Worst African cactus photo

I found this very cool looking cactus at Home Depot the other day. Supposedly these guys are from Africa. For whatever reasons, knowing that it was from Africa while not buying it fully knowing that it was from Africa felt like discrimination. I know it isn't, but I bought them, so that I will not specifically feel like a racist, which I am not.

At any rate, I thought that I would be able to take a horrible pictures with them, and that I was right about. It looks terrible.

Pentax K-7

DA 35mm macro

1/2500 @ f/5

0 ev

ISO 800

RAW

Worst Audi TT roadster photo

I am thinking about selling this car. I am not sure if I can push myself to do that. I love this car. I will be quite content if I can drive this car for the rest of my life. I just don't need a faster car, nicer car, or a cuter car. I just need another one of these.

My goddam smog test wouldn't pass. This is because the check engine light comes on after 100 miles of resetting it. The registration is past due. I am going on vacation. The penalty for being late is close to $400.

I don't care. I love this car. Maybe I will set it on fire. I don't know what to do . . .

Pentax K 20D

Pentax DA 40/2.8 ltd

1/160 @ f/3.5

0 ev

ISO 200

RAW

Somewhat terrible cat photo

Cat is a horrible subject if you want to take lame pictures. Especially the elderly cats are terrible. They move very little, still look cute, and they show no reactions to being photographed. So, no matter who points the camera at them, they all come out pretty well. This is certainly a dilemma for high end photographers, because lesser photographers can come pretty close to professional quality when shooting cats.

In the hands of the worst photographer, along with Pentax equipments, even cats can be presented in rather a boring and mundane manner.

Pentax k-7

D FA 100 mm f/2.8 macro WR

1/250 @ f/3.5

-0.3 ev

ISO 200

RAW

Worst naming of the plant - horse tail

The first time I saw this plant I like it very much because they looked just like bamboo, yet seemed more fragile than bamboo, which is the sturdiest son of a bitch in the plant kingdom.

I am not sure why they call it a horse tail.

It does sound stupid, and wait until I learn where the name came from; I will look stupid then.

They are pretty lame as an photo object though. They sort of just stand there.

Gee, do something, for crying out loud!! Don't just stand there.

Pentax k-7

D FA 100/2.8 macro WR

1/100 @ f/2.8

-0.7 ev

ISO 800

RAW

Faces of death - part 1

I am not into displaying the dead as a trophy. When I say "dead," that includes animals (including us humans), plants, and insects. I don't think that they are meant to be snuffed out so that we can stare at the aftermath.

This thing was left by the previous owner of the house. I thought about throwing it away; but then I felt kind of sorry. So I kept it.

I just sort of look at it everyday, thinking that I ought to be like that pretty soon too. Life isn't as great as it is advertised to be.

Pentax k-7

Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50/1.4 ZK

1/100 @ f/2.8

-0.3 ev

ISO 800

RAW

-0.7 ev

Worst Guinness picture

Arthur Guinness, the founder of Guinness brewery, was probably not a dumb guy.

Nearly 20 years ago when I was in Ireland for the first time I had the pleasure of visiting the Guinness brewery in Dublin. There, I learned that the founder Arthur Guinness signed a lease of 8000 years for a whole block worth of property in the center of Dublin for I forgot how much. Probably something like 10 quids per year, or something ridiculous like that.

I wish I had his insights. My pictures would look much better.

Guinness - my favorite beer by very very far.

Pentax K-7

DA 35/2.8 ltd

1/80 @ f/2.8

-1.7 ev

ISO 200

RAW

This has to be the absolute worst

I rest my case. This is just horrible. I am not even sure if I can call it a picture.

Flowers at night - part 1

As long as you can tell what it is, then I suppose it can well be a whole lot worse than this.

Pentax K-7

FA 50/1.4

1/40 @ f/1.4

0 ev

ISO 800

RAW

Post processing

Or, retouching, as others would call it.

Obviously, the question is that if it is aesthetically acceptable to do such a thing. Some might argue that photography really lost something when the word "photoshop" became a verb.

I do it, but not to the extent of needing a photoshop. I use a software called Aperture by Apple inc, not so much to retouch it, but to organize them in a way that is cohesive and also easy to look up on a whim.

I don't know what the right thing is. I am not sure if I need to know the answer to that in order to take horrible pictures. The more you ask, the more rhetorical the question gets. Who knows, this may well be that one situation where ignorance is a bliss.

You might say that this picture is very badly and heavily processed, and yes it was. Very amateurish.

Pentax K-7

DA 15 ltd

1/30 @ f/4.0

-1.0 ev

ISO 400

RAW

Noise

The thing is that I wanted to take as much pictures as I can around my house. In a way, I wanted to exhaust things that I can shoot at, so that when I venture out of the comfort domain, ordinary things would appear somewhat different.

I have been stuck on bees lately. For ISO of 800, the background noise is to me acceptable. Many Pentax owners complained about the noise level in high ISO. I don't mind it, but then again that may be because I am such a bad photographer . . . .

Pentax K-7

D FA 100mm macro WR

1/750 @ f/11

0 ev

ISO 800

RAW

Heading back to Japan

My family and I are heading back to Japan next month for a couple of weeks. There are many many opportunity to shoot terrible pictures like this everywhere. I can't hardly wait.

Pentax K-7

FA 31mm ltd

1/160 @ f/2.8

0 ev

ISO 100

RAW

This is not how the fisheye lens should be used . . .

I own a fish eye lens that is very old. I am not quite sure how old it is, but probably close to 30 years.

Pentax-Takumar lenses are from the olden days of Pentax. There are still people who exclusively shoot with Takumar lens. Takumar was the name of the brother of the founder of Pentax (one of, anyway. Way too many "of's). They are so old that it is a screw mount, unlike the modern lenses.

One of the cool things about Pentax camera in general is that all of the nearly all of the old lenses that are out there are still compatible. With Nikon and Canon, you may not have that luxury. In fact, that may well be the only reason I shoot Pentax. I have a feeling that the lenses I own I will be able to use 30 years from now.

Here, this picture was shot with old Takumar 17mm fish eye. They call it a pancake lens, as it is very thin. No matter how thin and how cool this lens is, this is not how it ought to be used. My kid will not be very happy looking at this picture 10 years from now.

Pentax K-7

Pentax Takumar 17mm fish eye

1/800 at f/3.4

0 ev

ISO 800

RAW

Worst focusing job ever

At Pentax Forum, one of the biggest wish lists for the next camera is the faster auto focusing. That was also a part of the wish list for the last model flagship model (K-7) when it came out. Compared to the previous models, the AF function was much better, but many Pentax shooters were still not content.

I have said this before, but I am not a fan of auto focusing. Yes, there are certain situations where AF can come in very handy. But, not all of the photographic epiphany requires AF. In fact, most of the situation I encounter do not require AF.

I wanted to prove that out of focus pictures can look nice. So I went out and shot a picture where not one thing is in focus. There is not an object in there that is in focus. As a consequence, the picture is horrible.

Maybe I should auto focus.

Pentax K-7

FA 31mm ltd

1/10 at f/1.8

-0.3 ev

ISO 200

RAW

Worst Journalistic photo ever

Now that I can move on . . . . .

Here is an example of how journalism digressed to sensationalism. The picture is terrible in that it does not tell a true story (ha ha), it takes the whole concept of religion out of context, makes a mockery out of "sharing and giving," and most importantly, it is inappropriately well focused for the theme.

Pentax K-7

DA 35 ltd macro

1/3200 @ f/3.2

-0.7 ev

ISO 400

RAW

12 steps to the worst photograph ever - part 12 - Story telling

Story Telling refers to the image’s ability to evoke imagination. One beautiful thing about art is that each viewer might collect his own message or read her own story in an image.

Thank God that I am finally at the end of this stupid ordeal.

I should never have taken up this BS to begin with. Who give a lick about 12 steps? Anything that requires 12 steps, like AA, should not work. I should have known that.

I do want to say one last thing in regards to the paragraph above. If every single observer got a different impression from a work every time, then I say that piece of work (shit) has failed miserably; of course unless if the primary intent was to invoke different reaction every time (highly unlikely. Yeah right). Art is not an excuse for inability to get the message across. In fact, that should be the last thing an artist/photographer wants; a work that can not make a point.

This last statement goes a very long way in showing that these PPA folks just don't get it. Very truly and tragically sad, in my opinion. My God.

