February 24, 2013 at 3:41 pm #7147halleyMember
@ jim-e What do you mean when you say some of the images you have an issue with? And I couldn’t agree with you more about the evolution that photography has taken into the digital worldFebruary 24, 2013 at 3:56 pm #7149jim-eMember
Well, it’s hard to link to the images to show specifically – Certain poses like when people look into each others eyes while touching noses – to me that’s cliched and frankly weird looking. Never understood why people liked that one. There was another with a couple making a “heart symbol” with their arms (no cliches there!), with a badly titled horizon line is another example. As far as positives go, there was some off camera flash use, which IMNSHO is one of the best ways to differentiate oneself from the competition. Out of all the fauxtogs posted on this site, not one used a flash properly or creatively. Even one flash can create amazing photographs, why wouldn’t one learn how to use it?February 24, 2013 at 4:05 pm #7150fstopper89Member
@Haylott, I think you took the statements out of context where I had said I didn’t charge/yet I did, etc. When I was going through college and even before when I just liked taking pictures, I did not ever advertise that I was a photographer for hire. The couple of paid gigs I did were friends who approached me, because they liked my other non-portrait work and knew I was trying to develop myself as a photographer. I basically only charged a minimal fee for my time, and no one had an issue with that. The first wedding I did I was also asked to do. I had been doing portraits a little here and there, mostly just practice shoots, and had just started working for a photographer. The bride was well-aware I did not ever do a wedding, and was aware I did not have top-notch equipment. They couldn’t afford an established photographer for their wedding. I believe I did a good job for my first and for what I was paid (which was very minimal as far as weddings go) but I don’t have many of those images posted online because they no longer represent my skill level and I don’t want them to have an ill effect on my portfolio.
I do have trouble figuring out what someone said by the bride was not smiling at all… In almost all the photos posted, she is. Her smile is kind of small, not big/toothy like most smiles I guess, so maybe it’s a misinterpretation? Either way, I gave them 250 different photographs from their wedding. In no way was their time “wasted” with any of the shots, that comment is quite rude!
I don’t advertise that I do weddings; right now I do them for friends only, except the 2nd shooter opportunities. I have another scheduled for this coming fall for that studio I was a second wedding shooter for, since the wedding is in my part of the state.
The baby/blocks photo- the parents wanted it. So I got some blocks. Is that my strongest image from that session? I don’t think so myself. So I think it’s unfair to call it a representation of my ideas as a whole.
As far as actions, I do not use them and forget about the rest. Actions are only a part of what I do to edit. My workflow is to start with some wb/exposure/noise reduction in Lightroom, then take into Photoshop for fine-tuning adjustments including curves, blemish reduction, liquify certain things when necessary, skin smoothing, skin tone adjustments, eyes and teeth, some exposure, and then I will apply an action or a few actions usually as a last or almost last step. Within a shoot I try to keep the actions used consistent so the photos flow. Some photos online may have been the “extra enhanced” versions (like, hazy, vintage, black and white, more obvious actions, etc) where I also have a clean edit that I may not have posted, and I probably should more so that people can see the difference and that I do both.February 24, 2013 at 4:08 pm #7151halleyMember
I agree with you on the cliche’ aspect of some photos. I guess my main point to get across in my critique of brown eyed girl is that these photographers are catering to the same demographic as her yet their images far surpass hers in overall quality. They are polished, consistent, and beautifully processed. Overall the quality of Brown eyed girl’s images needs improvement. With her knowledge of camera controls and lighting she can take her photos to the next level with time and hard work. But she is nowhere near there yet. Also with those other photographers you can see the sentiment and emotion in their clients. That is another thing that she lacks.February 24, 2013 at 4:22 pm #7153February 24, 2013 at 4:39 pm #7154
I have seen you numerous times bashing fauxs for using selective coloring or other types of props. However when I showed the bad photo that you did with props your defense was ” the parents wanted it. So I got some blocks. Is that my strongest image from that session? I don’t think so myself. So I think it’s unfair to call it a representation of my ideas as a whole.” Isn’t that what numerous other people have stated in defense for their artistic decisions. And you always shut them down. You sound like a hypocrite. If you don’t think that is a strong image why is it in your online portfolio?February 24, 2013 at 5:56 pm #7155sethMember
I disagree on the shot of the baby. While the baby does look awkward, that typical newborn “you’re going to drop me” pose going on, the image is not overexposed, and I can read the blocks just fine. Yes, my monitor has also been calibrated.
As for the couple in the frame, I think that’s nice, I have no issue with that photo. I don’t think “wrong on so many levels” says anything… really… If you got a reason for disliking it, spit it out.
