"Real" photographers are dumb

[Loke]

Well…I for one think the pictures on this site are awesome! lol. Hey someone loves them somewhere…I see things a little differently from others here or maybe the same as some..I don’t know..don’t really care, I just find this site entertaining and the dialogue in the forum entertaining as well. To me, I’m not competing with these “fauxtographers”….people who like my work will pay for my work…that’s how I feel….more power to them.

I break all the rules but know the rules for the most part….I’m technically proficient for what my needs are…I am trained..not in photography but graphic design, self-taught (photography)….I’ve charged for photography mostly as a freelancer, and I photograph for fun….I don’t think you need a Canon or Nikon full-frame to take “pro quality” pictures..in fact, I’ve given up my dSLR system in exchange for all compact cams……..I follow the blog of photographer Ming Thein and he as well as many others have proven that it  is the photographer, not necessarily the tool…(though I admit I can be a gear lover myself and given the choice I’ll take that Leica thank you very much or that Mamiya, and I tend to stay away from mainstream brands and favor forgotten ones, or ones not necessarily on everyone’s radar)….I’m going backwards and favoring more film photography..and using my toy cameras alot and TLRs….and interesting photographers to me include Norman Reedus (yes…actor Norman Reedus) …his work is definitely NOT the norm of traditional photography in any way, shape or form..and weird abstract type stuff like this: http://10steps.sg/inspirations/photography/70-strange-photos-that-are-not-photoshopped/

Photography is not my full-time job, my design business is…so I guess that’s why I’m more forgiving…EH…

[cameraclicker]

People speak of not being able to look away from an ongoing train wreck.  I doubt any would describe it as good, but they certainly find it interesting.   I am astounded by the photos displayed here, and by the notion that people would actually pay money to someone to take those photos.

I get that there are different budgets, and different people like different things.  That’s why there are Fords and Ferraris for sale to car purchasers, but both those cars will get you down the road and provide value.  I took a Lada for a test drive when they were introduced here.  Leaving the dealer’s lot, I touched the headlight switch and it fell out of the dash!  I clipped it back in and returned the car to the dealer’s lot.  Lots of the photos presented here remind me of that Lada;  interesting but not good.

If it were your baby, would you hang the purple baby picture on your living room wall and point it out to all your friends?  The whole point of professionally done photos is to have a photo that a majority of people will consider pleasing not only today but twenty, or even a hundred years into the future.  The site is dedicated to failing portrait and wedding photographers.  I’m not sure “art” or “interesting” is even a requirement of this genre, but it would be nice if parts that should be in focus are in focus, colours are reasonable, [usually] digital noise or grain is minimized, exposure is reasonably accurate and detail is sufficient both in highlights and shadows.  The people who are the “stars” of these photos should look at least as good in their photos as they do in real life and should be proud to show the photos, not just because they are in the photos, but because they look good in the photos.  If they just want a photo of them selves, they can give their cell phone to a waiter in any restaurant and get back a reasonable likeness of themselves for free.  Why would they pay for an equivalent photo by a fauxtographer?  I’m still trying to figure that out.

 

 

[Gerbles]

I guess one way to answer the question “what makes these photos any less artistic than a pro’s photos” would be to analyze *general* common characteristics of both types of photography. The fauxtogs’ photos lack certain elements of technical expertise that are mainly due to mistakes/lack of knowledge/lack of proper equipment, or just not caring. These are things like missed focus, color casts, messy composition etc. You cannot excuse these things as “artistic license. Sorry. These photos MAY have certain elements that derive from creativity, but like you will see on this site, most of them have the same old played out shit, like chalk boards, heart hands, railroad tracks, ultrasound photos and certain poses (like the one with the dad/baby daddy holding up a toddler in the air by his ankle) that come from pintrest. Very rarely do these people come up with their own ideas and have the ability and technical knowledge to pull it off. And more importantly, these people are in it for quick, easy money- NOT for the love of the craft- I don’t care what anyone says.

