Controversial Topic: What irks you about other photographers?

I think that the theory is that the peak will protect the back of the neck from the sun. Having said that, my experience with using a camera while wearing a Tilley hat (broad brim) is that the brim gets in the way when using a miniature camera in portrait orientation, and either has to be pushed back or removed. If the only brim is at the rear, this wouldn't be the case.
 
StephenM said:
I think that the theory is that the peak will protect the back of the neck from the sun. Having said that, my experience with using a camera while wearing a Tilley hat (broad brim) is that the brim gets in the way when using a miniature camera in portrait orientation, and either has to be pushed back or removed. If the only brim is at the rear, this wouldn't be the case.
Click to expand...
I understand the sun, but Im talking inside a boxing event at ringside to take photos. I proper facepalmed myself lol
 
I tend to leave the hats and sunglasses at home when I've got the "big camera" with me. They just get in the way.

And TBH if it's bright enough to warrant sunglasses then it's highly likely that I'm either driving, or the light isn't conducive to anything more than record shots (and I use my phone for those).
 
as an addendum - people who wear baseballcaps with SWAT on the front. I always have an overwhelming urge to say "excuse me i think they spelt that wrong" :lol:
 
Steve Smith said:
Anyone who wears a baseball cap backwards.

Why would you? Why not wear your trousers backwards too?!!


Srteve.
Click to expand...

Backwards_Baseball_Cap1.jpg
 
This Thread! Close it! Most Photographers are gits, Pro or amateur including me/us!!!:mad:
 
2 things that grind my gears:
- the notion that you can zoom with your feet - YOU CAN"T!
- and the idea that a 50mm lens portrays things as the human eye sees it - IT DOESN'T!

nighty night
 
KIPAX said:
I was told black football boots are hard to find nowerdays... there all colours now :)
Click to expand...

Some spray paint will fix that issue :D it's sneaking into Rugby Union too, I remember a few years back if a guy turned up to our club with anything but black boots it made his feet more of a target to get stamped on :lol:
 
Sorry if it has been mentioned already, but I have a pet peeve that I would hate not to get a mention:-

Photographers who think their chosen brand of anything (eg camera, lens cloth, stofen) is the best and everything else is therefore crap.
 
a1ex2001 said:
Yet again where did I say I put it up for applause? Surely everyone hopes people will like there shots especially if it's one you think is decent? What is it with this place and the aggressive negative spin today?

I put up a picture I liked and thought was good to see what others thought, i was disappointed not many people liked it. I took people's comments on board and understand their opinions but I still like the shot is it really that hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

I'm on your side, Alex. I've been through this bs too many times with critiques. The fact is, these guys will never change their minds and it's a waste of time and energy arguing with them. Don't waste your time on idiots :)
 
Steve Smith said:
Anyone who wears a baseball cap backwards.

Why would you? Why not wear your trousers backwards too?!!


Srteve.
Click to expand...


Well.. If they're a photographer, perhaps they turn it backwards so it's peak doesn't bang into the camera when they put their face to it?
 
Rapscallion said:
2 things that grind my gears:
- the notion that you can zoom with your feet - YOU CAN"T!
- and the idea that a 50mm lens portrays things as the human eye sees it - IT DOESN'T!

nighty night
Click to expand...
The 50mm thing is oft misunderstood.
It's not that a 50mm has the same field of view, or even perceived field of view, as human vision. Which is a claim I hear all the time. It's that it has more or less the same perspective as human vision. That is, objects are perceived to be roughly the same distance from the observer and from one another through a 50mm as they are through the naked eye. Where as a wide angle, for example, will increase apparent distances and a telephoto will foreshorten.
This is more or less true (talking about general, everyday perception here; there's obviously a difference between perception and what the visual system objectively "sees").
 
ghoti said:
The 50mm thing is oft misunderstood.
It's not that a 50mm has the same field of view, or even perceived field of view, as human vision. Which is a claim I hear all the time. It's that it has more or less the same perspective as human vision. That is, objects are perceived to be roughly the same distance from the observer and from one another through a 50mm as they are through the naked eye. Where as a wide angle, for example, will increase apparent distances and a telephoto will foreshorten.
This is more or less true (talking about general, everyday perception here; there's obviously a difference between perception and what the visual system objectively "sees").
Click to expand...

