direction, etc.

RTWFT - Read The Whole F***ing Thread. (I bleeped it ;) )

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 15:53:10   #
AVarley Loc: Central Valley, California
 
mort wrote:
when photos are not edited and you have to go through numerous images of the same subject , the next equally as bad as the first !


wow ... do I hear that one! I accidentally moved the mode dial out of whack on my old Canon XTi ... didn't discover the error until hours later in the day after hiking a few miles back to the car, then driving over 100 miles home. I was at Lassen Volcanic NP. If any of you have ever hiked around in there, you'll understand the frustration. It's beautiful there, but I had less than a handful of keepers for the entire day's worth of effort.

this might not be exactly what you meant mort, when you posted your comment ... but reading it reminded me of that day. (i'm going to go off and have another cry about it now.)

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2012 15:53:16   #
Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine
 
ngc1514 wrote:
And chances are excellent that NONE of them look like what you actually saw. Your brain does a lot of image processing itself...


Very true. But in my book, it's a good idea to get it as close as you can to what you (think you) saw.

Cheers,

R.

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 16:05:00   #
RMM Loc: Suburban New York
 
Roger Hicks wrote:
Very true. But in my book, it's a good idea to get it as close as you can to what you (think you) saw.

Cheers,

R.

How about getting as close to what you think it should have looked like? (I REALLY need a touch-up!) ;)

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 16:06:36   #
Fezz Loc: Whidbey Island Washington
 
I have several;
1. Threads that grow in pages faster than I can read
them like this one! WOW! 16 pages and growing.
2. Rudeness
3. People who don't re-read their entries and correct
obvious errors before sending.
4. Snotty un-invited political remarks.
5. People who are anebriated by the exhuberence of their
own verbosity.


MWAC wrote:
Do you have any photography pet peeves?

Mine:

Selective Colouring (it makes my eyes start to twitch)
Fake background blur/bokeh added in post
People that purchase their first DSLR and open up a photography business the next month (or even sooner).

Do you have any?

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 16:16:22   #
catcher T Loc: Detroit
 
this cracked me up, I have a lot if not all of these peeves. The one thing is I never say i am a professional, I don't know what it will take for me to say this, but I just can't.

Reply
 
 
Apr 17, 2012 16:23:23   #
martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida
 
I resent #5 as I don't haver education and don't know what you mean?? Well, I now, "anebriated" that's drunk wright? PS can I but a Watermark on this statement??
Fezz wrote:
I have several;
1. Threads that grow in pages faster than I can read
them like this one! WOW! 16 pages and growing.
2. Rudeness
3. People who don't re-read their entries and correct
obvious errors before sending.
4. Snotty un-invited political remarks.
5. People who are anebriated by the exhuberence of their
own verbosity.


MWAC wrote:
Do you have any photography pet peeves?

Mine:

Selective Colouring (it makes my eyes start to twitch)
Fake background blur/bokeh added in post
People that purchase their first DSLR and open up a photography business the next month (or even sooner).

Do you have any?
I have several; br 1. Threads that grow in pages... (show quote)

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 16:28:10   #
Jared Loc: Indiana
 
I was unaware there was an age limit on here. But I could imagine what others would feel like if they fit the categories people are listing off. I'm not trying to start something, just found it to be different than what my first impression was.

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 16:31:35   #
Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA
 
My pet peeve is threads with incomplete titles, like this one!

Reply
Apr 17, 2012 16:34:38   #
CocoaRoger Loc: Cocoa Florida
 
Well this thread has long outlasted my interest.... see ya

Reply
Page <<first <prev 16 of 20 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.