Forums > General Industry > A "Drives You Up The WALL!" Issue With Photos

Photographer

Jonathan Souza

Posts: 32

Richmond, California, US

Does anybody have an issue that when they see a photo, it instantly ruins it, completely and totally makes the shot not work?

For me, it's unsafe gun handling.  Fingers on triggers in circumstances that don't dictate it, poor gun form, muzzles being pointed in any direction that is not RIGHT, etc, etc...  It drives me up the wall and there was one model that I damn near slapped after the third time she pointed a (prop) gun at her head in a silly casual manner with the finger on the trigger.

Dec 01 12 12:33 pm Link

Photographer

Marc Damon

Posts: 6562

Biloxi, Mississippi, US

Jonathan Souza wrote:
Does anybody have an issue that when they see a photo, it instantly ruins it, completely and totally makes the shot not work?

Train tracks.

Dec 01 12 12:37 pm Link

Photographer

Good Egg Productions

Posts: 16256

Orlando, Florida, US

I think that anyone with extensive experience in a particular field will find faults in how that given field is portrayed in photographs.

The ability to look past these "flaws" for sake of the image is essential to appreciate the photograph. If you can't, then that's your loss.

Dec 01 12 12:51 pm Link

Photographer

Harold Rose

Posts: 2925

Calhoun, Georgia, US

Jonathan Souza wrote:
Does anybody have an issue that when they see a photo, it instantly ruins it, completely and totally makes the shot not work?

For me, it's unsafe gun handling.  Fingers on triggers in circumstances that don't dictate it, poor gun form, muzzles being pointed in any direction that is not RIGHT, etc, etc...  It drives me up the wall and there was one model that I damn near slapped after the third time she pointed a (prop) gun at her head in a silly casual manner with the finger on the trigger.

I wonder if you are communicating effectivly ,   seems as if you are not.

Dec 01 12 12:52 pm Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6841

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Jonathan Souza wrote:
Does anybody have an issue that when they see a photo, it instantly ruins it, completely and totally makes the shot not work?

Clothes.

Dec 01 12 12:53 pm Link

Photographer

BTHPhoto

Posts: 6841

Fairbanks, Alaska, US

Harold Rose wrote:

I wonder if you are communicating effectivly ,   seems as if you are not.

+1

Dec 01 12 12:53 pm Link

Photographer

Drew Smith Photography

Posts: 5210

Nottingham, England, United Kingdom

Gas Masks.

Why?

Especially from the llama's point of view.

Dec 01 12 12:56 pm Link

Photographer

Jonathan Souza

Posts: 32

Richmond, California, US

No, the model was an idiot.  Three times, after the second one I gave her my firearms safety lecture (short version-never point it anything you don't want to shoot, always know where the muzzle is, never put your finger on the trigger unless you plan on shooting THAT INSTANT, etc), and the costume theme we were working with was "special operations soldier".

Gah!

Harold Rose wrote:
I wonder if you are communicating effectively, seems as if you are not.

Dec 01 12 12:58 pm Link

Model

NYMPH

Posts: 640

Oakland, California, US

Cutting off toes.

I'm a huge fan of proper cropping. It's great. Make it dynamic, cut me anywhere that makes the picture stronger.

If you crop me at the toes, or awkwardly cut off me feet, I make the squinty mad face at the computer screen, especially if it was an otherwise fantastic picture.

(Yes, this is is influenced by residual dancer foot obsessions.)

Dec 01 12 01:47 pm Link

Photographer

PhotographybyT

Posts: 7760

Monterey, California, US

NYMPH wrote:
Cutting off toes.

http://cdnimg.visualizeus.com/thumbs/30/30/funny,positive,smile,faces,lick,cute-303009bc2a33d724b3a823e83dba61bd_h.jpg

Dec 01 12 01:54 pm Link

Photographer

Paul AI

Posts: 1046

Shawnee, Oklahoma, US

Marc Damon wrote:
Train tracks.

Lol +1

Dec 01 12 01:56 pm Link

Model

NYMPH

Posts: 640

Oakland, California, US

Dec 01 12 01:56 pm Link

Photographer

SitronStudio

Posts: 1065

Venice, Florida, US

Um, just guns in general.

