Home Forums Am I a Fauxtog? Feel free to turn your critical eye my way

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 90 total)
  • Author
  • #15476

    Just browsing a stream of your images-

    The product photography is fine for what it is.

    The infant shoots with the awful fake pastel backdrops- don’t do it. Maybe it was acceptable in the ’80s but that was also the time when people put babies in tubs with rubber duckies and train conductor hats etc. So weird.

    The wedding looks like a series of snapshots. Lots of out of focus work, lots underexposed, and very little difference in depth of field or any creative control.

    A couple of the outdoor portraits looked fine except for the ones that were out of focus.

    The studio portraits are kind of average and dull. Some out of focus.

    I agree that you need to learn your equipment better. I’m not sure on the creativity part- artists are born with that but I’m not seeing much at all in your work.


    So the green screen is gone, the painted backdrops are gone, and the focus issues were narrowed down to the lens. Not sure if I should have my 24-70 serviced, or just get a new one. It’s at least ten years old, and given what I’ve put it through, should probably be relegated to paperweight duty now.







    Have you checked AF micro adjust on the lens? It might be as simple as that, if it isn’t I would get it serviced. The older 24-70 is still good enough for pro use. You ought to have enough gear to join canon cps (it was canon wasn’t it?) so you get any repairs cheaper and just checking it over is probably free


    ” When it comes to photography, I’m extremely personable, and passionate about what I do. After spending a bit of time with my clients so I can bring out their personality, they know I will deliver great images ”



    Stop bullshitting everyone . And stop stealing there money .

    You are only in the business to  take peoples money , and could care less about your work.

    Here’s some advise

    If you really want to inprove your crap work , start from the basics.  And dont skip any of this shit. All of this can be learned on YOUTUBE !!

    1. LIGHTING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. POSING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    3.  COMPOSITION !!!!!!!!!!!


    and maybe when your learning that , learn how to edit your work to make it shine.

    And if you have the cash , watch some dam CREATIVE  LIVE workshops  !!!

    Then hopefully in the next months or two , youll have some work worthy of some positive comments .



    I’m certainly not going to learn anything from your shitty work. You should take your own advice, and learn the basics. Seems like you’re more of a computer geek with a camera, than an actual photographer. Still have that image on your page with the big bright blob in front, and the umbrella or whatever cut off? You combined dozens of poorly composed shots into a single image. And you have a camera growing out of someone’s head in another.

    In other words, you have nothing to offer by way of example. Your opinion means nothing.


    @OldClicks – Can you honestly say that Valentine’s work is shitty? So what if you found some images, of the 450 on his Flickr, that are questionable? I could tear apart any photo by any photographer, and find things that could be better, both technically and aesthetically. I seriously doubt that anyone, no matter how artistically or photographically knowledgeable, would deny that on average, his work is of much higher quality than yours, and that he obviously has much better control over the medium. If you’d like me to give a in-depth critique of any of your pictures, or if you just want to argue, let me know, and I’d be happy to.


    @ oldclicks

    wait , am not an actual photographer ?





    If clients are paying you, they like what they see. Photography is an art form. Your clients like your art. This is all that counts.

    If you were fixing CARS without the proper training something may be legitimately said about your lack of skill and disapproval of charging customers. But you’re not.

    Good luck, and keep shooting. 🙂



    EyeDoc – I had a very successful business when I shot film exclusively, and when digital was just becoming common, but I’m not actually charging anyone right now. I did shoot two weddings for friends and family that would otherwise not have had a photographer at all. The rest has been getting back into things.

    I’ve made some observations along the way. When I shot film in California and Australia, my clients posed themselves. They knew which side was their good side, how to stand, and what to do with their hands, so they required very little direction, and were comfortable in front of the camera. It would seem that in Utah, formal portraits are completely foreign. People are simply not used to sitting in an actual studio. I’ve also noticed that people are spending more time manipulating their images and less time on the basics. Stacking and HDR are fine when appropriate, and can enhance an image. But manipulation for the sake of manipulation has no appeal for me. Ideally, I would like to produce digital images that have the look of the classic portraits I took with my medium format cameras. If they are manipulated, I don’t want them to look like they have been.

    I’m the first to admit that I have made some mistakes as I get back into photography. But I also believe that in many ways, digital has ruined the art behind the craft of creating good photos. Film forced photographers to get it right the first time – bad images cost money. As an event photographer, I was sometimes given a single roll of film, with the expectation that 36 sharp, well composed, properly exposed images would be delivered to the client. It was a very fast-paced environment, shooting up to 4 events in one location at the same time. That meant four bodies, one lens, and an RC car battery strapped to a 285. When reportage was popular, I fit right in. My wedding clients always commented that they never really saw me during the reception, yet I seemed to have caught every important moment. That work paid for my cameras, multiple cars, and most of my mortgage payment, so I am inclined to think I could not have been too bad at it.

