You Are Not a Photographer - Bad Photography Blog

You aren't logged in Register

Hahaha…

56 Comments
  1. Courtney says:

    LOVE THIS!!!!!!

       5 likes

  2. Aly says:

    I think the blocking of business names misrepresents this conversation. The OP about bad photography advice, was someone who (deservedly so) has been featured on this site, but those comments were them copy and pasting another photographers attempt to piggy back. The whole thing is weird, but it wasn’t the fauxtographer stating those things originally, they were copy and pasting someone they were pissed at comments.

    I guess it’s irrelevant since the persons who page it’s on really is a photographer but it seemed worth pointing out since:
    A) This conversation is over 2 months old.
    B) It is edited to appear that the Fauxtographer herself is trying to do a PSA about Fauxtographers, which is not the case.
    C) at the time this was posted, the pho(faux)tographer making the accusations had ZERO of her own imagines available for public viewing.

       0 likes

    • Andy says:

      Please read your own post before hitting “submit”. It makes little sense.

      They haven’t copied and pasted at all. Everything blocked out in purple is the fauxtog. They are the same person.

      What she (fauxtog 1) is saying is that another fauxtog (no 2) is also on YANAP and was on there before her.

      She is blaming fauxtog 2 for being on YANAP herself: she thinks fauxtog 2 submitted her work.

      She is saying if fauxtog 2 has done your photos then come to her to have them corrected.

      She is aware that she is on YANAP, but still sees herself as a professional and is better than fauxtog 2.

      This conversation caused a lot of confusion when she posted, people were suspecting that her account had been hacked. It just didn’t make sense.

         2 likes

      • Slight misinterpretation here says:

        Andy, you’re wrong. The purple redacts are misleading because they imply that two different people are one and the same. I don’t know these people, but since last night was kind of a slow night, I read up on the thread, did some searching, and figured out who’s who. What’s happening here is that the “plastic fantastic baby” fauxtog (let’s call her CBL) *quoted* another tog (let’s call her SJM, and I won’t judge/don’t care whether or not she’s faux) who made the “public service announcement” and “bring your horrible photos” offer.

        CBL wasn’t saying that SJM was on YANAP, nor was CBL making the “bring your horrible photos” offer. CBL was complaining that SJM (implied) had submitted CBL’s work (and at least one other area tog’s) to YANAP and then used the occasion as a marketing ploy. One difference between them — CBL called out SJM by name. I didn’t find any place where SJM referred to anyone by name.

        All is made a bit more clear from CBL’s status post, which is the starting point for the cited comments and is a complaint about SJM pointing out the YANAP entries in her “public service announcement.”

        CBL Quote:
        “Okay I just want to something out. I know there are photographers out there starting out or just open a business like me. The thing is I never bash the photographer to clients!!!! I will say that I dont think like what the photographer did in the picture. Each photographer has there own style and things they like. They grow as the do more shoots and give the clients what they want and love. What if u are bashing a picture that a cleint really loves and is their favorite picture because it was their idea and u dont like it. There is a site out the bashing other photographers. First off it very tacky to put this up on ur wall if ur a photographer yourself for one. Other its very low class to make an offer like this. Plus I am a firm believer if your not showing your work on ur page and is by word of mouth adverstisting then you might be the one hiding your bad work. I have gone to college and did take photograghy classes. Yes it was along time ago and it was when I just did it as a hobby. But the person thinks just because the pick up a camera and worked for a cheap studio in down years ago can bash other people. This is wrong.
        Please take caution of this person. And to new photographers out do your thing no matter what. If clients return to u. ur doing something right!!!”

           2 likes

      • tahrey says:

        But… wait… they haven’t blanked out the profile pics to the left of the names.

        Which are the same for each line that is the same colour.

        Ergo the names crossed out in magenta ARE all the same person. QED.

        The dot after their name, followed by something else crossed out (that *should* have been done in another colour…) shows that they’re posting it to someone else’s wall, a group, or otherwise tagging it, doesn’t it? (Or, posting from a particular location?)

           1 likes

      • mmj says:

        I believe the dot after the name, plus some further redacted text, shows that they are “sharing”/”forwaring” a post originally by someone else.

        It’s fairly confusing to begin with, but redacting all the names makes it even harder to follow.

        Summary: the first two posts (in pink) are quotes she has posted from somebody else. The third and the last post (both also in pink) is by fauxtog herself complaining about the person whose she had quoted above.

