February 13, 2013 at 2:30 am #6549
I “stalked” one of my local fauxtog’s pages after I heard some commentary on this FB page about a photo of “a kid taking a crap on a toilet” which I knew was hers, since it’s been linked here before. Read her comment.
The thing is, she’s upset because she claims to be “an amateur photographer with photography as a hobby” and that “these photos shared on the site were not meant to be my professional ones.” WELL DUH, you post them on your business page with your watermark… and though you say you’re an amateur, you fully advertise that you charge! I mean really?!February 13, 2013 at 7:32 am #6553
^I agree, you have a “Photography” website or Facebook page, you are spending the time to promote your business and watermark your work, and value your time and talents to the extent that you place a dollar value on it, then you should be proud enough to accept criticism of it along with the praise. You can never make anybody happy, but when a group of photographers all agree that your work is severely lacking, maybe you should re-evaluate your work and see what you can do to improve. Believe me, this is not about jealousy! I’m sure a lot of us on the site were taking crappy shots like those posted on this site when we started, but I personally never put any of these materials on a photography website and charged for them while representing to be the work of somebody who should be compensated for this work. I understudied with a professional photographer after taking classes with him and worked pro bono for a year or more just to cut my teeth with a pro. I didn’t go by Wal-Mart and pick up an entry model camera and kit lens and think I was the next Ansel Adams.February 13, 2013 at 8:10 am #6554Mrs WooMember
Well… I created a photography page that one might expect is ‘professional,’ but I created it because my profile on Facebook is not searchable and I didn’t want people who barely know me to have to friend me to see pictures of their kids playing middle school football. I would LOVE to do some photography for pay, but hubby insists I’m not healthy enough (I argue if I would get help with livestock and household chores I could focus what energy I do have on other activities – hello?). So my page is photography, but… well, I’ve never been paid and probably never will be.
I guess I should keep hanging out -sooner or later you all are bound to find it and have tons of fun laughing at me. LOL 🙂February 13, 2013 at 10:05 am #6561kbeeMember
Mrs Woo, like you, I have a photography page – nobody knows about it and it’s not made public – that I created so I don’t clutter up my personal FB page and just as a “one day…” wish should I ever want to start business. Kind of a private portfolio repository while I learn. That said, the general definition around here seems to be if you’re charging people money and yet you are seriously subpar at the craft, you are a fauxtog. Nobody has, as far as I know, called someone like you or me (amateurs or unpaid enthusiasts) a fauxtog.
beg89, I agree with you on the new fauxtog FB pages; there’s another one that’s sprung up ( https://www.facebook.com/pages/You-Call-Yourself-a-Photographer ). And while I do use YANAP and similar sites to see what’s hot and what’s not (so to speak), I agree that if photos are to be shared and critiqued, then do so and not just with a “lol look at this ew” mentality. While a fauxtog might not care about the technical or artistic faux pas they are committing, amateurs like me and genuinely curious yet clueless clients might like to know the difference between good and awful.
I enjoy this thread, and I’ve learned a lot. More than anything to keep the ol’ shingle in the shed for a while yet. 😉
Going back to lurking.February 13, 2013 at 10:20 am #6564
Ok, my new fauxtog of the day. This particular one I discovered when some friends and family had some photos taken by them. I was so disgusted that I actually submitted these to YANAP, but they never got posted. So I give to you, Angie Whitney Photography:
Focusing on your subject (or anything for that matter) is so unimportant these days:
Properly lighting your subject is also unimportant:
Overexposing the shot makes the subject so pale they appear to be the undead does not make them “look great” as one response said:
Glad that for this shot they couldn’t be bothered to move the huge branch in front of the kid, or the old board behind him with rusty nails sticking up:
Focus is so overrated:
And to show that I’m not just harping on her oldest shots, here is a shot from her latest set:
This banner should say “All Because Two People Fell for a Fauxtographer”. It might say this or anything else. I can’t tell because its so out of focus:February 13, 2013 at 10:45 am #6567hahaMember
Please tell this fauxtog to stick with modeling instead of horrible fauxtography!!
“Photography By J.”February 13, 2013 at 11:06 am #6569
@FauxFighters… I looked at Angie Whitney’s work, and it looks like her more recent stuff she has improved greatly and has invested in better equipment. She’s not perfect, she has some things to work on, but the images are much stronger. Yes, those others are pretty horrible. If they are older photos, she should just remove them from her portfolio altogether. But the bottom line is that she improved. A fauxtog refuses to do anything to improve. Angie’s newer stuff could stand a little white balance adjustment and some exposure adjustments, but I think she’s really moving forward. Yeah, those couple bad ones from the recent work should have never made the cut. But while she maybe was a fauxtog before, I would not call her one at all now. Just a beginner.
