Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 30 May 2012 (Wednesday) 13:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

You are NOT a photographer

 
Curtis ­ N
Master Flasher
Avatar
19,129 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Northern Illinois, US
     
May 31, 2012 00:38 |  #16

Kronie wrote in post #14508923 (external link)
What, you dont ever laugh at other people? Are you that morally just? Never watch the daily show or listen to Rush Limbaugh?

I am a sinner like the rest of us, not claiming to be perfect and occasionally given to unkind thoughts or words.

When someone takes the (considerable) time to mine the internet for bad pictures and creates a web site for the sole purpose of ridiculing those pictures, it indicates something seriously wrong with their moral compass. If not for his/her desperate need to feel superior, that time could be spent doing something positive.

Stewart and Limbaugh are people with a political agenda and they sometimes use sarcasm to expose hypocrisy (in their views) and promote that agenda. Politics is a whole different world.


"If you're not having fun, your pictures will reflect that." - Joe McNally
Chicago area POTN events (external link)
Flash Photography 101 | The EOS Flash Bible  (external link)| Techniques for Better On-Camera Flash (external link) | How to Use Flash Outdoors| Excel-based DOF Calculator (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
May 31, 2012 00:41 |  #17

Kronie wrote in post #14508287 (external link)
The website is down for some reason but its this lady (I think its s lady) that takes photos from peoples facebook accounts and tears them apart. but they all deserve to be torn apart. The site is hilarious....

I actually think that's a little bit ****ed up.

I mean...it's one thing if these were all "professionals". At least then one could try to claim that making fun of these people is doing some kind of public service. But if these were just random hobbyists who happened to post bad photos on facebook, then I think that's a little bit wrong.

Hell...ridiculing others is about the easiest thing a person can do. But you know...I don't see someone David Lachappelle coming onto these forums and ridiculing the hell out of us. It's one thing to see someone peddling $*** as gold, and then calling them out on it. But if these people's lack of skill isn't hurting anyone, then ridiculing them for sucking is just plain mean. I'd wager that most people would be concerned with making their own work better, rather than tearing down the other guy for $***a and giggles.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
May 31, 2012 00:47 |  #18

Logicus wrote in post #14509609 (external link)
ok, seriously, the creepy bunny is quite awesome.

I agree.

That's hilarious and creepy as hell, and it almost seems to be DELIBERATELY so.

Granted, the overall lighting and composition is sort of bland. But in terms of content, the creepy vibes look deliberate. I like to think that people are criticizing that photograph on the grounds that it's disturbing, and then the photographer seeing those comments and saying "Yes! Mission accomplished."




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cacawcacaw
Goldmember
Avatar
2,862 posts
Likes: 18
Joined May 2010
Location: Ventura, California
     
May 31, 2012 01:21 as a reply to  @ Clean Gene's post |  #19

Almost NSFW... And then this guy picks on someone even less deserving of criticism  (external link)and I find it even funnier. I might need to recalibrate my moral compass. (Actually, I think these are safe because they are outlandish and unlikely to reach back to the artists.)


Replacing my Canon 7D, Tokina 12-24mm, Canon 17-55mm, Sigma 30mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.4, and 150-500mm with a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. I still have the 17-55 and the 30 available for sale.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FindJammer
Senior Member
Avatar
414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Frome, UK
     
May 31, 2012 04:30 |  #20

Dr Lazarus wrote in post #14507299 (external link)
These are amazing. The kid in the tree (#21) had me rolling.

HAHAHHAAAA I fell off my bloody chair at that one!!


Jammer
2 Eyes, one slightly overused ...
www.lenssniper.com (external link)
Kit

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HarrisonClicks
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,113 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Mid-Atlantic USA
     
May 31, 2012 09:17 as a reply to  @ FindJammer's post |  #21

By the way, I strongly recommend bookmarking The Chive for all sorts of reasons. The photo threads are awesome, especially Daily Afternoon Randomness.


Adam
Gear List Temporarily Removed

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FindJammer
Senior Member
Avatar
414 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Frome, UK
     
May 31, 2012 09:22 |  #22

^^^ Done!


Jammer
2 Eyes, one slightly overused ...
www.lenssniper.com (external link)
Kit

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
May 31, 2012 09:40 |  #23

Clean Gene wrote in post #14509700 (external link)
I actually think that's a little bit ****ed up.