           0 likes

  3. meeshybee says:

    Let me guess… they’ve been operating in Amarillo for 4 months.

       4 likes

  4. ik says:

    Aw snap

       0 likes

  5. Ed says:

    Now you make me curious – where can I find her work on this site now ?

       1 likes

    • Andy says:

      That was the plastic fantastic baby one. It was taken off YANAP I believe, but remains on their website.

         1 likes

      • Carrie says:

        Yeah, it was the “Plastic Baby” that was on here a few months ago. The mom got so upset because she thought everyone was making fun of her baby. She clearly wasn’t able to comprehend that it was the fauxtog people were talking about and not the kid. Considering the fact that she loved the pictures, does that really surprise anyone?

           8 likes

  6. Fauxtogorapher: If you work is on this site you suck.
    Facebook Friend: But your work is on there.
    Fauxtogorapher: I know, isn’t it horrible that people would do that to innocent photographers?

    Me: ROFL

       41 likes

  7. H says:

    Bring me your horrible photos, and I will replace them with more horrible photos lol
    ” I would be mortified if my work was on there” ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ……………….
    funniest thing EVER!

       10 likes

  8. Jake says:

    You are NOT a fauxtographer unless you are charge professional prices for unprofessional work!

    The author of this site should really post what these people are charging along with their awful photos.

    I mean if someone is only charging $500 for a wedding what would you expect the outcome to be???

    The problem(fauxtographers) is when they charge $3-10,000 for work that is worth $500 or less!!!!!

       0 likes

    • Rob says:

      Shooting shit photos and charging people for them just because you bought a Canon Rebel at Best Buy and “all my friends love my photos” makes you a fauxtog. Doesn’t matter if your’e charging $30 or $30k.

         36 likes

      • Jenn says:

        THIS. I fall into the “own a Canon Rebel + my friends like my photos” camp (and I personally think my work is better than stuff that winds up here, but maybe I’m not qualified to make that call), but I have actually turned down people who have asked me to shoot their weddings because I simply do NOT have that kind of experience. I recognize that it’s beyond my level; I have upset some budget-hunting friends this way, but I would feel worse if I couldn’t do their wedding day justice. They have turned around and hired other fauxtog friends and their photos are HORRENDOUS. Only so much I can do. ;) I will do engagement shoots for friends, but I’ve never charged and I figure if I butcher it, they have time to seek someone else.

           29 likes

      • Hobbyist says:

        Can I get a AMEN?!

           7 likes

      • AMEN TO THAT!
        The moment you charge you set certain LEGAL expectations like being able to do the work contracted and being able to do it to a certain level of quality. Failure to do so results in lawsuits.

        The other side of this is that these idiots charging 500$ to shoot a wedding (or similar) are destroying the market. Even if they end up going bankrupt, the damage is already done. People see 500$ for a wedding and then look at my price (2000$) and think I’m gouging, not that the fauxtog is shooting at a loss. The perceived value of the service drops making it harder for us to charge sustainable prices.

           14 likes

      • CanonUser says:

        I own a Rebel too and my photos aren’t bad. People also say they like my work too. Have also had prints sold and been published with using my Rebel. *shrug* perhaps I just know what I am doing with my gear?

           4 likes

      • ROFLcopter says:

        Here’s the deal. I shoot with a used 2005 D50. Local photographers that are legit are telling me in another year I’ll be at their level. It’s not the camera…its not where you buy it. It’s how far you can go with Talent, effort, humility and respect for the art. Can’t stress Talent, enough. Like they say, anyone can pick up a camera and take a photo. It takes a talented person to remain off YANAP. It takes a hard working person to become a real photographer. If you love it, and remain humble, and work hard you will find your style, your own ‘voice’ in your work and will excel. You get out what you put in. If your reputation is only worth the pricetag of a DSLR from walmart and 5mins learning to use picnic for editing…your reputation is now as cheap as your investment.

           2 likes

  9. Bob says:

    Jake,

    You are completely missing the point. Ignoring the fact that “only” $500 is a ton of money to most people, it’s not about the price-vs.-results. It’s about the results, period.

    The client expects a photographer to do a certain job – at the core, it is to produce acceptable photographs of a person/life event/etc. When the photos are so bad that they fail even that basic test, then it doesn’t matter how low the price was, or what the price was relative to other options. You can’t go back in time, and you can’t replace those lost moments.

    Fauxtographers lie to people. That is why they are bad. It is not about the price.

