Home Forums Am I a Fauxtog? Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page…

Tagged: 

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 3,098 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #7226
    sajelthomas
    Member

    yes a liar. the site clearly states that you are charging for services. yet when haylott posted it you said “It was a portfolio online, not portrayed as a professional website.” that is a blatant lie and i am guessing you just forgot what was on it and didnt expect anyone to find it. you are no better than the links you have been posting here.

    #7227
    FauxFighters
    Member

    Alright ladies and bitches, I’m back.  I didn’t know that middle school kicked in on the weekends while some of us were out doing work, shooting gigs, and having lives, but it seems like a bunch of catty cunts roll up in here and act like BEG pissed in your cornflakes.  Funny how some of you are pointing out that she posts a lot on here and must not have a life or should spend that time out doing photography when you people are doing the exact same thing, spending all your time around here stalking one person.  Most of ya’ll are the pot calling the fucking kettle black.

    My opinion on the shit slinging going down in here.  First off professional classes versus learning on your own.  Both are a viable path to being a photographer.  One of the guys that I worked with picked it all up by learning on the job.  A couple others went through a photography degree program at a university.  I’m doing both, started off picking it up from my father and grandfather, then branched out into classes, photo clubs, interning with a pro, and also reading all that I can on the subject.  No way is necessarily better or worse.

    As for Roxanne and her photos and websites.  My question, what is really that awful with even that Wix site?  Are the shots horribly over or underexposed?  Is her composition terrible?  Its not great and nothing is really compelling about the site, but nothing also screams out fauxtog to me.  Technically the shots are all in focus, exposed in a mostly appropriate manner, and not destroyed by awful editing.  As to her main site and the comments about her using a Rebel, who cares what body it is as long as you get a high quality shot?  Does the data also tell you what glass is attached to the body?  I have some really good shots with my D40 before using some shitty lenses and some using my much better glass.  That doesn’t mean it is my main camera, but if I ever pull out that camera, I don’t instantly turn into a damn fauxtog, I just have to know the limitations of that camera versus my higher end bodies.  I previously posted a fauxtographer who has horribly blurry and unfocused shots and lo and behold she was using a Nikon D3!  Meanwhile I know another guy whose parents got him a D2 when he was in HS.  He went to school for photography and now works for a local TV station doing sports photography for their website.  So the gear doesn’t make the photographer, the knowledge to use your equipment properly makes you a good photographer.

    Now to the person earlier saying you could even do weddings with a Rebel, please don’t actually bother to do wedding photography and roll up with that, or you WILL get laughed at.  You might be able to do your cousins wedding in her backyard on a sunny day with a Rebel, but the first time you go up to an ill-lit church and the preacher says “We do not allow flash photography in the building” you will be shitting your pants.  I have seen that happen to a family member and her photos during the wedding are TERRIBLE because the photographer was not prepared (and I was in the wedding so I was unable to help).  The photographer was good when she had proper lighting, and has some nice external shots and posed shots after the wedding ceremony when she could use her flashes indoors and available natural lighting, but she didn’t have any fast telephoto glass to compensate for the crappy low light and her camera (I do not know which one it was as I am a Nikon guy) had terrible image quality at higher ISO.  Combine that with no monopod or tripod and you have a recipe for blurry shots.  So while in some situations you can shoot a wedding with lower level gear, make sure you have the necessary gear (or access to it) for even tough situations like that before you put out a wedding photographer shingle.  Otherwise it is a recipe for disaster without proper planning (like say doing a tour of the venue with the client BEFORE the day of the wedding).

    So to conclude, can we please wrap up the bash party on each other in here?  I’m tired of seeing others bash one person that has good enough shots to show she understands how to use her camera, editing software and a decent eye and trying to compare her to your shitty friends who we originally pointed out have no business trying to run a photography business as their current skill level.  I would like to get the discussion back to what this thread was truly about, showing off really bad photographers who are often being deluded by friends and family into thinking they are turning out a product that people should pay for, when to anybody with a knowledgeable eye, they are far from it.

     

    #7229
    dont.care
    Member

    #7230
    fstopper89
    Member

    Well for what it’s worth, i never went on random searches for bad photographers. Any I ever linked here were ones I came across either by seeing their photos pop up on my newsfeed or by links posted originally by others. I mean come on, no one sits at their computer and says “I’m so bored, why don’t I just type in random words in the search bar and find bad photographers.” And to sal- no, I was not lying. Sorry YOU were wrong. I was not charging for services, but I was planning on getting to that point and had intended that site to eventually become a business site. I really don’t care people found it but do find it quite hypocritical that someone did make quite the effort to search out any evidence of me being a “fauxtog.” Guess that’s what happpens when you post things publicly. Some of the peple here need to get a life, stop picking apart every little word someone says like a match to paper.