I mean...it's one thing if these were all "professionals". At least then one could try to claim that making fun of these people is doing some kind of public service. But if these were just random hobbyists who happened to post bad photos on facebook, then I think that's a little bit wrong.

Hell...ridiculing others is about the easiest thing a person can do. But you know...I don't see someone David Lachappelle coming onto these forums and ridiculing the hell out of us. It's one thing to see someone peddling $*** as gold, and then calling them out on it. But if these people's lack of skill isn't hurting anyone, then ridiculing them for sucking is just plain mean. I'd wager that most people would be concerned with making their own work better, rather than tearing down the other guy for $***a and giggles.

I agree with all of that. Its not a site for positive criticism. I guess they would need to post here somewhere for that.... These are mostly pros though selling their services.....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JasonMK
Goldmember
Avatar
1,377 posts
Gallery: 75 photos
Likes: 147
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Janesville, WI
     
May 31, 2012 10:09 |  #24

Just a good reminder to be careful what you put your own watermark on. Several of these photos have some photographer proudly claiming it as their own professional work.


-JasonMK on Flickr (external link)
1Ds Mark III | 650D | EF 17~40mm 4L | EF-S 18~135 STM | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro | Tamron 70~300mm 4.0-5.6 Di VC USD XLD | 430 EX III | 430 EX II | Lowepro SlingShot 100 AW | EF 25 II | PS CC | LR CC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nathancarter
Cream of the Crop
5,474 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 589
Joined Dec 2010
     
May 31, 2012 11:08 |  #25

Certain types of clients LOVE that cheesy stuff.

As photographers, we often see selective coloring and other photoshop trickery as cliche, dated, overused, etc. But if the client likes it, wants, it, or even requests it - who cares what other photographers think?


http://www.avidchick.c​om (external link) for business stuff
http://www.facebook.co​m/VictorVoyeur (external link) for fun stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eccentric ­ M
Senior Member
349 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
May 31, 2012 11:15 |  #26

The watermark on number 31 is hilarious! (I guess most of you are familiar with the term uncle bob)


EOS 7D - EF-S 15-85 IS USM - EF 50 1.8 II - EF 70-300 IS USM - Speedlite 430EX II
A6000 - 16-50 PZ OSS
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Grimes
Goldmember
1,323 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2006
     
May 31, 2012 23:26 |  #27

I don't think some of those are "for real"?


Alex
5DMKII | 85 f/1.8 | 17-40L f/4 | 24-105 f/4 IS | 40 f/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
May 31, 2012 23:36 |  #28

nathancarter wrote in post #14511448 (external link)
Certain types of clients LOVE that cheesy stuff.

As photographers, we often see selective coloring and other photoshop trickery as cliche, dated, overused, etc. But if the client likes it, wants, it, or even requests it - who cares what other photographers think?

In all fairness, in many of these photographs the "cheese" factor was far from the worst thing.

I mean...one can opine that things like selective coloring and "photoshop trickery" are sort of inherently cheesy. But I've seen those kinds of pictures that were at least competently done. Were they still cheesy? Maybe. But at least they weren't ugly.

Hell...I absolutely LOVE infrared photography. I love the way that it makes certain kinds of scenes look, I think it's damn cool. And yes, I'm aware that many people look at obviously infrared photographs and immediately think, "that's cheesy". Hell, despite loving infrared photography, I don't necessarily disagree with them and certainly wouldn't get into an argument with them about it. If they think it looks cheesy and therefore they hate it, fair enough. But the thing is, I've seen some where the utilization of infrared photography was done damn well, even if the photographs do end up being "cheesy". Then I've seen others that are just bad photographs, regardless of whether they were shot in infrared or not.

Same thing here. Do I think that selective coloring is inherently cheesy? Absolutely. But I've also seen a hell of a lot of photographs that did selective coloring without making me want to gouge my eyeballs out after having seen it.

"Cheesy" and "ugly" are two different things. They might overlap, sure. But I've seen plenty of cheesy pretty photographs that I had no problem with. They might have been cheesy, but at least the cheesy stuff was done well. As in, it didn't look ugly.

These pictures are largely MUCH different than that. In these pictures, not only are the photographs just plain ugly as hell in most cases, but I highly suspect that the use of such "cheesy" post-processing gimmicks actually made the initial captures look uglier in many cases. My complaint wouldn't even be about the cheese. I think it's that the cheesy stuff was so poorly done that it just ends up looking UGLY.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,204 views & 0 likes for this thread
You are NOT a photographer
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is FCPM
842 guests, 381 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.