You Are Not a Photographer - Bad Photography Blog

You aren't logged in Register

Back Alley Baby Head

You can ask him for courage, but he’s just going to tell you that you’ve had it all along… And ask you to change his diaper…

40 Comments
  1. Edu says:

    wat ?

       2 likes

  2. Ipshwitz Ipshwitz says:

    Again, not sure if this is considered fauxtography. No watermark, no claim that it’s a professional. It could just have been mom playing with some new program or online editor.

       3 likes

    • Andrea says:

      the “watermark” is under mom’s chin

         11 likes

    • Tilda says:

      I don’t realy see what watermark has to do with being “pro”. I personaly know quite a few people who watermark their personal snapshots posted online without ever claiming them to be anything else. There are two very simple reasons – reposting and stealing. While you (and I in fact as well) may not believe that someone might steal this particular piece of high art “there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” There was for example a fad among teenage girls some time ago to create blogs about “their” kids full of photos found on the net.
      Please do not misunderstand me, I by no means doubt the pictures on this site come from alleged professionals, I just don’t understand the recurring comments about watermarks.

         1 likes

  3. The “posterize” filter taken to a whole ‘nother level. Wow

       2 likes

  4. Steve says:

    Eeek.. threw my screen out of whack with that one.. eeek

       1 likes

  5. Cortney says:

    This looks like a bad 80s video…with a really crappy song.

       12 likes

  6. weatherlover1 says:

    Yeah…

       0 likes

  7. Deb says:

    This photo does have a watermark, but I’m not sure if some of the people on this site who keep complaining about who is really a “fauxtographer” (just because the submission may not have an obvious watermark) realize that many fauxtographers DON’T realize the importance of watermarks, or why they are needed, and have a tendency to forgo them altogether. This does not mean the photo was not found on a photography page or website. If you doubt the authenticity, you don’t need to frequent this website, or add your two cents in the comments. There is no need to ruin the fun for the rest of us.

       14 likes

    • jackd says:

      Then provide some proof that the photo was being used in a professional manner. Screen cap from a facebook “photography” page, or the actually photographer’s website, or something. There are some photos that clearly appear to be nothing more than a snapshot, with no obvious editing, and no watermark or evidence that it was found on a photography website.

         3 likes

      • captainron says:

        Read what Deb wrote again, slowly.

           16 likes

      • jackd says:

        I read it, read what i wrote again. The whole point of calling someone a “fauxtographer” is because they’re trying to act like a pro. We don’t make fun of every tom dick and harry because they uploaded a bad photo to facebook. There simply wouldn’t be enough time to process them all, ever. Unless there is evidence they are acting like a pro, trying to call them a fauxtogropher doesn’t make any sense. So let’s get proof that they were. If there is no watermark, then something indicating they were trying to use the photo in a pro manner should be provided. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of half-wits sitting around giggling at bad photos.

        Like it or leave isn’t much of an argument. Any random web users has as much right to come around here as you do. Some people are interested in the actual concept of the site, and simply want to ensure that it stays on topic. Because if we move on from photograph provided by “fauxtographers”, then what’s really stopping the site from devolving into lolcats, and any other funny/stupid image out there?

           4 likes

      • BurninBiomass says:

        I trust that the folks who run the site are posting image from people who are claiming to be photographers.

        You prove that these are not from fauxtographers. You are suggesting that the site runners are lying, so back it up.

           3 likes

      • jackd says:

        Another enlightened argument. Most, in fact like 99.99% of these images don’t show up on a reverse google images search. So how would you like me to go about identifying where on the internet they found these?
        They are the one putting the images on here, it would behoove them to include a source or at least an indication of a source. You may also want to give en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance a read. Or perhaps
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot if it’s not too far over your head. The site administrators are the ones putting forth the claim that these people are fauxtographers and the burden of proof lies with them. Assuming they could be bothered between all the ad mongering that goes on on this site.

           2 likes

      • BurninBiomass says:

        In most places in the free WORLD, the accuser must provide proof, or STFU. You are accusing the runners of this site of lying, so prove it. You are calling them guilty with no evidence. Because its hard for you to get evidence doesn’t matter.

        Try Wiki for “burden of proof”.

