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
-
July 9, 2013 at 6:57 pm #11212
IHF
ParticipantAll I’m saying is, it’s really difficult to follow, and no one will actually take the time read the entire thing. They’ll miss out on everything that’s been said, and a lot should be heard that has been said here, not hidden within a long thread with little bouts of not so great thrown in periodically. If a tog that was linked here actually wanted to interact with you it would be difficult to, especially if two more pages were created after discussing them. I’ve kept an eye on the thread, and every time something entertaining, useful, or in other words “the good stuff” happens, I think “too bad no one but them will ever see it or read it”, other than people like me who click through to see what’s new now and then.
July 10, 2013 at 2:44 am #11220fotopoopie
Participanthttp://warrenjrphotography.com/
Check this guy out! He love to write articles with bias and no factual information. Not to mention he can’t focus properly .
He has the balls to charge people for photography lessons!!!
July 10, 2013 at 5:20 am #11221Worst Case Scenario
Participantas with most forums there seems to be a core of posters who do know what this thread is meant to be about, then there are the occasional posters who may not fully grasp the intention. And then there are the people like the prat above who join the site just to slag some one off! There does seem to have been a lot of this happening recently.
July 10, 2013 at 6:20 am #11222BCLC
ParticipantYeah that is the prime example from fotopoopie of people that don’t grasp the topic…..
The photos I see on the main page deserve to be there because they clearly have no idea what they are doing.
But the past few posts I’ve seen on this thread, probably not the greatest but I don’t think they fall in to ‘Fauxtog’ territory.
July 10, 2013 at 6:41 am #11223nesgran
Participanthttp://warrenjrphotography.com/
Check this guy out! He love to write articles with bias and no factual information. Not to mention he can’t focus properly .
He has the balls to charge people for photography lessons!!!
I don’t think he is bad, his shots look well executed and well lit and as far as I can see the only blurry shot is the one he used to advertise his workshop. And let’s face it, $25 isn’t a whole lot for a workshop
His equipment thoughts are very weird though, I can’t for my life fathom why anyone who mainly does portraits would sell his 85mm 1.8 lens to get the canon 55-250. To me it would have made sense to buy a 50mm 1.4 if anything as the 85mm is a bit unwieldy on a crop. I don’t know why he is recommending the older yongnou flash either since the new model has a built in radio receiver rather than having to faff with an extra transceiver. I don’t understand his hard on for the kit lenses and I’m not sure he understands aperture and how it affects sharpness and shutter speed either
July 10, 2013 at 6:47 am #11224cameraclicker
ParticipantI think we need to see fotopoopie’s work. It must be absolutely amazing if he/she thinks warrenjrphotography’s photos deserve to be shown here! The blog sections I read suggest warrenjrphotography understands the material and can probably teach it well.
Perhaps fotopoopie is jealous?
July 10, 2013 at 1:10 pm #11226fstopper89
ParticipantWarren Jr has some noce work, regardless of what lens he’s using. He seems to know his stuff and likes to experiment. The trolls are so annoying here.
July 10, 2013 at 1:52 pm #11227warrenjrphotography
Participantfotopoopie is the prime example of somehow that is only good at sitting on their lazyboy and talking trash on the internet.
He actually went on my website and tried to post spam on it as well saying that I have no idea about what I’m talking about and how my photos are trash…..I feel bad for the guy as I know for a fact that people that talk trash like that have personal issues and some people take those comments to heart (not me, I could care less if someone likes my photos or not I shoot photography because I enjoy it and love art).
I appreciate everyone’s comments on my photos, I’m still learning as I’ve only been photographing for a year and I believe you can always keep learning but I seemed to have pick up photography fast and enjoy learning/photoshoots.
Also for someone that likes to talk trash he seems to be fast to come to conclusions as if he read one of my most recent posts (if not my most recent) I mentioned that the lighting workshop is now free to all of those that attend as I like sharing my knowledge to other people and would like to meet other like minded photographers and network with them/become friends with them.
I also understand that my photographs might not be amazing (there are tons of photographers out there that are tons better than me) but even the best photos still have flaws in them and photography like all arts, is objective as there is no clean cut no wrong (for the most part at least).
It’s easy to sit back on a chair and talk trash on someones photos or articles as anyone can do that. I like those that actually go out and take photos/learn and have nice things to say as the last thing we need is more negativity.
Someone asked why I choose the 55-250 and the other kit lens over the 85 1.8 or 50 1.4 and it’s quite simple.
The reason why I love the 55-250 so much is because:
1. It’s extremely cheap for how good of a lens it is.
2. It produces a beautiful circular bokeh.
3. It is capable of narrow DOF.
4. It has a very wide focal range (80mm to 400mm 35mm equiv. I believe)
5. Since it has a wide focal range I am able to get whatever perspective that I want whereas with the prime lenses I was limited on the perspective, I can easily isolate my subject and get beautiful bokeh and despite what some might say, it is an extremely sharp lens.
6. Finally, it has 4 stop IS enabling me to use shutter speeds as low as 1/60 at the equivalent of 400mm on 35mm hand held which is quite amazing…..
However if I had the money I’d get the Canon 100-400L F4-5.6 IS USM + 5DmkII in a heart beat but for the money the kit lenses do the job just fine for me at the moment and I feel as through they are not holding me back. I just treat them as straight F5.6 lenses. I prefer longer focal ranges and F5.6 is a nice starting point DOF wise on both lenses.
Someone also asked why I recommended the Yongnuo 560II and not the 560III.
