Social media is the place for photographers to show their work and discuss photography. It is great looking at those photos, but there are also some things that keep annoying me. I have identified 5 things photographers should stop doing.
Photography is a wonderful hobby or profession. But if you look at social media, there are a couple of things that many photographers are doing that don’t make a lot of sense. Why it happens, I don’t know. Is it the insecurity the photographer is feeling about his or her work? Is it a cry for attention? Or is it something else? I shouldn’t make such a fuss about it, I know. But sometimes I wish photographers would stop doing the next five things.
1. Attack Other Camera Brands and Their Users
Don't bother about the other one. Go out and take pictures.
You probably would have guessed this point would come up. I already wrote an article about this a long time ago, but it surprises me again and again how fierce some photographers react when it comes down to camera brands. The moment someone is criticizing "their" brand they go nuts. Sometimes it actually turns into cursing and threats, even on a personal level.
These individuals also burn down other brands the moment they release a new camera. Even before actual results are seen or reviews have been done. The funny thing is, they probably haven’t used or even touched the other camera at all.
It’s okay to be a fan of your camera brand. But the moment you’re past that thin line, you’re not a fan anymore. You have become a fanatic.
2. Presenting Test Photos of Your New Lens
A new lens is exciting. But don't start posting so called test shots.
You saved a lot of money to buy that one special lens. After many months you finally have it in possession. You can’t wait to place it on your camera, to start photographing, and to see the first results. And then it happens, the first images are placed online with the remark: "my first test shots".
Everyone is free to place any image you like online. But if you’re a photographer who is proud of his or her images, why are you placing those first images online? Often these images are quick shots somewhere nearby.
It is very normal to take the first images as soon as you have the lens. I would advise everyone to do so. But don’t place the first meaningless photos online, especially with the phrase “test shots”. Make those images for yourself, not for everyone else. Unless you have made a truly remarkable image the first time using it. My advice is just to use the lens, test if it's okay, and then only show the images that are worth it.
3. Presenting Photos That are Too Similar
If you have many variations of one subject, choose one to present. The best one.
Enough about equipment. The next thing I wish photographers would stop doing is presenting a series of photos that are almost too similar. Why not choose the best one and only present that?
Most photographers take a lot of photos. That’s understandable for many reasons. The subject could be very photogenic or beautiful, for example. The moment can also be so attractive you can’t stop photographing. Playing with compositions is another great thing to do on-site. Or perhaps you're choosing different focal lengths, depth of field, or perspective. You will shoot a dozen photos before you even realize it. Just don’t show all those photos to your audience.
Sometimes I see three, four, or up to ten photos next to each other with almost no differences at all. Well, there are differences, but these are minute variations of the same photo. For the audience, it probably feels like the same image over and over again.
Remember, a series of photos is only as good as its worst photo. By neglecting to show only the best, your series will become mediocre. Only if you have a completely different approach to the subject it is okay to show these together.
4. Asking Which One Is the Best, Color or Black and White
Don't ask which is best. You are the photographer, the artist. You decide.
Some photographers consider black and white to be the last resort for a color photo that is not to their liking. They often think a bad color photo can be a good black and white image. They expect it to become something artistic by pressing the desaturate button. Truth is, the only thing they do is remove the color.
Some photographers will present their photo both in color and in black and white next to each other with the question of which one is the best. I wonder, are these photographers so insecure they have to ask their audience how they should present their photo?
First of all, you as a photographer should make a decision about that. How you want to present your photo has to be your choice. You are the maker, the artist. You should decide how your work is seen. Not your audience.
The second problem with these photos is often the way this black and white photo is produced. Just pushing a desaturate button or black and white button is not enough. Your black and white photo should get much more attention in post-processing. Contrast, light, dark, and the overall luminance of different colors should be looked at. Just removing color is not a black and white photo, it’s just desaturated.
5. Claiming You Must Use Manual Mode
P, S, A, or M. It doesn't matter which one you choose. As long as the exposure is correct, it's okay.
Some photographers think the manual exposure setting is the only way of being serious about photography. They believe it gives full control over the exposure, something an automatic setting can't provide. If you don't use manual, they say, you're not using the equipment in a professional way.
Of course, in manual you can dial in any setting you like; aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. But that full control doesn’t lead to a good exposure. The light measurement reading on your camera is telling you what setting is needed.
