Your photo OCD idiosyncrasies?

<p>1) Having newbies (after discovering I get paid to shoot) ask me why my vacation pictures look better than their's and then requesting a quick lesson to produce the same results.</p>

<p>I don't mind these sort of questions on PN, but one on one?..NO where to run and hide. LOL<br>

ERRRRRRRRRRRRR!</p>

<p>2) People on the street asking if I can take their "picture"....I love saying <em>"I don't take pictures, I produce imagery."</em> LOL</p>

<p>3) Asking if I "<em>do weddings?</em>" ERRRRRRRRRRRR!</p>

<p>Yeesh! Somebody stop meeeeeeeee.</p>

<p>4) At relatives kid's sporting events being asked "<em>How much did your camera cost?</em>" as I see their 200 dollar P&S hanging from their neck. I always answer <em>"About 500 dollars" LOL</em><br>

<em></em><br>

OK..I'm done.</p>

<p>There are always the tricyclic antidepressants for OCD, but it would cut down on your cheese and wine options.</p>

<p>Talking of wine, one of my peeves is the PS versus (sorry) "real" photos.</p>

<p>And yes, "Do you do weddings?"</p>

<p>Most of my photography OCD symptoms are gear related…</p>

 

<ul>

<li>always use a lens hood when possible, even at night when all light sources are behind me – a result of a dropped camera in the distant past – the hood offers a little more protection - if nothing else it absorbs some energy when it bends or breaks - :-( </li>

<li>always use a filter to protect the front element – I’ve never had to clean the front element my 25 year old Nikkor portrait lens </li>

<li>never rest a camera or lens on a rough surface and never carry a lens loose in a bag – all my gear looks as new (even my 1985 Nikon FA) </li>

<li>keep all my gear in a dry box (bloody humidity in Sydney!) </li>

</ul>

<p>but there is at least one compositional issue for me…</p>

<ul>

<li>I’m a slave to horizontal and vertical lines – I can almost see as small an angle as my wife can with picture frames :-) </li>

</ul>

<p >Hey, why do you guys mind people coming up and asking silly questions? At least they’re being friendly and chatty. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It doesn’t happen much to me – perhaps the people in the crowd are too introverted down here in the Southern hemisphere or maybe I’m just too big and scary looking :-). </p>

<p><blockquote>Hey, why do you guys mind people coming up and asking silly questions? At least

they’re being friendly and chatty.</blockquote></p>

 

<p>I don't mind at all if they're just being friendly and chatty (tactful and respectful). I enjoy the

conversation and happily assist them if they need help. But the problem arises when they've decided

that you're their personal instructor for the day and they start shadowing you and interfering with your

shots; they sincerely believe that they deserve your full attention even though you're trying to shoot an

event. I've actually had someone step between me and the person I was photographing, push my

camera down away from my face, and then ask me what settings I was using.</p>

 

<p>On the other end of the spectrum is when I've run into "professionals" who are attending events

sans-camera and, when they see me shooting, enthusiastically trot up me to strike up such captivating

conversations as "why are you shooting Canon and not Nikon", "that's a nice camera but mine is

better", and my personal favorite "hey you're shooting that wrong my way is better".</p>

 

<p>So, in a nutshell, friendly and chatty is good; interrupting my shots is bad. There have been entire

threads dedicated to this subject.</p>

<p >Never happened to me but I can see how that could become annoying Sean. </p>

<p>Can I add another? Please.... ;)</p>

<p>People who post questions to PN and are never heard from again.</p>

<p>Some of my personal favorite peeves from above, most of which I share and copy. nice ones:</p>

<p>- People who post questions to PN and are never heard from again<br /> - a slave to horizontal and vertical lines <br /> - PS vs. "real" photos<br /> - Portraits of newborns cuddled in masculine arms (I almost fell over laughing reading that!)<br /> - Lens cap strings<br /> AND<br /> - multi-thousand dollar cameras on full auto <em>(I experienced that at a wine bar two weeks ago, dude handed me his 40D and L, I.S. lens; it was on pop-up flash and in Green mode! to shoot him & his GF)</em></p>

<p>There you are!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>-People using flash at a stadium seated hundreds of feet from the stage/field. Double points if its during the day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or for sunsets.</p>

<p>Dust on my negatives. A minor issue, I know, but I've come close to teaching my scanner to fly on more than one occasion, purely out of frustration.</p>

<p>People chimping every picture. Someday I'll hand my P&S to a chimp and see if it "peoples" every shot.</p>

<p>Portraits of newborns cuddled in masculine arms-which belong to a female.</p>

<p>Absolute #1: Using flash for distant shots, sunsets, or my favorite-to take pictures of what they're seeing on the television.</p>

<p>Franklin Polk, since Paul Simon says Nikon with a long "i", that's good enough for me! ;-) lol</p>

<p>As to what annoys me about some photographers are those that are wanting to get a new first DSLR and base their brand choice on the 3 or 4 50 year old Brand X lenses they inherited from grandpa...I know a guy that bought the "worse" brand of DSLR just because of this...and those old lenses are utter craaap.</p>

