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

[fstopper89]

I think you’re right- I just compared the photo to my 5DII and there are a few slight differences. I haven’t really been up close and personal to a MkIII yet. And you’re probably right about the lens too, my larger Sigma lens has a hood in that shape. She must have multiple cameras she’s shooting with. This image looks like it was taken with a wide-angle lens also due to the slight distortion. Also notice, she tagged another photographer on the camera itself that the little girl is holding, so maybe that camera is borrowed from her photographer friend? Who knows. As long as she’s improving I would not consider her a fauxtog, but I did not like my cousin’s wedding photos from a few years ago, for the most part, from a technical standpoint. She had some decent ones but EVERY image was at a severe dutch angle and her white balance was just too orange. A handful were not in very sharp focus. Here is their album: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.285450474807845.76508.197009860318574&type=3  I was not in attendance at the wedding, if I were, I probably would have noticed a lot of things like her equipment or how she was posing people that would have driven me nuts, lol. It was weird though, they also were tagged in more wedding photos that were done by another pro photog alongside this KA Photography. I think KA might have hired on another as a 2nd shooter, but that other one had their own images uploaded with their own watermark, and I can’t seem to find them anymore. Their images were much better. I thought it was strange that the 2nd shooter had much better work than the primary shooter.

I’ve looked at her more recent work and she seems to have vastly improved, at least with her studio work… looks like the majority are babies/kids. I didn’t look through all her albums but a few of them are so-so while a few are pretty good.