This post is, I think, overdue, as there are a number of things in photography I find irritating. Many of them are recent trends, other are practices by people in general. I've always wanted to rant about these things, but wanted to do so in a non "inflammatory" manner & I wanted to do so in one article, rather than have a whole bunch of negative-griping posts scattered everywhere. I didn't want the "tone" of this blog as a whole to sound negative or grouchy, and I felt that more than 1 single "venting" post could do that.
Before I get into that, I want to make it clear: if any of you do any of these practices/trends (or support them), please do not be offended. I am NOT picking on any one person directly or personally at all. I'm not trying to anger any friends etc, no friendship is worth losing over such disagreements. I'm simply speaking on the issues & practices as practiced by society at large. Also, I'm trying to state my opinions without being borderline obnoxious & letting my "inner Bobby Knight" take center stage, which I can do if I'm not careful (those of you who remember Bobby Knight, a former college basketball coach, know what I'm referring to--if not, watch him here for an illustration).
That said, without further ado, here are the practices/trends etc in photography that irritate me.
DSLR Video
Nikon started this in 2008 with the Nikon D90. Prior to this, it was just inherently understood--DSLR cameras did not do video like point & shoots did, and to expect them to was ridiculous. They were serious image capturing devices, geared towards professionals and hobbyists who wish to maximize their photo-taking stills. You didn't want SLRs also able to take videos & mutate into "jack of all trades-master of none" devices sort of like a smartphone (as wonderful as smartphones are).
To me, the addition of video in SLRs was, frankly, to placate soccer moms who refused to upgrade their point & shoots because "why should I spend that much on a camera that can't do video when my $100 Sony Cybershot can?" It reminded me of my brother-in-law, a good & smart person who is nonetheless camera illiterate (no shame in that), who, upon observing that I had sold a point & shoot camera for a second DSLR for my wife, remarked "why sell that camera [Sony H1 "superzoom"] for that one [Nikon D40 dSLR] which can't do video?" Never mind that the Nikon D40 DSLR absolutely smoked the Sony H1 "superzoom"in image quality, and that I still had another small Sony point & shoot for video.
My thoughts on video in SLR--we're placating THAT mentality, that of the point & shooters, rather than the hobbyists & enthusiasts who understand what an SLR is about & don't extra non-stills controls getting in the way of their photography pursuits? To me, it was a case of "dumbing it down for the masses," something I always dislike, especially when it's done for higher-end cameras meant for hobbyists such as myself. The snapshooting, soccer-mom/dad crowd can use their point & shoot, leave my advanced cameras alone.
I've cooled a bit on this, as still cameras have continued to improve their stills technology, but it still irritates me that even an SLR has to placate people who expect their stills cameras to do videos as well. I thus tend to derisively refer to it as "YouTube mode for the idiot masses." I think at the SLR level, the cameras should focus on one task, photography, and NOTHING ELSE, so as to do it as excellently as possible without even a speck of compromise. As I told someone once, "I don't expect my plumber to know how to wash my car" and "I don't expect a nice Mexican place down the road to also cook hamburgers, I accept that Mexican is ALL THEY DO and their food is better FOR THAT SPECIFIC REASON."
Excessive Child Photos
As a parent, I photograph my children lots, as does also any parent. I post photographs of my kids all the time. So what is my gripe, and aren't I being hypocritical? My gripe, and this applies in aspects not limited strictly to photography, is this--when parents, upon becoming parents, all of a sudden lose their entire identity as a person, and all you ever hear them talk about, or share photos of, is their children.
I think this is especially regrettable when the parent is married, and they seem to not talk about their spouse much anymore. They forget that they (usually) were married BEFORE the child was born, their relationship with their spouse is why their child even exists to start with, and that their child will grow up and leave and then it will be them & their spouse alone again--AND that this relationship can't be placed "on hold" for 18 years, it has to be cultivated along the way as well.
I had a family member whom I de-friended (not in a hostile way) because every other second she posted photos of her daughter, talked about her ad nauseum--and I never, over the course of 2+ years, heard her say a word about her husband, not even on anniversary dates or Valentine's Day. I didn't even know what he looked like or his name, but her child's name and images were practically burned into my retina.
