Bucket O’ Lint
Posted on: November 18, 2012. 40 Comments
Nothing can compare to laying naked in a bucket of dryer lint!
This entry was posted in Fauxtography by the editor Bookmark the permalink
| 40 Comments |
|
|
|
You Are Not a Photographer - Bad Photography Blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check out
You Are Not A Graphic Designer |
|
….and a broken neck!
This is just an adult version of those awkward photos of babies lounging in buckets, baskets, bowls, etc.
damn. good looking woman. so much potential wasted with an idiot photographer that should likely stick to folding the laundry coming out of the dryer that created the lint.
Because real bubbles would have been a pain in the ass?
This could possibily be a good idea (or an idea the fauxtographer stole) but the exection is poor. The head tilted back is generally a bad idea — the model’s neck should not be as long as their face — and her hair seems to be defying gravity by going sideways. Her vacant expression also doesn’t sell the idea. She looks uncomfortable so you should too.The bucket at this angle is almost invisible so as an element it’s wasted. Worst of all is the flat dull lighting that looks like it was taken on someone’s living room floor which it probably was.
Not to mention he took the photo standing over her. This is ridiculous. Nothing about this photo would ever work.
Not to mention the zebra blanket is folded over in the top left corner….
Actually, I think it looks more like a bed. That looks like a windowsill that the bed is pushed up against & they are standing over her.
If she wanted a “sexy bubble-bath” picture… why not do did in an actual tub with actual bubbles?
She could have still kept her hair dry etc. Even a sexy up-do.
Because an actual tub with actual bubbles wouldn’t be “art”!
Yes of course… photography wouldn’t want to be considered blasé now would it? Without the rumbled Wal-Mart fleece throw blanket… it wouldn’t be as sexy. Perhaps some silky flower petals & a rubber ducky would have given it just a little extra Oomph.
Hoe’leecow! Maybe plastic flowers (or fruit or vegetables) and a real duck would be more appropriate to add to the overall (get it? overall?) theme.
Hmm sorry to disagree but I think it’s a piss-ugly rug/comforter tossed on the floor. Had it been on a bed, unless the bed was made of wood, we’d see noticeable creases in the pattern made by her sinking into the surface. Stability would be an issue too.
Ergo, it’s on a floor.
Otherwise you’re dead right, with the right attitude, a basic updo, simple lighting, real bubbles…hell this tub is easily big enough to be the bathtub in question, old school and all….she could have been sitting up, legs positoned in a more playful (and sexy) manner, tat showing too as seems to be obligatory.
Feel bad for the model. She is quite pretty apart from the tightly-clamped mouth (that means subject is thinking ‘OMFG what am I doing?!;) This could have been a killer image.
But, surprise surprise, she got a fauxtog and ended up with this. Unflattering POV and shitty-looking bubbles.
This is terrible all around. A terrible angle and they capture part of the room, which I know was not intended to be in the picture. And if it was, shame shame! Oh, and I think I see a pillow too or it may even be the sleeve of a sweatshirt because that’s what it looks like. She looks very uncomfortable, like maybe she’s thinking, “What am I doing?” Not to mention, just being in that tub with pillow stuffing all over you just can’t be comfortable.
I love how everyone is critiquing this photo….. pointing out everything wrong with it. Um, yeah this fauxtog is a lost cause if they are putting stuff like this in their portfolio.
That was initially the idea of this website, and critiquing used to be encouraged by the old owners of the page.
Ok. Then tell us what’s right about this pic. Go nuts.
Her point is not that we shouldn’t critique photographers…it’s that this one wouldn’t know a good photo if it bit him in the a–…..so why bother with all the “serious, professional opinions.”
The lighting isn’t horrible… a little uneven, but there’s some nice modeling on the face. It wasn’t shot with an on-camera flash. Using off-camera light and a pretty model were about the only things done right.
The execution was terribad.
ETA: re my above comment. Cristina, that is, not Dani.
Just because putting a baby in a basket or tub can be cute, doesn’t mean it will translate for adults.
What the hell? Who thinks of these things? My goodness! And she’s a dumbass for doing it!
Or she is getting paid.
There is nothing romantic about a yeast infection, yet someone this genius photographer would have us think otherwise. Brilliant work!
*somehow
Hahahahahaha…!
When I mouse-over ‘yeast infection’, I get a pop-up for OfferFinder, saying ‘Find the best sites for yeast infection’….!!
What have the owners of this site let themselves in for? Don’t think there’s much money to be made from throughput to THAT site.
And there was me thinking it was a fungal infection, not a virus
Because it would take SOOOOOO much work to find some REAL bubbles….. -_-
holy what the…………….???? Mid life crisis??
She looks like she’s about 25.
Mid-twenties crisis.
Did no one notice the poor photoshop job done to the thighs? Oh and just the overall picture.
The “fluff” appears to be pillow stuffing or stretched cotton and NOT lint from a clothes dryer!
A better over line or headline would have been, “Fluff,” “Fluff in a tub,” or “Fluffing it.”
The photo could have been interesting if the backdrop had been straight across the frame, and if the “photographer” had not over softened parts of the person’s body.
The lighting is soft and certainly is much better than most of the DF, the want-to-bees use.
If you look at the catch light in the eyes, the light is overhead and slightly to the left indicating it was lit with a single light or possible window light.
One of the other problems with the photo is the subject herself – her tattoos. That is distracting and detracts from the photo. Maybe the photo want-to-be needed to photograph the subject from the left, and not the right.
But, let’s be honest, it really is not a bad concept and needs to be reshot because of poor execution. This is the difference between want-to-bees and professionals is DETAIL!
SInce you feel you have to correct everyone, it should be want-to-be’s or, more appropriately, wanna-be’s. The photographer was definitely not a bee.
Yes, it’s bad. But, it does show some creativity. It’s not totally without merit – just bad in execution. I like the idea. At least there’s not a watermark and a facebook “like.”
bottom right, there’s a watermark… and this is in now way good… or creative.
I am going to admit that my first thought was “if he was too cheap to buy the adult size galvanized tub (they’re longer and they exist; you often use them on the farm to water animals) why didn’t he use something else, because that tub is too small for anyone to believe someone would voluntarily bathe in it.”
I guess that’s what happens when you own livestock and have watched the occasional western?
I’ve got a lint roller! Hey, I’m just a guy…
Actually, I don’t care much for the fake smoke or soap suds look. Popular Photography did a how to for fake smoke and it looked just that…FAKE.
Pretty sure this is a case of some guy telling the girl he met on the subway he’s a “photographer” just to get her to take her clothes off.
How out of focus her feet are is starting to bug me.
she sould actually be dead! the shiny empty look in her eyes and stiffened grin has something corpselike to it.
The fauxtographer could have at least photoshopped those tattoos out. Those are nasty.
she never had her newborn photoshoot so she wanted to catch up until going on to some serious boudoir?