On the other hand, a professional photographer with talent and experience will have the creativity AND technical know-how, which makes their photos special, something people will want to display proudly in their home or office. And yes, some are more creative than others, and yes, I have seen pretty boring technically correct photos from pros, but in general, creativity and technicality go hand in hand. That is the key.

And you think wedding photography isn’t art? You obviously haven’t seen any work done by any really great wedding photographers. I have seen some on 500px that blew my mind.

So, could a fauxtog create art? Sure, but is it good art? probably not. Is photoshopping a girl in booty shorts and stilettos standing on the back of a horse art? I think it is, but it’s also really tacky and poorly executed, showing no skill in PP (I’m referring to a photo on this site from a while ago). Maybe you could say the lack of technical ability showing in a photo really overshadows a lot of the creativity in the photo, in that it sort of brings the overall quality of the photo down several notches, therein lies the issue with a lot of fauxtographers.

 

[civo]

Finally some reasonable arguments. But to point out, I have not once referred to money. What do you care if someone wants to pay for a less educated photographer than you? Is it directly out of your pocket? They will also get paid most likely a lot less. Some people also make a clear decision not to pay 3000 dollars/euros/pounds for wedding photos and rather settle for less quality for a cheaper price just to document the event. And they get what they bargained for.

And to answer ”cameraclickers” question, if it was my baby, sure I could hang out this picture on my living room wall. I have a lot stranger stuff hanging on my walls also. But most likely I would let the baby to draw his/her self-portrait straight to the wall with crayons.

Also using pictures of your family to make them look ”beautiful”, boost your ego or justify your status in society is not very interesting to me. Maybe it is to you.

Define good art then? Contemporary art is much more concept-based than about formal things as ”beauty” or composition. Of course in an ideal case the content and form are entwined together. All images are potentially art but not actually.

And surely ”art” and ”interesting” are not requirements for this genre. But that doesn’t also justify you to tell people what kind of images they should like.

[stef]

Define good art then? Contemporary art is much more concept-based than about formal things as ”beauty” or composition. Of course in an ideal case the content and form are entwined together. All images are potentially art but not actually.

That’s not really the scope of this website… that’s the scope of formal education. I would agree that nearly all the photos posted here are “interesting”. But “interesting” doesn’t mean “good”. For example, portraits (which you seem to disdain with a “been there, done it, boring”) have very specific aesthetics and intent. If it doesn’t meet that intent, it’s a “bad” portrait even if it’s otherwise interesting. Food photography has a certain intent, and if it looks like really really interesting vomit on a shingle, it’s still bad photography.

What do you care if someone wants to pay for a less educated photographer than you? Is it directly out of your pocket? They will also get paid most likely a lot less. Some people also make a clear decision not to pay 3000 dollars/euros/pounds for wedding photos and rather settle for less quality for a cheaper price just to document the event. And they get what they bargained for.

True, it’s their money, but there is an issue that perhaps an example will make clear.

Doctors work really hard, have a lot of education, and are pretty well paid in general.

What if … there were no regulations on it, and anyone could call themselves an MD? Toss stethoscope around your neck, and boom: instant MD.

 

A couple things would happen. First, it would become very difficult to find a competent MD. It would be a minefield for the hapless sick person. There would be a TON of uncertainty in the field. Even if you got lucky and your doctor was extremely competent, he would be very difficult to trust on the first visit, because you couldn’t be sure of what you were getting.

Second, all the hacks would be charging a lot less due to competition. The competition among the real and fake doctors increased dramatically, but the average competence dropped precipitously. And lower average competence generally means they’ll have to charge lower average prices. People would subsequently see crazy low prices for services. As a result, they would come to expect those prices, even when they’re dealing with a very competent doctor. The competent doctor will definitely be affected by this competition, even if nobody is anywhere as competent as he. And because of this, there would be little incentive to get formal, expensive education to become a doctor. Why pay $100k/year to go to Harvard when you can pay $100 for a diploma from Haarvard?

