Barbie & Ken

Who put Barbie and Ken in the microwave!? Sometimes life as plastic is not so fantastic…

← Previous post

Next post →


  1. This is quite obviously a halloween costume, and I see nowhere on it that it was taken by a “pro.” Why is it on this site??

    • the “watermark” is on the pool. I had to look hard to find it but it is there! It is on here because it sucks.

    • The watermark is blacked out on the lower left corner….

    • Amy Baits

      I can’t tell if you’re being serious or sarcastic. There’s a blacked out watermark in the bottom left hand corner. I almost didn’t see it.

    • Heather

      Yes there is a watermark on it. It makes no difference as to it being a Halloween costume or not.. the lighting is completely off, the composition is horrid, the saturation is off the charts, and the failed high def look made them look like they were plastic. I’d say this picture is right where it belongs.

      • I see it now.

        However the caption is just making fun of the people…not the photography.

      • BurninBiomass

        The post processing is making the people look plastic. It is the photography.

      • Kristian

        It isn’t good but I’ve seen a lot worse to go on this site. I agree that this person shouldn’t be running a fashion shoot for Vogue and even though it sucks, there are many more that suck much more.

      • The point of this site is to make fun of the photography, not the subjects isn’t it? Or has the site admin just completely gone off script at this point and is selling it even farther down the river.

    • Not gonna lie…I would never have guessed it was a Halloween costume. I see people who look like this all the time when I’m down the street. The sad thing is, they think their brown/orange thicker-than-mud tans are attractive. D:

  2. Nice thigh dimpling

  3. What color is the guy’s shirt?

    Is it white turned gray? Why does it have white edges?
    Clearly the exposure was hosed.

  4. This is event photography. Even photography is often done with a flash on top of a camera (especially outside, no bouncing), and part of event photography like this is to capture basically every guest who was there, which often means a lot of shots just like this. This is exactly the kind of shot you’d expect from this kind of thing. There might be an opportunity to compose some more interesting shots, but this one looks like it was simply a shot making a record of a guest. You’d have to look at the entire package of photos from this event to decide if there is some real “fauxtography” going on here.

    • I was thinking the same thing. It’s a snapshot at an event. The post-processing is pretty bad, but one of the problems with event photography is that sometimes the only shot you get of one particular guest or occurrence will be poorly lit, poorly exposed (shooter error) or poorly composed. You do what you can, including if at all possible keeping it out of your own professional portfolio. I kind of wonder how some of these photos are discovered by this site, and if they all come from individuals’ photo-sharing accounts, member submitted (which I and others seem to doubt) or just randomly found on Google image searches.

    • So wait … I called Jackd out a couple of weeks ago for not recognizing event photography and now he’s riding on my train. What an idiot.

  5. Kristian

    This site’s getting dangerously close to ending up on

  6. See, the problem here is that now people actually think this is “decent photography”.
    This is atrocious to say the least. It doesn’t matter if it is “even photography or not… it still sucks. The editing is god awful (way too much “clarity filter” or “high pass”, horrible ambient light, terrible use of flash)

    The problem is that we now see so much substandard photography from so many “pros” that people eat it. They think this garbage is acceptable. I wouldn’t let the photographer pay me to have this photo if I were the client.

    Where do any of you find this acceptable?

    • EDIT : It doesn’t matter if this is “EVENT photography or not” (that’s not an excuse.)

      • We are left to assume that this photo was even paid for or that there was a client. This could be an image on an amateur’s online gallery for all we know. There’s no law that states that only “pros” use watermarks. Nobody is defending this as a good photo. What we are all beginning to wonder is whether this site is truly making fun of talentless hacks ripping off the public with subpar photography OR just the site admin taking cheap digs at anybody who has the audacity to post their photos (for better or worse) on the internet.

      • If the person went to the trouble to use the filters like high pass or clarity and obviously oversaturated it to this level, he or she is obviously trying to make it look “good”. Now, whether or not that is for a client, sure, is up for debate. It is still a terrible attempt at editing and exposure. It still holds as a fine example of bad phtography and editing and is good for the public to see. This way, they can make informed decisions when they do decide to get a pro.

        The site is called “You are not a photographer”. Not “You are not a professional photographer”. I can almost guarantee you that this was editied so painstakingly because it was a bad exposure and it was the only available photo of the couple. And whats the point of watermarking your photos if you aren’t trying to be “pro”? I don’t even watermark my stuff and I make money at it.

  7. I discovered this site a few weeks back and it’s been enlightening. I find I finally have to break down and comment starting with this pic. It’s obviously “event” and a quick shot with no thought whatsoever put into it using on-camera flash (not necessarily bad but can look bad as evident in this shot). I know what happened to this poor photographer when he/she got home. He/she discovered it was just lit up like a searchlight on the couple and tried to save it. His white shirt is dodged to dark grey, her face looks a little dodged too and he/she tried as hard as possible to even out the exposure and failed miserably. There were so many options of what to do with this shot and of course the best was to expose it properly in the first place, second was to junk it and third, though it probably looked pretty bad straight from the camera, it likely looked better than this. Thems the breaks when you shoot event…either know what you’re doing or end up trying to save junk and likely making it look worse.

    • Scrappycrow

      Actually, this is not a “couple,” as she just got married to another guy in the last week. The guy is a photog at the event who handed his rig off to someone else to take this shot. The processing is all on him, but I know I often “dumb down” my camera’s settings/flash if I hand it off to someone else, and you never know how well they’ll compose the shot.

  8. I would not use this photo to represent the type of work I do. Even on the level of event, this is too much post processing.

  9. Did this event take place on the sun?? geeezzz…

  10. How the heck did the dude make the chick blue and the guy look like he’s literally made of bronze. Wow.

Leave a Reply