A BBC radio and TV series here in the UK is "Room 101." People argue to send things they dislike into the infamous room from Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four, where they will never be seen again. What would you send there from the world of photography?
Photography should be fun, but some things get in the way. Even the most cheerful and easygoing of us have things we don’t like. Having the opportunity to rant, let off some steam, and then send them off to Room 101 can be cathartic.
So, here’s our chance to be grumpy and shout about the trivial stuff in the world of photography that annoys us. Obviously, there is major stuff like war, racism, and misogyny that any reasonable-minded person would like to see the end of, but that’s not what this is about. This is a chance to put on a mildly cranky face and point out the relatively minor things in photography that annoy us.
Plagiarizers
These come in many forms. First, there are the freeloaders who want you to let them use your photos on social media. I get them all the time on Instagram, don’t you? People and bots seek out my posts asking to post my images on their social media as if I am doing them a favor. Why do they do this? Because they can make money from my pictures. What do I get in return? Nothing.
Secondly, and worse still, are those who take my images and articles to publish on their websites without permission. I’m quite good at getting those taken down because I just send them an invoice along with my terms and conditions, which give my charges for use of my work without permission.
The theft of copyrighted work is a big industry earning criminals millions of dollars every year. Social media companies help preserve this crime because, although they might take individual posts down when someone complains, they rarely block these aggregate accounts because they get tens of thousands of views and thus earn them money from advertising. Let’s encourage people to unfollow these aggregate accounts, then inform those whose photos are stolen of the theft, and send those thieves off to Room 101.
Poorly Quality Products on Online Marketplaces
When I made the change to digital photography, it was soon after the widespread use of the internet. I lived in a small village in the wilds of Scotland, and even my dial-up first-generation mobile phone connection gave me access to shops that were unavailable to me.
It wasn’t long after that when a lot of cheap photography products appeared on the market. This was when I discovered that a bargain isn’t necessarily so; you get what you pay for in the world of photography. Overly cheap filters, intervalometers, memory cards, lenses, and tripods flooded tax-dodging online marketplaces that had no concern about making sure the customer got a good deal.
I’ve still got the set of colored plastic filters I bought in my naivete. To be honest, I would be reluctant to condemn them to Room 101 because for low-fidelity photos, they are great. But a lot of people are conned into buying them, so into Room 101 they are kicked.
Fake Reviews
A long time ago, I used to buy two reputable photography magazines from the same publishing company. One month they both featured and reviewed the same entry-level camera. One gave the camera a five-star review and the other a pretty damning two-star review. Guess which article was right next to a full-page ad for that camera? The other magazine had advertisements for the camera’s main competitor.
Soon after that, customer reviews started to be noticed more. But then these became manipulated with disreputable traders using fake identities to write good reviews for themselves and bad ones for their competitors. Fortunately, there are browser plugins like Fakespot that help identify fake reviews.
Like many of the writers here, I write reviews of gear. I only write reviews of things that I think will be good. I get solicited all the time by manufacturers of rubbish products that don’t deserve to be reviewed. But if it is something worthwhile, I’ll agree to review it.
Sometimes I review the kit I bought and at other times what I have been sent to try. Much of that gets sent back to the manufacturer afterward, and at other times we get to keep it because of the cost of returning it. However, that doesn’t sway us in our opinions of the gear. If it’s good, we’ll say so, but at Fstoppers, we always mention what could be improved. Testing gear properly and then writing it up can take a couple of days.
With all the hard work and time that goes into writing an honest review, it grates that fake reviews get seen online.
Fake reviews I send into Room 101.
Big Businesses That Treat Customers With Contempt
Besides the cheap tat that should be consigned to Room 101, there’s the disappointment we get when a big brand brings out a new product and it doesn’t work properly. Unfortunately, the failure is only discovered after the product has been on the market for a while.
Perhaps the camera overheats or falls apart like the Canon R5, or maybe it was the lack of investment like the short-lived but otherwise great little Nikon 1 cameras. I’m going to include here software manufacturers that have a cynical attitude toward their clients too, introducing subscription-only plans when they promised to continue perpetual licensing. (Nobody has forgotten, Adobe.)
