Cut Out Couple

When you don’t have a nice backdrop to work with you can always just cut your subjects out and not use any background at all!

← Previous post

Next post →


  1. NicCole

    What do you mean? Look at all of the light on the couple. Clearly there’s just a black hole behind them.

  2. …And use a houselamp for lighting… Oh, and definitely make sure you put a terrible watermark over it so everyone knows it was you that fauxtographed this trainwreck.

  3. It bothers me more that they misused “there”…..I HATE THAT.

    • I was thinking the EXACT same thing. If you’re going to be a professional anything, you need to learn basic grammar concepts.

      • Maybe they used it the way they know how to. Like the Beverly Hillbilly’s cement pond. “That there cement pond is where them there kids swim”. or “That there photo session can be seen there.” πŸ˜‰

    • I believe it might be a typo instead of poor grammar – perhaps it was meant as “their session”, or am I just naΓ―ve?

      • That seems to be exactly what happened. Which is both poor grammar and a typo, the misspelling makes it grammatically incorrect.

        Same thing as a your/you’re mix up…
        its REALLY annoying and bothers me more too @MDS op

  4. You cropped out the logo but left the telephone number. Brilliant way to protect the anonymity of wannabe photographer being mocked!

  5. Jack Henderson

    I think I have more of an issue with the lighting than the backdrop or lack of one.

    • Agreed. Im guessing it was taken in the living room of someones house. They haven’t even bothered to colour correct it let alone set up the lights in the correct manner.

      • Uhm I’m thinking that that would be light, singular.

        Good lord, invest in a decent flash (hello…depending on which brand you shoot, Canon 380s and 430s, Nikon SB-800s, SB-900s can all be had used for approx $350) and a mini-wide dumb slave (approx $40, new) or two. Use your on-camera flash (powered waaaaaayyyy down) to trigger them. Eh wala, decent lighting on a budget.

        Also might want to buy, read, and actually f***ing understand a basic book on lighting from the nearest library or bookstore. (I’m over 40, so thus still believe in the power of the hardcopy πŸ™‚ Then go practice. And practice some more. Pretend all those cheesy, dumbass freeware pp programs don’t even exist – they’re not there to save your ass.

        Next…invest in a backdrop! But that’s for another time πŸ™‚

      • how do you set up your living room light correctly? πŸ˜‰

      • darragh

        people on this website like Pelham crack me up..

        no-one cares if you can get information on flashes from Google..

        people who get self-satisfaction from dropping their infinite knowledge of photography is nearly as funny as the photos on this site..

      • Particularly….know-it-all’s who can’t bother to know how to spell
        “voila!” not “wala” lmbo…

  6. Yes, the photo is terrible. I’m more annoyed with the spelling of the photographer. Spelling seems to have gone out the window these days. For me, if someone considers him or herself a “professional” something like basic spelling and grammar should be covered.

  7. someponyelse

    Um…and that’s their phone number on the image? WHY!?

  8. Hmm, Seems the photo set has been removed.

    Although, I love how the fauxtogs name was removed, but their phone number was left in…

    Gotta love Google!

  9. Timothy

    Entry Level DSLR with kit lens: $599.00
    Clamp on lights from Home Depot: $24.95
    Cheap editing software: $29.95
    Inability to compose, white balance, properly expose and focus: Priceless

  10. Not only is the light bad, it seems to be on the soft side as well. I’m surprised they didn’t try to turn it black and white and save it.

  11. LOL@ “clamp on lights from Home Depot!!!!!” Hilarious!!!!

  12. This portrait is insulting. I hate it when these fauxgraphers throw their watermark over the middle of their portrait, fully thinking that their work is really something special; even when they don’t even know how to set up a three point lighting set-up.

    • Matt E.

      If you thought this watermark was bad, you should see the one this very same fauxtographer used on a composite of several shots from “there session.” Just imagine, if you will, the same ugly watermark multiple times covering the entire image.

  13. Is the focus completely off, or is it motion blur?

    I could get sharper image with my old P&S. -_-‘

    • Of course you can get a sharper image with your point and shoot, that’s the point of them. They focus FOR you. And no, it’s not clear, but I don’t think it is ‘motion blur’. Either OOF or maybe a diffuser, which is why the cut out looks even starker.

      • yea i know, it looks awful. Sharp cut and dull picture i can’t get my eyes on it more than 3 seconds without having a strange feel.

  14. You really think this was taken with a DSLR? This looks like an image off a early generation cellphone cam or webcam.

  15. Oh my, they need to see a doctor right away, they are both jaundice!!!

  16. Yes, the lack of background is sad and the photo is yellow, but I’m actually going to give props for this not being a horrible cut-out. I’d imagine most fauxtographers would do a far worse job on it–the hair being the tricky bit. Although their hair is contained nicely, so that probably made it easier.

  17. Come on, folks! It was very kind of the fauxtog to use one of those mosquito repellent light bulbs to protect this couple from insect bites…. πŸ™‚

  18. At least get the colour balance right even if the lamp is too warm! So you have a DSLR but you haven’t checked your settings. Looks like it’s straight out of a phone cam.

Leave a Reply