Home › Forums › Am I a Fauxtog? › .. Fauxtog of the worst kind.
- This topic has 35 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by stef.
November 14, 2012 at 8:16 pm #4571
My $1300 camera and $1100 lens put together cannot take pictures like that either.
It takes someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing to click the button.
No one was making fun of your family, they were just making fun of the photographer who apparently doesn’t know at all how to use any settings on their camera correctly to take a good photo.November 14, 2012 at 9:29 pm #4572
I would REALLY like to know WHO the original poster is. A lot if drama was started over this and is unnecessary.. Why try and start something between people who have know each other for years? I have no problem with Allison and this post had me thinking (wrongly) that she had a problem with me and that upsets me.November 14, 2012 at 9:49 pm #4573
.. if you do not like her, or my pictures, thats one thing, I am wanting to know where the proof is she attacked other photographers. I have not seen proof of that, and I let it get into my head it may be true.. please message me if you do not feel you can post hereNovember 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm #4575glowatskiParticipant
hey …brown one……DRAMA is what you like????? No one said anyone was making fun of my family???? I dont know why you are making fun of someone who just loves taking photos???? She is an awesome, super nice person who loves doing what she loves doing!! I love supporting people who are just starting out!!!!!!! Did you start out pro?????? or what do you do??? Would you please send me your professional photography website? I would love to look at your photos and prices. Im actually looking for someone for the summer!! Hope to hear from you soon!! email@example.comNovember 14, 2012 at 11:16 pm #4577
The point is, a camera does not ever take a picture. It’s the person behind it- their experience, expertise, knowledge of functions of the camera, use of lighting, ability to focus, ability to compose a shot, ability to properly post-process, etc. I certainly did not start out pro because that’s impossible. But I didn’t market myself as a photographer for hire, until I had some experience, college credits, and actual field experience in photography and knew my work was worth it. Assuming from what you said being the family in those photos, I saw the same family when perusing Megan Ray’s page. It is evident she has much more knowledge about photography as a whole than the other photographer.November 14, 2012 at 11:30 pm #4578
I have more experience ..the thing is the person who started this thread accused someone of offering cheaper services and trying to steal clients and I don’t think she’s ever done that.. And its important to note, she did not submit her OWN link so she didn’t ask for her images to be critiqued.November 15, 2012 at 5:53 am #4580soaringturkeysParticipant
well… my first ever shoot ended up making a person become the face of NZ fashion week. So if you look at it objectively, I started out pro 😛
i kid i kid. (jokes NZ slang)November 15, 2012 at 6:47 am #4583sask13Participant
So once again… Maybe those who want to bash her photos and her clients should really just grow up and move on cause the only one who needs more experience with anything are those peoplto who think they are above others enough to start critzing them behind there back! it shows you need to try and feel better about yourself … Go to the gym or volunteer or actually do something worth feeling good about instead!
drop the issue and be a respectful adult. If you must continue putting others down then do it to yourself! Your the only ones I see who have some issues needing to be fixed!November 15, 2012 at 8:34 pm #4605
@glowatski — I think you might have been addressing my comment about stuff jumping into the frame, so I will respond.
I really don’t care who you hire to take photos and I was not commenting on your tastes. However, it is the photographer’s responsibility to look around the viewfinder to see what is in the picture besides the subject. At one time or another we all take photos with either foreground or background junk, sometimes both, that we wish was not there. You might be amazed at how often EXIT signs appear while doing event photography! When that happens to us (while not shooting reportage, you are not allowed to edit stuff into or out of a news shot) we can employ editing software to fix our mistake. If I was paying for, or being paid for, a photo, I would expect it to be free of obvious errors. If it was something I shot on vacation and I just put it on my personal page for my mother to see, I might have different standards.
As far as using a $100 camera from Walmart, yes, it can take good, interesting photos, but for a lot of what we shoot, it is a pain to use so most of us use cameras that are slightly more expensive. Please check out this show:
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/chase-jarvis-lego-camera/NDAxNjI3Mg_A_ANovember 16, 2012 at 12:04 pm #4618
@meganray — Ali may not have asked for a critique but her photo was linked in this thread and it appears from the discussion that she is charging for her time and expertise. If she is taking them and providing them for free, a different standard may be applied.
@sask13 — It seems anyone can call themselves a professional photographer and start charging for their services. It amazes me what some are charging for, and it amazes me even more that they are actually getting paid. Are they able to charge for enough work that they can make a living doing it?
@glowatski — I had some time this morning and instead of watching TV, I edited Ali’s photo. The original is on the left and what I think it should have looked like is on the right: Compare these.
If you like the edited version, you can pick up a copy here.November 16, 2012 at 4:14 pm #4622lincolnphotoParticipant
Any commissioned or non-commissioned photograph taken is the work of that person who also owns the copyright to that photo. Did you get written permission of the photographer whose picture you edited before you did it? If not I suggest you brush up on your copyright laws!!November 16, 2012 at 5:28 pm #4623
@lincolnphoto — I am guessing you are American?
The US act states:
§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use 40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords
or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism,
comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to
be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a
commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted
work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if
such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Since there is not much for sale on this page, and certainly no one is offering that image for sale here; and, since this whole thread is news/educational in nature; and, since this thread has already been noted for containing criticism, it seems to me that the fair use doctrine applies. As such, I don’t need the copyright holder’s permission.November 16, 2012 at 8:37 pm #4628lincolnphotoParticipant
If you would have taken the time to research this more thoroughly you would have noticed that the photo you edited (without permission)is from Canada which means your previous info is not applicable.. This photo is protected under copyright laws! Furthermore this forum was meant for discussions, not taking others work and changing it to your liking…November 16, 2012 at 11:07 pm #4629
The Canadian version was just overhauled, and right after that the Supreme Court issued a number of verdicts which apparently broadened it further. According to the heading, this is accurate to Oct. 31, 2012:
29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
(a) the source; and
(b) if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –November 16, 2012 at 11:29 pm #4631
I think Cameraclicker was doing it more as a joke.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.