You choose an ISO setting to your liking and an aperture depending on the amount of depth of field you want. With these two settings, you haven’t got any control over shutter speed if you want a good exposure. The shutter speed is given to you by the light meter in your camera. If you deviate from this measurement, your exposure won’t be correct.
Manual exposure setting is just that. You have to set your ISO, aperture, and shutter speed manually according to the light measurement. But instead of dialing in these settings manually, you can also leave it up to the camera to set the correct exposure automatically. The end result is exactly the same.
But wait. What if the light meter isn’t giving the correct exposure? In that case, manual settings allow you to deviate from that advised setting. You have full control. For the automatic exposure mode, there is the exposure correction dial. This way you also have full exposure control.
In other words, manual doesn’t give you more control. It’s just dialing in every setting manually. Or you can leave it up to the camera to some degree. It is not about having full control over the exposure, it's nothing more than a preferred way of using exposure settings. That’s all. Just use the way you like the most. If that’s a manual exposure setting, that’s okay. If you prefer an automatic exposure setting, that’s okay also.
What Do You Wish Photographers Should Stop Saying?
These are my five things that I wish photographers should stop saying. Undoubtedly there are more. Who knows, perhaps you find my article about this subject ridiculous. That’s okay, I don’t mind.
Do you have a thing that you think photographers should stop saying or doing? Please share it in the comments below.
How about stop writing click bait headlines. I really thought I was going to get something out of this article but most of it was fluff. There were a few things mentioned that actually could make for some interesting content without having a sole purpose to get views. Congrats, you caught me so it's working.
You should probably add “whining” to the list, lol
Posting a colour and a black and white image gets on my tits...
As a Fuji APS-C user I can relate to point number 1 lol, there isn't a day goes by that I don't read or hear some criticism of the brand or sensor size.... its like the worlds worst penis measuring contests, only the pricks are the ones doing the measuring (damn I just did the attacking, silly me).
As a former Fuji professional shooter I still receive weekly 'hate-messages' from Fuji-fans on my older posts on Fuji-related Forums. Each form of criticism on Fujifilm (even as an owner) seems to fuel a lot of anger. I guess Dustin Abbott can relate to that whenever one of his Fuji-gear reviews isn't raving about the product. Compared to that, my current Nikon community is a warm bath of compassion... Oops...now I did it too!! ;-)
Oh I’m by no means denying it’s a two way street, I see comments on the Rumour sites, but as someone who has zero interest in these brand wars I find the constant criticism of things like the auto focus and the x-trans sensor by people who have never used it, quite laughable.
As for Dustin Abbott, I watched a few of his videos and found them to be mainly nonsense without actually displaying any images to back up his thoughts. My view on people like him and Phillip Bloom etc, you have to wonder why people who are sponsored by a rival brand are doing ‘reviews’ of Fujifilm gear? If the role was reversed and say Andy Mumford started to review Sony products, there would be hell to pay. They are part of the problem, alongside Polin, the Angry fat guy, the Northrups and all those other clickbait gear channels.
Give me a Tom Heaton or Adam Gibbs video over any of those hyperbole, Americanised sensationalist channels any day.
Dustin Abbott does Fujifilm reviews because Fujifilm invited him to do so. Just as he does Sony and Canon reviews... I have no information who's paying him, so I can't comment on that. You could argue about the style (he's Canadian by the way and quite the opposite from the usual loud mouths) but I often found his conclusions coincide with my hands-on experiences with the same lenses. I guess that's the great thing of having so much to choose from. Both in gear and channels... BTW, I also like Adam Gibbs videos. Thanks for the Tom Heaton tip. I'll check it out.
Most of my channels on YouTube are pure photography based, if you like that kind of stuff then Gary Gough, First Man Photography (who shoots my local area a lot), Gareth Danks, Henry Turner are all excellent content.
With Dustin Abbott I watched a few of his videos and he seems to go into them with an already negative opinion of the product before he has even started, i.e. as per his own words 'im more of a full frame guy', like he is disinterested in other formats then attempts to review them and that disinterest carries through.
Ive only watched a few but the 2 that stuck with me and didn't share my experience are the 50mm f2 and 16-55 f2.8, he was pretty negative about them both but I have found both excellent.