       7 likes

  10. tara says:

    Someone link the pic!

       3 likes

  11. Slight misinterpretation here says:

    Now I understand. The “plastic fantastic baby” fauxtog is *not* the one who promised “do-over shoots.” That offer came from a different tog in the area. The PFB fauxtog is quoting the other one and complaining about it. You can find them both (and the PFB, which is truly a train wreck) by googling text from the facebook post — the misspelled text makes it especially easy. It looks like PFB fauxtog’s client base consists of her friends and relatives… so the other tog probably didn’t fare too well from the “do-overs” offer either.

       0 likes

  12. Robin says:

    I found her Facebook by putting part of her comment into Google. After some side splitting laughter at the rest of that thread, I looked at her web site and it’s just sad. She charges $10.81 for a session with the disk. And all of her work is just awful. Terrible photos made worse by horrible editing!

       0 likes

  13. Pelham says:

    BAHAHAHAAAAAAA….suckah! Please please PLEASE someone find a linky for the pic!

       0 likes

      • tahrey says:

        What the hell is going on with the colours in that pic? It looks like it was shot using a late 90s webcam, or it’s been run through a buggy “reduce to 16 colours” filter then smoothed back to truecolour.

        Are they both using Paintshop Pro, and also the one person in the world who thinks the “Equalise Histogram” function produces results that are good for anything other than forensic analysis of security footage?

        Or is it a botched attempt at HDR when a normal dynamic range would have been perfectly fine?

        (That’s pic 1 … pic 2, terrible blurring – if it’s any kind of decent modern camera, either there was a LOT of movement, or the exposure time was somewhere north of 1/10th sec, as proper lens/sensor shift optical stabiliser mechanisms can compensate for at least 1/15th sec’s worth of typical shaking, and the digital side picks up the slack for a fraction more and any blurred movement. It looks very smooth though – are they sacrificing shutter speed for reduced ISO grain, even though the opposite tradeoff would look far better? The kid’s old enough to not be too badly startled by flashes, too, especially if introduced gently. Pic 3, similar to 1 but with less over-adjustment of the level and far too much faux-soft-focus. Dial back the vaseline a bit, there, champ… The pretend-HDR really makes the eyes look scary and unnatural, too. Pic 4 almost works, but goes a bit the other way (eyes now look dull) and for some reason the focus has been pulled to accentuate the cushions, not the kid – open up the aperture, focus it properly, and we could have some nice depth of field effects, but not like this. Pic 5 is better all round, but still washes out and basically looks like a parent’s snapshot of their kid lying on an overly elaborate play-mat. Pic 6 would actually be nice if the levels, once again, weren’t all over the place – specifically, almost everything dialled into the midrange with a sudden spike into oversaturated white on the hand and headband. What in the world is going on in their camera / photo software / raw -> whatever processing, assuming they’re using raw in the first place?)

        Poor little Kylie. Hopefully she gets some better photos done elsewhere before she grows up too quickly.

        I wonder why some of the albums are titled in normal case, and others in all caps? And do the parents realise their tots are having their photos then put up in public catalogues like this?

           0 likes

      • tahrey says:

        However, this album is a lot better. Maybe they’re improving as a photographer as they go? Really that’s something they should have got through with years of practice before going pro.

        There’s still one bad pic there, and one questionable one, plus way too much use of dutch angles throughout, but the results overall are much nicer. Closer to actual professional portraiture than opportunist snapshots then processed to within an inch of their life in cheap software.

        (BTW, I’m not ripping on PSP – I use it myself, and you can get some nice results. But it’s very easy to produce very poor output as well if you don’t know what you’re doing – and, crucially, haven’t practiced with it for at least a few weeks before doing anything important, trying out all the functions and seeing what the various adjustments do…)

        http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.365938833455282.82587.269910313058135&type=3

           0 likes

    • It’s in the conversation, click my link

         1 likes

  14. Click my link, it’s the original conversation

       2 likes

  15. JD says:

    Look up Tru Likeness Photography on facebook. and prepare to vomit in your mouth. LOL

       4 likes

    • Andy says:

      Doesn’t appear to exist?

         1 likes

    • Andy says:

      OK, I found it. OH MY GOD!!!!!

      Well at least their cut and paste jobs are neat and tidy……but still god damn awful and tasteless……..

         1 likes

      • Mike says:

        Can’t find it …. well no images show up….. off to look again

           1 likes

      • Mike says:

        okay got it — follow the link off FB to the external site……. oh dear God…..

