Reply To: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page…

[nesgran]

Re the other Roxanne, she isn’t bad I think but rather a bit meh. I certainly wouldn’t hire her for a wedding since she mostly does contrived poses is awful light. Hiring a wedding photographer the photos need to scream “I am bloody good” whereas hers scream “I’m trying but I’m not quite sure what I’m doing”

I do think she managed pretty well with some of the after party shots and the fish eye suited the atmosphere, for a few shots at least before the novelty wears off. I don’t quite understand the B &W alternations though. It doesn’t look vastly oversaturated but I think she is desperately trying to make up for really uninteresting light and it all falls flat. One thing to consider: I’m assuming a number of us are sitting on wide gamut monitors and if you aren’t using a colour managed browser like firefox or opera, colours will often look very saturated.

It is a bit odd though. I actually bothered going to all the trouble of registering at the knot after writing the first half of this post to see her portfolio there. That blows her FB shots out of the water by a wide margin. They actually look good but it is hard to see all of them properly as they are a very mixed variety of sizes. I wonder if she is a mediocre tog that occasionally gets a good shot or whether she is a good tog that doesn’t have any concept of selecting good shots to stick up on facebook. The ones in her portfolio and farther back have interesting off camera lighting, good ambient light, interesting poses etc whereas the recent stuff she’s posted I could have had my local butcher do as well. It is all very weird.