November 30, 2013 at 2:34 am #15443
what a disasterNovember 30, 2013 at 4:53 pm #15447nairbynairbParticipant
hahahaha. This one is pure gold!November 30, 2013 at 11:40 pm #15451
Is that supposed to be rain photo manipulated into this picture? Or was his brother operating an angle grinder next to him?December 1, 2013 at 1:50 am #15456
People who ask for advice and then get butthurt when you give them respectful CC.
She asked in a FB group why the client was unhappy with the photos and linked this gallery. I said that there were a lot of issues with lighting and shadows. I said honestly I’d offer a re-shoot and try to find a shaded area to avoid the shadows and bright spots, and also that some of the further away shots I would have used a shallower depth of field to bring focus on the couple. I linked a few engagement photos I shot as an example of how to pose couples and also even skin lighting. I got a notification “That is really horrible advice….” but by the time I clicked on it she deleted the thread. LOL. The funny thing is that I found her other work and she does have some very nice stuff mixed with some other pretty horrible stuff. She’s not consistent and I wouldn’t hire her, but I wasn’t at all criticizing her work as a whole. That album was horrible though as was another album on that shootproof site.
If you don’t want honest helpful advice don’t ask, right?December 1, 2013 at 2:37 am #15457
Crackhead boudoir! Ok ok, usually I don’t criticize the client’s appearance, but you’re doing BOUDOIR here. I would not be posting this online. Ever. Even if this woman paid me $500 for a photo session.December 1, 2013 at 2:41 am #15458BillParticipant
Just seen these instagram selfie re-touches on an article.
What is your take? I say Super Faux with a capital “F”December 1, 2013 at 7:38 am #15461EyeDocPhotogParticipant
check out http://www.lightroompresets.com.
This appears to be one of the BIRTHPLACES of all the retro-hipster-wannbe-way-overedited junk we’re all seeing. And she’s selling this crap to at least 2 of the fauxtogs on this site who are cross-marketing each other.
Unbelievable.December 1, 2013 at 12:16 pm #15462
browneyedgirl89 Not only were the blown highlights horrible, looked like she shot with a really shallow dof. The guy is barely in focus and the girl is horribly out of focus on a lot of the shots.
And for the Photoshop Fantasy, would of been easier to just put makeup on before taking a low quality selfie. Cellphone selfies are not meant to be something you want to hang on your wall. Some of those were badly done.December 1, 2013 at 1:43 pm #15468manicpixiedreamgirlParticipant
She decided in highschool she’d add a watermark to any picture she took or edited. The name has changed many times as a result, from Bionerd, to Bearjanglez, and right now it’s LuciLawless.
She’s also known to plagiarize, editing other people’s photos and putting it on her websites.
She also takes selfies and edits the shit out of them then puts it up online. She even has a copyright caption, “All images are property of © LuciLawless Photography and may not be cropped, altered or printed in any way. This includes, but is not restricted to, usage on Facebook or any other personal websites, social networking, blogging, etc.”
Hilarious. 2011 has the shittiest work.December 1, 2013 at 3:20 pm #15474
I am now convinced that Elizabeth is completely crazy. She messaged me accusing me of lying (saying I made up the fact that she asked if she should refund the client and let them find a different photographer- to which I replied she should just offer a re-shoot). Then she said she looked at my work and I recently posted a photo of a girl with her eyes closed (the only ones where a girl has her eyes closed are the ones where she’s kissing) and a woman holding her crotch (which I can’t find anywhere). Possibly she found a different page and thought it was mine, but then she did comment on my “cheap props” are the only thing that makes one of my photos good (It was a wooden X and O and engaged couple were holding up while kissing). The weird thing is she does have some good work too, but everything she accused me of in my photos (every fault) she has done 20x more and worse. I would never hire such an inconsistent photographer.December 1, 2013 at 5:46 pm #15475
Her posing the couple by the massive pillar was a bit, erm, interesting. Sure, it is marriage but it looked a bit phallic for my tasteDecember 1, 2013 at 7:27 pm #15477
My estranged ex had my kids photos done by this person. Inconsistent, lot of dutch angles. There are a few ones in there that are pretty ok. I just really did not like the ones this person did of my kids though.December 2, 2013 at 10:28 am #15484
$25 for 30 minute photo session or will trade for session. New York Institute of Photography, not sure if she graduated or not. White vignetting on most of the photos plus lots of other problems.December 2, 2013 at 12:56 pm #15485
Nothing can beat a pop up flash and slightly out of focus image with backdrop that isn’t flat https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=681699518531604&set=pb.373730465995179.-2207520000.1386006875.&type=3&theaterDecember 2, 2013 at 6:19 pm #15495
Or a picture so out of focus, your not sure what the building is supposed to be.
Btw, here is my photo of the same building I took.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.