Whats your photographic pet peeves?

instagram

HDR

when people try my camera and they say "how do you zoom?" or "how many times zoom does it have?"

when people say "it's ok, we'll just photoshop it"
 
Film rebate borders/filed out neg carrier borders on digital shots.

Not having time to even shoot, let alone develop and print...
 
rules, rules, rules

photography/media/journalism schools with faculty that don't have the motivation, credentials or experience to be teaching

when newspapers and magazines run 'unconfirmed' media/art and then claim 'no journalists are able to work in the region', knowing damn well there are very qualified, capable people begging and borrowing to remain working in said 'region'

media outlets that take 6 months and 20 angry emails to finally pay you. you would be surprised how many there are and they are the biggest stumbling block to my career. not uncle Bob with his 'professional camera'
 
... The vast majority are unregulated licences from universities, Adobe could fix that -- but they don't want to -- I think they want the addiction.

Could be wrong of course...
Click to expand...

You are not. ;-)
 
People who use stock photographs of equipment on Ebay but don't declare it. Sometimes it's obvious but not always.
 
I will always believe that when I pay for an Adobe product that part of that payment is for my share and part for a bootlegger. The percentage is debatable, but the concept is not. It is a like 4 photographers going on a photo trip requiring $40 worth of gas and and 2 of them paying $20 each because the other 2 felt they had no obligation to pay because you were going anyway.

It does appear that the only ones who have data about actual lost revenues from pirated copies of Adobe software is Adobe and they certainly are not saying. We will probably never know. I do read that over half the PS and LR copies are bootleg which is why I took the percentage down to 1/3.

I will say I was amazed at the number of RFF members who acknowledged using pirated copies and willing disclosed their names. Even more so those who attempted to justify their actions with the "everybody does it" and "only a corporation really loses" arguments.

I remember the marketing /technical problems Lotus and Ashton Tate had when they worked to eliminate piracy for 1-2-3 and dBASE, both of which I had paid for.

Unlike most here, to which this is merely an intellectual discussion, this has played a significant impact on my financial well being. So I am a bit vocal.

I have always seriously doubted that. The casual users who use PS without paying -- are not potential customers. If they could not get it from a friend, school, or even file sharing, they would simply not own it.

I seldom run into pros or serious amateurs who steal it.

If Adobe really cared they would lock the software like they did when it first appeared on the SGI machines. Actually Adobe keeps piracy to a level that they like, so that Adobe products are ubiquitous -- not too easy to steal, but easy enough. The vast majority are unregulated licences from universities, Adobe could fix that -- but they don't want to -- I think they want the addiction.

Could be wrong of course...
Click to expand...

Bob Michaels said:
But, those who use pirated Adobe software certainly do impact me because I am paying their share of Adobe product development costs. I pay somewhere around a 33% to 50% premium for the share of those who do not. Last night I paid $76 for a Lightroom upgrade. I could not help but think that about $50 of that for for my share and the rest was the share of someone else who bootlegged it.
Click to expand...
 
Many pirates actually buy the software when they are able. These become lifelong customers. Those who continue to pirate while being able to pay for it are not the target market, the target market will actually end up paying for it. That does not make it right of course, but it is a point to ponder.
 
sailor said:
People who use stock photographs of equipment on Ebay but don't declare it. Sometimes it's obvious but not always.
Click to expand...

The thing that annoys me is that eBay will automatically include a stock photo of certain merchandise when you go to sell one of the same. You have to delete it from your pictures to keep it from appearing.
 
Pablito said:
These days photography is about computers as much as it was before computers -- not at all.
Click to expand...

There is a guy in upstate NY that shoots wet plate and lives in a cabin out in the woods with no electric at all. My friend spent a weekend with him and said they had no problems mixing chemistry, coating glass plates, shooting and developing them using no electricity.
 
"You can't take pictures in there" or worse, "you will have to leave your camera in your car" from the security guy that is perfectly ok with the zillions of phones around.
 
`shooting' ` shoot' ` shot' or any other gun/military sounding terms used . Thats all, everything else is good...:)
 
When I find a perfect photo but the people I'm trying to photograph notice the camera and break the wall by staring right into my lens.

Just means I'm not stealthy enough. Though to be fair it's tough to be stealthy with a Nikon D200 and a 24-70. Hopefully my new FSU cameras help in this regard ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom