You Are Not a Photographer - Bad Photography Blog

You aren't logged in Register

Air Brush Bump

Yikes…

28 Comments
  1. Arne says:

    Well, ive seen ALT worse on this site tho. I like the background and the colors.
    But the model retouching is not good at all. But again ive seen ALOT worse!

       3 likes

    • TR says:

      Why defend stuff like this? This could have been taken by anyone with a decent point-and-shoot and basic Photoshop skills.

         10 likes

      • Kyrin says:

        What talent are you talking about? To post this you need to have some kind of debilitating eye disease.

           7 likes

  2. JohnLF says:

    Meh

       1 likes

  3. Gina says:

    It’s the tutu that gets me.

       6 likes

  4. Annoyed says:

    This had so much potential. Beautiful setting, beautiful subject, horrid execution and editing. I hope this was taken by her neighbor who just does this as a hobby.

       7 likes

    • Deb says:

      You forgot “horrid pose”.

         1 likes

      • Annoyed says:

        Deb, even the pose isn’t all THAT bad. I mean, the foot part, yeah, that’s bad. But, the arms behind her head create a longer line and, it IS a maternity shoot, so the focus is DEFINITELY on the belly. Not something I would do because it’s just not a “natural” looking pose for a mom-to-be, but it’s not TOO TOO bad, ya know?

           5 likes

  5. i think more people need to post their website so we can see the contradictor’s work, cause some of the sites that are posted by people talking crap is just as bad if not worse!

       12 likes

    • Pelham says:

      Sure, but I don’t shoot boudoir/weddings/maternity/infants, which comprise the bulk of submissions here. I shoot a helluva lot of other stuff, though. I have ribboned on DPC, also write critiques for DPC, and have work up for sale on Alamy. Anyone else here able to make those claims?

         2 likes

      • Deb says:

        Boudoir/weddings/maternity/infants are all the rage, haven’t you heard?

        Photographers sacrifice their creative souls for those areas which happen to make them some money. Very few actually enjoy it, however.

        I haven’t met a photographer who hates capturing images of animals just yet…

           1 likes

      • TollToll says:

        I hate working with animals. I’d rather deal with nature (weather) or people.

           1 likes

      • someone says:

        I’m sorry but you sir are a total douche bag

           0 likes

      • Pelham says:

        Deb, every fauxog thinks that they can shoot all of those genres and sadly they have a vast audience to choose from. I have yet to see fauxtogs target areas like sporting events, stock, food, animals, wildlife, product, etc. There’s a whole other world out there beyond those that cater to people’s vanity.

           1 likes

    • charlene772 says:

      THANK YOU. SO TRUE!!!!

         0 likes

    • Pelham says:

      Just as a final note to this mini-thread. I’ll try to not rant too much.

      Last time I checked, every one of us is exposed to at least 7000 images a day. A day! Most of it in the form of advertising in all its myriad forms, though obviously not just ads. And most of those images include photos. Ever flipped through a magazine? Seen a calendar, postcard or greeting card (though of course those are often heavily Photoshopped, usually to the point of PhotoChop.)? A movie poster? Billboards? Newspaper? Those annoying flash images on every second website? The key images aren’t pulled out of thin air. Someone created them.

      Pros don’t limit themselves to shooting JUST weddings/boudoir/infant/maternity – which could be possible, perhaps, if you’re in a huge market like NYC, London, Paris, Rome, LA. I know a fashion photog who regularly shoots for Vogue, he’s based in Paris. But for most pros, versatility is the key. Hey, one of my images has been published in a school textbook, and when I was submitting microstock, an online cooking magazine repeatedly bought my food images.

      And if you shoot quality work and it gets seen, you can get steady work, but you sure as hell better be able to deliver the goods. No reputable advertising agency I ever worked for would even dream of hiring less than the very best photographer than the budget could allow. So that alone knocks a good 98% of all wannabe photogs out of the ring, and onto craiglist and similar local freebie sites.

         2 likes

    • Al says:

      I fully agree with you, hence my post in the forums about the “put up or shut up” idea.
      @Pelham.. where’s the linky mate?

         1 likes

  6. Lisa says:

    Okay. First, I am not a pro… I am somewhere between fauxtog and pro, but since I don’t actually charge people for doing anything, know what aperture, shutter speed and ISO are and how they work together to create a proper exposure, know how to run off camera flash, etc.

    Maybe I can’t see this large enough or they did some kind of gaussian blur on this – but to me it looks out of focus (and I guess if someone doesn’t nail focus perfectly but gets it close, gaussian blur can make it look intentional). It also looks like it was lit by flash on camera, either pop-up or a flash on camera. The bulk of the flash is hitting a bit lower than I would like, too, not illuminating her face as well as her middle. The pose is awkward and not graceful at all. It could be that the subject is someone who is a bit silly and this fits her personality, then it would be kind of okay, though I would have at least positioned her outstretched leg a bit differently (i.e., bringing the foot back to the other leg instead of stuck out that way). Maybe they thought it looked kind of like she was doing some weird water ballet or something.

    Bad? Not as bad as zombie baby, but this could have been so much nicer.

       5 likes

  7. az_121490 says:

    This is one fine example of a decent photo ruined by too much post-processing.

       2 likes

    • Laura Beth says:

      And they probably don’t even have the original anymore, and couldn’t fix it if they wanted to.

         0 likes

  8. james beyer says:

    Im pretty sure he has the noise reduction slider in LR set to the max.

       0 likes

  9. Eye_Spy says:

    It looks like someone took it out of focus and tried to hide it with a bunch of photoshop.

       0 likes

  10. RealWedTog says:

    This is an example of a photo with a lot of potential, but the photographer didn’t get it in focus in camera. It should have been immediately deleted in post production. Instead, the fauxtographer decided to try to fix the unfixable in Photoshop by trying to make the blur intentional. Guess what? If its not in focus, it’s not a keeper. Delete, move on, get it right in camera next time.

       3 likes

  11. Gal with a Camera says:

    Hey, an airbrushed baby bump is better than a close -up of one with huge veigns poking out. Lol that one was one of the worst I’ve seen on here. O-o
    Now THIS one… it’s not terrible, but its still bad. Once again, the focus isn’t on anything… and that pose seems weird for a pregnant lady. LOL

       2 likes

  12. Gal with a Camera says:

    OMG OMG the top of her skirt is see-through!!!!!! o.O

       1 likes

  13. There is nothing about this photo that says “not that bad”, or “I’ve seen worse”
    Holy crap! It’s horrible in every way! What’s wrong with you people?! I realize that the bar is slipping lower and lower every time a new faux is born, but….. No! The comments here have really shocked me, and I’m sitting here just shaking my head in disbelief.

       2 likes

  14. Deb says:

    Belly button relieving itself. Check.
    Painted-on bikini top. Check.
    Dumb, awkward pose. Check.
    Blur to comfort woman insecure about her face and body. Check.

       1 likes

  15. LookingGlass says:

    It’s just blurry beyond usable. The image should have been deleted once previewed on a monitor. Then again, if this was a shoot and burn, it would explain a lot.

       0 likes

Would you like to login? Get an Account!