    In college, I took photography, art classes focusing on composition and use of color, and even an offset printing course, which helped me with shooting for print. As someone rightly alluded to, I also aced quite a few business and marketing courses. Perhaps I have forgotten a lot of what I learned, but I’ve taken up photography again because I enjoyed it, I liked making my clients look good, and I got a great deal of satisfaction from seeing their reaction when I delivered their prints. It may take some time to get back up to speed, but I’m not in a position where I need to profit from it. All my equipment is paid for, and we’ve dedicated a 15×20 room in our house for portrait work. My office has a smaller area for shooting products for an online magazine. And recently, my daughter could be found running around with her camera in one hand, and a grey card in the other.

    That’s quite a novel I’ve written. To anyone that has read it this far, I want to thank you for your time. If you’re one of the few that posted helpful comments, I do appreciate it. For those that forgot that they were once beginners and had nothing nice to say, well, they can kiss my ass. And I mean that in the nicest way.




    “But I also believe that in many ways, digital has ruined the art behind the craft of creating good photos. Film forced photographers to get it right the first time – bad images cost money.”

    Well said.

    There was a challenge posted on another forum to which I belong with simple rules – cover the LCD on the back of your DSLR and shoot only 36 images in full Manual mode (including no autofocus). It was on your honor that what you submit had not been edited or re-shot. I and quite a few signed up. After 2 weeks, there were NO SUBMISSIONS. Everyone probably thought the same as me – two thirds of my captures were hideous. I usually shoot action shots of kids, and there was not one I could honestly say was a good photo. And I’m not paid either.

    Sure, there were those who argued that such a challenge was nonsequitor because not embracing technological advances renders us an arrested culture. BUT, one thing I learned in med school is a quote from long ago “A clinician who has not hypothesized his patient’s ailment by the end of the medical history, has not taken an effective history.” Many doctors today turn mostly to objective measures to diagnose and would argue that the technology is so advanced that it is silly not to do so. Fair enough. But history is a fundamental part of medicine, and is slowly becoming a lost art, to the detriment of patients everywhere.

    I for one believe I could learn a thing or two from you, sir, about photography.


    But photography is about technology so it seems to go against it’s nature to be wary or dismissive of it’s advancements of  technology. We all know that it doesn’t matter how fab your camera is, if you don’t know the basic principles of this art form and the technology behind your camera you will not take good photographs.



    Digital didn’t ruin photography.  It just made it easier for people to take wonderful snap shots for themselves, and upped the standards for professional photography.  It’s not so much about getting a decent exposure anymore because anybody can, and they can instantly review to make sure they got it.  Even in auto a person can take as many pictures it takes until the camera finally locks in to something acceptable.  Digital made photography for the masses more affordable and easier than ever before.  It took some of the technical and trouble out of the mix.  It didn’t ruin it.  It made great photography more about composition, light, mood, emotion, and content than it ever has been before.  It made photographers have to work harder to get images that are clearly better than Aunt Sue’s or Uncle Joe’s.  It changed the game, but it didn’t ruin a thing.  But, if your photography was only about being able to work a camera and having a decent understanding of exposure… Well… Congrats!  Your photography is just as good as everyone else’s.


    But I also believe that in many ways, digital has ruined the art behind the craft of creating good photos. Film forced photographers to get it right the first time – bad images cost money.

    Bad images still cost money, the accounting has changed, so you may not notice, because now it is the cost of the body divided by the maximum shutter count and the cost of the time that went into taking the image.

    I used to shoot slide film simply because I could count on the lab developing it and I could also count on the lab not messing with my photos.  They never saw them until they were being mounted and unlike prints, once the slide is developed, it’s pretty much good or bad.  A lot could be done during printing.

    Those of us who are a certain age grew up with Time, Life and National Geographic, which were the standards of photography through the ’60s and ’70s.  Time and Life were slanted toward news while National Geographic did features, so it was the pinnacle in many respects.  Over the years we heard about air-brushed photos in fashion magazines, and how a lot of photos went into a single magazine article.   At the time, it was all word of mouth, which may just have been due to my not reading any of the trade publications.  Now, sometimes I do.  Also, the Internet is available and a lot of information is available there.  Duggal wrote about the last photo shoot of Marilyn Monroe, which is in a magazine I have somewhere, but I was able to find the article on line, here:  http://www.digitalphotopro.com/business/visioneers-gallery-marilyn-reinvented.html.  Duggal wrote: “Way back in 1962 when I had just set up Duggal as a photo lab, I processed and developed Bert’s photo rolls from the now historic “Last Sitting” photo shoot, where he shot over 2,500 photographs of Marilyn Monroe over three days for Vogue magazine. Taken only six weeks before her tragic death, …”  Two thousand, five hundred photos sounds like a lot, but it pales in comparison to Joe McNally’s effort for The Sense Of Sight (November 1992), shot for National Geographic.  They ran something like 40 photos in the article.  To get those 40 photos, McNally took almost 1200 rolls of slide film over 6 months!  That’s about forty-three thousand photos to sort through to get the final few that were used to support the story.