        So again, if you think the site runner are not posting fauxtographers work, show us the proof, otherwise, its just speculation.

        Oh, and get Ad Blocker for cripes sake.

           1 likes

      • T says:

        LMAO Your’re asking for proof that the runners of the site do not have proof that the images are from fauxtographers? In other words: the photographers are the ones being accused of being fauxtographers in the first place, so there needs to be proof of that first, before anyone has to provide evidence that the runners of the site are lying. It’s much easier for the runners of the site to post a link (THEY have not shown evidence) than it is for the “accuser” to search daily for a month just to see if the picture is actually from a fauxtographer.

           1 likes

      • jackd says:

        Nothing like letting the clueless stand up for them. As T Said, they’ve made the first accusation. I knew you weren’t really capable of reading those links but I thought I’d at least make the effort so that no one could accuse me otherwise.

        This is more or less the entire problem with the site right here. People with that level of mental capacity trying to lord themselves over someone else, and they can’t even properly hold themselves accountable when called on it.

           1 likes

      • BurninBiomass says:

        As in a slander case, you have to prove the accused is wrong. You are the accuser here. Its pretty simple. Prove the site owners wrong, and I’ll believe you. Meanwhile, you are only guessing, while the site owners have a track record of pointing out fauxtographers.

        These fauxtographers have been found many times, and a few of them even came to the site to defend themselves (after people left them a Facebook post congratulating them on the accomplishment), and demand that their images be taken down.

           1 likes

      • iliketag says:

        Does anyone stop to think that maybe the posters of this site don’t include “proof” so that the creators of these… ahem… images isn’t lit up and harassed? Stop being a baby. If you don’t like it, leave!

           2 likes

      • jackd says:

        Burnin.. Look, I know you have trouble grasping simple concepts..but really trying and think this one through.
        The original accuser is the admin, the site. In accusing these people of being fauxtographers. No one is denying that some of the photos belong to fauxtographers, but being right once about a fauxtographer doesn’t mean every picture posted belongs to a fauxtogrpher. They’ve made the accusation, they need to back it up.

        @iliketag No one is asking for links to the site, screenshots indicating the photo is in use, as has often appeared in some photos, would be suffice.
        Either evidence of a watermark on the image, or a screenshot showing it on a facebook “photography” page or something like that. I’ve seen many images here which have that. They simply blur out the specific name of the facebook page.

           1 likes

      • BurninBiomass says:

        NO, You are accusing the website. YOU. You would get laughed out of court by accusing someone of lying, then having no evidence of such. So, show us your evidence . Since you have none you are just complaining about an issue you don’t know about. At least we got you to the point where “some” of the images are fauxtographers. You now admit there there are fauxtographers on this site, meaning that the site runners have credibility, while you have none. I’ll side with credibility.

        If you bring evidence, I will gladly agree with you.

        (sorry, posted that in the wrong spot)

           1 likes

      • PhotoDon says:

        Look in the lower left-hand corner, jackd, and you will see a watermark that’s been burned out.

           1 likes

      • jackd says:

        Burnin… I’m not even accusing the website, I’m asking for proof. See how that works? I honestly can’t believe someone can be this stupid and still function. Once again:
        Site claims a photo has come from a photographer
        Users ask for proof
        that is where we are

        We can’t prove the opposite unless we know where an image came from.
        I’ve never once said that all the images weren’t from fauxtographers. I said there are some images which are highly questionable. Some of them do come with proof, they have blurred out watermarks, or screenshots from facebook “photography” pages which indicate they’re from a fauxtographer. There are other images, like that dead dog, which have nothing. It looks like nothing more than a bad snapshot, and there is no watermark, no screenshot showing it on a fauxtographers page, nothing. A google reverse image search gives nothing, so unless they’re going to provide a link to where they got it, I could spend 100 years searching pages on the internet for it and never come across it. Once again: Just because some of the images are from fauxtogrophers doesn’t mean they all are. That is a logical fallacy (You can look that up, because I know you have no idea what that means). There are also plenty of people in these threads who also doubt the origin of some of these images. Check the dead dog comments section for a start.