And as for the same couple with the leaves, my only issue with that photo is there is no foot room, I should be able to see all of her dress and all of his feet. The expression on his face is funny, like he’s just humoring her and she looks like, “oh no, I should have thought this through, leaves are gonna be in my dress.” It’s cute. And truth be told, we weren’t there that day, we don’t know who’s idea this shot was or these people’s personalities. Maybe this was their idea and fits them perfectly. You can’t just call it time wasted.February 24, 2013 at 6:03 pm #7156dont.careMember
seems like ever since exit 10 photog, people have been here in droves. 😀 My stance is: If the work is shit, and the client buys it.. They were destined to find each other :-o. The only thing I hate is grey babies in colorful photos.. Otherwise, tbh I could give a shit less about someone paying 50 bucks for 5 hours of shitty photos.. 😀
p397February 24, 2013 at 6:22 pm #7157
@ Seth. I was wrong to say the entire shot of the baby is over exposed. The baby is exposed perfectly with great skin tones. The edges (where the blocks are) are certainly too bright. And the blocks are awkwardly placed. It is just an awkward photo and one that I would expect to see here.
The couple in the frame is “wrong on so many levels” for the following reasons. the frame is placed at a strange angle. the eye is not naturally drawn to the subjects. The bride has the strangest look on her face. almost like she is smiling but wanting to get it over with. Also the black and white conversion could be tweaked to improve the overall look of the photo. The grooms head is also at a weird angle, I m guessing either to fit in the awkwardly place frame or because the bride is short (I know the photog has no control of height differences).
The couple with the leaves is just odd. The groom looks like he wants to be anywhere but there and the bride just doesn’t look like she is having fun, which is what is supposed to happen when you throw a pile of leaves in the air. In brown eye’s portfolio she has multiple different clients that are throwing leaves. If this is one of her signature shots then I was just saying that I hope she didn’t force it on them. Weddings are difficult because of the time constraints so photography can be limited. As far as the foot room, I will not fault brown eye for that because, especially at weddings, that is a common mistake made by even pros. Does that explain it betterFebruary 24, 2013 at 6:57 pm #7159cicelyMember
I believe this is what they were probably talking about when they said blown out highlights on skin. Glad I didn’t leave the conversationFebruary 24, 2013 at 7:07 pm #7160cicelyMember
And there is also this little gem. Cooling action much? The other photos of this little girl are cute. Not understanding the blue. And before you start, yes my monitor is calibrated. Also it says that the photo was shot with a Canon Rebel in September 2012. I thought that camera was for “fauxtographers” or amateurs. HHMMM??February 24, 2013 at 8:06 pm #7165sethMember
Why would the Rebel line be for fauxtographers?February 24, 2013 at 8:10 pm #7166
Because Seth, Brown Eye has said that professionals should use top of the line equipment. She said that Rebels were not good enough for professional photography even though they are decent cameras. At least I think that is what cicely meantFebruary 24, 2013 at 8:12 pm #7167fstopper89Member
Cicely, you clearly are grappling at straws here. You’re right, that family photo is blown out. In that spot the sun was way too bright, so I didn’t spend much time taking photos there. I did give them that one pose though, and maybe it should not have made the cut, and I’ll probably actually remove it. But the vast majority of my shots I believe are exposed pretty well. Like I said, I am not perfect, but I see plenty of shots on other pros’ sites that I also feel maybe weren’t their best images, and I don’t think that finding the worst photos a person has is a good way to judge their style or work.
The little girl in the mermaid suit definitely had an action applied for a fun/artistic edit. That one in particular is not the regular or clean edit. I liked the blue for her outfit and what she and her mom were going for, the princess-y kind of playful outfit. Whether you want to admit it or not, clients do love seeing these types of fun edits. They are not the kind that would probably be hung up on their walls, but I see a lot of that stuff used on holiday cards, party invitations, and on social media. It’s making a photo a little more artsy. I love playing with colors. The reason I hate spot color is because it really seems to draw the attention away from the subject of the photo. I rarely see spot color done where it enhances the image, though yes, I have seen it. One of the posters here showed us one awhile ago and I did like that one, though I can’t remember who it was.
I never said the Rebel was the camera for fauxtographers. Please be careful of what you say I said. I said it was often the camera a faux had, because they didn’t know enough about photography or care enough to invest in something better, or someone may have gotten them a “nice camera” as a gift and they suddenly decided to go in business. I would not expect a fauxtographer to ever invest in good/better equipment. You can put a good lens on a Rebel and still get a great image. It’s how you use the equipment that matters. Obviously, a Rebel though has much poorer low-light performance than a 5DII, and slower autofocus, among other things. A better camera is a better tool. Some of my photos from that shoot do appear a bit soft because they were noisy and I used noise reduction. I loved the location but it was a challenge. It was on the family’s neighbor’s property and it was their choice. I’d use the location again if I had permission, but hopefully on a sunnier day (it started sprinkling during the shoot and was pretty cloudy!)
I checked out those websites someone posted earlier of the wedding photographers. All very nice work. I can pick out a few images from each I didn’t think were technically the best, but for the most part they are pretty consistent. One of the togs had a lot more orangey skin tones though, and I personally would have decreased the orange saturation, but that’s just me.February 24, 2013 at 8:31 pm #7169mykelheleneMember
Okay, everyone can stop ripping her a new one now. I’m pretty sure she understands. I don’t think its fair to really rip apart her work. All photographers make mistakes and occasionally get a ‘blown out’ ‘overexposed photo’. The only difference is that she used the photo and put it up. Even though we don’t see eye to eye doesn’t mean she needs to be ridiculed.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.