The reason for that is because I have no experience with the 560III and can not comment on it’s quality as Yongnuo has a history of releasing a new flash and making revisions of it due to the first releases having problems with them not to mention even though the 560III has a built in transceiver, if the built in transceiver ever had a problem with it you would be screwed as the flash would work but not the transceiver whereas if you have separate transceivers and a transceiver goes on you, you can just switch another one on it and be good to go.
I will however, be picking up a 560III in the future though as the total cost of one is about $10 less than if you buy the transceiver separate not to mention I like the idea of having a transceiver built into the flash (as long as it does not fail).
All the best guys.
July 10, 2013 at 2:09 pm #11228dont.care
ParticipantHah. Ignore the ignoramus Warren. Fotopoopie is borderline retarded. Nice photos, especially for the time you’ve been active and the gear you use.
July 10, 2013 at 2:17 pm #11229Participanthttp://www.flickriver.com/lenses/canon/canonefs55250mmf456is/ – I see nice photos from said lens.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jashir-gijon/5092807864/ – lot of noise, but decent bokeh
July 10, 2013 at 2:22 pm #11231alexandra
ParticipantI too really enjoyed Warren Jr’s work!
Anyway, I found one who’s rights to a spot on the front page would be in no way debatable… I was browsing through a classifieds website, and I came across this atrocity advertising their wedding services:
https://www.facebook.com/BlatzPhotographyTheir whole “June wedding” album just looks like they boosted the contrast, saturation, and used some sort of “faux HDR” filter or action in whatever program (or maybe even website) they were using. All the photos have a really high depth of field (as if taken with a cell-phone) which they tried to fix by selectively gaussian blurring certain areas of the image like my personal favorite one here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=349830561786626&set=pb.306832992753050.-2207520000.1373476835.&type=3&theaterLevitating family:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=315970168505999&set=pb.306832992753050.-2207520000.1373478781.&type=3&theaterTheir editing is definitely not my cup of tea…
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=307817585987924&set=pb.306832992753050.-2207520000.1373478817.&type=3&theaterSelective coloring, weird glow-blur, digital backdrop, not to mention over and under-exposed parts of the image. This one has everything:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=326845377418478&set=pb.306832992753050.-2207520000.1373478678.&type=3&theater
Oh, and here’s a link to their ad:
http://london.kijiji.ca/c-services-photography-video-Capture-your-most-memorable-moments-W0QQAdIdZ502040085July 10, 2013 at 2:22 pm #11232ParticipantI too really enjoyed Warren Jr’s work!
Anyway, I found one who’s rights to a spot on the front page would be in no way debatable… I was browsing through a classifieds website, and I came across this atrocity advertising their wedding services:
https://www.facebook.com/BlatzPhotographyTheir whole “June wedding” album just looks like they boosted the contrast, saturation, and used some sort of “faux HDR” filter or action in whatever program (or maybe even website) they were using. All the photos have a really high depth of field (as if taken with a cell-phone) which they tried to fix by selectively gaussian blurring certain areas of the image like my personal favorite one here:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=349830561786626&set=pb.306832992753050.-2207520000.1373476835.&type=3&theaterLevitating family:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=315970168505999&set=pb.306832992753050.-2207520000.1373478781.&type=3&theaterTheir editing is definitely not my cup of tea…
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=307817585987924&set=pb.306832992753050.-2207520000.1373478817.&type=3&theaterSelective coloring, weird glow-blur, digital backdrop, not to mention over and under-exposed parts of the image. This one has everything:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=326845377418478&set=pb.306832992753050.-2207520000.1373478678.&type=3&theater
Oh, and here’s a link to their ad:
http://london.kijiji.ca/c-services-photography-video-Capture-your-most-memorable-moments-W0QQAdIdZ502040085July 10, 2013 at 3:01 pm #11233ParticipantHaha, “Capture your memories”, and we’ll turn them into unrecognizable nightmares.. For free!
July 10, 2013 at 3:53 pm #11235ParticipantMaybe I’ve got a bad copy of the 55-250 but mine is so soft on the long end that I can see it even in the viewfinder and needs stopping down to about f8 before it gets acceptably sharp. Also my point was that the kit lens isn’t hot, especially if you use it as a fixed f5.6 compared to a fixed 2.8. At 2.8 you will let in four times the amount of light meaning you can use a quarter of the shutterspeed which is not to be sniffed at. It doesn’t help with IS if you have to go to 1/20s shutter speeds since your subject will have moved during the exposure. I would much rather take a tamron 17-50 than the two canon kit lenses together because if you have the option of 2.8 on the long end you can always stop down for more sharpness and contrast, neither of which are amazing on the kit lenses wide open. At f8 they are fine but wide open not so much. Then with the large aperture primes you have another two stops. I think you should probably point this out in the article as you’ve entirely left out the effect of having the ability to close down the aperture for better sharpness or leaving it wide open for better shutter speeds. The larger aperture will also make your flash photography easier since you can dial down the power on the flash and thus getting shorter recycle times. Fair enough on the ability to change the perspective but I’m not a fan of portraits at over 200mm since the perspective starts to get a bit funny.
Alexandra, for a sec I thought they had hired on that Cain guy
July 10, 2013 at 5:53 pm #11236bitchslapoftruth
Participanthow can you make anyone look bad?
not sure about this one. Neither foregroud nor background are in focus
Yes, please cover that up with some graffiti.. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=250947724999589&set=pb.162814303812932.-2207520000.1373493068.&type=3&theater
“here’s a picture of your kid with his face taken apart!” https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=250897348337960&set=pb.162814303812932.-2207520000.1373493069.&type=3&theater
you’re supposed to pull your pants down when you pee on train tracks in the snow? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=182792238481805&set=pb.162814303812932.-2207520000.1373493137.&type=3&theater
okay, I fully expect karma to come get me.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.