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.

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.

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.

Harold Rose wrote:

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

+1

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

NYMPH wrote:
Cutting off toes.

Marc Damon wrote:
Train tracks.

Lol +1

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

BTHPhoto wrote:

Clothes.

+1

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

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,

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

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.

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

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.....)