        @photodon this isn’t really a discussion of this photo, it’s a discussion of the site and admin’s behaviour in general. We all know this photo comes from a fauxtogropher, but there have been more and more lately which are very questionable.

           0 likes

      • BurninBiomass says:

        Jackd

        You either believe they are all fauxtographers or you dont. If you dont, then you are accusing them of posting images that are not. That is just basic.

        You are still accusing the site of doing that, not matter how you decide to word it. If some images are highly questionable in your mind, you are accusing.

        The site has a proven track record of showing fauxtographers. Period. You have no track record with your accusation. You are making a baseless accusation, you have to prove it, like any court of law for slander.

        What you say would be proof, others like you will shoot down anyhow “Oh, the site owners just put a watermark on it, then blacked it out” or “Oh, they just put that image up on a different Facebook page and took a screenshot of it”. The only way so show “proof” for them is to give you the website, and that’s just stupid, because the fauxtographer will get the shit harassed out of them.

        So, you are left with 2 options… prove your accusations, or deal with it.

           0 likes

      • jackd says:

        A proven track record would imply there was.. you know.. proof. Once again, with photos lacking proof, they are not proven.

        Once again:
        unless the site admin is going to provide a link to where they got the photo (which would provide proof) how would you propose anyone here actually find these images?

        they are the only ones with access to where most of the images reside, except for the submitter if they were submitted. The rest of us have no way of finding them. Hence the burden of proof still lies with them. You have completely and utterly failed at logic here, and the more you keep spinning your wheels the more foolish you look.

        Plenty of reasonable people are doubting the veracity of certain images, the site is still the one making the initial accusation. Getting one right doesn’t mean they are all right. If you want to sit here playing the fool, carry on, but keep in mind the old adage, Just because you defend her on the internet doesn’t mean she is going to sleep with you.

           0 likes

      • BurninBiomass says:

        Of course it has been proven, the fauxgraphers have been on this website, proof! People HAVE found their websites and posted them here (the moderator removes them fast), proof! Meanwhile, you are still stuck with baseless accusations.

        And now you are back to trusting none of the images on this site, darn, we just moved you up to “some” before. Plus you dropped you watermark demand, and demand a link, which the runners of this site reasonably refuse to give, so the fauxtographers wont get harassed (or at least wont get harassed from something they did).

        Of course you have a way of finding them, because others have done it before. I dont know how it was done, perhaps someone else could help you there.

        I am using the same logic as the US court system. You are lodging an accusation saying the site runners are lying, so prove it. BTW, the burden of proof doesn’t revert to the accused just because its hard to get the proof… that’s another statement that would get you laughed out of court.

        How do you use other web sites?

        Checking the official US time: “Prove that it is 5 o’clock. You were right with the time yesterday, but that doesn’t meant that you will be today. I want to see the Atomic clock, and the mechanisms making it work live when I get the time.”

        Since for darn good reason the site runners will not give you the web address of the fauxtographers, you again have 2 options… prove your accusations, or deal with it.

           0 likes

      • jackd says:

        Wow.. just because A = X doesn’t mean B = X.
        Your leap of logic fails.
        In a court of law if the site stood up and said we accuse him of being a fauxtogropher, and the judge said “What is your evidence?” and the site responded “Well, we were right in a few other cases” the judge would respond “so? What is your evidence for this case”. There are plenty of times when an individual or company sues multiple parties and despite being right/winning some cases, they don’t win them all, and their other victories are irrelevant. You’re so dangerously close to an actual clue it’s scary.

        If you want to talk about a court of law it doesn’t go on, “well he’s been right before”. So once again, the site is making the initial accusation. A track record is not proof, it makes it likely, but it doesn’t make it proof. It’s the reason a poor little misled sheep like yourself (who at this point seems quite likely to be the site admin trying to defend himself, because no one who wasn’t the site admin nor someone being paid/serviced by him would spend this much time defending him) finds yourself so confused here.

        I never demanded a watermark or a link. I said images which clearly have watermarks blacked out (sometimes not even the whole mark, just part of it), or images which are screen caps of facebook sites/photographer websites, appropriately blacked out are sufficient proof. What I did say was in the case of questionable images, they should be providing those things, because they are the only ones with guaranteed access.