Dec 01 12 03:34 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I think that anyone with extensive experience in a particular field will find faults in how that given field is portrayed in photographs.

The ability to look past these "flaws" for sake of the image is essential to appreciate the photograph. If you can't, then that's your loss.

Absolutely. We do it with movies all the time. Suspended disbelief. If you can't get past that then it's just not a quality image to begin with and the flaw only adds to the poor experience.

I know Paul Newman can't eat 50 hard-boiled eggs but I still loved Cool Hand Luke.

Dec 01 12 03:37 pm Link

Photographer

Art of the nude

Posts: 11940

Olivet, Michigan, US

Jonathan Souza wrote:
Does anybody have an issue that when they see a photo, it instantly ruins it, completely and totally makes the shot not work?

For me, it's unsafe gun handling.  Fingers on triggers in circumstances that don't dictate it, poor gun form, muzzles being pointed in any direction that is not RIGHT, etc, etc...  It drives me up the wall and there was one model that I damn near slapped after the third time she pointed a (prop) gun at her head in a silly casual manner with the finger on the trigger.

I very rarely see model photos involving guns, and may litterally have never taken one, so that's not really an issue for me.

Other than obvious technical things, I don't have one such concern, although selective color comes close, along with really cliche "hand bra" shots.

Dec 01 12 03:39 pm Link

Photographer

JMHSPhoto

Posts: 412

Windsor, Ontario, Canada

Despite how others will try and justify the uses of some of the more....over killed cliche'd type shots. It's all horse shit.

Are there instances where the use of guns, train tracks, guitars, angel's wings (the list goes on) are Ok ? Sure. When the post work has been applied to them in such a way that it's not a crappy lit snap shot.

And as cute as the old lady used to be asking me "Where's the Beef?" on that commercial... there was a limit to how many times I could see it and hear it. So goes those above mentioned images.

Did I forget to mention selective color grabs ?

Dec 01 12 03:56 pm Link

Model

E e v a

Posts: 1724

Nashville, Tennessee, US

When people do a military/vintage military shoot, and are trying to be realistic, wear the uniform at least somewhat accurately. And if it's not realistic, don't disrespect the uniform (of any military). Its just about tact. And if you cant do that, just do a costume of it.

Dec 01 12 03:57 pm Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17966

Los Angeles, California, US

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I think that anyone with extensive experience in a particular field will find faults in how that given field is portrayed in photographs.

The ability to look past these "flaws" for sake of the image is essential to appreciate the photograph. If you can't, then that's your loss.

I disagree. If a photographer can't show respect for the subject they are shooting they shouldn't photograph it. It is one thing to have the knowledge and tweak it or play with it, it is something entirely different to not even bother to learn about what you want to create so you can create it in a manner that is inline with reality.

As an example if you want to emulate certain film stocks then actually look at those stocks. Don't just put on a grunge texture, set it to hard light, and call it a successful collodion.

Dec 01 12 04:02 pm Link

Photographer

Star

Posts: 17966

Los Angeles, California, US

JMHSPhoto wrote:
Despite how others will try and justify the uses of some of the more....over killed cliche'd type shots. It's all horse shit.

Are there instances where the use of guns, train tracks, guitars, angel's wings (the list goes on) are Ok ? Sure. When the post work has been applied to them in such a way that it's not a crappy lit snap shot.

And as cute as the old lady used to be asking me "Where's the Beef?" on that commercial... there was a limit to how many times I could see it and hear it. So goes those above mentioned images.

Did I forget to mention selective color grabs ?

my new favorite angel

http://cdn.fearnet.com/sites/default/files/images/News/TV/ahs_207.jpg

Dec 01 12 04:08 pm Link

Photographer

Red Sky Photography

Posts: 3454

Germantown, Maryland, US

Good Egg Productions wrote:
I think that anyone with extensive experience in a particular field will find faults in how that given field is portrayed in photographs.

The ability to look past these "flaws" for sake of the image is essential to appreciate the photograph. If you can't, then that's your loss.

