Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page…

[seth]

How do you all feel about this sorta thing?

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/2c/06/f6/2c06f68ecb05750d8f817435912de922.jpg

 

They don’t seem too squished to me but I don’t like the cropping, it feels too tight.  Especially with the guy’s foot cut off, that annoys me and then seems cropped too tightly on at least the right side plus I don’t care for the distortion there either.

[fauxsucks]

I’m physically sickened by this one.  She uses a point and shoot, charges over $100 an hour and calls herself a pro.

https://www.facebook.com/PhotosByBeka

And don’t forget to assail your eyes and ears by going to her totally legit website:
http://www.pic-chick.com/home.html

Porn music, anyone?

[nesgran]

that was pretty disgusting.

 

And why do fauxes always insist on using continous lights? I know it is easier to control but it really isn’t that hard to work it out now we are all using digital and can experiment endlessly

[seth]

We have talked about that before. I still don’t see how using continuous lights makes someone a faux.

[cameraclicker]

Westcott (http://fjwestcott.com/) make continuous lamps for home and for the studio.  In Canada, they only sell continuous lights, or so they told me a couple of years ago when I was looking for strobes.  In the US they sell strobes and continuous lights.  Jim Schmelzer demonstrates the continuous lights at photo shows here.  This is his web page:  http://www.elitefoto.com/.

I have blue eyes and great night vision.  Continuous lights, even the weaker home variety, are too bright, so I don’t like being in front of them.  I have four that I use for some macro and product photos.   When shooting people, I usually use strobes or Speedlites, when I need lights.  Since Westcott don’t sell strobes here, I have Bowens, which I really like.

I don’t think using continuous lights makes you a faux, or that more fauxtographers use continuous lights, even.  If you are shooting a wedding and the couple also has a videographer, you will be appreciated if you can make do with the video lights instead of messing up the video by using flash.  News photographers take a lot of available light photos, I don’t think that makes them fauxtographers, either.

[alexandra]

Oh wow… I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more atrocious website than that pic chick one. Almost as terrible as her photos… And what’s with her flaunting that 3.2 megapixel point and shoot camera? Sure, a good photographer can take a good photo with just about anything, but in this case if she’s planning on shooting in fully automatic mode with automatic flash forever, better equipment won’t do much for her.

Which one of her photos was done using continuous light? Most of them look like she just used flash to me…
I’m curious though – is it possible to tell apart a photo done with a continuous light set up from one done with strobes or speedlites?
I find that the continuous light sources usually aren’t bright enough for my needs usually (I usually use 3 or 4 speedlites for studio stuff)…

 

[nesgran]

We have talked about that before. I still don’t see how using continuous lights makes someone a faux.

Of course not but generally when I see the studio set up of these people it is always a continuous light they use. In this case it looked like one of those LED banks

As for my aversion to continuous light, it is never bright enough or it is so bright it will literally melt your face off. Some things I think they can work pretty well for, generally product photography, especially with food. For the most part I can’t see why you’d really want to use them in a studio. There are after all lots of nice and cheap studio lights out there these days, they will have a modelling light so you can see what the result will look like yet they won’t melt anyone’s face

[fauxsucks]

Update on the pic chick site: Someone called her out on her Facebook page yesterday (someone from here perhaps?) and the comment is already gone today.  Now she has posted on her page that she uses a Nikon D3100.  Wow, bravo, an entry level camera that she probably never takes off of auto and still uses the kit lens.

I think the reason why fauxtogs flock to continuous lighting is because it is substantially cheaper to buy some painters lamps and daylight bulbs than it is to invest in strobes.  And remember, fauxes don’t want to put TOO much of their own money into buying equipment because then they don’t make as much profit off of their $30 “mini sessions.”

I’m not saying that continuous light automatically makes someone a faux.  That’s how a lot of photography students start learning about studio light, and I am sure plenty of pros throw in a continuous light here and there (or rely solely on it) for their shoots.

[fstopper89]

There’s a reason why this one writes “We provide a low cost alternative to expensive portrait studios and we give you unlimited rights to your hi resolution pictures. We cost you less!”

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1445884795632969&set=a.1445884788966303.1073741839.1419227938298655&type=1&theater

 

I don’t own studio lighting equipment. That doesn’t make me a faux. I don’t do studio photography as of now and wouldn’t advertise that I could do it without the proper equipment.

[fstopper89]

Also, looks like they don’t mind copyright infringement.

Original: http://www.mrwallpaper.com/view/road-winter-1280×1024/

Their version: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1445885012299614&set=a.1445884788966303.1073741839.1419227938298655&type=1&theater

[CoastalTog]

Continuous lighting is groovy for non-human product work. In fact, I prefer it for commercial work. However, for living creatures, strobe lights are more practical. I’ve been using Elinchrom for years and love the quality of light it produces.

[snaphappy]

https://www.facebook.com/147482365291959/photos/a.411120978928095.95818.147482365291959/411121102261416/?type=1&theater

[nesgran]

Here’s another great one from that faux https://www.facebook.com/147482365291959/photos/pb.147482365291959.-2207520000.1393494310./721547144552142/?type=3&theater

Looks like they are shooting indoor sports with a not particularly fast lens with predictable results. Even the outdoor sports photos don’t look like there are many in focus. I would love to see the set up for this

At least they seem to have been consistent over the last few years

[snaphappy]

A friend of mine is a football coach.  This photographer got contracted to shoot all the games to sell to the parents.  My friend said she wouldn’t get off the field during warm ups and that she would constantly be in the way.  When he would confront her and ask her to leave, she would throw a fit, saying she was contracted, and that he couldn’t tell her what to do.  All the parents hated their team pictures and wanted a reshoot but she refused to do it. Professional.

[cameraclicker]

This is probably my favourite! https://www.facebook.com/147482365291959/photos/pb.147482365291959.-2207520000.1393494310./721545924552264/?type=3&permPage=1, their backs are in focus! The ball seems to be off the right side of the frame, some where!

[Author]

Posts