January 17, 2013 at 7:31 pm #5672shhhitsasecretMember
Capuchink, I totally agree with archy. That looks extremely dangerous. My other wonder is where the parents were for this photo. I would definitely say you should send the person a private message. Maybe even include a couple of links to a website that describes the safety issue.January 17, 2013 at 11:13 pm #5678
Ugh, Sherry’s Photographing Memories… is a train wreck! Her digital backdrops photos hardly even make sense (tiger roaring while senior girl is calmly leaning her elbow on it’s head? I mean come on!) And her purposeful use of text speak makes no sense. Some of her writing indicates she is maybe not a native English-speaker but I can’t quite tell. Why is it that fauxtogs also seem to botch any attempt at graphic design? I mean, even before I took any gd-type classes in college I still had common sense as to what looked decent. One of the fauxtogs in my town went to college for gd and has a lot of her work posted on her photography page… it’s all an atrocity and I don’t know what professor could have passed her for that kind of work.
And yeah, agree that the baby in the pumpkin is extremely dangerous. That baby does not have muscle tone in his/her neck yet and that could potentially cause spinal damage! Where are the parents during these events?January 18, 2013 at 10:08 am #5681CapuchinKMember
thank you for all of the input. I will send the photographer a message from my alternate Facebook account. It’s tricky as it’s a close friends’ good friend. It’s easy as a photographer (hobby, not professional) to come across as arrogant and a ‘know it all’ when commenting on these situations. A professional friend of mine had posted a blog about how she turns away business and not because she likes to – but because it is the right thing to do. She has no business taking photos of newborns and babies just because it is is offered, when it is not where she has her focus on her business Not to say she couldn’t do it, but she would rather leave it up to the professional newborn photographers who are trained and skilled in these situations.
Any good resources on newborn photography ‘do’s and don’ts’ to send to this guy?
I definitely wonder why a parent would allow this. I have a hard time understanding the concept of the photo. It’s just all around wrong and horrible looking.January 18, 2013 at 2:18 pm #5682archyMember
I’m glad you wen through with it, capuchink, i know a lot of people talk but no action on these things. and because i (and others) do not personally know these people, it isn’t like we can keep track of them by just looking at our facebook feed. I do not know any sites for dos and don’ts on newborn photography, but i suggest looking up basic sites about taking care of newborns. I mean, if you took that picture to a pediatrician they could tell you immediately what is wrong with it. In fact, you could suggest to that photographer to get tips from a pediatrician on handling new borns and what they would consider safe situations in a studio. (or ask one yourself through email and use that email as documentation in case you see the faux endangering babies).
I’m not suggesting you stalk the person (reading back on that paragraph makes it sound that way), i just mean this in case you are scrolling through facebook one day and notice that this guy hasn’t cleaned up his act. And yeah, i don’t know what parents (or other people, this picture had “likes”!) would ever let their baby be put in this situation.January 18, 2013 at 3:25 pm #5683
http://www.takeoffyourmommygoggles.com/ Has some great blog posts about unsafe posing. Try to pick one that relates more to what he is doing.January 18, 2013 at 4:24 pm #5684
What I find puzzling is that same photographer with the horrid baby-in-pumpkin photo also has some decent newborn photos, where the baby is sleeping calmly on a soft blanket, that also illustrates some solid knowledge on editing or at least decent editing. The pumpkin ones are all contrasty, blotchy, and appear to have been taken with on-board flash. It almost makes me wonder if those (the bad ones) are even his photos! I looked through his page a bit, and his work isn’t that great for the most part but there are a few images that are not completely terrible. I question this mainly because he had some sort of photo with a border and text on it (it was a pretty bad photo too) that he captioned with “not my photo, just my idea” while he was using it to advertise a session. If that’s so, that’s a huge mistake of the fauxtogs. I’ve seen a lot of these so-called “ideas” for photo sessions advertised on fauxtogs’ pages and it’s technically an infringement on copyright and/or false advertising. One local woman has her print products advertised, and they looked like they were stock photo of items pulled right off of one of the popular photo printers’ websites, complete with other photogs’ images displayed in them.January 18, 2013 at 5:00 pm #5685
I see what you talking about Browneyedgirl but it makes me wonder if ‘the good ones” are even his photos lol.
Clint’s can often scroll down a page thinking all the wall photos are done by the photographer when many are shared form other pages or posted as ideas it can be vary misleading.
Another thing you see allot on the faux sites are photos that are clearly not there’s showing the difference and why you should hire a photographer. Thats false advertising. Many of the photographers don’t have the equipment, lighting or knowledge to pull off the photo.
Like theseJanuary 18, 2013 at 6:12 pm #5689SarahMember
This person is charging $1000+ for weddings http://www.facebook.com/SharpShootingPhoto/photos_albums#!/media/set/?set=a.352610901499462.86351.344042625689623&type=3 =oJanuary 18, 2013 at 6:58 pm #5690cameraclickerMember
Sarah’s find “Sharp Shooting Photography” is displaying a number of not very sharp photos! Problems include subject movement, camera movement and focusing on the wrong place, or focusing then changing the camera to subject distance.
Girlnextdoor’s finds are interesting. Where do EXIT signs use green illumination? Ours are red. I really like the “a photographer with hours and hours of experience”! I wonder how many hours that is. The “not professional” photo of the couple dancing is a little dark, if it was shot as a raw file it is easily fixed in ACR, it can probably be lightened enough even if it is a JPEG. The “professional” photo has a lot more wrong with it. Yes, the light is off the camera, but the glare off his hair is the most attractive to the eye, and while that gets the eye close to the couple, her face is completely obscured by his head and his face is obscured by his hand! If I had to print one, it would be a lightened version of the “not professional” photo.