There are also poor-quality and overly restricted entry-level cameras that will either put the budding photographer off or force them to quickly upgrade because they outgrow the camera. Moreover, the advertising lie that suggests anyone who buys one of the manufacturer’s beginner’s cameras will become as good as the next National Geographic photographer is also contemptuous.
So, manufacturers who treat their customers with contempt are consigned to the hell that is Room 101.
Single-Use Plastic
This is something I usually include in reviews, and I have found ever more manufacturers are taking heed of it. A couple of years ago, vast amounts of plastic packaging were used to accompany every product. Now, there has been a significant reduction, with many boxes just having a thin cellophane wrapper and no plastic inside. Better still are those who don’t put plastic around the outside of a box but protect the product in either a reusable or biodegradable bag within the box. Similarly, boxes are becoming plain, and the glossy unrecyclable plastic foil covering with metallic lettering is becoming a thing of the past.
Nevertheless, there are still manufacturers who insist on having several layers of plastic inside their packaging. Of course, they are missing out on customers who will reject their products because of it. In effect, they are condemning themselves to Room 101. Meanwhile, those businesses that respect the planet are held in high esteem.
Stupid Names for Camera Functions
Camera manufacturers cannot agree on universal names for functions. Every other branch of science—and photography is as much a science as it is an art form—has standardized nomenclature.
Photography has branched out in a myriad of directions. Why would Nikon, Sony, and Canon call sequential shooting "continuous" when that word is widely associated with an autofocus mode? Then, who in their right mind at Canon decided that continuous autofocus should be called "AI Servo" or single autofocus "One-Shot"?
All manufacturers should stop pretending that their Matrix, Evaluative, multi, multiple, or Electro-Selective Pattern is anything but an advanced average metering mode.
Canon also went off-piste with the icons they use for their metering mode, too. They also have Av and Tv modes that the rest of the world calls A and S. Fujifilm, what’s with all those unlabeled buttons on the X-T4 or Single-Autofocus, Single Shot, and Shutter Priority all being labeled "S" on the X-T3?
Is there any other art or industry where there is such a confusing muddle of names designed to befuddle the user?
Stupid nomenclature is going into Room 101.
What Annoys You?
This is all a bit tongue-in-cheek. Adobe makes great software. Yes, AI Servo is a stupid name, but I guess Canon users get used to it. All these things I find just as funny as frustrating.
Perhaps those things don't bother you at all. Maybe you are annoyed at the AI generation that I used to create a couple of the pictures above, or all the Instagram reels of cats and cucumbers wind you up. Maybe it's a particular subject that you just can't capture.
What little irritations would you rant about and send off to Room 101? Keep it light-hearted and friendly; it's only photography and not war.
For some lighthearted rants while you are editing your photos, series one and series two of Room 101 can be heard on the BBC Sounds website.
Ivor Rackham asked.
"What Annoys You?"
Clickbait titles for photography-related articles or videos.
A title should NOT be used to get people to click on it. A title SHOULD be a concise, accurate description of the contents of the video or article.
Even if a title sounds extremely interesting, if I suspect that it is not accurate, I will usually resist the temptation to click on it. I know I miss out on a lot of good content by doing that, but I feel it is the only thing I can do to "punish" the author or videographer for being so greedy.
Hi Tom. I always understand clickbait as those articles that entice you to see (for example) what Pamela Anderson looks like today because you wouldn't believe it, and 50 clicks later after seeing numerous other B-list celebrities you've never heard of or vaguely remember, you get an uninspiring paparazzi shot of Pam taken about 10 years ago. The articles here don't do that.
It's always a struggle for writers to produce compelling titles because if they do as you suggest and post some boring title then nobody would read it and they would not get paid. I sometimes see accusations of an article being clickbait just because a reader disagrees with the opinion.
Personally, I like reading those articles with fun or thought-provoking titles because they are often imaginative and challenge commonly-held beliefs. I see that as a good thing otherwise photography would become stagnant.
Of course, nobody forces anyone to read the articles here, and you are not charged for them.
But, if you want to send them off to Room 101 it's okay. It's your choice.
Thanks for the comment.
Ivor, thanks for responding to my answer. I also enjoy fun and thought-provoking titles, as long as they are accurately describing the contents of the article and/or video. Surely a good writer can come up with a title that is both interesting and precisely accurate.