@haha, “Photography by J” clearly states they are not running a professional business and it is just a hobby. So it really doesn’t qualify as a faux. No the photos aren’t good, but they’re not advertising something they are not.February 13, 2013 at 11:10 am #6570hahaMember
I understand that she states she does it as a hobby but the fact that she charges people for these images irks me.February 13, 2013 at 11:12 am #6571
Yeah, charging and “hobby” are two different things, and when people mix the two, I think it is false advertising and unethical.February 13, 2013 at 11:33 am #6573
Also… I sent Amie Elizabeth a tactful message explaining why people are bashing her work on that site. I offered advice if she wanted it. She replied with “you wrote a shit ton so I stopped reading and you are just wasting your breath.” Yup. Figured. They don’t want to hear it. After I replied again, she said she doesn’t even think she could ever make a living off of photography so she doesn’t have a goal do do it professionally, it’s just a hobby. YET SHE CHARGES AND ADVERTISES. I think something is wrong with her brain. I just looked at her page again, and she changed the info to add in all caps “This is not a professional photography site. But if I’m going to go out and take someone’s photos there will be a fee because I’m not going to spend my time for free.” Well then stop advertising regularly on the local buy/sell group page!February 13, 2013 at 12:53 pm #6578
^I agree, Angie has improved somewhat. Her first shoots are straight up abysmal. Her newer stuff has gotten better in terms of location and creativity. She has some good ideas, but her technical side seems to be severely lacking. She still has major issues with focus, white balance, and lighting. The mom to be shots from the last shoot could be good, if she could actually get the camera focused on the subject. The kids and the kissing booth prop is cute and funny. But again we see she has the subject out of focus in more shots than in focus. My thought would be she is shooting with a cheap kit lens at wide open with a slow shutter speed.
So yes I will agree she has improved, creatively at least. She is getting a better eye for what is a good shot. But she really needs to focus on learning her camera, or maybe just getting a better lens. Technically she is still horrible and in that respect, I think she is still in fauxtographer mode.
HOLY CRAP. I just realized something. Check out this photo from Angie’s personal FB pages profile picture:
That is her. She has several others that are mirror shots with that camera. She is making all of these trashy photos with a Nikon D3! I have shot MUCH better stuff with my first camera, a Nikon D40 and kit lens, then she has gotten with that D3. WOW.February 13, 2013 at 1:26 pm #6579sethMember
Double holy crap. Why is she bouncing her diffused flash off the sky in broad daylight?February 13, 2013 at 4:26 pm #6595NikonGalMember
Just saw an ad for this chick in my local ad flyer, and of course I had to check it out…and immediately share it with all of youFebruary 13, 2013 at 4:32 pm #6596DaisyJuneMember
Some tidbits from a fauxtog’s personal profile:
“You might not be aware, but photographers do SO much more then say “say cheese”. I know that you only spend an hour or two with your photographer, but when you go home they really have work to do. Editing, uploading, preparing prints…….AFTER the shoot there are still hours of work to be done. Pay your photographer what they are worth. They have skills that you do not and deserve to be compensated fairly for there time and knowledge.”
“Today I had to block a stranger from my business page for sending me rude, unsolicited comments and messages. I truly DO NOT understand people. Why would ANYONE do such a hateful thing to a stranger?! I could understand if she was a dissatisfied customer. But to track down and berate someone you have never met? She emailed me offering “advice” which was actually really shitty and rude comments. After several incidents and a request from me to stop I finally had to block and report her. Just sad that some people feel the need to be so nasty to others.”February 13, 2013 at 4:58 pm #6597sethMember
Just saw an ad for this chick in my local ad flyer, and of course I had to check it out…and immediately share it with all of you
Am I the only one who is SERIOUSLY annoyed that not just fauxtogs but photogs will use music on their website that they CLEARLY cannot and do not own the copyright release for?? This chick is using Blake Shelton, right, like she paid for the rights to that. I wish I knew of a way to report them, I’ve gotten to where I won’t even look at their site I get so ticked off lol. Really though, how hard is it to pay the $40 for a stock song????
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.