I don’t know if the couple is running through flower parts or really large confetti. Those photos make it difficult to choose. Do you select the flash photo and try to bring down the dress to get back the detail or do you select the non-flash photo and brighten it up?
Four photos and none of them with a level camera! I hope someone at those celebrations took some good photos the couples can enjoy.January 18, 2013 at 7:30 pm #5691
I did notice the green exit signs in both pictures, I would have just taken them out all together. The camera leveling problem seems to be wide spread.
If i was searching for a photographer and came across Sharp Shooting Photography i would make a sharp u-turn.
i did find a sharp photo of this ornament and some great Bokah :)lol
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=373629212730964&set=pb.344042625689623.-2207520000.1358555193&type=3&src=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F706159_373629212730964_268059216_o.jpg&smallsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-snc7%2F306027_373629212730964_268059216_n.jpg&size=1371%2C2048January 18, 2013 at 7:37 pm #5692
I’ve seen that wedding dance one shared before. For the most part I like the left (professional) image better, we can nitpick, but the right one could look better lightened up, cropped so that light fixture is out of the frame, and the white balance adjusted to remove the yellowish/greenish cast… but the wedding party and guests in the background are too in-focus for my taste to where some of the attention is away from the couple. The photo too looks like it’s not very sharp. The left professional image I don’t think was the best mainly because the photographer caught them at a point in the dance where the bride’s face was totally obscured (not necessarily a bad thing unless that was the only image he/she captured of the dance) and the composition would have looked better if they were off to one side instead of centered. Their slight use of dutch angle makes it look unintentional and a mistake; it could have easily been straightened and cropped to omit some of the white space above.
The other one, where the couple is walking in with the flower petals, is obviously better than the snapshot version. Her dress is blown out however. If it was shot in RAW some of that could have been recovered. I see a lot of wedding photos where the dress is blown out. When I was helping my friend pick photographers for her wedding (that I’ll be in, so I won’t be shooting obviously) she was trying to figure out why a lot of the portfolios she viewed she just didn’t like… it was because all of them lost all texture in the wedding dress. When I shot my last couple of weddings I made it a point to not lose that texture.
As far as Sarah’s Sharp Shooting, yuck they’re all grainy and out of focus. She seems to have shot many more inanimate objects than people… which tells me she maybe wasn’t the hired photographer, or worse, had no experience doing portraits. Maybe she liked taking nature photos and her friends told her she was a “great photographer” and should shoot the wedding.
I posted on my photography page and on here the difference between three images that I shot (point-and-shoot, Rebel with kit lens on auto and no care to posing, and one shot with 5DII and nice glass with attention to the pose and composition) and got people telling me that experiment was phony because I didn’t try to get a good image for the first two… well no kidding, I was trying to mimic how someone who has no idea how to be a photographer might execute it! Lol.
PS I love the Mommy Goggles site. It explains in more detail what I had tried to explain last week also.January 18, 2013 at 7:43 pm #5693
Speaking of sharp shooting, this lady is totally out of focus… and I’ve seen ultrasound pics creatively integrated into a maternity session, but this just isn’t the way… sitting on a pumpkin? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=360678267359392&set=a.360665720693980.88649.344042625689623&type=3&theaterJanuary 18, 2013 at 7:51 pm #5694
I seen your photo experiment photos, and i loved it!! I new exactly what you were going for. I think many people wonted to see the difference between the cameras them self and did not understand you were showing the difference between equipment and EDUCATION together . I would however like to see everything done the same with the 3 cameras and see what comes out. I have a t3i and 5d mark ii. I know there is a big difference between the two, but i have never put exact photos side by side to see. Would be a great test to use both with same lens, compassion, lighting, ect. To see what plays out. I know in darker conditions the 5d is going to blow t3i away but i think it has a good shot of holding its own with good lighting.January 18, 2013 at 7:55 pm #5695
@Browneye i would have never known that was an ultrasound photo if you had not said anything.January 18, 2013 at 8:16 pm #5696
@girlnextdoor, I definitely should try that experiment also. Take 3 photos of the exact same pose and try to get the best quality I possibly can with all three. I have a Rebel T2i, a 40D, and a 5DII. To be honest the Rebel can take a very good photo and when someone is using a good lens and knows what they’re doing, it would take a trained eye to see the difference most likely. But you have to factor in the crop factor with lenses also; I can stand closer to my subject with the full-frame camera than the Rebel at the same focal length, therefore, minimizing the effect of camera shake and there would be more detail potentially. But you are absolutely correct also about handling low light better. I can hardly bump the ISO on my Rebel above 500 or risk a lot of nasty noise. The 5DII can handle over 1000. This is important in a wedding especially, since venues can be dark and people are moving and you don’t want to lower the shutter speed.
Now I want to bring up two other photographers… neither of these would really end up on the main page of this site (I’m not exactly posting this under the correct forum topic I know) but these look like beginners who probably haven’t been educated well in photography.
This one ^ has some pretty good images, and some pretty bad images. She has some very creative poses but a lot of her photos are lacking in the technical department. I can’t tell if it later work vs. earlier work. She over-edits a lot too.
This one ^ has an extensive portfolio. But I’m just not wowed at all. I found her page because she shot my cousin’s wedding a few years ago and his wedding photos were ALL severe dutch angles. I know I’ve been criticized for my use of dutch but I know I don’t use it nearly as much or to such a large degree. She has many decent photos but even some of her recent work is just lacking. She has her camera in some miscellaneous photos and it appears to either be a 40D, 50D, 60D, or a full-frame camera but almost looks like an older kit lens, but I can’t tell. Like I said, she’s not really a fauxtog, but she is not someone I’d hire.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.