A lot of the other channels just parrot things imo, like for example the 23mm f2 being 'soft wide open, when shooting minimum focus distance', ive still yet to get a single answer back when I ask what are they actually taking photographs of with a 23mm lens at f2 from 3ft away from the subject? This parroting then finds its way into the words of forum frequenters who have never used the product but they saw some review once and now its gospel truth, see Canon overheating for another example.
Thanks again, I follow Gareth but I'll check-out the others.
As for the 16-55/2.8 and the 50/2 I tend to agree with Dustin. Both are good, but nothing special. In fact the 16-55 is no sharper than the 18-55, it just has a bit better contrast due to better coating (which for some special reason Fuji hardly uses on its other lenses). The 50/2 is a nice lens and pairs well with the 23/2 and the 35/2 (which is an excellent lens).
The 23/2 is imo quite soft in edges and corners at f2. Not only within 3ft, but in my experience any distance closer than 10-12ft. I still use the lens on my X-Pro2 but for street photography I often use it for details of scenes (like a stack of Christmas decorations) and it bothers me how muddy it gets in the corners, knowing how good some other 35mm lenses can be. I wish Fuji would update this lens, because otherwise it's perfect for the likes of an X-Pro.
I've worked with Fuji between 2013 and 2020 and had a total of 15 different XF and GF lenses and 6-7 bodies (X and GFX). Nowadays I only use the X-Pro2 with a couple of f2 primes. For me there was too much variance in build quality and the service of Fuji Professional Services is rather poor compared to that of Nikon, Hasselblad and Leica. Ultimately there wasn't an advantage in size and weigh left with full-frame mirrorless cameras like the Z7II, so I then prefer to have a FF sensor next to my MF camera. I did though love the lay-out of their cameras (esp. the X-H1), the looks (esp. the X-Pro series and the standard aperture ring on the XF-lenses which is rare in this class.
See the 16-55 blows me away with its image quality every time I use it, it’s almost permanently attached to my camera I find it that good. The kit lens is outstanding but I think there is a real difference between the two. And in fairness would Fuji even bother making it if it wasn’t better than the kit lens? This is what I always ask myself, they aren’t just putting extra lens elements and a different construction for the sake of it. This is why I question these reviews, because it’s questioning the whole design process of the company when people make statements like it’s just the same as the lens that’s half the price, almost implying we are being conned somehow? There is definitely less distortion at wider angles with it I’ve found and perhaps that is what you pay for (alongside the fixed aperture and WR).
I’ve just looked through a couple more recent of Abbott’s videos and it seems his bored indifference has spread to the GFX line too, somewhat refusing to be positive about the cameras and lenses, if he doesn’t have some underlying issues with the brand he has a funny way of showing it.
Anyway this below is a shot I got with the 23mm, I can’t comment on its sharpness or flaws, I just know it’s my favourite ever shot I’ve taken so reason enough to love it:)
Oh…but there’s definitely a difference between the 16-55 and the 18-55. Obviously there’s the constant f2.8 aperture, the extra 2mm and the WR (however, that’s often overrated). The key is that the lenses are built for different purposes.
The 18-55 is a general purpose lens for amateurs, the 16-55 is what is often called a reporter zoom lens for professional use. There’s little difference in sharpness overall, but the optimum is at different focal lengths. The 18-55 has an optimum near the 18mm, the 16-55 towards the long end, which is actually harder to design. On top of that the 16-55 has much better contrast (punchier images) and less (longitudal) chromatic abberation which saves time in post (important for pro’s).
So, the lenses are about equally good overall for the purpose for which they’re designed and the price for which they are sold. The German magazine Fototest tested both and came to the same conclusion after looking at all categories incl. value for money.
Yeah not gonna disagree with that, my partner uses the 18-55 now and gets great images with it, I still love it too, just can't drop the 16-55 anymore.
P.S. James Popsys is another great photography channel.
This was by far the most interesting thread of comments I've read on this website.
Interesting or ‘interesting’? That is the question:)
Interesting... I think?
Haha I was trying to be funny, as In its genuinely interesting or sarcastically ‘interesting’ (ridiculous), in the UK the term interesting is often used to politely describe nonsense, normally said in an exaggerated manner when speaking.
If genuinely then happy to provide some interesting reading:)
Definitely found it genuinely interesting, especially when Tom Heaton was mentioned. He's definitely one of my favourite youtubers.