<p>Another type will spend mortgage their retirement funds away on a $8,000 body, and then buy kit grade lenses and flashes.</p>

<p>And then there are those admirers of one's work that attribute one's awesome pictures to the camera one uses to make them.</p>

<p>I also get annoyed by the "megapixels don't matter" crowd, and the "noise levels don't matter" crowd...may they all burn in....ah....sorry....nevermind.</p>

<p>Oh, one more....what about those that spend $5,000 in kit and use their kit in the same way a teen would use a $125 point & shoot camera? They the worse I think...the refuse to grow in their skills!</p>

<p>Oh, and while I'm wasting time here, let me add this one: Those that think it is "cheating" when post processing is used.</p>

<p>One more: The film purest that thinks digital post processing is not true photography, yet completely ignores the fact that ALL the great film masters had their work post processed in the wet dark room and using the same concepts and effects that the digital darkroom provides us today. These types sadly miss the prime directive: The Print...and instead fixate on the process, be it digital or film...sad lot, to be sure.</p>

<p>My photo related pet peaves:</p>

<p>1. Folks who post a finished image and offer for free the latest greatest Photoshop editing technique they just came up with without providing a before image or any other camera exposure settings and lighting setup that produced the original unedited version.</p>

<p>2. Spending several days troubleshooting a bad display calibration- ("My display looks XXXX after calibration") in photography discussion forums only to find the OP didn't upgrade their video card driver which ended up fixing the problem after all.</p>

<p>3. Taking the extra time and effort to dispel digital imaging marketing BS in photography discussion forums with proof ultimately resolving the issue only to be upstaged by the very so called "expert" who instigated the BS from the outset replying at the end of the discussion and receiving the... "oh, you've really helped me out with all your books and seminars throughout the years..." from the OP I just helped. That's happened to me more than I care to count. I guess it really is good to be king and have a publicist.</p>

<p>4. Those asking "How do you get this look" in an image which clearly by googling will bring up an endless supply of folks selling actions and presets either free or for sell after everyone including myself has suggested specific editing procedures that only get a "That's not quite what I was looking for" reply from the OP.</p>

<p>Heck, I don't seem to have any real issues just taking photographs which I love to do and process in Adobe Camera Raw. Maybe I've found my real calling.</p>

<p>My #1 is hearing about "bad lens copies". If a company's QA was really that bad, they wouldn't be in business anymore.</p>

<p><em>* those bizarre lens names like takumar or solinar or elimart!<br /></em><br />"Bizzare"? Takumars, made by Pentax, though a step down from the premium Pentax SMC coated lenses, Takumars are nonetheless very good, built well and many times superior lenses to C/N "kit" fluff. "Super" Takumars with the SMC coating? Top of the mark.<br />"Soli<em><strong>g</strong></em>or". Many times excellent (<em>such as their f/4 300mm</em>) lenses that stood in well for top of the line maker lenses. <br />And "<em>you've got to be kidding-huh</em>", slamming LEICA's Elmarit lenses? You didn't know LIECA built Elmarit lenses?</p>

<p>Ah, now I see: you're from the purely digital age, with no experience at all with film or non-digital gear; pity... </p>

<p>After reading all of the above I know why I joined PN. Reading this thread made my night. </p>

<p>People asking how to shoot__________... ? When they are getting paid for the job!<br>

I would answer: get experience-photographic knowledge and then charge for work AS@*^OLE!</p>

<p>Let's see mine...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know a guy that bought the "worse" brand of DSLR just because of this...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>here you go. People who think there is a worse brand and a better brand, unless of course when they say so in jest. But more often than not this is not the case. What I find fascinating is that very often, two sentences below, they claim that one does not take great pictures because he has a great camera. So the gear makes no difference, but still their brand is better. Oh well...</p>

<p>People who use Live View with a DSLR. Of course I don't mean for macro or similar things where it makes sense. No, to take the snapshot of their friends smiling in front of them.I know: it is their right to do so. But it pisses me off.</p>

<p>Amateur forum get together (disclaimer, I' am an amateur): they gather in 20 people, each one with 15 kilos of the most flashy gear they have, as if they were leaving for an expedition to Antarctica. Then they walk around the chosen town for a day all together, using a D3x and a 70-200 2.8 VRII to take each other's snapshot, with the poorer salivating over the gear of the richer. They chat about gear the whole day, and of course none of them takes a single decent picture. But all the ones they take get posted on internet the next day.</p>

<p>Already said above: people who think that postproduction is cheating.</p>

<p>People obsessed by sensor dust, who would not change a lens except in a clean room.</p>

<p>People who see me with a DSLR and decide that this makes me better qualified to take their snapshot with their point-and-shoot.</p>

<p>Self-appointed saviors of state security against the terrible threat of the United Front of Terrorist Photographers, who come and tell me I cannot photograph this or that. While all around 54 Chinese tourists (or Italian teenagers on a school trip) are snapping everything in sight with the cameraphone.</p>

<p>L.</p>