Home › Forums › Am I a Fauxtog? › Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page…
Tagged: fauxtog?
- This topic has 3,097 replies, 358 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 9 months ago by
cameraclicker.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 7, 2013 at 11:03 pm #8677
Concerned
ParticipantHere is our newest one that has popped up. She has posted contests and has now booked a shoot!! These are her best shots she has posted!!
I wish my kids skin was this orange!!
I just dont understand… why dont they see what we do??? Who would pay for this??
What is in focus? Background is not even straight!
Done with my rant for the night! heheh.. I hate seeing these come across my facebook and people liking them!!
April 8, 2013 at 8:07 pm #8701dont.care
ParticipantApril 8, 2013 at 11:37 pm #8709mamarizzo
ParticipantJust saw this one in my newsfeed. She’s not the worst fauxtog ever but her (2011) pricing seemed pretty ambitious for her low skill level. I’m surprised she’s charging.
April 8, 2013 at 11:51 pm #8710fstopper89
ParticipantI think she could be a lot better with some positive critique. She has a lot of exposure issues and really poor choices in locations from what I saw including a lot of distractions in the backgrounds. Some of the posing seemed odd to me, but that might be more opinion. Her stuff is in focus and it seems she knows somewhat of how to use her equipment properly.
April 9, 2013 at 12:15 am #8711pickles
Participanthttps://www.facebook.com/FarOutPhotography
This guy…
Oh…and a google search brought this up, lol.
http://thedirty.com/2012/01/nasty-creep-with-camera/April 9, 2013 at 1:40 pm #8718ParticipantHahaha I love the “Dirty” blog page story on him. He TOTALLY is a younger version of this creep in my town named David. David used to frequent a bar I work at on the weekends with his huge camera and lens and his “look book.” We have a dance floor that includes a stripper pole (lol) and he’s always all over the girls dancing on it. He’s known for his super bright fill flash and I can always tell when a photo pops up on FB that it was a David shot. He asked me last year to pose for him but I conveniently never got back to him about it. He does girls’ makeup and hair and will even come over to help choose outfits. I know this because a friend of mine had him come over and he did “test shots” that she specifically told him she did not want anyone but her to see, but found out from some guy friend of hers a week later that HE saw the images. David claims he used to shoot models when he lived in Florida and has an album on his Fb of “Models I shot in Florida.” Most look like the photo was downloaded from the internet and they don’t have a cohesive style, making me think he didn’t shoot all of them. I don’t doubt he shot some, but some of them are like really professional models and the images look like a completely different style. And yes, he’s a creepy, overweight, slightly balding middle-aged man. He lives in a house with another girl I know (3 people rent rooms in a shared house) and that girl said she had her boyfriend over one day and they were doing it in her room and she caught David peeking through the crack in her door at them. He’s such a perv!
April 9, 2013 at 2:19 pm #8720ParticipantEw this creeps me out. Pageant photography is just creepy in general as they put so much makeup on these toddlers and then over-edit the photos to make them look like Barbie dolls. Sadly, I know pageants are a way of life for many families especially in the South US but I personally don’t agree with it. She has a bunch of terrible retouches that it looks like the original photo was from another photographer.
Nothing about this looks real at all. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151203497743320&set=pb.254428523319.-2207520000.1365529950&type=3&theater
I doubt they had permission from Alanna (Honey Boo Boo’s) original photographer to retouch their image and use it on their page. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150947107943320&set=pb.254428523319.-2207520000.1365530069&type=3&theater
Ugh makes me sad to see them make a little girl look super tan. Hey at least she isn’t visiting a tanning salon I guess. She’s so much more beautiful in the original photo. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150487242933320&set=pb.254428523319.-2207520000.1365530840&type=3&theater
Another probably stolen photo she retouched. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150488020693320&set=pb.254428523319.-2207520000.1365530840&type=3&theater
Looks like her actual photography sucks. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150431565058320&set=pb.254428523319.-2207520000.1365531173&type=3&theater
Copy Wright. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150316608308320&set=pb.254428523319.-2207520000.1365531246&type=3&theater
Here, do a duck face. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150316589833320&set=pb.254428523319.-2207520000.1365531289&type=3&theater
“Muslim” painted backdrops. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150316589833320&set=pb.254428523319.-2207520000.1365531289&type=3&theater
April 10, 2013 at 10:50 am #8775seth
ParticipantI HATE PAGEANTS especially for little girls. They give them a great self image.