Another type of title that I would send to room 101 is a title with an absolutist blanket statement. An example would be, "3 Things that Every Photographer Gets Wrong". I mean, if any photographer anywhere in the world gets one of those things right, then the title is a falsehood, a sham. Titles should be written carefully, in a way in which they could never be proven to be incorrect. An example would be, "3 Things that Most Photographers are Getting Wrong Most of the Time ". I am far more likely to click on, and read, an article with the 2nd title, because it seems reasonable instead of exaggerated and sensational. Exaggeration drives me away before I ever click. Realistic and reasonable draws me in and makes me want to read more.
Can we send people to Room 101?
Yes, as long as you agree to be sent there as well by whomever you choose!
1) Subscription software where there is no ongoing costs to the developer for someone using it (i.e. no server farm regularly performing tasks on a users behalf) or stream of continuous improvements being made.
2) Photography permits for public land. If my business is already taxed to pay for the land, I should not have to pay a permit fee to use that same land when shooting handheld! Unless a creative is coming in with a lot of gear or monopolizing/disrupting an area so others can't use it, then they should have the same usage rights as any other person there taking photos of their friends and family!
I absolutely agree with both of those. Off to Room 101 they go. Thanks for the suggestion.
Not so much about cameras or actual photography but rather a "Truth" that exists today in the photography culture. The truth that no longer can one be considered a truly good photographer without also being a master of post processing. So much of what is hailed as great photography is not so much photography proper but rather an artists rendition of what was once a photograph. While it is true that a great photo can be the foundation of a great image it is increasingly true that the two are not one and the same. This is the thing I would send to room 101.
I wholeheartedly agree! Post-processing is NOT photography. It is a separate discipline that many photographers use, but it is separate from the photographic process itself, just as the darkroom process was separate form photography itself - two very different skillsets.
Most of the things that people call photography are actually graphic art. Most of the images that people call photos are actually a combination of photographs and computer-generated graphics. And I am not talking about AI - just making adjustments to exposure changes an image from an actual pure photograph to a combination of a photo and graphic art. I wish that people would be more interested in semantics and insist that every word they use be completely accurate, from a literal standpoint.
lol... My son has reminded me any times about the importance of words. To wade into a bit of nuance I will say that Dark Room skills / post processing and Using a camera are nearly inseparable. If there is nothing that happens after the camera there is no photo to be seen except on the back of the camera. Supposing digital. For me it is only technical whether or not the exposure of a photo is perfect in camera or adjusted in the software. Same with sharpening and perhaps color / white balance. Those are things that can and as much as possible should be addressed in camera. If I use affinity's inpainting tool to remove a telephone pole from a scene yes I am creeping into the thing I would send to room 101. My defense is that if I could have moved the pole physically I would have. Which brings yet more nuance into the discussion. Is it ok to alter a scene physically from the way you found it before you shoot? Is that not the same as me using software to alter a scene? This subject has been addressed here on FStoppers before. I am not imagining I am addressing or revealing new thoughts. I do offer an analogy though that represents my feelings about artistic renditions of what was once a photo. If you are a proponent of Evolution there is a lingering question. At what point along the evolutionary timeline did the first , what we consider to be , the first fully human animal emerge? At some point there had to exist a creature that was neither human or the thing that came before. What was it? Where is the limiting line or distinguish parameter?? That is my conundrum in photography. At what point am I no longer a photographer but rather an artistic image creator? And why are photographers no longer given credit for being good photographers if they are not also great post processing artists?
While there may be times to argue the strict definition of a word, I disagree with you in the common sense that photography and post-processing are separate. Separate functions... okay. Separate skills... okay. But they're inescapably linked as necessary ingredients for making a photograph. You can't have one without the other, and still produce a picture. Obviously you need a camera to record data or expose film. But who looks at a sensor or negative? Those are not photographs... only a step to making one. Whether the camera "post-processes" the image capture internally according to jpeg settings of contrast, saturation, etc., or you perform that function in separate photo editing software, seems in my mind to be such a subtle difference as to render the distinction nearly meaningless.