Yep, I get that idea. But it is inextricably linked to the print size as much as the focal length of the lens.

Morning all!
 
Rapscallion said:
Yep, I get that idea. But it is inextricably linked to the print size as much as the focal length of the lens.

Morning all!
Click to expand...
It's not linked to print size at all.
The distance relationships between objects in the scene will be the same regardless of what size the photo is printed.

Obviously the absolute, objective distances will change but that's irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
and you can zoom with your feet - although having to take my shoes and socks off and lie on my back did make it of limited use in practice :lol:
 
ghoti said:
It's not linked to print size at all.
The distance relationships between objects in the scene will be the same regardless of what size the photo is printed.

Obviously the absolute, objective distances will change but that's irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I think one of us has confused the other - not sure which way round though....
Im interested in exploring this. Surely the relative size of 2 objects at different distance to the photographer will be the same regardless of focal length used. This will only change if the photographer moves?
 
As an approximation for normal focusing distances, the relative sizes of objects are unchanged with a change of focal length. The approximation is because lens extension changes the image size; and the amount of extension will depend on the subject distance. The normal rule doesn't hold up well in macro work.

On the question of perspective and print size, it's not print size but image magnification and viewing distance that matter - there is a correct viewing distance to maintain normal perspective that depends on the lens focal length and the degree of enlargement. Viewed from close enough, the most extreme wide angle photo will have normal perspective; though you might need reading glasses to see a print a couple of inches away!
 
Last edited:
StephenM said:
As an approximation for normal focusing distances, the relative sizes of objects are unchanged with a change of focal length. The approximation is because lens extension changes the image size; and the amount of extension will depend on the subject distance. The normal rule doesn't hold up well in macro work.

On the question of perspective and print size, it's not print size but image magnification and viewing distance that matter - there is a correct viewing distance to maintain normal perspective that depends on the lens focal length and the degree of enlargement. Viewed from close enough, the most extreme wide angle photo will have normal perspective; though you might need reading glasses to see a print a couple of inches away!
Click to expand...

Agreed, viewing distance and magnification is the important factor which i quickly (over)simplified to print size.

So how are many photographers under the belief of this meme that 50mm is a normal perspective? I must be missing something as i cannot see how this holds...
 
SImple maths? Normal viewing distance is generally accepted to be about 10 inches. Normal print size from 35mm is probably 10x8. Correct viewing distance for normal perspective = focal length x enlargement.

Ergo, for a 2" lens and 8 times enlargement, correct viewing distance for normal perspective is 16", which is about right.
 
Another irk is photographers who refer to lenses as copies. e.g. "I think I have a bad copy of this lens as it's not very sharp".

They're not copies, they're originals! Example would be a better word.


Steve
 
Steve Smith said:
Another irk is photographers who refer to lenses as copies. e.g. "I think I have a bad copy of this lens as it's not very sharp".

They're not copies, they're originals! Example would be a better word.


Steve
Click to expand...

surely they are all copies of the original prototype though ?[/quote]
 
big soft moose said:
surely they are all copies of the original prototype though ?
Click to expand...

I doubt that they bear much resemblance to the original prototype.

In my opinion, a copy is a similar item made by a different company. In much the same way that other guitar companies make copies of Fenders and Gibsons.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I doubt that they bear much resemblance to the original prototype.

In my opinion, a copy is a similar item made by a different company. In much the same way that other guitar companies make copies of Fenders and Gibsons.


Steve.
Click to expand...

maybe not the original - but they'll be copies of the final design lens before they go into mass production
 
StephenM said:
SImple maths? Normal viewing distance is generally accepted to be about 10 inches. Normal print size from 35mm is probably 10x8. Correct viewing distance for normal perspective = focal length x enlargement.

Ergo, for a 2" lens and 8 times enlargement, correct viewing distance for normal perspective is 16", which is about right.
Click to expand...

My simple maths (!) suggests that a 10 inch print at 10 inch viewing distance needs a 24mm lens for normal perspective?
 
big soft moose said:
surely they are all copies of the original prototype though ?
Click to expand...
[/quote]
'TOGRAPHERS WHO ARE MORE GEEKY AND ANNOYING THAN DR. SHELDON COOPER, IN REAL LIFE! (Or at least forum life:eek:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top