           1 likes

      • Mark says:

        Wow….just visited the external site. Just looking through the pricing page shows so many grammatical errors that I fear venturing forth into the actual photo page……

           2 likes

    • Chris says:

      They charge $3.50 a mile for travel???!!!!

      They crazy.

         0 likes

  16. spike says:

    Wow. I just checked the link to see the work that got this person featured on this site. I have an EOS, 3 lenses and a cheap-ass tripod and I guarantee I could do better than that. The only thing stopping me from becoming one of those faux-pros myself is 1) my day-job pays better per hour and 2) I don’t particularly care to spend my time going to weddings, birthdays and christenings of total strangers to earn what would, after post-processing and all, amount to less than minimum wage.

    So I put it to you guys. COULD it be that sites like this that showcase shitty work actually ENCOURAGE people who lack talent to try to compete with professionals?

       4 likes

  17. Mike says:

    I hope that people who have their work show cased here will actually learn something. Unfortunately most of the time their ego gets in the way and they refuse to learn. I know somebody who had their work on here and he was given great constructive criticism but he refused to see this and EVERYBODY was wrong but he was the only one that was right. In those cases they will never learn which is sad….

       1 likes

  18. Ann says:

    I like…don’t even get this? I understood it for a while, and then…huh?

    So she agrees that the site is for bad pictures and feels that every picture on it is terrible. … Except one? Hers? Because someone’s vindictive and is getting back at her or something…and… Why would YANAP have posted it if it weren’t bad? Oh good lord, forget this. I’m trying to apply logic to something utterly illogical and mental, I know. I’m still trying to get the hang of the internet, obviously. :-D

    And if hers really is that baby picture posted above, I advise all of her potential clients to FLEE.

       1 likes

    • Jema says:

      No, she’s quoting something that someone else posted, referencing HER pics here . . . in other words, someone offered to do-over pictures that the original fauxtog (featured on this site) had taken. She quoted it ,then played martyr over it.

         0 likes

  19. Wsroadrunner says:

    Even her cover photo is horrible. LOL This fauxtog should be a regular in the Hall of Shame.

       3 likes

  20. Wsroadrunner says:

    45 minute session for $10.81 – LMAO. It’s true.. ya get what ya pay for.

       3 likes

  21. Wsroadrunner says:

    She says on her fb page that “All shoots for July to September are $20″… I smell future laughs and groans for us… LOL

       4 likes

  22. Heather says:

    Honestly who cares about two Fauxtogs fighting it out? I just thought it was great seeing the comment on the bottom when she found out her work was on there.. Oh.. she’s just being mean. Really? She’s just being mean? Well if your work sucks that’s not just being mean it’s exposing you for the Fauxtog you are. And we all know sometimes the truth can hurt right? :P

       2 likes

  23. jc says:

    This one seems to have been found on the cutting room floor then posted.
    It’s no where near focused
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342546522461180&set=a.342546325794533.78393.269910313058135&type=3&permPage=1

       1 likes

  24. Saphron says:

    OMG…she’s only charging $15 for senior photo shoots! WHY??????

       0 likes

  25. michelle says:

    Well it didn’t bother the mom too much because she just asked her on the page to do her kids pics again!

       0 likes

    • Jenny says:

      They’re likely friends. That’s usually how fauxtogs make a living…by convincing their friends to do photoshoots and giving them “friend” discounts. My friend’s daughter did a photoshoot with a local fauxtog for $200 because they thought it was a good deal for 1 hour session. The pictures look terrible and she could’ve had a professional shoot for that money. But they were convinced that they were given a discount and a good deal…

         0 likes

  26. Sarah says:

    Her brother does tattoos… =| (for the record, I’m not trying to rip on people starting out taking pictures as I understand that we all have to start somewhere, but this ad made me throw up a little…) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=290681171008206&set=a.272615446148112.63297.260529927356664&type=1&theater

       0 likes

  27. Jenny says:

    One of the fauxtogs in my town talks about this website all the time but does EVERYTHING this site makes fun of fauxtogs for. Odd cropping, aquamarine eyes, blurry faces to hide wrinkles, creepy poses…

    If I learned one thing, it’s that fauxtogs are very delusional and can’t see how much they suck at what they do.

       0 likes

  28. Pacific says:

    If you look at here Facebook page, her photos are just awful. I can take better photos with my iPhone using Instagram filters.

       0 likes

Would you like to login? Get an Account!