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

[kbee]

There are a lot of posts here that I don’t particularly agree with. I can see what the contributor is pointing out when they post something, but I might personally find it aesthetically pleasing. I’ve seen some real cruelty here and on FB – meaning nothing constructive – but the majority of this thread is useful for enthusiasts like me. A big hairy list of “what not to do”s. Feelings will get hurt, definitely. That’s what happens when someone is passionate about something. However, there’s a problem when someone is passionate but artistically lacking; what it does to the industry as a whole is another story.

I wish I could contribute the photos of the wife of a friend of mine, but I think she removed them. She was faux to the max. She actually took quite decent photos, but then defiled them in post by pasting crappy Curlz font in neon green over the top with inane phrases like “Baby love”, clip art and more. Photographers are not always graphic designers. (I’m working from the other end, with a B in Graphic Design moving into Photography.)

On a side note: the litmus test I apply to whether or not I think a photog is good is this: “Would I take these photos and file them away in an album, or place in a frame and hang on my wall? Will it stand the test of time or will I look back in 10 years and wonder WTF all that terrible white vignetting, neon text, spot coloring, insane blurring and unrealistic eye coloring is all about?” Because if I pay, I want something that stands the test of time. This is what photogs are for; snapping a shot in time to preserve memory. Many fauxtogs above, I would be surprised to see their work up on a wall in someone’s den somewhere.