    #7231

    Now to the person earlier saying you could even do weddings with a Rebel, please don’t actually bother to do wedding photography and roll up with that, or you WILL get laughed at.  You might be able to do your cousins wedding in her backyard on a sunny day with a Rebel, but the first time you go up to an ill-lit church and the preacher says “We do not allow flash photography in the building” you will be shitting your pants.

    Pretty sure you are referring to my comment.  The point I was trying to make is that a Rebel body, while being the low end of Canon’s dSLR line, is actually pretty capable.  It also comes in two flavours for each release, T2 and T2i, for instance.  The “i” seems to deliver a lot of extra performance.  In any case, for years we managed with film… By today’s standards film is not fast.   More recently, in January 2008, I got my shiny new 1Ds Mk III body — Canon’s flagship body!  How fast is it?  Well, ISO can be set all the way up to 3200.  My Rebel T2i can be set all the way up to 12,800, but I wouldn’t go beyond 6400 for most uses and would try to use 3200 or even 1600 for the sake of a really clean shot.   Those are the same ISO numbers I would use with a “pro” body.  The areas where a 1D or 5d excel over the Rebel are durability, focusing and metering.  As I said in the other post, for about the same noise, a 5D Mk III is perhaps a stop better and a 1Dx is about 2 stops better.  The sensitivity of a new Rebel will outperform older but more expensive bodies.  If you have access to good lenses, a Rebel will deliver, even in a dimly lit church.  The real benefit to using a bigger body is the perception of spectators.

    #7232
    FauxFighters
    Member

    I do not disagree with the Rebel being a capable body, much like the D40/D3000 is a capable line.  I started on a D40 as my first dSLR and still shoot with it on occasion when I do not have/want to carry a bigger body.  I just didn’t want anybody to assume that grabbing a Rebel means “OMG I’m a wedding photog now!” because while it can be good in the same way a D40 can be good, it will not get as good a quality of shot as somebody shooting with a full-frame sensor or (much more importantly) good glass.  Be prepared as they say in scouting.

    As to don’t care let me just say, I don’t think she is a fauxtographer so I don’t think I’m being a hypocrite in defending her.  Just like earlier in this thread (back before it went on the BEG tangent from Hell) when some folks posted up some “faux”togs and I disagreed with them.  I have said before and will say again, if you have to cherry pick somebody’s album and only p0int to their oldest photos and 1-2 shots out of a whole album more recently, then they are NOT a faux.  If they are showing growth and development, then they are probably working their way out of being a fauxtog if they have not already.  Don’t be super critical because they “stole” business from you or you fancy yourself to be better than them but have some made up excuse why they get all the business instead.  I defended Misty & Jennifer Nolan as well, so I definitely don’t feel like a hypocrite.  I truly abhor work like that Cathleen and Rebecca Lange Photography as they seem to have gotten a camera and learned nothing about it but hung out a shingle on FB and BOOM they are open for business, even if that business looks mostly like #2.  My three personal hatreds that scream “Fauxtog!!” to me are 1) technical ineptitude, lack of compositional awareness and horrible editing.  I do not think any of her stuff obviously fell into any of this.

    Meanwhile who is the frequent poster who can’t stand behind their word and half the thread is full of their posts and subsequent deletions?  Oh yea, thats right dont.care obviously does care.  Seems hypocritical to me how you will post all sorts of things and then blow pages of it away.  Takes one to know one?

    But you are right, in general I would not just do that for any random person that calls me up, although I have made exceptions as late as a few months ago.  But unless you want to run around 24/7 making $20 a shoot, you are always going to have somebody that will undercut you on price, but will likely under-deliver on quality as well.  You just have to accept that and hope that people someday realize they are getting sub-par photos and an unremarkable experience for a relatively minor savings in cost.  I would rather have three exceptional photoshoots than eight that are boring or even worse, just bad.

    #7233
    fstopper89
    Member

    And @saljel- get an eye exam, please. “You are no better than the links you have been posting here.” BAHAHA. I’m certainly not stupid.

    The debate will always be up about a camera body being more/less capable than another and more/less professional than another. I do agree that the lens and HOW you use any equipment will far surpass what body it’s on, unless it’s a truly crappy camera. I also agree that a higher-end body typically is a lot more capable and faster for certain situations, and I would feel very unprepared using a Rebel or similar body at a wedding that was in a dimly-lit church. Most average joes will not see a Rebel and say “Omg, that person is totally a fauxtographer!” but if there were any wedding guests who were also seasoned photogs, they may think that. In the end though, who really cares what they think, as long as you are delivering professional results? Rebel or 1Dx or somewhere in between.

    Yeah I also defended some of those photogs people had linked here that really were photogs who just had a few not-so-great shots. I guess before I posted any I did I looked through their albums trying to find at least a few good shots. If they were consistently horrible they made my cut for fauxtog. The point of this thread was not random harsh critiques or bashing. It was simply pointing out fauxtogs whose work was, in many cases, much worse than stuff that ends up being featured on this site.