I agree with your assessment that photography has expanded in the digital realm beyond a literal picture to include digital art. Therein lies the problem of photography which has traditionally been viewed as an "honest" means of communication, or is it an art form? Where's the dividing line? What is the true, uncontaminated "exposure" of a scene? A little darker? Maybe lighter? Was I wearing sunglasses that afternoon which distorted my perception of reality? Is raising the exposure 1EV in camera not photography? We could argue reality all day long and not come to an agreement.
My point is that a photographer must absolutely have all of the critical ingredients (camera and post-processing) at his command in order to achieve the objective of his efforts: a photograph. And photography is simply that... a picture. There are no better single words to describe my work. I should not have to write a book precisely stating how I made it, and to what extent I took liberties with exposure, or cloning a distracting element out of the image. Photojournalists and advertisers can wrestle with that subject. I make pictures which (in the words of AA) either speak to you or they don't.
I agree with that sentiment, Charles. However, all photos are processed, if not by the photographer then by a clever team of engineers who programmed the chip in your camera.
But it's your choice, so off to Room 101 it goes,
Please see my further exploration above. You are correct.
Much labelled 'photography' are, by my impression, artworks not photographs.
1 No photography signs in publicly owned monuments and famous ecclesiastical monuments.
2 Private public spaces in cities, with restrictions on photography.
3 Freedom of Panorama laws ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_panorama). In France and
Italy I can take pictures in public and ecclesiastical monuments, for private use only.
4 People who steal pictures from my Blog. Especially the Ex vice mayor of a large Northern Italian city,
who illustrated a tourist guide book with my pictures, without asking, and refused to pay when caught
out.
5 Photo forum CC camera club type photo criticism of other peoples shots. Hey, you do not know why I
took this shot and under what conditions.
All good points, Nigel. I have a clause in my terms and conditions for charges I make for people using my images without permission. Copyright theft is illegal in every country that has signed up to the Berne Convention, and Italy has. Therefore, you can sue the person who stole your images and report it as a crime.
A good summary of the law in Italy is here: https://www.jacobacci-law.com/hubfs/2023%20Copyright%20-%20Italy.pdf
Boring long-winded articles and videos longer than 10mins.
Interestingly, I was reading a researching an article recently saying that people's attention spans are getting shorter because of the proliferation of short-form videos. I Rave an article about it due to be published tomorrow. Hopefully, it's not too boring for you, or off into room 101 it goes.
Ivor, I would agree with you that the attention span of people is becoming increasingly short, so is their patience.
From my own point of view I have better and more interesting things to do than to waste time in watching a long video or reading a long winded article, I prefer people to come to the point in a concise and efficent matter. You Humans waffle somewhat. I rather enjoy your articles, just about the right length.
Companies that produce cheap copies of other companies products, like yongnuo with their Canon copies.
Another thing that annoys me, but is completely harmless and those people shouldn’t be sent to room 101, people who use a lens with a lens hood in the reversed position.
Ruud van der Nat wrote:
"Another thing that annoys me, but is completely harmless and those people shouldn’t be sent to room 101, people who use a lens with a lens hood in the reversed position."
Guilty!
But I will ask you .....
If I am using a lens that has a hood, but in conditions that do not require a hood, what is wrong with having the hood on the lens in the reverse position, as a way of storing the hood? I mean I want the hood to be with me in case I decide to shoot into the light or side-lit, but I do not want the hood interfering with other shots. So having it on the lens, but reversed, seems to be the most practical way to do it. If I put the hood loose in my pack, it can get crushed and broken by heavier things pressing against it (this happened to the hood for my 100-400mm lens).
So what would you do if you want a hood with you, but what you are shooting at the moment does not require a hood, and a hood in the "correct" position would block light from getting to your subject, or scare your subject away?
In the rare occasions I don’t use my lens hood (almost always use it for protection too, I don’t use uv filters) for example where there’s no side light on the lens then it’s easier to leave it off and much easier to adjust the polariser, I just store it in my bag in the spot for the lens, nothing is going to crush it in my bag. I get it if your doing macros the lens hood will get in the way, but if you leave it on reversed it blocks the manual focus ring (with many lenses). But be free to do what ever you like as long as it doesn’t harm anyone.
Years ago in the days of film, Freeman Patterson wrote a book comparing shots with and without a lens hood, even non-sunny shots. Better contrast was what I remember most. I just use them all the time.
