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

Tagged: 

Viewing 15 posts - 1,216 through 1,230 (of 3,098 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #11180
    snaphappy
    Participant

    Yeah, I am not seeing what you see with Terry. Yes the weird background were bad, but I enjoyed looking at most that page! I like her work a lot.

    #11181
    fstopper89
    Participant

    Terry a fauxtog? What?? Impulse, let’s see your work. That photo with the trees may have had something poorly clones in the lower left, but the rest is due to the lens/aperture (those squiggly lines). for one photo that wasn’t very strong, she has lots of gorgeous photos.

    #11182
    mynameisRachel
    Participant
    #11183
    impulse101
    Participant

    Meh, I guess you guys are way more forgiving of mistakes than I. I suppose if one learns a few gimmicks they can distract from very basic photoshop mistakes pretty easily. As far as “my work”, I don’t have any but as they say one doesn’t have to be a 5 star chef to know what tastes terrible 😉

    #11188
    momee23
    Participant

    Well, at least she makes her photos affordable for her clients….

    https://www.facebook.com/FarinellasPhotography/photos_stream

    Definitely a case of  “You get what you pay for!”

    #11189
    fstopper89
    Participant

    I don’t know, impulse, I looked again (since when I looked earlier it was on my cell phone screen). I’m seeing a lot of nice work. I think she could fix the exposure and white balance in a handful of the images, but they’re in focus, have pretty good poses (even looked at the album with the heavier couple- the poses were pretty flattering while that can be difficult). She in NO way belongs in the “fauxtographer” category. I honestly wasn’t seeing a bunch of Photoshop mistakes. If you have some to point out, I’d be happy to see out of curiosity’s sake.

    I stumbled upon this one. At first I thought “wow, over 4,000 likes! Must be good!” Ugh, how do I have 250 likes and this person has over 4,000 now? I’m guessing she paid for likes. Her photos are awful, out-of-focus, and terribly over-edited. https://www.facebook.com/BellaVitaPhotography03?fref=ts

    #11190
    iliketag
    Participant

    I looked at the stuff impulse linked and I can say that I’m not a fan. Does she scream “fauxtog”? Nah. However, I wouldn’t pay for her work. The problems I have with the work is just the poor editing. Not my cup of tea, so I definitely think she should work on editing technique and having things that look less heavily ‘shopped, but overall not a bad photographer, just not a great one.

    There is a severe lack of consistency with the BellaVita one, BEG. Her stuff looks like very amateur, guest-at-the-wedding type stuff. The image of the couple on the bridge isn’t so bad, composition wise, but I see what you mean about the over-edits and the really poor lighting/exposures. Judging by the expressions of her subjects though, they seem very at ease with her so maybe there’s hope there if she decides to learn and hone some more.

    #11195
    seth
    Participant

    Terry is not a faux.  The others are, however.  If I remember everything I looked at…

    I wanted to share a faux but I’m not gonna do it because you guys are gonna go off running and telling the person like someone told Terry she was here!  I can’t have that ’cause it could get my friend in trouble, it’s her now-ex partner I mentioned before.  Let’s just say that people are saying to my friend they can tell she left the company.

    #11196
    fstopper89
    Participant

    I hope with Terry and her friends looking at this forum (they linked it in her comments) they don’t see the majority of us here as “losers.” Honestly, I feel like I have been pretty respectful, as have many others here. This is like a harsh critique site in a way. Some people come here accusing others of being fauxtographers without even offering up any of their work for review. There’s a huge spectrum between fauxtographer to decent photographer to good photographer to top-notch photographer. Most of us can clearly identify a true fauxtog.

    The main difference or pattern I’ve noticed is that fauxtographers are in it for nothing but quick money. Charge little, edit not at all or some or with Piknik and provide a disk with 100 images of similar poses, that are blurry or with harsh lighting issues, less than a week turnaround, with 3-5 clients a week. Photographers actually care, and spend the time, we learn all we can, invest in gear because we KNOW the value it can provide, invest our minds in learning new techniques, and maybe we can’t support ourselves with photography.

    #11197
    BCLC
    Participant

    This is why people need to be careful. I think if you are going to criticise others work you should be able to back it up with your own. I’ve noticed a lot of bashing mainly from random posters. I think it’s time to start guiding others not judging, too much negativity.

    #11198
    fstopper89
    Participant

    Well, like “impulse” responded, that he/she didn’t have to be an awesome photographer to be able to tell what was good and bad work, and therefore it wasn’t necessary to post their own work. But what do we have to base that off of? I mean, it’s like the girl who once told me “Hey I never took a photography class in my life but I take amazing photos so photography classes aren’t really necessary!” when in fact, her photography was terrible- out of focus, dark, random lighting issues, grainy, taken with a point-and-shoot, etc. If a person can offer constructive criticism and REASONS why something is good/bad, it shows other educated/knowledgeable individuals that they have something to back it up and their critique “holds water.” I know I’m not the world’s most perfect photographer or anything close to that, but I have a lot of knowledge and information I’ve learned to back up anything I say about another’s work. I don’t say “oh that photo just sucks!” or anything like that.