I’m heading up to his home town this week for sunset one evening, there is a building called Spanish City, I want a Fisheye shot of the interior and a long exposure during blue hour of the outside.
Those other channels I mentioned are all very good, if you like some good old landscape photography.
That's fantastic. Will you be posting the image?
I'm familiar with First Man Photography, Adam Gibbs and James Popsys. I'll check out the others you mentioned.
Yeah I’ll post it, hopefully going up on Thursday evening. I’ve been wanting the shot for a long time but due to the pandemic it’s been closed. I do have a couple of 10mm rectilinear shots but I think the fisheye is going to give much more impact to it, I want to try and get more of the ceiling in.
#6 Stop worrying about what other photographers are saying and doing.
Buying expensive new gear and then asking other people how to use it. RTFM!
Stop taking advice from these type of articles.
256523885218 kinds of article titles any photographer should avoid
@Glen- RTMF is my "always use"phrase !! I EVEN HAVE IT ON SOME OF MY PHOTO T-SHIRTS... It works in so many situations, not just photo-related... and cuts down on bitching... I derive a certain satisfaction when someone does, and finds their answer ... plus I tend not to want to help if someone has not RTFM'd 1st... but, if you really have, then I'm all in to assist...I'm also a major gadget guy... camera and lenses alone... "meh"... I'm a Nikon shooter and have been for 45+ years (and still have my pristine film bodies and lenses), but so what! I could care less what someone else thinks of what gear I love or what they use... and I couldn't agree more on the image being the creator's decision space alone... just sayin' :-)
Please, stop watermarking your photography with signatures. The images used have signatures that are illegible, so what’s the point. It looks cheap, dated, distracting, and most can be cloned out anyway. If you really must, just a discreet website address will get anyone interested in your work to you. Also embed metadata.
Yup on all 5, Nando. Especially slamming other brands. If people only realized why they get so angry when another brand other than what they buy, is praised. Marketing makes your self worth become attached to the brand you use. Apple, Sony, Canon, Nikon. And don't worry about some of the comments. You could post the actual cure for caner and world peace and photographers will snipe at you.
I can't agree more with the #3. If I see a page, a website with too many similar photos, I just close it.
It gives me the impression that we see the same image ten times, but the author couldn't decide which one is the best. And he or she asks the viewer to decide.
The photographers that post "color or b&w" on social media are actually pretty smart ... they realize that any time someone comments on their post, they get additional exposure on social media. So even if they already know which they prefer, color or b&w, their post will get far more attention if they ask their audience which they prefer. (I still *hate* it, but I do recognize the value they have gained ... my suggestion is to find a better type of question to invoke engagement)
Good point David. For engagement, you're right.
“I’m a natural light photographer “ usually code for I can’t light - with or without natural light
What Do You Wish Photographers Should Stop Saying? 1. Composition is Intuitive. Stating composition is intuitive is absolute nonsense. Any trained artist knows this. 2. Learn the rules then break them. If you know the rules of design you would know you really aren't breaking them.
Here here on the color/B&W, "which is best?". Maybe I haven't been around long enough, but I have never heard someone say you should only use manual mode...
Nando Harmsen asked,
"What Do You Wish Photographers Should Stop Saying?"
I am sick of photographers saying that we don't really need quality gear and that award winning photos have been taken with a brownie camera and that it's all about content and artistic vision.
The gear matters AND the photographer matters. It usually takes capable gear and a capable photographer to create images that can compete in today's market.
The buffoons who say it is all about the content and that gear doesn't matter are probably very limited in the things they are doing with their images.
Are they submitting their images to stock agencies with extremely stringent, nit-picky review panels? I assure you they aren't. It sucks to have images with very compelling content that make a real connection with viewers, only to have them rejected again and again because the gear they were taken with didn't provide the technical excellence that images need to pass the scrutiny of the review process. It's impossible to earn royalties and earn a living from stock agency sales if your images aren't technically sound enough to be accepted.
These people who say that gear and ISO performance and pixel count don't matter and that 10 megapixels is always good enough - are they getting requests from customers who want to order 60 inch by 40 inch prints, to be hung in areas where people will view the photos from a distance of 2 to 6 feet? Obviously not.
I have lost several big print sales because the resolution of my images was not sufficient for high detail resolution at large sizes including 40 by 28 inches and 60 by 40 inches. The designer specking out my work had to use paintings instead of my photographs because my photos didn't have enough resolution to look sharply detailed at these large sizes.