I wasn't aware of Yongnuo. Which product of theirs do you consider to be copying Canon? I've opened the door to Room 101 for them ready.
They copy lenses 50mm 1.8 (already cheap by Canon, why buy the ripp-off )100mm f2 and speedlites. Years ago there was a DigitalRev video where Lok had to see if he could tell the difference by just looking at these products side by side, he got quite a few wrong. Copycats should go to room 101
I imagine that they mainly come off of the same production line. China has no copyright laws. My French friend had an illustrated children's book (!) ripped off and was selling for less.
Some of the cars they sell for the Chinese market are hilarious copies of European cars. Not that funny if you’re the designer of the original though.
But I don’t think there from the same production line, there are subtle differences
Instagram reels. I despise them so much I found a way to hide them from my feed (via computer).
Last but not least, AI portraits (see attached sample). Most egregious are ones that try to pass them off as actual photos. I block accounts that post and support AI portraits so they won't show up on my IG Explore or Suggested posts.
I am fed up with those reels too. Those fake models can carry them into Room 101.
I have an article about social media that will be published tomorrow, which includes the reels issue.
I also hate reels. I hate TikTok because it is mostly short video segments.
I basically just don't ever want to see a short video clip of anything, ever. I actually have an attention span and a brain. If you are going to show me something, then really show it to me in all of its depth and detail. If you make a 5 to 45 minute video about something I am interested in, I will watch it all. If you make a 20 second video about something I am interested in, I will just ignore it.
I should say that I also hate "shorts" on YouTube, and I hate that YouTube is pushing the shorts so hard.
The most asinine business idea ever is if you see a business being successful with something, to copy it. What a brainless m.o. for a business, to just copy others who have had success. How pathetic! Do what you do, and do it well. Let them do what they do. Copying TikTok is a freaking asinine thing for Instagram and YouTube to do. Their executives are shallow-minded fools.
Yeah, I don't even visit TikTok.
For YouTube Shorts, I installed the extension BlockTube a while back. There's an option to hide shorts. And, hide keywords in the title. So to be in the safe side, I have it hide "#shorts". With that said, I just noticed they've changed the format of the subscriptions feed. They put the shorts on a strip instead of mixing with the rest of the normal content. That was nice of them. :) Oh, well, too little to late. BlockTube stays since it has other benefits.
A camera company sells a crappy camera, and it sets them back much more than what they gained, and we will choose a different system. But- the most narcissistic company that so many photographers and creatives have a profound codependent relationship with is Adobe. CUT THE CORD! BE FREE! Oh, that's right that so much of the Educational Industrial Complex is integrated with Adobe, it's not likely to change.
Okay... I get it. Advertising is a necessary function for a business to survive. And marketing types are under all sorts of pressure to invent new ways of getting ads in your face. But the most obnoxious ones are the short video clips embedded in a website... the distracting ones with motion which always catch your eye while reading an article such as this. Fstoppers has managed to stick them in nearly every spare inch of space while still managing to show an article... in the middle of the article on a phone or sides of a desktop, along the bottom of the window, and absolute most annoying of all... the video ad in the lower right corner (above the footer ad) that keeps popping up. On a small cellphone, it blocks too much of the article and is a constant nuisance.
Looking at the Fstoppers site with a couple ads playing at once in my field of view is like watching a 3-ring circus (symbolic of total confusion for those of you in a different culture). Literally there are three ads moving at once as I write this. And if you see an ad once, you'll see it repeated a million times. As much as I love B&H, ads that track my web browsing are plain creepy. I suppose we can't throw Fstoppers in Room 101, or we wouldn't have a place to discuss issues, argue and complain, so I'll rephrase that to say I'd just throw that stupid ad in the lower right corner into Room 101. Much like my television and its relentless focus on advertising, I always feel like I'm a heartbeat away from either throwing a brick through the screen, or cancelling my membership.
Honestly, Fstoppers... don't you think this amount of advertising content (screen shot from my phone) is a bit excessive???
The last thing we need is for someone to respond to you saying that nobody forces you to view Fstoppers, and reminding you that you are not paying anything for the content here. That is so freaking old and we all know it already and do not, ever, need to be reminded of it. We have a right to complain about whatever we want to complain about.