 

This has already happened with photography. How many people actually are pursuing degrees in it? Now, go ask both of them if it was worth it.

[civo]

The question of defining ”good art” was addressed to to Gerbles who made that comment that ”fauxtogs” (whatever that means) can’t probably create good art.

Comparing an MD and a photographer is like comparing a gardener and an airplane pilot. Peoples lives are not (in most cases) in any way in danger by the work of a photographer or a gardener.

I do want my doctors and pilots to be well educated and also well paid if that keeps them content and assures me that they actually know what they are doing – as my life may be dependent on them.

And actually there are licensed MDs working with faked diplomas very successfully. Which I find disturbing. Bad photographers – not so disturbing. Also as I don’t live in America, I can’t really take part in discussion of your health care system.

[stef]

Your point is well taken, but mine still remains.

How about attorneys? You’re not likely to die, but if you get a crappy one, you will probably not be happy with the results. Now imagine if anyone could put on a suit and tie, grab a briefcase and call themselves a bon-e-fide lawyer. You’ve already seen some of this happen with cheap legal forms and such. Divorces used to cost thousands of dollars just to file the paperwork. Now, an uncontested divorce costs $100.

[civo]

Sorry, I don’t know much about American legal system either. Except from movies and television. Where I come from everyone is entitled to have any attorney they choose free of charge, if they don’t have the means to pay for themselves. Here court cases are not won by johnniecochrans and big bucks.

[civo]

And to add, we also have practically free education and health care.

[civo]

And sorry if I missed the point but are you saying that divorces should cost thousands of dollars just to file the paperwork?

[fstopper89]

Thank goodness that photographers and doctors aren’t really in the same realm, though I’ve used similar arguments in the past to get people to think. I prefer the nail salon argument. Smaller scale, but a person who files nails must be health-department certified. You might get someone who slops on nail polish and doesn’t clean their tools and you end up with a fungus on your nails, because they’re doing it for a bargain, and not certified, etc. Still a fauxtographer isn’t *usually* putting someone in harm’s way (well, unless you’re talking those faux hanging newborns from tree branches because they have no idea it’s really a composite) but you’re generally going to get low-quality work for a huge bargain, maybe 100 photos on a disk for $25, and yet none are aesthetically-pleasing enough that you’re proud to make a 16×20 print for your living room wall or to send in Christmas cards.

I will speak on the degree thing. No, I do not have a photography degree, and actually no college degree at all. I was on the path to a degree but it didn’t work out at the time. However, having three years of college with much of that covering multiple courses in photography, art, graphic software, advertising, and some business, I will attest that those courses were VERY valuable to me and I believe they have helped me immensely. Some people may not feel the same, but that’s how I feel. And I believe if you have the chance to take these kinds of courses and want to further yourself in the photography field, you will find them to be a great help as well.

[Gerbles]

So, what is good art? Well, in my opinion, and possibly others’ (it’s very subjective) it is when a piece of art makes you stop and think about it longer than the nanosecond it takes to move on to the next thing (be it the next work of art in a museum or the next photo on flickr). Good art tends to draw you in and it has a concept behind it. Most works have very deliberate placings of certain elements, while others are very haphazard (seemingly)- but the haphazardness is purposeful. Most artists study the works of other artists and derive inspiration from them and their work.

A Fauxtog is an individual who poses as a professional photographer without the proper knowledge base, love of the art, desire to work and improve their craft and the desire to make a quick buck. Yes, money is a factor here. That is the key concept. You can’t be a fauxtographer without charging for services. If someone who puts out poor photography (yes, there IS such a thing) does not charge, that makes them an amateur who needs more practice. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. You are not taking others’ money while providing a crappy product. And like I stated before. These people can produce art- but due to the issues with lack of technical knowledge, lack of vision and numerous other issues, their “art” tends to be nothing that will hold my attention or draw me in for reasons OTHER than marveling at the poor craftsmanship and execution of their product. And if those attibutes are the things that you value in a photo, if they stimulate you, then, by all means cover your walls with those types of photos- they’re your walls.

