• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Why do photography review sites have such bad photographers?

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
14,080
Likes
6,469
Location
Seattle Area
#1
This is something that has been bugging me for a while. Almost all the sample shots on photography sites are at best beginner level. I mean check this out from the review of Canon's later lens: the 50 F2.0 on dpreview: https://www.dpreview.com/samples/01...tm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source



Really? This is his idea of abstract? Even technically it sucks with the background so in focus when the purpose of this lens is to blur the background. Here are some more awful shots:



The heck is this? Landscape? This dull? So a girl is laying down in an otherwise boring and cluttered scene and it makes for a good picture???



What on earth is this disaster? With flower shots like this, most of the time you want the foreground in focus, not the other way around. Even if this was shot that way, it is an uninteresting subject.



That's it? Two bikes on the left? You want those on the right so that the eye can travel in their direction.

I believe dpreview is local to us. There is so much beauty around us and this is the only landscape the guy found?

I bet he was really proud of this shot:





You just have to shake your head.



Wow, a fire hydrant. Better run and submit this to a photo competition. I am sure it will win.



That's the ticket.....

How about more boring and technically poor fern shots?



He is by the beach and this is all he could muster?



He must have a thing for fire hydrants:



As if those weren't so bad, he posts this:




Honestly? This is what you use a 50mm F2.0 for? And what a disaster the foreground is. What on earth made him think this moment and sight was worth preserving?

Mind you, there are a few that are OK but 90% is this kind of horrible imagery. Why won't they give the lens to someone, just about anyone, who can make better use of it than this guy?

How did these guys rise to be the premier photo site and not have someone who knows how to take pictures?

If I were the canon marketing person who gave them this lens, I would not have shown up for work the next day!
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
2,500
Likes
941
Location
Australia
#4
The "That is wonderful/excellent, junior", generation??
 

derp1n

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
276
Likes
208
#5
Most photography is terrible. Those aren't any better or worse than the millions of utterly boring bird photos taken by middle aged males with thousands of dollars worth of camera gear.

As long as the sample corpus is suitable for judging the behavior of the device, I don't see why the samples need to be aesthetically appealing.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
14,080
Likes
6,469
Location
Seattle Area
#7
As long as the sample corpus is suitable for judging the behavior of the device, I don't see why the samples need to be aesthetically appealing.
They need to be because companies loan them equipment as to create sales. Even to your point, no way can you distinguish these shots from a cheap camera on a phone. This is a $2,200 lens for heaven's sake.

How can you tell edge sharpness, contrast, color, resolution, etc. from any of the shots I posted?
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
5,376
Likes
1,340
Location
Riverview, Fl
#8

derp1n

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2018
Messages
276
Likes
208
#9
Even to your point, no way can you distinguish these shots from a cheap camera on a phone.
It is super obvious, even from the majorly downscaled image, that this:

was not taken on a phone camera.
 

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
4,079
Likes
2,273
#10
I agree if anything the quality of such things has dropped in the last decade. While of no higher quality, I could forgive them if they used amateurish shots like these:

1537508558344.png


1537508590666.png


1537508615570.png


1537508649949.png
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
14,080
Likes
6,469
Location
Seattle Area
#11
It is super obvious, even from the majorly downscaled image, that this:

was not taken on a phone camera.
I could easily replicate that on a phone.

Here is a grab shot using my phone from Banf, Canada:
Banff 20170930_173318-EFFECTS.jpg
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
5,376
Likes
1,340
Location
Riverview, Fl
#12
Last edited:

restorer-john

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
678
Likes
643
Location
Gold Coast, Quuensland, Australia
#14
The heck is this? Landscape? This dull? So a girl is laying down in an otherwise boring and cluttered scene and it makes for a good picture???
I think she might be a body and it's a police photo?
 

restorer-john

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
678
Likes
643
Location
Gold Coast, Quuensland, Australia
#15
I agree with Amir, the photos are so boring and crap, they turn me off wanting new gear. I know they must get bored too, and have probably photographed everything they can find within a 50 mile radius, but they sure have been getting lazier as the years go by.

I liked it when they'd photograph spice bazaars, markets, cars on streets, botanical gardens and random street encounters with old homeless men sporting age-wrinkled faces. Much more interesting than a body on a beach and a fire hydrant.
 

maxxevv

Active Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2018
Messages
196
Likes
45
#17
Point to note is that DP Review has been accused of being biased against Canon in the past.
Whether that does say anything is another matter.
However, in my opinion, looking at all the pictures, it was poor censorship rather than poor pictures.
I think the portrait picts made great samples for highlighting the capabilities of the lens.
They should have cut out those poorly composed ones instead.

Its a lot like when I go take photos at events. Usually it would be between 300~700 shots for say a half day sports event.

But usually, the "keepers" that I show people amount to less than 20%. The editor should have culled more of the less than stellar shots.
As with all things, 'more isn't always better'.
 

NorthSky

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
4,761
Likes
353
Location
Canada West Coast/Vancouver Island/Victoria area
#18
Amir, your shot from your phone @ Banff is very nice, much better than that link on your first post of this thread. The photographer doesn't have the "eye" of an artist; his subjects are extremely boring, out of focus, mediocre @ the bottom of depression.

I don't know the exact reason why you find photography review sites like this online, on the Internet, my best guess is because of poor education. I just don't really know.

Bad films, bad music @ least is to make money. Bad photography to make money?
...Beer, wine, news, cars, houses, furniture, vacuum cleaners, watches, jewelry, whiskey, ...

Some pharmaceutical companies make bad drugs to make money.
Some companies from all sectors make bad products to make money.

I just don't know why some bad films make over a billion dollars in selling tickets and some other good films make less than ten millions. ...Something to do with the audiences? ...With education?
 
Last edited:

solderdude

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2018
Messages
323
Likes
373
Location
The Neverlands
#19
IMO The blur in front and rear is intentional to evaluate the Bokeh in front and back of the focal point ?
I don't think the pictures are intended to show of their photography skills etc. but rather show that what cannot be put in numbers.
 
Last edited:

Soniclife

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Apr 13, 2017
Messages
586
Likes
199
Location
UK
#20
How can you tell edge sharpness, contrast, color, resolution, etc. from any of the shots I posted?
Hopefully the review has technical measurements that show real answers to those questions.

The real world examples are meant to show how a lens renders, these are mainly odd examples of how not to use that type of lens admittedly, but some of them show how the DOF and bokeh render, which is largely all I would look at their pics for.

If I did that job I would not be putting up work I was proud of, as the internet will savage it every time, and you would be giving away your good pictures.

If you want to look at lovely pics done with some kit find a brand ambassador for the company and see what they have done with it, the problem with this is those chosen photographers are chosen because they can make anything look good, so limited use when trying to decide if something is worth the money.
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom