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 10 years, 1 month ago by
cameraclicker.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 20, 2013 at 2:40 am #10923
iliketag
ParticipantIt might just be me, but the whole “friends of fans” thing is a stupid thing to track. None of my friends are interested in who I follow. Honestly…
June 20, 2013 at 6:27 am #10925BCLC
ParticipantI noticed the comments have been deleted how convenient!!
June 20, 2013 at 8:31 am #10927ratcliffe1811
ParticipantSooo glad I found this site. There is one woman doing my head in! Her photos are lifeless, often over saturated and some are plain creepy!
June 20, 2013 at 10:25 am #10929nesgran
ParticipantI don’t she deserves much of a mention on here, she is mainly not a great photographer but certainly beats most of the disasters that have been put in this thread. Her shots aren’t terribly exciting but she is not in faux territory either. I don’t know what she charges as she is clever enough to not put prices on her page but she had some offer for £30 for shooting a kid in princess outfit so she isn’t exactly an expensive tog.
She at least has a studio with some properish light in it. I think she’d benefit from some honest critique by a better portrait tog than her as the photos don’t exactly pop if you know what I mean.
-e- as long as she pays her taxes I don’t have a problem with her
June 20, 2013 at 2:51 pm #10938cameraclicker
ParticipantShe has rates: http://www.photografaye.co.uk/studio/prices-fees/
Not sure what £50.00 represents, but I think it may be not a bad rate for an hour.
She says: ” I have always had an interest in photography and have attended many photography courses in my time.”
I don’t know how many “many” is. I see some over saturated photos and some others that don’t thrill me, but I don’t have a problem with her either. Caveat emptor. She is showing her work, so if someone wants to pay her, why not?
June 20, 2013 at 4:11 pm #10942ParticipantOdd, I must have missed that somehow.
£50/hour with ten edited photos and a print I think is pretty reasonable for the quality she is producing. In USD that is about $75 which isn’t exactly a lot. I doubt she makes a living off only that though but it looks like she might be using a spare bedroom as a studio so her costs are probably quite low. This accounts for some of the wonky colours we’re seeing as one wall is green, ceiling white and the other walls have a pale yellowish wallpaper and the floor is a light wood. Not great for lighting photos properly but her set up far beats most if all fauxs’ set ups.
If she manages two shoots a day I think she’ll be earning about minimum wage or possibly slightly less, at least from a quick mental calculation
June 23, 2013 at 3:14 pm #11003Katie
Participant*Funny side note, this is NOT the same person I have posted in the past. This one is “moments by chell” the other one is “pictures by chell” but the towns listed that they are in, is the same state, literally a few hours apart!
June 23, 2013 at 6:28 pm #11012Lauryn
Participanthttps://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s720x720/320299_457777954267280_449063735_n.jpg
I’d like you all to meet lazy.
And we won’t even get into the 322345324243 other problems with this photo…June 23, 2013 at 6:51 pm #11013ParticipantCute kid, too bad the photos are so bad.
June 23, 2013 at 7:25 pm #11014-stills-
ParticipantSince we’re on the subject about coloring 😉
Bad case of Jaundice,maybe? Poor baby…
And this one REALLY deserves to be on the main page :/
June 23, 2013 at 8:03 pm #11015Participant*shudder* terrible spot coloring! that one of the face is certainly deserving of the front page I feel.
June 23, 2013 at 8:10 pm #11016Manual Mode
Participant@Lauryn Cute kid, The spot coloring is terribly done, but the low contrast meh B&W conversion may be the bigger offender there for me 8)
@-stills- At least the glass was reasonably clean on that second shot 8) Nothing warms the heart more than a cheesy glass shot with a spotty streaky glass!
June 23, 2013 at 10:32 pm #11018JCFindley
ParticipantOK, I am not normally one to post in this thread because I do art photography. The big difference with faux work on art sites is the buyer sees it before they spend any money so generally it simply doesn’t sell. They can undercut others all day long but when it come to buying large wall art the buyer is likely to spend big money on the printing, framing and shipping so even if a faux charges 20 bucks as a markup for a 48 inch print it will still cost a LOT of money. It won’t hurt the sales of others at all as people that spend that kind of money buy what they want and it isn’t fauxtography…
But I am absolutely dumbfounded at this. First the art site this is on claims to only accept 10% of artists that apply. Secondly, this photographer is labeled as a “top artists” on the site. And lastly, $525 is the price for a 36×24.
http://www.ugallery.com/photography-los-angeles-2011
I don’t shoot people at all, but I have to know, am I missing something in this?
June 23, 2013 at 11:30 pm #11019fstopper89
ParticipantJCFindley, that is just AWFUL! I’d like to know how many people actually ordered that print… if it’s more than zero, I think there is something in the water… I mean a tranny with lopsided plastic surgery?
June 23, 2013 at 11:48 pm #11020ParticipantJust ordered two. OMG the lines, the vignette, color saturation… Its all perfect! The super sharp shadows on the wall, the use of on-camera flash…GENIUS!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.