Anyway. So this hit the news yesterday, where I’m originally from: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151563754354312&set=a.115044704311.96381.110988779311&type=1&ref=nf
Apparently, they want professional photographers to get a permit to be able to take pictures in the park. I’m gathering this is (supposedly) due to one photographer carving a wedding date into a historic barn. I’m also gathering that the signs have come down and are “pending further review.” Anyway, this just led me from one fauxtographer to another. Here’s my favorite:
https://www.facebook.com/ibatsphoto
Now, she’s not horrible but she has some really bad editing from time to time, but what makes her a fauxtographer is her comment:
I am a local photographer and I have known about this for a while now. I think its absolute crap! Our tax dollars pay for these parks. Im glad a news station finally did an investigation. I contacted you paid for it and never got a call back. This will really hurt business for me because I am in the process of getting a business license and I called STL County Parks Department and I was told you can’t even buy a permit without a license or insurance so I couldn’t even use the parks period for any shoots. I take professional grade photos of my daughter all the time so if I was at a park with her taking photos of her they could fine me or make me leave the park. Also anyone with money can buy the equipment I have and use it in a non professional way. I wish that STL County parks could define ‘professional’ People now days dont have money for expensive photographers so they have a friend with a ‘nice camera’ take their photos. Of course they are going to be better quality than a point and shoot. Will those people who do it as a hobby be fined or made to leave the parks. It really does need to be assessed. When I contacted the parks department they were very defensive and rude when I told them how I felt and asked why this is being done. I hope it doesn’t last. Its def the stupidest thing to date I have seen.Inspired By A True Story Photography
So not only does she have to pimp herself by linking herself there, but she’s a “professional” who’s business will be hurt by these signs despite the fact that she doesn’t have a business license or insurance. Not to mention the phrase: “absolute crap” by someone who is stating they are professional. How does someone without a business license or insurance remain not only “in the process” but have nearly 3,400 likes?? So I guess she’s been doing business illegally a long time.
Another comment, if you follow a link posted by the county or something, said, “how much money do you think photographers make? Not as much as you think! For a portrait shoot maybe 50 to 100 bucks. And the parks want to charge us 50?”
And there you have it, folks, more fauxtographers charging $50 to ruin your business.
April 10, 2013 at 10:51 am #8776Participantbtw Mirror Image is pretty bad… eep
Not to mention it’s not a mirror image if you’re photoshopping the heck out of the pics. Adding the tans to the little girls is especially despicable.
April 10, 2013 at 5:10 pm #8789ParticipantMy take on that park permit issue is that it does seem wrong to require a permit for a public location like a park. A commercial business that might set up a stand or a booth or some kind of structure to sell wares or services I could see where there would be a fee for that (such as, in my town we have to pay a fee to rent a park shelter for the day for family reunions and such) but photographers are walking through the park, generally posing people on structures or natural elements already in the park or bringing a few props such as chairs, and spending maybe an hour there. Photographers use public areas such as alley ways, sidewalks, or other places to take pictures of clients as well. It’s not like they are using the park or any public place as their actual studio. A studio is a private location where only the photographer and the client are allowed to be. A photographer shooting in a park can’t cordon off an area to keep other park-goers from being in the way while they’re shooting. They get the same kind of access as a babysitter taking their clients’ children to play on the playground (which is “commercial” mind you), or the family walking or biking down the park trail, or the couple having a picnic on the grass. As a photographer who uses parks sometimes, I have to deal with the possibility that there may be people where I want to shoot and I have no right to ask them to leave. There have been times I brought clients and had my camera and some props, and people saw me and respected that and kept their activity a reasonable distance to not be in the way. But the point is, the park is shared equally be the public no matter what activity they are engaging in. I can see why the parks department wants to see that photographers are insured against liability, but generally that is covered by the photographer’s business itself and explained in contracts. And if a photographer committed some sort of vandalism (well for one, I don’t know what kind of professional photographer would even think that was acceptable) that is an issue against that particular vandal. My 2 cents.
April 11, 2013 at 4:05 am #8822JanJan
ParticipantIn Vegas, where I live, it seems like my favorite places are more and more stringent on permits. I understand that if it’s on a private property, the owners can do whatever they want on their property. When my favorite graffiti art area in the Arts District started charging $25 per hour for photo shoots, I wasn’t upset because it’s private property. Of course, I was bummed when they started charging because it used to be open for photography, but I was more understanding. And of course, commercial photography of any kind is prohibited inside the casinos unless you get permission from marketing or PR. This is why you will see more exterior shots of The Strip.
