February 13, 2013 at 5:30 pm #6599MendMember
another page someone is using to bash pictures. the “you call yourself a photographer” does seem like they are trying to help, not the best way. but this new one i’ve found seems like they are just sharing what the “you call yourself a photographer” posts and a few of their own from the same pages that are getting shared but the difference with this one is it looks like they are wanting to just share and comment to be rude
says it was created in late 2012 but only started to be active after the other page got more attentionFebruary 13, 2013 at 5:32 pm #6600NikonGalMember
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????
Ask and you shall receive. Do we really think it would do any good to report her for copyright violation? This probably sounds really petty, but I would like to see at least one fauxtog suffer some kind of repercussions for unprofessional conduct…February 13, 2013 at 5:53 pm #6605Yikes2013Member
Oversaturation, poor focus, and lack of fill light (or any light) plague these.
Sometimes knowing what NOT to post is a skill some need to consider improving.
Why do my eyes keep sliding to the left? Oh, yes, that’s because it is in focus there!February 13, 2013 at 5:58 pm #6606sethMember
Ask and you shall receive. Do we really think it would do any good to report her for copyright violation? This probably sounds really petty, but I would like to see at least one fauxtog suffer some kind of repercussions for unprofessional conduct…
Interesting, thanks! Having had to serve several DMCAs over the years, I never thought you could actually make a complaint like that on behalf of a copyright you didn’t own yourself, like the DMCA must be about your own things.February 13, 2013 at 10:45 pm #6628SarcasticsidMember
Please add this one to your list:
JessiePHOTOFebruary 14, 2013 at 12:33 am #6632
Portraits by Tami has a handful of quite good images, and then a handful of pretty awful images. She’s across the board. Maybe the bad stuff is older? I would definitely delete photos I didn’t feel represented my skill.
I’m itching to delete a few myself from my first wedding I photographed. Though I don’t think they were completely awful, I did, um, shoot them with the Rebel and two kit lenses, and I am 10x better now than I was then. But they’re way back in my portfolio, and I like to keep them because it shows my progression. The bride was a co-worker who asked me to shoot her wedding. They were on a very tight budget due to some medical bills and she liked my other photography. She knew beforehand that I never shot a wedding before and didn’t have a ton of experience in photography. That was before I ever started advertising myself as a pro photographer. I did lots of online research about wedding photography beforehand to try to prepare myself but it was still pretty scary.February 14, 2013 at 1:08 am #6633forreallyMember
I don’t normally chime in on these conversations because I find it rediculous how so many photographers seem to forget where they came from. No one picked up a camera and became a professional over night, we were all once the “underdog” and I am sure we all have terrible images from when we first started that are hidden somewhere forbidden to be shown to anyone. Like I said I don’t typically chime in on these, but “browneyedgirl89” I saw all of the post that you were posting and I decided to take a look at your work, from everything that you had stated I imagined you would be this amazing photographer who took breathtaking photos… I found it funny when I went to your page and saw just ordinary photos taken by some one who had maybe been doing photography for a couple years… still having some things to learn, yet you are in here knocking people. I know that this is the purpose for this site, but like I said, let us not forget where we came from and the images we once took.February 14, 2013 at 9:43 am #6644FauxFightersMember
Forreally, I think you need to look at the total conversation before you just start trashing Roxanne and others. None of us have ever said we were Ansel Adams, above reproach, not learning, etc. The issue is all of the people who get a camera and with no experience immediately decide they are a photographer and put up a webpage and start charging for their work. I think BEG89 has a really good grasp on photography and has nothing she should be ashamed of on her site. Even if a lot of her portfolio was shot with just a T2i, she has a good eye for posing, light, etc. Meanwhile we are posting pictures from “photographers” with cameras that cost 10x what hers did and are posting AWFUL shots as representative of their paid work. For me it is as much trying to determine what they are doing wrong and critique it, not just outright insult. Some people may be in here to grind an ax against the “competition” or whatever, but I’m not.
If somebody is new to photography, I totally encourage it. Lord knows nowadays everybody thinks that photography can be done with a camera phone and Instagram, so the more interested in using SLRs and photography means more people to talk to, teach, and learn from. I love advocating for photography. But I do think many people get a camera and make the immediate leap from taking pictures of their kids playing T-Ball to I should do this as a business. I personally did not get a BS in Photography, but I have taken university courses in photography, read every book that I can on it, been in multiple photography clubs, worked for a professional photographer and now shoot for my employer. Others may not have the chances I have had to learn, but I don’t understand how people can honestly post some of the pictures we have in this thread and feel they should be getting paid for it.February 14, 2013 at 10:51 am #6646
Thank you FauxFighters. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I’m aware I’m not an award-winning photographer, but I believe I know what I’m doing nad my work, at least the vast majority of it, illustrates it. I also take constructive criticism and use it to improve. I have not been shooting much at all this winter, since it’s been very cold up here and the market just slows a bit unless you do babies in a studio or do lots of weddings. I’ve been taking this time to study these threads and contribute, do some additional research about different equipment, share tips with other photogs I know, and look at my own work and find ways to improve. My plan is to increase my client base and improve my work this year.