    From time to time I hear someone talk about getting the photo in one shutter release, and that is a worthy goal.  But, people blink, there could be a better angle, light changes, ideas evolve as shooting progresses.   You should strive for the best photo you can get every time, but it is obvious that those at the top of the game are taking way more than one or two good photos to put into the magazine, they are choosing the best 0.1% or even the best 0.01% from a slew of really good photos!

    Digital has made it easier for everyone to get a reasonable snap shot.  Even your phone can produce a decent photo.  So the bottom of the market has moved up quite a bit.  At the same time, digital has helped the top end of the market because it is far more cost effective to take a thousand photos to get that perfect one, and you can see what you took immediately on the camera’s back so you can check to see if everyone had their eyes open.  Composition still matters, seeing the light still matters, gear still matters, understanding how your gear processes light still matters.  You can take an excellent photo with a cell phone, and you can take a terrible photo with a 1Dx, D4s, Leica or Hasseblad with thousands of dollars worth of glass mounted on the body.  Digital didn’t ruin anything, it just made things different, mainly in good ways.



    If clients are paying you, they like what they see. Photography is an art form. Your clients like your art. This is all that counts.

    If you were fixing CARS without the proper training something may be legitimately said about your lack of skill and disapproval of charging customers. But you’re not.

    Good luck, and keep shooting.


    I don’t understand this comment. The whole premise of this site is to highlight pro photography which is lacking. I completely understand if that’s not your thing, but it makes me wonder why you are here in the first place.


    If clients are paying you, they like what they see. Photography is an art form. Your clients like your art. This is all that counts.

    Caveat emptor.  If you see a finished photo and you like it, you can tell exactly what you are purchasing.  If you see someone’s work, it could be that it was someone else’s work, or the only good photo they ever took, and their general work is of much lower quality.  Or, it could be they consistently crank out the same standard of work.  If it is the former case, you could be in trouble if you contract for a wedding.  If it is the latter case, you will probably get exactly what you expect.

    If you were fixing CARS without the proper training something may be legitimately said about your lack of skill and disapproval of charging customers. But you’re not.

    CBC TV just aired a segment about quick lube places that up-sold but either did not do the work, or made a mess.  One place put the wrong antifreeze in the overflow tank.  Green in the tank, orange in the radiator.  Apparently they did not do the coolant flush they billed for!

    My sister-in-law wanted new snow tires.  Before looking for a deal, I looked up the tire size myself, and discovered the summer tires provided by their mechanic are the wrong size.  They have a 6 cylinder model and the summer tires are the size for the 4 cylinder model!  Her husband was sure I was wrong until I directed them to look at the plate on the door.  Fortunately the car is just driven in the city.  The difference in size is enough to cause tread failure if driven at highway speeds in summer.

    In December, we had water in our gas.  The first day it was below freezing in the garage, the car would not start.  Cranked great though.  It started when the weather warmed and it thawed out.  Unfortunately, it was cold again before all the water was out and it stayed cold until we needed the car.  It was towed to the dealer.  I explained the problem and asked them to put it inside and let it warm up.  They waited all day, then pushed it into a bay an hour before closing.  They told me it needed a new $500 fuel pump, because they couldn’t hear the pump running when they turned on the ignition.  The car stayed in their garage and when they got to work in the morning they were amazed it started right up.  I had already put a couple of jugs of a product called Heet into the tank, it has started every time since.  Still has the original fuel pump.  The electric pump is a demand pump, it does not try to move gas if there is pressure in the line, and there is if it is clogged by ice.  The dealership mechanics should know this, since I do.

    So much for fixing cars, with or without proper training.  Let’s talk about doctors.  Toronto had Charles Randal Smith.  You can read about him here:  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Randal_Smith , he was certified an anatomical pathologist in 1980, so one would assume he was properly trained and tested. He certainly screwed up a lot of people’s lives.  He is just the one that comes to mind immediately, there are many others, I’m sure.  While writing, this guy also came to mind, he is more recent:  http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/anesthesiologist-convicted-of-molesting-21-women-during-surgeries-1.1549663

    Training, testing, certification and so on are more apt to be in place to act as a barrier to entry than to protect the consumer.  The sad truth is that it is important to be an informed consumer.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 90 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.