I think my main issue with fauxtogs is not the fact that they are providing a lesser quality product for a lesser amount of money. There is no rule that says that shouldn’t happen. There will always be differing levels of quality in most products with corresponding prices. If I were to start a portraiture business, my clients would probably never be a fauxtog’s clients- they are in different pools. I would not feel threatened by a local fauxtog in the area because of this reason. My issue with fauxtogs is the that they are an insult to the art form I love and are only motivated by money. Why do I say this? How many years do you think one of these people shoots, learns about lighting, acquires the proper equipment, studies, attends workshops BEFORE they open up shop with their facebook page? I would be willing to say the average fauxtog has their DSLR (if not a P&S) for a month before they start charging. They are instant “professionals” with no respect or love for their craft. This is what irritates me.

[cameraclicker]

Peoples lives are not (in most cases) in any way in danger by the work of a photographer or a gardener.

Usually it is photographer that dies, though fauxtographers shown here are not apt to find themselves in the usual places where that happens.  However, recently a bride died.  I don’t know how good the photographer was generally, or who’s fault it was, but someone demonstrated very poor judgment regarding water safety and “Trash the Dress” became fatal.

Also using pictures of your family to make them look ”beautiful”, boost your ego or justify your status in society is not very interesting to me. Maybe it is to you.

We all have our unique quirks.  We have no pictures on our walls and only four displayed in stands on shelves, a drawing my father did, a drawing a niece did, a picture of the two of us at Alaska and a group shot of family taken on our wedding day, by a friend because my brother was assigned the job of photographer for that day and he is in the picture.  No, my brother was/is not a professional photographer but he had an SLR and more competence than the fauxtographers featured here so we appointed him and handed him several rolls of film.  We have boxes of slides and boxes of prints and thanks to digital, hundreds of thousands of photos that live on multi-terabyte drives with selected ones printed and stored in binders.  Thanks to my wife there are even some photos of me!  The computer is usually on and screen saver cycles aimlessly through a selection of several hundred photos, mostly taken while travelling.

In the final analysis, I don’t care what you or any person spends their personal money on, or what you or they put on a wall.  But the processor in most digital cameras can take a decent picture when left to its own devices.  It makes me sad to see wedding photos on here that are less than you could get if you just put a camera on a tripod, selected the green square and self timer then ran to join the group, and sadder still to think someone actually paid to have that photo taken.

Most people equate professional with quality and think of amateur as being inferior.  As I have said in other posts here and elsewhere, professional is about collecting money while amateur is doing it just for the love of it, and there is no link to quality in either word — except perhaps that if you are not good you will not be collecting money for long unless you can continually find the “sucker born every minute”.   However, if you called yourself a professional, I thought people would expect you to have at least the minimum skills and equipment required to perform the job, and to provide a product of generally acceptable quality.  What this site seems to highlight over and over is that fauxtographers can put up portfolios of what many of us consider to be sub-standard photography and yet still attract customers.  I am not irritated by it.  I am saddened and amazed by it.

[civo]

I was also referring to your forum where you also mock the works of amateurs/beginners.

Ironically I found this website while participating in a discussion in another forum, where was a thread for “photographing is the most meaningless profession of all”. And there I was talking for professional photographers.

[Gerbles]

Civo, we don’t mock amateurs or beginners. Look at the thread entitled “could I be a low budget amateur fauxtog”. As long as they’re not a beginner who’s charging, we don’t mock them. And “amateur” does not necessarily mean beginner, it just means someone who’s not a professional, i.e. a hobbiest.

[Author]

Posts