We should praise everything that we like and complain about everything that we don't like, and we should be able to do so without anyone taking issue with our complaints.
By the way, when viewing on a real computer (not a pathetic phone), all I need to do to make the ads disappear is to slide the window over so that the right 30% of it is off the screen. Then I can read the articles here without seeing any of those money-grubbing ads in the corner of my vision. Ditto for the ads at the bottom of the screen.
Here is a screenshot to show what I mean about not seeing the ads. In the top view of my screen is the "normal" way to view Fstoppers, with the ads along the right sidebar right there in your face. In the bottom view of my screen I have moved the window over so that the ads are off the screen, and hence no longer a distraction. The owners of Fstoppers will still get their money because the system thinks ads are being seen, but we don't have to see the asinine ads. Everybody wins except for the advertisers.
Of course this doesn't work on a cell phone, but then again viewing anything on a cell phone pretty much sucks, and to get the better overall experience we should be viewing Fstoppers on our nice big hi-res monitors, anyway.
Good suggestion. Thank you, Tom.
From the standpoint of the site owners and advertisers, I suspect they could not care less about yours or my opinion. Marketing is so much a numbers driven game that if membership or revenue goes up, then so be it if a few disgruntled customers whine and complain. I think those are the difficult decisions facing any business owner. You probably can't please everyone. I have to say though that it has been a lot different situation for me running a small business. I have always, without fail, taken every single complaint seriously. If you were my customer, you'd get a personal phone call from which I'd try my best to resolve the problem. I suspect that's a lost art these days. Antagonizing anyone would cause me to lose sleep.
Why not use use adblockers; or browsers that have it built-in?
For iPhone, I use:
* Norton Ad Blocker. Seems to be only effective with Safari.
* Opera Browser which has a built-in ad blocker.
Computers:
* Any browser except Safari, uBlock Origin.
* Safari, AdGuard.
It's an interesting discussion. There's the other side to it. The ads pay for the site; if they were not there, you would have no articles. I'm not fond of sites with too many ads, but I believe in supporting those that give me valuable content by allowing their ads.
Several sites now use ad-blocker blockers and/or have a subscription model that removes the ads. That subscription also gives access to additional content and limits readers without a subscription to how many articles they can access each day. I think that's fair and I am all for it. I understand that people want content for free with no ads, but would they expect that from a quality newspaper or TV? The sites must make money somehow to pay to exist.
Some streaming services we do pay for now include advertising unless you pay even more to remove them. I would put them into room 101.
If you or I don't like something, that's our subjectivity coming into play and we are probably in a minority. We don't own the sites we visit or read for free, so we don't have a say in what is allowed and what isn't. If you don't like something, then nobody forces you to read it and if one out of, say, 10,000 readers ignores an article, then it doesn't make a huge difference to the site.
If we want to just take content without paying, either by parting with cash or viewing adverts, then we must live with what the site's owners choose to deliver. If we don't like what is on the site, we can always choose something else available on the market and live with whatever they deliver.
I can't think of an alternative funding model.
I can think of a compromise: ad space restricted to the side of a desktop computer, or in the main article of a phone. As I said above, Fstoppers is the only site that I use which crams three ads into a cellphone screen. Did you see the attachment I posted above? You think that's a reasonable viewing experience?
To claim that the viewer, me, either 1.) wants something for nothing, or 2.) must endure an abusive amount of advertising, totally misses the point. Telling someone to go elsewhere is a fall-back excuse when the issue is only seen as black or white. In other words, I need to accept ads on your terms or go pound sand.
I've been watching advertisements on a television for 70 years. I understand that advertising pays for programming. However, there was a long time span where commercials fit into a reasonable amount of time and space. Something we could live with and not want to throw a hammer at a TV. But commercials have taken an increasingly significant percentage of airtime, and are one of the major reasons viewers switch or abandon a platform. Hourly advertising has increased from about 10 minutes to 20 minutes since the 1960s. Reruns of popular 70s programs have cut out parts of the program to accommodate more advertising.