Besides that, though, when you knew these people prior to this, and you & this person used to talk about world topics, hobbies, fun times--and now all of a sudden you NEVER hear about anything but their children 24/7--frankly, it gets irritating. Yes you realize that you will hear about their kids and see photos of them a lot, but I can't help but think--is this all you are now, and is that healthy? Far be it from me to be ugly and judge, but frankly, I don't think that's healthy.
This is you will rarely, if ever, see me post a photo of our children as my Facebook profile photo, except MAYBE on their birthday. You will a photo of ME in there, and MAYBE our children as well--but not just our kids. You will also see many photos of my wife in there as well--as far as I'm concerned, in fact, she is #1 ABOVE them.
Also, I was into landscape photography prior to my children's birth, and while it doesn't happen as often, I still pursue that hobby & interest. I'm still Larry, I'm not just the man who happened to create 2 children that I am currently over-idolizing. I was a hobbyist landscape photographer prior to their birth, and I intend to still be.
I have had the pleasure of meeting people over the years who still talk about their OWN interests, and their spouse, and posts about having "date nights" with their spouse with NO CHILDREN, and I really respect that. I think that's great.
I wish more people would do that. I'm glad these parents love their children--again, I'm a father, I absolutely can relate. But after awhile, it makes me barf.
Paranoia Over Candid Photographers
One art form I have no skill in, but I really respect--street/candid photography. This is NOT the same as paparazzi behavior, these are people who very casually, without any aggressive harassment, discreetly photograph life around them in natural settings. The idea is that when you photograph people that way, versus having them "pose," you capture an authentic setting & pose. The master of this years ago was Henri Cartier-Bresson (link). He was so good at it, museums were built exhibiting his work.
However, in recent years, in some places, people have begun to frown on this, especially if pictures of their children become part of the situation. I find this ridiculous. The over-the-top fear some parents have over their child ending up in a photo they aren't directly responsible for taking is, to be blunt, ludicrous. I don't believe it harms their child, or anyone else, in any serious or meaningful way, and to try & pressure such persons towards the idea that they should ask for people's permission to take any pictures is downright suppressive to our country's First Amendment. It has been well established--in any public setting, you have no right to the expectation of privacy, and I hope it always stays that way.
It has become bad enough that I've had people yell "pervert" at me when I was at the park photographing the ducks at the lake. One lady become upset when I photographed her daughter who had taken it upon herself to pick up my son & hold him, adoring him, but did not ask me or my wife if that was okay. It didn't bother me, I saw an adorable moment, and I took a photo. I had every right to, especially as my son was part of it. She asked me to delete the photograph--I politely refused, and pointed out how her daughter had taken it upon herself to pick up my son, without asking, and that for all I know she might be a druggie, but I chose to NOT see it that way and to just see an adorable moment--her daughter holding and adoring our son.
Don't get me wrong, when I hear of "paparazzi" types stalking out celebrities and doing such things as flying helicopters over their air space and stalking them out when their intended subjects are on private property trying their best to get some privacy--I don't condone that at all. When you are on your own private property or that of a friend, you have the right to privacy. But in the public setting--you have ZERO right to the expectation of privacy, and may it always be so (although that doesn't mean a photographer should be an obnoxious jerk about it--again, the idea is to be discreet, not "sneaky," and to not harass anyone).
iPhone Photography
This is currently my #1 gripe. Note: my tone here will probably become strong. Please understand, again, if anyone here is into these practices I'm disagreeing with, I'm NOT targeting you personally & I'm not seeking to upset you. It's no different than how, for example, I rant about how irritating it gets seeing everyone around here so into football. I have family members who are into football & I'm not picking fights with them, nor do I want to. I'm simply observing society at large and making observations, not targeting anyone personally. I make my observations about how overrated I think football is, but we still get along just fine. I seek the same result here.
I am NOT referring to everyday "snap-shooters" who use a camera phone vs a point & shoot, or professionals who use a camera phone for their casual everyday life where they're not trying to get something that's Pulitzer-Prize material & are merely trying to take snaps of their personal life like anyone else with a Kodak.
