Home › Forums › Am I a Fauxtog? › Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page…
Tagged: fauxtog?
- This topic has 3,097 replies, 358 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
cameraclicker.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 24, 2013 at 6:58 pm #14677
nadaphotographer
ParticipantAnd the award for the best before and after goes to https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=570746322971306&set=a.503125873066685.1073741835.500739973305275&type=1&theater
October 24, 2013 at 9:02 pm #14679alexandra
Participantnadaphotographer – I think they tried to photoshop clouds in that second last one in the corner where the sky came out white, but failed miserably
October 24, 2013 at 11:22 pm #14681iliketag
ParticipantOh geez, I thought at first that Alexandra’s comment was regarding the before and after sky. I was all “I don’t see a white spot… am I crazy? Am I blind?”.
That wedding photojournalism though, yikes. That was just bad… so, so bad.
October 24, 2013 at 11:27 pm #14682ParticipantI keep getting into trouble in this group I belong to on facebook because I’m not coddling people when they share terrible photos.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200810100354438&set=gm.10151970437473987&type=1&theater
Why do people think cartoony HDR is good? Please tell me this fad is on it’s way out!
October 25, 2013 at 6:38 am #14690cameraclicker
ParticipantAs usual, the link doesn’t work.
Cartoony HDR is a lot like spot colour. You will see the occasional piece that works really well and for every one of those you see, there will be hundreds/thousands that don’t. Since many in the last generation of cameras include HDR as a feature, HDR will probably be around a while longer, but the in-camera version is less prone to deliver the cartoony look.
October 28, 2013 at 2:44 am #14703shutterbug5090
ParticipantI found this person and wanted to share with everyone. Crossing my fingers the links work as they should.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Captured-In-Time-Photography-LLC/458037460948412?sk=photos_albums
Here are a few samples:
https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s720x720/1146533_506085792810245_1759627280_n.jpghttps://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1234067_519509471467877_305009113_n.jpg
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/q71/s720x720/73346_489039094514915_1279868439_n.jpg
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/q71/5886_466513530100805_623654285_n.jpg
In the about section of the page the person considers this stuff “professionally retouched.” I’m amazed and very confused about how people like this are staying in business and making any money.
October 29, 2013 at 2:46 pm #14736NoPro
ParticipantLet us capture your story. And cut off the top of your head.
October 29, 2013 at 2:58 pm #14737ParticipantOctober 29, 2013 at 5:23 pm #14740ParticipantLet us capture your story. And cut off the top of your head.
Actually, I enjoyed Melissa’s web page. The only objection I have is to the auto-start music. She is a good photographer.
October 29, 2013 at 6:52 pm #14743Tiradia
ParticipantO_O, her work isn’t bad! But, her blog… OMG, I facepalmed hard. Take a read!
“Natural light studio…” Really? And another thing! What is up with the pictures with the umbilical cord that is just blech!
October 29, 2013 at 11:10 pm #14746ParticipantYep! I have a natural light studio too. One wall is glass. Between small flash, strobes and continuous lights, I have 15 lights. Still a natural light studio is available. She has 40 acres, which in her neighbourhood is a tiny patch of land, and in my neighbourhood is a huge patch of land. If I’m shooting outside, it’s “on location”, a fancy name for a park.
I may read more of her blog tomorrow. I can’t remember how old my first child was when some photographer came around to take baby photos. That was 33 years ago, give or take. When I wasn’t interested, he wanted to know “Didn’t I want professional photos of my child?”
Being more into reportage than portraiture, the umbilical cord doesn’t bother me at all. I have shot worse things. I have probably even posted some. Like beauty, gross is in the eye of the beholder.
October 30, 2013 at 12:06 am #14747fstopper89
Participant@Tiradia, what’s wrong with that newborn pnotographer? The Q&A is nice and informative, and her images are professional. I saw maybe 2 that needed slight white balance adjustments, if we want to be picky here. Definitely nowhere near fauxtog…
Newborn photography is about capturing real life, and dried up umbilical cords are, in fact, part of a baby’s first few weeks. I’m not even a parent yet I don’t find that “blech” at all.
October 30, 2013 at 1:40 am #14749pinupghoulie
ParticipantI think the before and after isnt terrible, she says its a throw away image but tried to revive it? I wouldnt say faux but thats my opinion. Same with the newborn tog
October 30, 2013 at 1:59 am #14750Participantoh and that photo journalism one? WTF The other cloud overlayer commented on it I saw, assuming its the same person.
I dont get the dark clouds though like did she THINK they looked real? Its not even masked correctly >.<
October 30, 2013 at 2:03 am #14751Participantlooks like she took these with her phone. wtf. the before and the ones after
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.