The Vegas area has 2 locations that are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is Red Rock Canyon and Jean Dry Lake Bed. The BLM is a branch of the US Department of Interior, and is funded by my tax dollars. I don’t understand why I will need to request for a permit that requires 14 days advanced notice, at least $100 (I’m thinking $250), and insurance to be shooting in a wide-open area like Red Rock and the dry lake bed. It’s not like I’m blocking off sections for my photo shoot for regular visitors. I heard that at Red Rock, anyone can be viewed as a “model”. If the rangers see a family who is obviously taking “professional” pictures (ie. the family is dressed alike or in clothing not comfortable for hiking), they can get fined $400! I had to warn a girl and her female cousin (who was wearing a nice dress and cowboy boots as opposed to jeans and tennis shoes) to watch out for the ranger who was a few hundred feet away because she taking “modeling” pictures. Even though the girl was doing it for free and having fun, they don’t care, her cousin was a “model”.
The same goes for the Jean Dry Lake bed. If you bust out a reflector and a model, you can get fined if the ranger catches you. I think this is more ridiculous because it’s an open area that is out in the middle of nowhere and not easily accessible. They allow people to go dirt biking or riding their ATV’s, which does more damage to the area, but they don’t allow “commercial-like” photography.
It just basically boils down to money!
April 12, 2013 at 9:27 pm #8864ParticipantI found this guy on Craig’s List, under the listing “Best in the West”
Supposedly, he’s had over 35 years of experience!
This is supposed to be a headshot!
http://www.richardaklein.com/images/img_2937.gifThis is awful masking!
http://www.richardaklein.com/images/zzzza.gifWhat the hell is this?
http://www.richardaklein.com/images/img_2606.gifHe’s been doing this for 35 years and produces crap like this?
http://www.richardaklein.com/Portfolio_Jenny.htmlIf I have been a photographer for over 30 years, wouldn’t my work look like this?
http://www.francisx2.com/
(My company hired this photographer to take lifestyle pictures.)I may not have been in the game long enough to be technical, but I would think there will be similarities in quality between these 30+ year veterans.
April 12, 2013 at 11:01 pm #8869ParticipantRichard Klein has a mix of some pretty decent photos to some just bad photos. A handful of his headshots were good, basic headshots. His stuff wasn’t all that interesting. I didn’t really look at the non-portraits except the one on his front page (kind of cool, but part looked out of focus and dark) and that weird masked one you linked (wtf is that even?) lol.
Some photographers get lazy. They get into a groove, and continue to get clients, and don’t really work on upping the ante with their style as times change. One way to avoid that is to keep yourself inspired by looking at other good work. I love Flickr for that; I always have a feed of new photos from my contacts and I can search almost any keyword and get such a variety in any category as well.
Francis + Francis has some awesome work.
April 13, 2013 at 3:02 am #8875ParticipantThe weird masked picture is supposed to be a botanical garden at the Bellagio in Las Vegas. They change the themes and arrangements seasonally, and that was from last year (I know because I took similar pictures). I don’t understand why he had to mask the background, because it would have been a nice landscape shot. That round clear ball in the middle is supposed to be a fountain/waterfall. Here it is my shot of it close-up:
The picture on Richard’s home page is part of the ceiling of Bellagio’s lobby. I took a similar picture of it too last year, and yes, his version is way too dark.
I know that Richard and Francis + Francis take different genres of photography, but I would expect Richard’s portfolio would somewhat match Francis + Francis quality of work. Or maybe Richard was a better film photographer back in the days (he posted some older pictures), and is not good with the current digital stuff. Either way, I think he’s doing a disservice to people if they’re paying a lot of money for a photographer whose work does not showcase his 30+ years of experience well.
This one is pretty bad too:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/QJs-Imaging/101597513224342
http://www.qjsimaging.com/April 13, 2013 at 9:09 am #8881snap_happy
Participanthttps://www.facebook.com/KlickypixPhotographyLtd
Need I say more?
The funniest thing is, she goes onto other people’s photos, asking them ‘how did you do this?’, then attempts her own little version. Plus all that ‘txt spk’ makes my eyes bleed.
Another one that won’t go far…
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.