I do agree though that telling a story should probably be the primary function, or purpose of photography. But, then again, the word "story telling" really ought to be well defined, and I don't think it is a good idea to agree and move on just because the concept just "sounds good." The thing is that yes it does sound good to say that a photograph tells a far reaching tale. Sure.

But, I ask you. What about a picture which tells just a half of the story, not in entirety, and leaves the other half to the imagination of a reader? In hands of awesome photographers, this can well be compelling.

I think it is extremely difficult to tell a poignant story in one shot anyway. I am not sure if one wants to. If the story is worth telling, then you may cheapen it by trying to put it all in one picture.

This picture actually does tell a story, but technically speaking, it really stinks. It is not even focused correctly. But, this is by far not the worst picture I have taken. On the other hand, this picture demonstrate how awful a picture can be, even if it is telling a story.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if you have a story to tell, the technique probably does not matter as much. The attention is drawn to the story, not the technical aspect of the picture. If a critique involves lots of technical terms, this can only be one of two things; one is that the reviewer has no idea how to look at a photograph, or that the picture has absolutely no story to offer.

There is nothing wrong with having no story to tell.

There are no rules.

Finally, I can get on without this 12 step nonsense . . . . . . . . .

Pentax K-7

FA 50/1.4

1/60 @ f/2

-1.0 ev

ISO 100

RAW

12 steps to the worst photograph ever - part 11 - Technique

Technique is the approach used to create the image. Printing, lighting, posing, capture, presentation media, and more are part of the technique applied to an image.

2 more of this nonsense to go.

I am not sure if technique is an approach. I am starting to think that it is the choice of words that I have problems with. Just not thoughtful enough, the selection is. After all, it may not well be all that surprising, as these people are photographers, meaning that they cannot either 1) draw or 2) describe well with words 3) or both. Anyhow, I suppose you can call it an approach. But to me, an approach to something other than literal final destination is that this is more or less a general attitude sort of things. To me technique is a set of skills that have been established by those who have been designated as authority (yes and often times self-appointed, I know) in the genre of interest. They are lucky bastards who get to set the rules.

Techniques do involve small details and things tangible as well as intangible, that can and cannot be taught. Whatever the hell it is, yes it can be evaluated objectively because often times there are "guidelines" that streamlines the process. But, then again (my favorite saying), these so-called guidelines are very sketchy. If everybody followed a guideline, then would all pictures look the same?

Again, I am not sure if it is important. Especially in photography, accidents are just waiting to happen. All you have to do sometimes is just to push that button. Any dumb ass can accidentally take a picture that is technically perfect these days with AF and SR and APS-C and FF and SDM and all that.

Maybe that is why this is at the end of the list . . . . .

Here, I have a picture that strive for technical excellence and failed miserably.

Pentax K-7

Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm/f1.4

1/250 @ f/2.2

-0.7 ev

ISO 400

Raw

12 steps to the worst photograph ever - part 10 - Color Balance

Color Balance supplies harmony to an image. An image in which the tones work together, effectively supporting the image, can enhance its emotional appeal. Color balance is not always harmonious and can be used to evoke diverse feelings for effect.

I wonder why we see in colors. If Darwin was correct, I suppose that is because it offers us survival advantages. If you are color blind, your chance of running through a red light can well be higher than average, effectively raising your chances of spectacularly dying in a head-on collision smack in the middle of an intersection. There may well be bright red blood; a lot of it, everywhere, pulsating and shooting out of your body. Cars can catch fire and spew out intensely orange flames. Often times antifreeze liquid spills out on the ground, ad bright green may compliment the intense lack of balance created by red and orange. But, the horror or the crash may not need any colors to enhance it. Those who stood at the sidewalk will not remember the intense orange of the flames, but how you got ejected out of the front window shield, like a rag doll, then almost in slow motion reached the ground face down, then a bounce or two. The audience didn't colors, really.

I am sure one can come up with compelling situation where color enhancement is what makes the picture. But, that would be a particularly a sad affair.

"Oh, that is pretty. Look at all the colors@#$!"

Then, that is about it. It is just another tool, kind of like a plug-in for a software. Balanced or not, it just doesn't play that much of a role in much of anything.

The only noticeable thing about this particular picture is the presence of many pretty colors.

Pentax K10D

DA* 50-135mm SDM

1/180 @ f/2.8

0 ev

ISO 200

RAW