I agree. I used to have an image of a girl dressed as a rock star playing a guitar. The guitar was a cheap Sears electric. Some photographer commented that i should have used a Fender Stratocaster to make it more believable. As if I wanted to spend $1000 on a prop, or that some people don't actually play with cheap guitars.

Dec 01 12 05:03 pm Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42551

Houston, Texas, US

Jonathan Souza wrote:
Does anybody have an issue that when they see a photo, it instantly ruins it, completely and totally makes the shot not work?

Hair bands, which can be edited out but annoy the heck out of me.

The model gets everything right but the nails.

Intrusive logos that cover any part of the subject.

Most tilts and vignettes.

Dec 01 12 05:05 pm Link

Photographer

Marc Damon

Posts: 6562

Biloxi, Mississippi, US

Red Sky Photography wrote:
I agree. I used to have an image of a girl dressed as a rock star playing a guitar. The guitar was a cheap Sears electric. Some photographer commented that i should have used a Fender Stratocaster to make it more believable. As if I wanted to spend $1000 on a prop, or that some people don't actually play with cheap guitars.

Not a git but here you go. Just need someone to work on the bg wink

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/100311/14/4b9975871b765_m.jpg

Dec 01 12 07:37 pm Link

Photographer

rfordphotos

Posts: 5112

Antioch, California, US

I wont say it drives me up the wall, but I cringe a bit when I see a US flag "abused".

Before anyone jumps on me, I am a Vet who believes I took an oath to preserve your right to do pretty much as you please with the flag....but that doesnt mean I dont cringe a bit sometimes.

Dec 01 12 08:25 pm Link

Model

Christina Josephine

Posts: 121

Warsaw, Indiana, US

Jonathan Souza wrote:
Does anybody have an issue that when they see a photo, it instantly ruins it, completely and totally makes the shot not work?

For me, it's unsafe gun handling.  Fingers on triggers in circumstances that don't dictate it, poor gun form, muzzles being pointed in any direction that is not RIGHT, etc, etc...  It drives me up the wall and there was one model that I damn near slapped after the third time she pointed a (prop) gun at her head in a silly casual manner with the finger on the trigger.

I'm not against firearms- but I am against a firearm being pointed at anyone, including one's self. My dad lost his left eye when he was 13. A friend pointed an air rifle in  his face and pulled the trigger. The air pressure obliterated his eye. No good.

Dec 01 12 08:39 pm Link

Photographer

DAN CRUIKSHANK

Posts: 1786

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Fake blood. I don't like it.

Dec 01 12 08:39 pm Link

Photographer

KSBPHOTOSdotCOM

Posts: 112

Tracy, California, US

Medical Shots when the stethoscope/insturment if handled used incorrectly.

On tv/film; "photographers" who hold an SLR like an etch-a-sketch

Dec 01 12 08:39 pm Link

Photographer

M A R C P H O T O

Posts: 262

Mission Hills, California, US

BTHPhoto wrote:

Clothes.

+1

Dec 01 12 08:44 pm Link

Photographer

rp_photo

Posts: 42551

Houston, Texas, US

Poorly-done (as in most) dark images.

Dec 01 12 08:45 pm Link

Model

Jen B

Posts: 3652

Nashville, Tennessee, US

Jonathan Souza wrote:
Does anybody have an issue that when they see a photo, it instantly ruins it, completely and totally makes the shot not work?

...

I do.

Shooting down on a model in a manner that makes them look peculiarly distorted with a big head and short body and also shooting at an angle that looks distortedly, unintetionally corpsish, (again, this is another bad angle shooting down situation.)

I have had nicely done shots that the photographer shot 'down' however my peeve is the bad version. It is just so unpleasant to my eye to see someone squashed or distortedly elongated, showing bad lines.

Also, gore.
Jen

Dec 02 12 12:14 pm Link

Model

Jen B

Posts: 3652

Nashville, Tennessee, US

NYMPH wrote:
Cutting off toes.

I'm a huge fan of proper cropping. It's great. Make it dynamic, cut me anywhere that makes the picture stronger.

If you crop me at the toes, or awkwardly cut off me feet, I make the squinty mad face at the computer screen, especially if it was an otherwise fantastic picture.

(Yes, this is is influenced by residual dancer foot obsessions.)

Hello Nymph,

smile I agree. It may be more than just residual dancer foot thinking but, I do not know any woman who do NOT care about their feet.

Here is a quote from a 1948 French shoe designer found on the vogue site:

“Every woman is not only conscious of her feet, but sex-conscious of them,”[3] Perugia once said.

quotes at the bottom of the article:
http://www.vogue.com/voguepedia/The_Stiletto

I'm with you in this Nymph.
Jen

rfordphotos wrote:
I wont say it drives me up the wall, but I cringe a bit when I see a US flag "abused".

Before anyone jumps on me, I am a Vet who believes I took an oath to preserve your right to do pretty much as you please with the flag....but that doesnt mean I dont cringe a bit sometimes.

I'm with you on this one too.

Flag code link
http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagcode.htm

Dec 02 12 12:19 pm Link

Photographer

J O H N A L L A N

Posts: 11361

San Pedro, California, US

So much of the touristy 'HDR' stuff. So over it.

Dec 02 12 12:22 pm Link

Photographer

Woven Thought

Posts: 329

Petersburg, Virginia, US

Oh yes, I hate cut off at the ankle.  Aaahhhhhh!  I don't think I've seen it, but cut off at the wrist would do it too. 

The majority of hand bras annoy me too.  I've never known women to just hang around cupping their breasts, it is just forced.  Blah

Dec 02 12 12:29 pm Link

Photographer

A N D E R S O N

Posts: 2553

Fountain Valley, California, US

SitronStudio wrote:
Um, just guns in general.

+1

Unless it was a guy that looked like the Brawny paper towel man in the woods holding a duck and a rifle. Lol you know, it's got to make sense.

Dec 02 12 12:33 pm Link

Makeup Artist

Lauren Reynolds Makeup

Posts: 282

London, England, United Kingdom

High heels which are too big

Dec 02 12 12:45 pm Link

Photographer

Kevin Greggain Photography

Posts: 6768

Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada

I find nothing irritates me in an image because if I choose to be irritated, there will be no doubt images I have shot over the past 35 years that will irritate others.

I choose to just move on from images I don't find appealing rather than sacrifice a concept just because it may be deemed irritating.

Dec 02 12 12:59 pm Link

Photographer

Jerry Nemeth

Posts: 29402

Dearborn, Michigan, US

Prop gun

http://photos.modelmayhem.com/photos/110427/14/4db884e524ec0.jpg

Dec 02 12 01:08 pm Link

Photographer

Jeffrey M Fletcher

Posts: 4410

Asheville, North Carolina, US

I'll give a pass to bathing suit shots without much consideration.

Dec 02 12 01:14 pm Link

Photographer

kitty_empire

Posts: 864

Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Damn, you guys need to chill.

Star wrote:
I disagree. If a photographer can't show respect for the subject they are shooting they shouldn't photograph it. It is one thing to have the knowledge and tweak it or play with it, it is something entirely different to not even bother to learn about what you want to create so you can create it in a manner that is inline with reality.

There is the thought that some photographers go out to disrespect certain subject to make a statement or whatever.
I respect those photographers smile

Star wrote:
As an example if you want to emulate certain film stocks then actually look at those stocks. Don't just put on a grunge texture, set it to hard light, and call it a successful collodion.

Actually, damn, this is something that annoys me.
If you want something to look like film then shoot film - it's cheap and easy (But if you're just mucking around with Instagram type filters, that's fine with me - just don't call it film.....)

(I feel better now.....)

Dec 02 12 01:24 pm Link

Photographer

M Pandolfo Photography

Posts: 12117

Tampa, Florida, US

OK, here's a pet peeve. 99.4% of the male model avatars.

Is there just one pair of bikini briefs that are passed around from model to model? Or does every male model feel the need to present their marble pouch to the viewing public?

Dec 02 12 01:25 pm Link

Photographer

Kawika Photography

Posts: 110

San Diego, California, US

Leading lines with a disappointing payoff. Kind of like following cookie crumbs and finding an empty bag at the end. Cheers

Dec 02 12 01:29 pm Link