        It’s as simple as this:
        You incorrectly believe that them having a trackrecord of outing some fauxtographers means they are correct 100% of the time

        many other people seem to think the admin is getting lazy and posting images which may not be from actual fauxtographers.

        That’s the crux of the argument. The fact is each picture is an individual case, and past performance is no guarantee of future delivery. If the images are really from fauxtographers it should be trivial for them to post appropriate proof for each image, if they’re not, they can continue to sit here like immature children and hide behind pretend “users”. If they spent half the time posting proof as they did clueless bouncing around these comments with one logic fail after another the question would be suitably answered, and thus I can only conclude that those images are in fact not from fauxtogrophers.

           0 likes

      • BurninBiomass says:

        They have a track record, you dont , they win the argument for now (until you provide proof that they are lying). A partial past track record trumps no track record. They are demonstrably more correcter than you. :)

        Don’t order anything from Amazon BTW. They sent me my book last time, but there is no way to tell whether they will send me my book this time (I can get my money back, but I might not get the book).

        Right now in this, you are the accuser. You. Right now. Prove your point. That is the way the court system works. Back in court, you if you told the judge “well, they would have to prove x too if sued…” the judge would say “well, you are the one in front of me right now, prove your point”.

        You went from not demanding a watermark (or screen cap), to demanding a watermark (or screen cap) in the same paragraph.

        A water mark or screen cap cannot prove anything to accusers like you, so that wont help at all. A link is not going to happen, too much harassment to fauxtographers. So at this point, you can only prove they are lying, or deal with it.

           1 likes

    • Thom Thom says:

      Very true. But the contention is that the ones with watermarks are truly the ones who are proud of their…art. AND that they’re savvy enough for a watermark, but missed the target with their craft.

         2 likes

    • BurninBiomass says:

      NO, You are accusing the website. YOU. You would get laughed out of court by accusing someone of lying, then having no evidence of such. So, show us your evidence . Since you have none you are just complaining about an issue you don’t know about. At least we got you to the point where “some” of the images are fauxtographers. You now admit there there are fauxtographers on this site, meaning that the site runners have credibility, while you have none. I’ll side with credibility.

      If you bring evidence, I will gladly agree with you.

         0 likes

  8. SoniKalien says:

    This is a great lesson in “how to take three terrible photos and thrash them into utter oblivion”. :)

       7 likes

  9. Arn says:

    I puke.
    For real.

       1 likes

  10. Annoyed says:

    I wouldn’t even begin to know how to create something like this. I’m on the fence as to whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Clearly, this guy/girl has some mad photoshop skillz :-/

       0 likes

  11. PhotoDon says:

    Bad trip, man. Bad trip.

       1 likes

  12. Not a faux but a pro says:

    You people call us “fauxtographer” I call us employed and getting paid while you fools sit here all day and night every day claiming to be “real” photographers and your out there doing it honing your craft. because the “pros” have so much free time from your paying gigs to be on this site for losers to complain they aren’t getting paid because of “fauxtographer” but hey every one needs a scape goat to blame their own short comings on. This site is filled with jealous people who can’t get paid gigs so they go and search for pictures to label them “fauxtographers” so they can feel better in there hive mind circle jerking.

       2 likes

    • iliketag says:

      I think this calls for the obligatory “UMadBro?”
      There are plenty of people who make great money that have plenty of time to hang out online wherever they please and do whatever they please. I honestly think you sound like an overly defensive fool.

         3 likes

    • Thom Thom says:

      I think people with a lot of free time seem to be wealthy enough from whatever vocation they have to come watch train wrecks. Not the opposite. I never got the accusation that people with free time are lazy bums. The ones who are hustling (badly) wouldn’t have time to do so. A) work smarter not harder B) people go to power NOT vice versa.

         1 likes

  13. spike says:

    This reminds me of that trippy 3-D screen saver that came with Windows95….or perhaps one of the bad dreams I had after being around little kids all day and then playing Doom until the wee hours of the morning.

    Dammit, I don’t miss the kids, but I miss those old-skool FPS maze games.

       2 likes

  14. Hoobs says:

    I like it

       1 likes

Would you like to login? Get an Account!