I have also had a stock agency refuse to accept me as a contributor because my files are not at least 5,000 pixels on the long side natively (uprezzing, of course, is not allowed).
I also lost a really great opportunity to license my images for a kiosk design project with the state of Montana because they needed wildlife photos that would look great printed as wall-size murals. 8 foot high prints, view - you guessed it - from an average distance of 4 to 6 feet. This one really hurt because the photos I Had were exactly what the Photo Call specified, except that my resolution was far short of the mark.
So, technical image quality and resolution DO really matter, and I wish that these goofballs would stop speaking as though all anybody does with their images is post them to the internet. We are doing far more with our images than that, and the people who we submit our images to are extremely picky when it comes to pixel-level image quality.
In the main I think that phrase is used against gearheads who claim you have to have cameras with bigger sensors, or the latest auto focus, or 60 million pixels etc.
You shouldn’t label people as goofballs and buffoons who might just be someone who has the last gen camera from 2019 or an APS-C camera and are sick of seeing people telling them their gear isn’t good enough.
I know because I’m one of them, and take offence at your use of the word goofball, I could bite back with some equally offensive terms about the tone of your comments but I won’t.
I’m sick of seeing people on Internet forums belittling APS-C cameras and lenses as sub par, or not up to the task, or unable to take certain shots…. It’s arrogant, and on the whole, complete bullshit.
Your comment about large prints is interesting, I’d be interested to learn what you were using that was deemed ‘not good enough’ for an 8 foot print.
The files I have lost sales opportunities with are those taken with a Canon 5D (classic), a Canon 50D, a Canon 1D Mark 2, and a Canon 1D Mark 4. 12MP, 10MP, 8MP, and 16 MP, respectively.
I have had several 48 inch by 32 inch prints made with files from the 16MP !D Mark 4, and the detail resolution is acceptable for most subject matter, as long as the image isn't cropped much at all. But when I try to print larger, or crop significantly, the very fine feather and hair details don't hold up to close distance viewing.
I have a 5D Mark 4 now, and have used it for the past year and a half. It has 30MP. The extra MP doesn't really matter for many uses or means of presentation, but when it comes to large prints it makes a huge difference in how clearly and distinctly each individual hair and feather filament is resolved.
Two friends of my use Sony cameras with 45 or 50 MP or whatever they are, and the super fine hair and feather resolution is even more clear and more distinct! But they only print up to 36" by 24", so their great detail is kind of wasted and is only seen or appreciated when they zoom in real deep on their 5k monitors.
On the flip side, not everyone needs to print large or print at all...hence, gear doesn't matter as much. It is not a false statement. It depends. Just because you need it for what you do or want to do, doesn't mean the rest of the world should need it also.
There is a also a huge difference between what people like him claim is needed for large prints, and what is actually needed for large prints.
I watched a documentary about Cadbury (the famous UK chocolate brand) a couple of weeks ago and they had a competition for the public to create a new flavour, anyway one of the finalists was having a photo shoot as part of the campaign, bus shelter posters, billboards, side of articulated trailers etc... it was shot on an X-T3 with the 90mm lens.... I can only imagine the pain inflicted on Gearheads when they saw the camera and the resulting prints being used in the public.
Stuart, it all depends on where and how the large prints are being displayed and what the subject matter is.
The large print uses that you describe - outdoor use - generally don't require much resolution or fine detail reproduction at all. I have had a 10MP image of mine used on a billboard, and in all honesty, a 6MP file would have worked just as well. But of course it isn't important to have extremely fine detail on billboards because they are not a fine art presentation and are viewed from really far away.
But when very large prints are being used in indoor settings, in spaces where the viewer will be just a few feet away, and when the subject matter begs for extremely fine details to be resolved clearly and distinctly, then a crapton or resolution is necessary for the best possible presentation. Examples would be the individual feather filaments on a bird, or the individual hairs and whiskers on a mammal.
When an animal is being reproduced life-size, or larger than life-size, and viewed at a very close distance, then people want and expect to see all of the fine details that they would if the animal was really there in front of them at that distance. Such presentations are common in visitor centers at parks and wildlife refuges, interpretive kiosks, and museums.
Tom, all those situations described are fair enough, and in those cases high res cameras are certainly useful.