Of course I’ve taken images that weren’t the greatest when I was just starting out. But I CAN tell you I have NEVER taken a photo as poor as what some of these people here are consistently taking and charging for, unless you count snapshots of my pets from when I was 10.
The people we ridicule here are very obviously the type who think owning a camera should allow them to just start a business.February 14, 2013 at 11:33 am #6648dont.careMember
well, America is the country for life liberty and pursuit of happiness (for the time being unless liberals get their way)… lest we forget there is freewill too(for now)…. One should remember that it’s not 100% of the photographers fault. The Client should feel partially burdened by guilt for not doing their research 🙂 You get what you pay for, and you ultimately get the shaft if you don’t read the fine print. Portfolios, reviews and generally just asking questions is reasonable.. I buy stuff offline all the time… But I only do so after reading reviews. Even then, I check elsewhere.. So it’s reasonable to say that in general the market for most of these guys is relative to their clients budget. I certainly wont do a photo shoot for 50 dollars. Let alone do it for hours and then edit.. Clients/people get what they ask for regardless of intent. You fail to do your homework, you will fail. Do I feel somewhat bad for them? Ignorance is no excuse. So no, I don’t. Generally, you put a deposit down and sign a contract.. I let my clients review before they pay and if they don’t like it.. They don’t have to buy the photos and nor do they get the photos. I’ll even refund the deposit.. I’ve never had it happen, but it’s my policy. .
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not defending bad ethics, bad photos, and for lack of better words–con artist.. I know people steal photos and use them in their portfolio as well.. So, if you’ve been scammed by illegitimate photos, it’s not your fault.. Take it to court.
just my opinion 😉February 14, 2013 at 1:02 pm #6649FauxFightersMember
My new fauxtog of the day, Grissom Photography. Blair has had a FB Photo page for about 2+ years now. She has improved some, and occasionally has some nice shots, but seems to get a lot more shots wrong than right. I think she is more of a “natural light” photographer, and many of her shots suffer from horrible lighting situations more than anything else.
I will start off by posting a good shot she took. Kendall is a pretty girl, and this shows that Blair can actually get a good shot:
Here is a shot from Christmas. Some she got alright, but this one definitely needs some fill light:
This baby looks like an alien because there is no definition to its face whatsoever:
I can’t tell anything about this kids face at all because it is SO blown out:
Who wants to see the baby in focus when we can just have his ill lit foot in focus instead:
Much like the one from the other day, this shot is shaky and totally out of focus. She needs to really practice on shooting babies up close:
Light coming through the tree and blasting his face, and the tree branch is obscuring part of his face:
Photographs in the middle of the day in no shade do not usually make for great photos, as this shot proves:February 14, 2013 at 2:27 pm #6652dont.careMember
People need to learn what sunlight diffusers are 😉 turn the sun into a giant softboxFebruary 15, 2013 at 3:07 pm #6670
Yikes, I can’t even believe the same person who shot that image of the teenage girl also shot those others! The shot of Kendall is sharp, nicely edited, and exposed pretty well (I would have maybe added a tiny bit of fill light in post, but that’s me). The others are just bad. The black and white of the baby’s face close up is not horrible, even with lacking some definition, if all the photos of that baby weren’t like that. Parents usually love to have one shot of the face close-up like that. It’s totally in focus.
Here’s a completely random page I found when searching “fauxtography” in the FB search bar… a bunch of “photography” businesses call themselves that… wtf? This one is pretty fauxtographer-ish though she too seems to have a couple stronger images. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Heartfelt-Faux-tog-raphy/107876959296132?ref=ts&fref=tsFebruary 15, 2013 at 8:35 pm #6673CoastalTogMember
Forreally- you have to understand something. People DO start at the bottom but the majority of those people work hard, practice, take classes, and develop their craft before hanging out a shingle and calling themselves a pro or paid photographer. Photography seems to be one of those professions where amateurs feel they can learn as they go at the expense of the customer. The thing is, most of the Facebook fauxtographers aren’t in business 2 years after they start. This is because: they realized they got themselves in over their head, got a reality check from an unhappy client, the tax man found that they were collecting money but not paying the government or they got a case of “shiny penny syndrome” and found a new hobby that’s easier like selling crafts on Etsy.February 16, 2013 at 2:34 am #6676
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.