What I am referring to are persons who use an iPhone SPECIFICALLY for "photography" shots rather than learning how to use an SLR or a "mirrorless," learn some basics about f-stops, composition, lighting, ISO, "rule of thirds"--yet call themselves "photographers," put a "so & so photography" watermarks/logos on their images like they're an official photography company, and expect their images to be included equally alongside with those who HAVE made those efforts. Anyone who suggests, even nicely, that maybe they should also learn how to work a DSLR or "mirrorless," read some books on lighting or take some classes, they're harshly labeled an "elitist snob."
I take HUGE offense to that. I think it's an absolute joke and a disgrace to a fine art form. I think it's equivalent to someone microwaving Stouffer's or Chef-Boyardee and thinking they're a "chef" or a pursuer of the culinary arts, & insulting those who have actually been to culinary arts school and learned how to make things with fresh ingredients etc. I realize times & technology change, but I respect efforts towards self-education, improvement, genuine efforts, versus expecting a "quick bake" solution to something like that, which is after all an optional endeavor, not an everyday necessary drudgery of life like housecleaning.
When I was only 13, I became interested in photography vs simply taking snapshots and I wanted to be like those professional photography people, or at least as close as I could get. I made no excuses. Without the assistance of other friends, the Internet, and with little hands-on experience other than handling models in the store, I learned how to work advanced 35mm SLRs on my own. Understand--the year was 1982, and cameras didn't have autofocus, auto film loading, auto film advancing, auto film rewinding, auto setting of the film's ASA/ISO value. You had to do all of those things yourself. Models like the Pentax K1000 (link) were typical for this era.
I also subscribed to magazines like Modern Photography (now Popular Photography), Peterson's Photographic, and I checked out many books at the library. I dug up & purchased books at the bookstore, I didn't have Amazon to ship to our house (and I was not old enough to drive to the mall myself, I had to take advantage of the times when I was there.) I befriended a local professional photographer much older than myself, and when he had the time, I would watch him as he performed. In short--I made a point, again with few friends & no Internet and with cameras less beginner-friendly than they are now, to educate myself and to LEARN.
I didn't complain that SLRs were too hard to learn, too bulky to carry everywhere, I made it my responsibility to figure them out, learn how lighting worked, research which films and film labs did a credible job, and to take that SLR everywhere I went.
Now--people whine about wanting something that does it all for them, and how SLRs are too big (have they never heard of mirrorless?), how they have no interest in learning all of that stuff, they "just want good pictures" and "who are YOU to say that someone should have to learn all of that stuff to be a 'photographer?'" They go around shooting with an iPhone and the "Hipstomatic" app throwing on retro-looking "presets" & thinking it makes them a PHOTOGRAPHER; they even procede to put "my name Photography" logos/watermarks on their images & expect them to be taken seriously by people using REAL cameras & making efforts towards self-improvement.
To me, it's lazy, it's pathetic, and an absolute joke, especially when SLRs and mirrorless are way easier to use than 35mm SLRs were, especially back then. They should get off their lazy rear-ends, read some photography books, learn some techniques about lighting & composition etc, take some classes etc--otherwise, they're a bunch of phonies if you ask me.
On the other hand, I respect people who try & learn these things, and work towards maximizing their art craft with effort. A recent article spoke of a landscape photographer & how he scouts an area and revisits it numerous times, sometimes spending an hour or more there, taking numerous photos & painstakingly working for the best shot, and using very precise heads on tripods & such for precise alignment etc. Now THAT is the sort of thing I can respect--granted, not all of us are cut out to do all of that, or wish to, but to me, if you call yourself a photographer, you sure as heck ought to do more than snap a click with your phone, slap on a "Instagram" preset and think that's real art. It's not--it's Eggo Waffles in a toaster.
It makes some people mad when I say this. Again, I am not necessarily referring to "casual" people who are only being goofy & silly in ways similar to how the Kodak Instamatic was utilized in years past. All of that is well & fine. All I am saying is such people aren't photographers, they're snap-shooters. Don't insult this fine art form by (to use an analogy) heating up a Hot Pocket in the microwave & calling yourself a "culinary artists." Give me a break. I use Stouffer's "Meal in a Bag" all the time, and I enjoy the food--but I don't make myself out to be a chef, and insult those who actually are chefs, those who make everything from home-made/home-grown ingredients and simmered etc to perfection using actual TECHNIQUES beyond "heat contents of bag on high for 7 minutes."