But I would still say in the vast majority of cases, the phrase ‘gear doesn’t matter’ is hugely relevant. The small percentage of photographers who actually need that level of equipment can be excluded from that statement, whilst the 99.9% of us who don’t it’s sound advice.
The best example I can think of are those people who assume their less than excellent photo is a result of them not having xyz camera or lens, literally last week on a YouTube video I saw a comment from someone ‘struggling to get sharp images with their APS-C camera’ and how they are thankful to the YouTuber for showing that a full frame camera will solve that…. I almost couldn’t believe my eyes, such was the ridiculousness of the statement.
I’d never tell Karl Taylor he doesn’t need a Hasselblad in his studio, but there a plenty that think they need one and don’t.
I totally agree with what you say here. We all have very different needs and very different goals and objectives.
To tell someone that their gear isn't good enough for THEIR goals is wrong.
And to tell someone else that they don't need high-end gear for THEIR goals is equally wrong.
When I lose opportunities because my files are only 16MP, and then I see someone making a blanket statement saying, "you don't need a high mega pixel camera" it makes me want to bang their head on a hard object to pound reality into it. There actually are a few people out there who do need high mega pixel cameras, and every statement that people make should be mindful that those few people do exist.
Yeah I don't disagree with you there, on the whole people should generally keep their noses out of others business when it comes to their choice of gear.
I think the internet and the resulting gearhead culture has an awful lot to answer for though, in the main the 'gear doesn't matter' phrase is a direct kick back of the 'you should really get a better camera to improve your photography' brigade, as you say both can be right or wrong depending on the context, unfortunately both are also used to kick off toxic discussions.
As an APS-C user who feels no need to change, my view is obviously biased towards one side of the argument, and that's caused by people who lack the basic respect of judging a photographer on their output and not what they carry in their bag.
I shot with an APS-C camera as my main body from April 2010 through October 2013, and found that there are some advantages that it had over a full frame sensor.
I especially liked that it had no vignette whatsoever, no matter what focal length or aperture I shot it at. I absolutely HATE photos where the deep corners are not as bright as the center of the image, and that has always been a huge horrible problem with full frame cameras, especially at wide apertures. But it isn't a problem at all on a crop sensor, which I loved!
The crop sensor also helped a LOT when I wanted greater depth of field. It yielded 2/3 of a stop more DOF than a full frame sensor, when the image is framed the same way in-camera. Of course, this was a disadvantage when I wanted as shallow a depth of field as possible, but every action has an equal and opposite reaction, right?
I have a good friend who has his bird images published regularly, often used for magazine covers. He has a Canon 7D Mark 2 and a Canon 1DX Mark 2. He uses the 7D2 over 90% of the time, because he likes the so-called "reach" that it provides over the 1DX2. He is older, and has trouble getting close to the animals and using very big heavy lenses, so he would rather use a 7D2 with a 500mm lens (light) than his 1DX with the 800mm lens (relatively heavy). The crop sensor camera simply works better for him than the full frame camera, based on his own particular strengths and weaknesses.
Yes all those are perfectly good reasons to use them. In my case as a primarily landscape photographer I just love using my camera, and love how it works. Couple this with never feeling like the sensor is lacking in image quality I just don't see the point of changing, some people can't seem to accept that though.
Yes, you are quite right. That is why I hate blanket statements - because they are wrong for some people and some situations. Statements about photography should be qualified, with verbiage that allows for exceptions.
From what I've seen and just going off memory, anyone that has made a similar statement to this, "10 mp is all you need." is usually followed by "...unless you need very large prints."
I wish that people would qualify their statements the way you describe. But in reality, they almost never do. Most of the time people make such comments, they just make blanket statements that allow for no exceptions.
Attacking brands and users is never good and I fully agree here, but people who ask whether the b&w shot is better than the same in color are probably just trying to start a conversation (even though it's a dull way to do so). Starting a conversation with your followers IS important but there are other ways to do so. As for the test shots... Well, I occasionally post screenshots of Photoworks window when I'm half through the edit. These aren't actual posts, these are Stories but it shows the process and I kinda like doing so. Same goes for the 'before and after' posts, this stuff may seem boring as everyone does that, but if there is something you really want to share (like a photo of your g g grandma you've restored via some Photoglory or a very nice edit you are proud of) feel free to do so.
What would your top five be in "5 Things Photographers Nando Should Stop Doing..."...