Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page…

[MsLouLou_25]

the baby is being eaten by the dark:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=151313701693595&set=a.151313255026973.34764.124536621037970&type=3&theater

[seth]

I like flare, as long as it’s used sparingly and done nicely, but I don’t see any flare in your picture, only really bright sunlight on one side giving the girl a somewhat washed-out look.

And as a side note, not to be picky but you should take the apostrophe out of “Photos” in “Adriane’s Photo’s.”  Only use an apostrophe to form a contraction or denote possessiveness and in your name, the photos don’t own anything, they are just plural: “Photos.”  fyi  🙂

[seth]

That baby pic is creepy, by the way…

[Cam]

“Adriane’s Photo’s”  aren’t shockingly terrible, I might a bit tired but I actually like the composition of her cover photo.

[Yikes2013]

This one is scary….

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151254810945625&set=pb.264171375624.-2207520000.1362406312&type=3&theater

Not sure why this location was chosen

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151265951585625&set=pb.264171375624.-2207520000.1362406312&type=3&theater

This album shouldn’t have been included in her online portfolio. Period.

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150943477645625.483400.264171375624&type=3

[Yikes2013]

Oops, forgot her main page:

http://www.facebook.com/KatrinaKollesPhotography

[ashphotog]

I found this one…I’m uncomfortable and sick seeing a couple of the images in this album….

 

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.214292491922540.59921.186183911400065&type=3

[winephoto]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=214292658589190&set=a.214292491922540.59921.186183911400065&type=3&theater Really, really awful.

[fstopper89]

Why on earth do all these fauxs seem to confuse “copyright” with print releases? They all offer a “CD with full copyright release.” And then get mad when someone copies or edits the photos.

Have to point this out too: A fauxtog I linked awhile back, “Fantasy Memoria” wrote this on their page:

“well i have degleted my site yes i had photos that were taken by friends family for fun and events i should have put them in their prospective place my( face book )I had some sites bashing these photos and talking about me well i am certified and once again I do not need to explain myself. I well say everything is back to normal will be posting new work i have done and well be work done with quality and I took action, I have an attorney will take action if anyone Intends to tag any photos off my site. I have all copy rights.”

I had linked some of her work here, and then shortly after that, a few of their photos ended up on that FB page called “You think you are a photographer?” and I think she got some backlash. I think whomever created that FB page was someone who uses these forums because most of the images shared (yes, shared, not copied and re-uploaded) were those linked in this forum. Anyway, some of the fauxs who had their stuff linked to that page were all in a tizzy because they strictly do NOT allow people to “share” their photos on FB and claim it to be under their copyright laws. They even say people may not tag themselves in the photos, and that that is a violation! I swear some of these fauxtogs are also just really, really dumb if they believe that is copyright violation. All that tagging or sharing does is link it to the original page (which, isn’t that good publicity?) so it is not stealing their work.

[Drew]

Just found these two local to me in Weston Super Mare, Somerset, England.

 

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Regent-Studios/509228175768831?ref=hl

https://www.facebook.com/PhotographybyEllaSayce

 

Saddens me to see such lousy photography being offered as professional services 🙁

[Yikes2013]

Why is it that some fauxtogs, when on a site such as this or that other FB one, always have the excuse that “it was from my ‘old’ work and I’ve come so far” when in actuality they haven’t improved and things aren’t better in their more recent albums? Clearly they are fooling themselves, but if they are able to see that their horrendous images were, in fact, bad. AND they sold them to clients That way can’t they see they are doing a disservice themselves, their clients, and the world of photography?

[Mrs Woo]

Actually, sharing someone’s work for informational or educational purposes, if done with restraint (you can’t link every photo in their portfolio, for example), falls within fair use in copyright law without any release by the creator/copyright holder.

I think most of us are defensive when we’re confronted with what we might be not doing well, and even moreso when the tone (like here) is kind of mocking and confrontational.  The first (and it is logical and definitely easiest) excuse would be, “That was older stuff and I am improving.”

Though they might be over-estimating their abilities, most people starting out as photographers (by the way, I’ve read there is a very high failure rate in photography studios – a lot of these people never make enough money to afford to stay in business, and part is their instinctive low-balling on their pricing – they KNOW, in their hearts, they aren’t ‘worth’ really high fees) aren’t actually thinking, “I suck but I’m gonna take people’s money anyhow.”  They think, “I’m learning and I’ll be honest that I don’t have a whole lot of experience and my rates will show that.”

If they are good at marketing (another very needed skill for a photography business), they can actually get a lot of sales and end up (hopefully) improving as photographers as they go.  And hey, if they suck as photographers but their marketing keeps them in business, maybe a more competent photographer has something they can learn from the bad photographer?

No one wants to be accused of defrauding people, and sometimes YANAP and Facebook sites like it, etc., actually insinuate and some posters will even insist that customers are being defrauded.  So a knee-jerk defensiveness is to be expected when they are confronted.   

[Yikes2013]

I would agree that it is most likely the first instinct, but I fail to understand why they continue on and on with the same old stuff…. OOF, badly lit, and poorly edited. And their “fans” and clients LOVE it. I suppose some of that is due to their “fans” being their friends and family rather than ‘actual’ fans. This false bravado makes things even worse because they honestly believe they are improving. Those Mommy Goggles are just a little too powerful which means they keep on taking these horrid images. It is sometimes downright ridiculous. I feel so badly for those who wind up with awful wedding images or terrible newborn images. Those are once in a lifetime images. If you get bad senior photos… have them retaken.

[youaintallthat]

Hey, that hanging baby thing is really popular right now, but we don’t have the right stuff for it. That’s okay, let’s just take any old blanket and hang her up in that!!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=398347420238356&set=a.391247110948387.90485.374387015967730&type=3&theater

Unless I’m completely off base, there is nothing good about this set.

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.391247110948387.90485.374387015967730&type=3

[bobjones]

You know it is blurry and still post it? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=236824383121386&set=a.206723146131510.51113.161167744020384&type=1&theater

There are a lot of bad shots on the fb page.

[Author]

Posts