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

[fstopper89]

What you own or how you operate your equipment certainly has nothing to do with me personally, but it clearly would explain WHY your photos look the way they do, and that you are pretty much duping clients. As many of us have discussed in these forums, it doesn’t always matter how expensive of equipment you have, as long as you know how to use it to produce professional results. For instance, one of my camera bodies cost around $600 new, and another cost about $2300 new (though I bought mine used for much less). I’ve gotten very similar end results between the two bodies, though the more expensive model has definite advantages over the other (superb low-light performance and the fact that it’s full-frame). If I put a good lens on either I can get an equal or near-equal end result, depending on certain factors (such as lighting situation). How you use your tools is a very important factor. You must be able to adjust the ISO, shutter speed, aperture, white balance, focal length, focus, etc. in order to get the lighting, color, depth of field, sharpness right in the photo. These also offer creative control. When you leave this all up to the camera, there is no skill of your own coming across. I don’t need to know any answer to this question, it’ll only benefit you: Do you know what these terms mean, how to change the settings, or how they affect your images?

Personally I never insulted the subjects in your photos, only your technique (or lack thereof) or the way you posed the person. I can’t think of many parents who’d actually request you pose their toddler in a planter and have him chew on leaves, but if they really thought that was cute, give ’em the photo but don’t post it in your portfolio. (Not to mention those practices aren’t really safe for a toddler, but whatever). Someone mentioned stretch marks and a happy trail in a maternity photo… in my opinion, stretch marks should be left alone since they’re a natural part of pregnancy, but maybe edited to soften the look of the skin (it can get pretty veiny when stretched like that) and if I were a very pregnant client and was, for whatever reason, unable to shave the happy trail I’d probably ask the photographer if they could minimize its appearance in editing. It’s pretty simple. Taking a photo straight-on with pop-up flash is going to only accentuate these “imperfections” in the skin. The poses are unflattering and awkward. And no one insulted the girl in the photo with the clone-stamped grass. That photo makes YOU and only you look lazy. Your location had grass, but it also had distracting things in the background (the little bit of chain-link fence). Maybe you could have shifted positions of yourself, or had your client move a little bit? And put her on the ground? And even if you wanted to clone out an object, doing it so that it appears seamless takes much more time and careful manipulation. Your clone stamping cut sloppily into her chest, and there is a black shadowy line around her body where you cloned out the bench. I’ve cloned out countless objects and no one can tell when I do it. That’s the whole point of the clone stamp tool.

cite: a verb; meaning to reference something

site: noun; meaning a location or place; short for website

sight: noun; physical sense of vision, or something seen

stocking: noun; a sock, or verb; placing objects in a place such as on shelves at a store.

stalking: verb; following and watching