And that's still not enough, as sports programming has found ingenious ways of sticking ads in your face without having to switch to a dedicated time-out commercial. Such as: Ads along the top or bottom of the screen along with scores and other annoying details. Another example: In NHL hockey, something I probably became addicted to before learning to walk, ads are superimposed on top of the side boards and on the ice. Not just static ads when some marketing genius first thought of the idea, but ones with motion. Cars pictured on sideboards going one direction, with players skating the other. Brilliant. Really brilliant. I'll be sure and buy a Toyota... if I ever recover from the headache their ads are giving me. I feel like I've tuned into one big advertising event... with a little hockey thrown in.
At the risk of being redundant... it's the motion in these Fstopers ads that's the most annoying feature. And you're a photographer who gives careful consideration to distractions in your pictures, but waves everything but the kitchen sink at me in an ad while reading your article? Think about that. Ads these days are seldomly product focused, but pretty much analogous to a bratty child screaming for attention. And who doesn't get tired of that? As an Fstoppers staff writer, you're kissing it off as a necessary evil. You sound like Adobe. You don't think excessive advertising is a big deal? You think networks aren't concerned?
"TV networks vowed to cut back on commercials. Instead, they stuffed in more" - LA Times:
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-08-02/tv-networks-vowed-to-c...
"Yes, You Are Seeing More Commercials Than Ever Before" - Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonifitzgerald/2018/12/11/yes-you-are-seein...
And... "Here’s Exactly Why Watching TV Has Gotten So Annoying" - Time:
https://time.com/96303/tv-commercials-increasing/
Okay, so I can simply take your advice and take my eyeballs somewhere else. It won't be easy though because when something like televised sports gets ingrained in your head for a lifetime, it's not so easy to stop. But taking three or four hours out of a day to watch one 60-minute game seems even more ridiculous. Or watching three ads at once on Fstoppers. Thanks to Black Z Eddie for the tip, but if you think I'm stealing content for free, Ivor, let me know and I'll quit my membership. I don't want anyone thinking of me as a thief.
My convenience and privacy concerns trumps all. I was considering whitelisting sites here and there, but, then there's data mining from the ads.
Ads are a multi-billion dollar business. Adblockers have been around for about 2 decades. Ads and their affiliates aren't going broke anytime soon. Only more greedier.
--- "If we want to just take content without paying,"
Likewise, there's the other side. By folks vising and interacting, does it not cause the sites to rank higher, and in turn higher visibility? And, in turn more visits, and mostly likely from folks without adblockers? I vaguely remember you saying to a member if they could see the stats, even though an article may not have many comments, there's generally a ton of visits/views on it.
At the end of day, I think folks who use adblockers are in the minority.
Good question. I suppose I hadn't given any thought to ad blockers since I use the internet primarily on an iMac for connecting with customer and supplier websites where ads are non-existent or minimally invasive. Even the news sites generally limit them to the main stream so you're only seeing one at a time. It's only Fstoppers for me that manages to squeeze three ads at once into a cellphone screen. I don't do Facebook, Instagram, etc., where I suspect they're overrun with ads as well, so it was only a really annoying problem with Fstoppers.
I took your advice though and installed Firefox and uBlock on my Android phone and it appears to work wonderfully. Thanks for the tip. I appreciate it.
On ads, see x with a circle? (Above the green squiggle on the bottom one.) Tap those and they go away.
Only momentarily, then they come back. And worse... if you're not careful clicking the X, you go to the ad site. That's one of the things I really dislike about mobile devices. It's so easy in the process of finger gestures to leave the page that you're viewing accidentally.
I get that. But it's better than not doing anything. For fstoppers, I don't mind occasionally clicking an ad but on other more general sites....
AI. In its entirety. OK, at least as it related to photography.
I think that those who use subject detection or masking might stand in the way, but off it goes to Room 101. (Especially those plagiarised answers that appear at the top of search engine results.)
""Tv? Why not S like everyone else, Canon?"" Only the best use Tv. Just look at Pentax...
Fair point. Pentax can accompany Canon off to Room 101.
Fake bokeh, added to so many kinds of photos from product shots to head shots. Most of it is highly unrealistically exaggerated and highly annoying.
Also, things like sky replacements. That is a cop out to consider it a true photograph (replacement in a product shot is less annoying because no one is pretending that's reality)