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

[alexandra]

So the other day, my sister brought home proofs from her school photo session. They weren’t terrible, but the background they used surprised me a bit. It was one of those “hand-painted, scenic backdrops”, and yes, the way it was painted (combined with depth of field and proximity of the subjects to that background), you could see the paint splotches, and it looked like they just posed the students in front of some mediocre painting produced in one of the art classes. So I took it to their website. From their other work, you can tell they seem to have other, more typical backdrops they’ve previously used, but that’s not the point. They do seem to use a single-light setup for most of their studio work, creating very flat-looking photos, but their wedding photography is much worse in my opinion. Weird framing, flash for just about everything, not to mention the photo they used for the banner at the top of their website is not even in focus…

http://reflectionsfp.com/

The way they made their gallery, you can’t link to their photos individually, but some of my favourites are:
The baby’s head photoshopped into a yellow rose in the “portraits” section
Anything found in “Samantha and Jerry’s Album” (after clicking the “wedding photo galleries” section)
The black and white photo from “Engagement photos” that just looks like a creepshot taken with flash of an unsuspecting couple in the woods