August 29, 2013 at 1:51 pm #12417cameraclickerParticipant
Don’t know how they would feel about sending your dad work, and ending up here. Their top wedding package is $1200 and a lot of the skin on their page is over smoothed. I can’t tell if you feel ISO 1600 was too high or too low for conditions, or if their gear could handle it. Their web page suggests to me that they are fairly new.
Through the ’80s and ’90s telephone systems were being switched over from analogue gear to digital switching systems and a lot of peripheral functions were handled by personal computers. I worked with lots of older field techs who understood basic telephony really well but had trouble with the personal computers. Many were within a few years of retirement and had never used a PC. Anything I asked them to do with the phone system would be done instantly. For anything I asked them to do with the PC, they needed me to walk them through each step.
I think some older photographers might find themselves in similar circumstances. They can set up the studio or assess the room they have to shoot in. They can make their camera perform without thinking about it, even the digital ones. When it comes to downloading the cards and editing in photoshop, they would rather send it out or use a darkroom. I would still expect those folks to have nearly perfect poses, focus and exposure, for nearly every shot. I just wouldn’t expect them to be happy with editing — though I know a lot of older guys (me included) who are delighted that everything has gone digital and completely embrace the technology. I don’t miss winding out half a roll of film so I can change ISO, at all!August 29, 2013 at 3:43 pm #12421SarahParticipant
Defiantly too high. There is so much noise. It looks like their aperture on the lenses they used did not go wider than f/4. I dont think they have the right equipment for indoor weddings. You may be right they probably are new because they don’t seem to understand lighting either.August 29, 2013 at 4:13 pm #12422emfParticipant
The really low POV and tilt make it look like the photographer just fell over! And who is that random woman on the porch?August 29, 2013 at 5:25 pm #12425
EMF, if they didn’t shoot from that angle, how would they ever show off the beauty of those chins?August 29, 2013 at 5:25 pm #12427
Saw this person advertising on the local buy/sell page today. Dear lord! I also happen to know one of the families that’s featured all over her front page. I’m saddened that they went to this person! I mean, the name tells it all about how ghetto their photography really is.August 29, 2013 at 5:30 pm #12428
as if this photo wasn’t bad enough all around, she had to go all selective color on it: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=508595322504563&set=a.508546649176097.118379.314384191925678&type=1&theaterAugust 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm #12441cameraclickerParticipant
Anyone care to hazard an opinion about which pair of eyes are worse?
I can’t get past her right eye!August 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm #12442
That’s the family I know, and they are such a sweet family! I took photos for the kids of another family whose kids participated in an activity with one of those kids. I am sure the mom saw the photos I took.
Here’s another one. All their photos have fake blurred backgrounds, many where they smudged the blur into part of the person’s clothing or body.https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=364717033658520&set=a.364716380325252.1073741847.335369863259904&type=1&theaterAugust 29, 2013 at 7:34 pm #12443
Ok this one deserves to be on the front page!
What IS going on here?August 29, 2013 at 10:47 pm #12445
Yikes, I am seriously biting my tongue about saying “What the &%#@?” on these photos! https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=349738148489742&set=pb.335369863259904.-2207520000.1377828515.&type=3&theaterAugust 30, 2013 at 2:31 am #12446
so is it a sandstorm, thunderstorm/sharknado going on in the background?August 30, 2013 at 5:21 am #12447emfParticipant
I just feel sorry for that cute little girl who’s been struck by the lightening bolt!August 30, 2013 at 5:40 am #12448Worst Case ScenarioParticipant
Damn! That shot of the baby with the giant baseball is so good, I was gonna steal it and claim it as my own……… but they’ve gone and slapped a watermark all across it : (August 30, 2013 at 8:45 am #12449PMSParticipant
Some scarey budior shots that are over edited and not at all flattering. For only $280 she can give you “THE BEST SELF CONFIDENCE BOOSTER AROUND!! :D”. Yeah ok.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=162304367252446&set=pb.110821369067413.-2207520000.1377866108.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash4%2F308045_162304367252446_1341371891_n.jpg&size=718%2C960August 30, 2013 at 9:04 am #12450PMSParticipant
Here’s a disturbing editing job done by a Fauxtog in my area. Not sure what they were going for here….devil, apocalypse, burning cemetery?
soldier gets beat by his wife with a mallet. Awful bloody effects
Clown Blush, yellow chest. Funky pose on chair https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=390119937740238&set=pb.314689828616583.-2207520000.1377867428.&type=3&theater
Wrinkled black backdrop, and jaundiced toddler https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=390023564416542&set=pb.314689828616583.-2207520000.1377867428.&type=3&theater
Rainbow redhead is out of focus here… https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=342569655828600&set=pb.314689828616583.-2207520000.1377867598.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-ash4%2F291379_342569655828600_1090153161_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a-mia.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash4%2F481946_342569655828600_1090153161_n.jpg&size=1366%2C2048
So many on this guy’s page I’m not even sure why people let him take their photo. His about says “We take your beauty and merge it with world’s. Why use a backdrop when you have everything that is around you!” And one of his statuses says “Win a pinup shoot based on the photo. With hair/make up and modeling coach a $250 package.” Really? You have got to be kidding me….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.