    I agree too, some of the random bashing I think must come from friends (or aliases) of fauxtogs who have been called out somewhere on this site.

    #11201
    Sarah
    Participant

    What I really hate is bad business practices:

    I just saw this: “To wrap up the year. We are letting our customers name there price! If you have a cooperate event, wedding, anniversary party or family reunion and need a photographer, we will let you name your price and we will give you a package with prints, and a disk of images, with possibly a photo-book. Make if you call us to schedule a sitting. you will receive 10 free 4×6 prints with your event. ”

     

    & The profile photo says “Ask me how to get free photos”.

     

    http://www.facebook.com/xlphotoonline

    #11202
    IHF
    Participant

    I think it’s time this thread dies and a new thread gets started.  Seems people are losing the topic at this point.  “Fauxtogs that should end up on the main page”.

    ever since this thread got started, it’s been so active that it trumps out photographers seeking critique and asking the question “Am I a fauxtog?”.  At first the togs would get ignored, or maybe only have one person responding… Now, people don’t even ask the question anymore, but once in a blue moon.  Gee I wonder why?  Could it be as soon as they click on the title they are taken to this thread?  these are people that care enough about what they are doing to ask for critique.  Not randoms, who most likely never do, and really don’t care, or people that obviously have someone in their lives with a beef against them, like those linked here within this thread.  It’s just been too many times seeing togs linked here that in fact DON’T belong on the front page.  Yeah, I get that they aren’t great, or what have you, but. Ask yourself, do they belong on the front page?  Really?! And if not, start a new flippin topic, that is more suited to why you want to discuss a particular tog business.  It’s like this thread has become the catch all to the whole forum.  Makes it hard to follow, and I had a lot more fun, and things were much more productive when new topics were made.  Think about a passerby, that just wants to feel things out, and maybe learn a thing or two.  They aren’t going to read this whole thing, and there’s a lot of good read (along with the drama and less helpful stuff) that so many will miss out on.  Start new topics people.  Make sure you are heard, and have listeners.  Maybe then we can get back to having descent discussions, and not scaring off those who truly want input and help.  Sure, lets have fun, and have some giggles, but lets also get back to being more productive.  Just consider it please.  This used to be one of my favorite forums to go to and read everyday.  I’ll tell you too, nothing beats the feeling you get when you actually help a person learn, that really wants to.  (Yeah, they are few and far between, but its worth it.  plus those that dont respond well to their asked for critique ARE kind of entertaining, right?) Can we all get back to doing that?  Because this is lame, the way it has been.  Theres no interaction with the togs, what’s the point?

    Sarah, that tog you linked is obviously out of business.  The last post was made oct 2012.   I wonder why? 😉

    If this had been linked to as a separate topic, maybe someone thinking of trying this “business move” would read it, and learn from it.  Even if it didnt  play out that way, it most likely would have got more laughs with a thread of it’s own

     

    #11205
    nesgran
    Participant

    What I really hate is bad business practices:

    I just saw this: “To wrap up the year. We are letting our customers name there price! If you have a cooperate event, wedding, anniversary party or family reunion and need a photographer, we will let you name your price and we will give you a package with prints, and a disk of images, with possibly a photo-book. Make if you call us to schedule a sitting. you will receive 10 free 4×6 prints with your event. ”

    I’m not sure it is bad business practice, in fact I believe with a photographer at that level it is very good practice as no one can be disappointed. I don’t think they should be shooting weddings though as they aren’t good enough to pull it off. It might have looked a lot better if they had someone editing who knew what they were doing rather than slapping on 50% extra saturation. I would put this on the upper end of fauxs personally. No question it is a faux but it looks a lot better than some disasters out there. I even think this one has a proper flash, unfortunately they don’t know that you need to get it on a bracket if you are going to use it in portrait position. A lot of the photos probably started out life looking quite good out of the camera before being molested in photoshop.

    On a side note. I just found the perfect faux editing program because it ticks all the boxes, it has photoshop in the name, there is autocorrect, there is an example on the front showing selective colouring, there’s no boring sliders or numbers, you just click on whatever level of oversaturation you want etc. Perfect, oh, it is also free http://www.photoshop.com/tools/expresseditor?wf=editor

    #11207
    iliketag
    Participant

    IHF, I think that this thread is still great. Yes, there are some people who post those who don’t fit the bill for being featured here… but there are also a bunch who do.
    The problem I have with new threads? They die quickly. If you want everyone starting new threads for everything, things will still get buried anyway.

    I still see people asking if they’re a Faux, but perhaps a lot of people don’t because they’re afraid of the answer.
    I honestly have no problem with this thread. I can filter out those who don’t belong and it opens up discussions about each individual posted. Sometimes it’s just “Oh GOD that’s bad!” from all of us, sometimes we really get into what could be improved or what they do right. I think people who just pop in here occassionally see the negatives, but that’s not how all of it is. But hey, you’ll see what you want, I guess.

Viewing 15 posts - 1,216 through 1,230 (of 3,098 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.