    #7239
    dont.care
    Member

    #7279
    kbee
    Member

    I come here for one thing: for a more varied viewpoint on photography. Let’s all face it – our family, our friends, and our clients (paying clients or no) are not likely to give us truly honest feedback if they do not like our photos. Why? They are emotionally invested in us, and/or they are emotionally invested in the subject. I look over some photos I took of my baby niece and though everything about them would make the people on these forums scream in horror, I love the photos because they’re of my niece. Technically, I know they’re not sound, but I keep them because of who they’re of and the memories they capture. Still, because of my evolution in my learning and the contributions of others on this site and numerous others, I can better spot what is good and what is not. I am thankful for that.

    That is why feedback from others, without that emotional investment, can be invaluable. It can hurt, but there’s no fawning Like! thumbs up thrown your way from people placed outside of your immediate circle of supporters. I value this, and I cheer on any other tog who can swallow some criticism humbly without firing back with insults, lawsuit threats, suicide threats and so on.

    Oops. I meant to just post and say I miss the original purpose of this thread. However, it was starting to devolve from serious fauxtography to more subjective critiques. Ah well, there’s more forums to peruse.

    #7285
    FauxRealz
    Member

    To Quote Browneyed a little:  “That was from years ago, while I was still in college. Actually I’m pretty mad that site is still live, as I thought I completely canceled and deleted it. …But really, the types of photos there, for tha majority, are not portraits except some practice shots. It was a portfolio online, not portrayed as a professional website…. Yes I did put the line about price but the intention was to eventually make it into a business site, but never eded up using it as such. The only “client” was my friend and that shoot was entirely free of charge. The site isn’t good, and hasn’t been touched since those last few photos were posted there. It does after all say “asiring photographer.” It was an attempt at portfolio-building. I really thought I had deleted the site a long time ago. It’s not, to my knowledge at least, even linked anywhere to me.”

    In a word: AWESOME.  I wasn’t going to post anymore on this site, since I felt I made my point, but I couldn’t help it after reading the stuff proving that browneyedgirl started out just like all the people she talks crap about!  Just a few points, then I’m outta here..

    1) Just because you thought you deleted it does not mean you are not guilty of being a “fauxtog”.

    2) If your site said “contact for pricing” it doesn’t matter that you made no money, you’re still a Fauxtog.  At least other Fauxtogs made money, why couldn’t you?

    3) Did you try to contact any of the “aspiring” photographers you mentioned in this forum to make sure that they didn’t “accidentally” appear as a professional site?  Maybe they didn’t intend for it to be a professional site either.  Maybe they just meant for it to be a portfolio site?  Ever think of that? 

    Alright, I’m done browneyed bashing, although maybe she could change her name to black-eyed-girl? Or can’t-see-the-splinter-in-your-eye-because-of-the-log-in-mine-girl?  Just a thought.

    #7286
    FauxRealz
    Member

    Oh, almost forgot, if someone ASKS for some feedback, let them have it!  If they didn’t ask, then you’re just being bitchy.  Okay, now I’m done.

    #7290
    seth
    Member

    omg are we still going on about this?  WHO CARES?

    It doesn’t matter, MOVE ALONG.

    #7295
    IHF
    Member

    Confession:  Although I have not gotten involved with this thread, and find it useless to critique  someone’s photography that wasn’t seeking it (fauxs who don’t seek cc don’t care, and don’t  even think like photographers do)

    I have been following along 😉

    and I literally lol when browneyed said this “I mean come on, no one sits at their computer and says “I’m so bored, why don’t I just type in random words in the search bar and find bad photographers.”

    Ive done this!!!  It’s actually quite fun, and I know people that have turned it into a drinking game And I’ve played before.  You type any name you can come up with, add the word photography after, and if there’s a tog (90% of the time there’s more than one) you have to drink.  If the tog has “passion” two drinks.  Then a discussion takes place wether they are a legit and profitable business or not.  If not, your drinking again.  Be very very careful, because woe!  You’ll get way too drunk in a hurry playing it. lol but it’s lots of fun.

    #7297
    JLiu
    Member

    @IHF…that’s scary.  I would have had to take a few drinks after Googling for my own name.

    #7298
    IHF
    Member

    Yeah, it can get bad in a hurry lol. If you really want to get drunk,  use first and middle female names like Nicole Marie, or Becky Ann .  It got pretty crazy one time, to the point we didn’t want to find anymore.  we came up with stuff no one in their right mind would name their business,  but we actually found “fauxtography Photography”. Lets just say, we all ended up drinking on that one lol and we had to stop playing at that point

Viewing 15 posts - 436 through 450 (of 3,098 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.