Who are we to judge?

[abville82]

I must say I find some of the photos on this site funny, but who are we to judge really? I think if most of us would look at our early work, we would find some of it horrible as well. Why expose someones work on a public site like this? The same image you view as horrible, could have some sentimental value to the person that took it and the person it was taken for. It may not be aesthetically pleasing to you, but so what?

Shouldn’t the name of this site  be, “you are not a professional photographer?” Do you really have to be a “good photographer” to be considered a “photographer?” If some random person just happened to be the only person in the right place at the right time and took a photo of a disaster or a national news story with a crappy camera phone and had the image published in a magazine or newspaper, wouldn’t they still be credited as the “photographer” even though they had never taken a photo before?

[picarusslim]

I think the general notion of fauxtographers is people who charge for a service they can’t really provide. It’s not only insulting to people who’ve spent years learning the trade but it also steals possible clients as well. Non-photographers look at photos in a different way to professionals and hobbyists, they don’t realise the effort that goes into creating a great photo. So when you get someone coming along with a ‘starter’ dlsr or a CSC with one lens and no understanding of either it’s cause for photographers (people who have understanding of the fundamentals of photography and editing) to be insulted and mock accordingly.

I would not insult someone who uploads mobile phone shots edited with instagram etc, if they enjoy it and it works for them then fine, but if they started to advertise their services they’d soon find out that their equipment of choice will be useless in certain conditions.

[iliketag]

Picarusslim pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

These are people charging folks for a service. People are paying for said service and receiving a product that is lacking in quality.
None of us here will say that we haven’t given a client an image we wouldn’t normally have for sentimental reasons. I have a photo of a friend of mine and her daughter where mom had stepped slightly out of my depth of field to hold onto her squirming child. Her daughter’s expression is fantastic (so was mom’s) but with her being out of focus, I will never include that in my portfolio or public (watermarked) work, but I gave it to her and it’s one of her favorites anyway.

The problem here is expectations.

Let’s look at what statistics among any consumer business say: A customer sees what they want to see.
In terms of a wedding photographer boasting a full day of wedding photography for $500 and one for say, $3000, a customer sees $500 and may not even go on to look at the portfolio, they want cheap and they’ll pay. A savvy shopper will look at the one for less and continue onto the portfolio and guage from there. BUT they still have the lesser price ingrained in their head. So they move on to the $3000 photographer and ask things like “Well, I don’t need an album. How much is it now?” or “I don’t think we need engagement pictures, we’ll have a friend take some, can I get a discount?” until they finally hit on “Well, this photographer will do my whole wedding for 500!”

They don’t necessarily see the value in the service you provide anymore, only the price tag.
A consumer can look at two photos side by side and see which is better… but if they don’t understand value per dollar, they will always go with the lower price tag.
How does this effect the business? A client burned by a cheap wedding photographer will have a hard time trusting another photographer later, let alone for more money. It devalues the market as a whole. People grow to expect lower pricing; even from a more experienced, higher quality photographer. It hurts those of us who paid our dues learning and investing. These fauxtographers are not even making minimum wage! So when potential clients expect that from a true professional, it actually does begin to hurt the industry.

[abville82]

That’s a fine explanation. But who determines that all the photos posted here are from photographers that charge money?

[iliketag]

The moderator of this site who posts the photos is posting from people marketing themselves as professionals. Just like in the thread “Fauxtographers Who Should End Up On The Main Page”. We post from people charging people for this… “service”…

[picarusslim]

I’d do a wedding for about £650, £800 for full day morning to night-do. With that money i’d rent (and eventually buy) some equipment (lenses, bodies, flash gun) pay for transport, prints, albums, dvd if required. Also you’re paying for the time i’ve spent learning, the money I’ve spent on courses, software and not to mention the hours i’d spend processing.

I’ve seen people charge over a grand (in GBP), if you exclude all of the above they don’t have a great deal left and will need to do more weddings in a month in order to cover their out goings, rent, bills, car costs, site upkeep, feeding themselves and family etc. It’s not always an easy living. Which is why I work full time and fail to get work because there are people out there that charge pittance for pittance.

I’ve seen people charge a grand and still produce rubbish though!

As for the photos on this site the admin posts them and suggestions can be made as well. If you feel it’s harsh to ‘out’ them publicly then think about it this way, if there was a building company out there doing bad work for thousands of pounds you’d want to know about it would you not? Sham businesses should be highlighted and avoided.

 

[JanJan]

The lady who is getting sued in this Judge Joe Brown video is a prime example of a fauxtographer. She was charging $1300 for a wedding and was not able to answer the question about what f-stop her lens was. She held herself out there as a professional photographer, but if you don’t know your equipment, you shouldn’t be in the business.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lz-07D5KoE

 

[abville82]

So I think that goes back to my original question, shouldn’t the site be called “you are not a PROFESSIONAL photographer?” Like I said, a random person can take a camera phone photo of a disaster and have it published in Time Magazine and be credited as a “photographer.” By that scenario alone, anyone can be a photographer. It seems like you all are mainly attacking the ones who are charging money or claiming to be “professional.”

 

[fotopoopie]

@ abville82 I think almost everyone who posts on this site is a “Faux”, or damn near one.

[JCFindley]

It probably should have that title Abville but that is not the name they choose.

There are actually more than a few very knowledgeable and helpful pros on here that will spend a lot of time helping people out but the newbs have to want to listen first.

[JCFindley]

Oh, thanks for the video alarnold, WELL worth the ten minutes.

[IHF]

Yes, this site is based around people in business who have no business being in business, and exposing shoddy businesses and/or teaching togs how to go about it in a more legit and honest way.  for me, and a lot of us here, its about trying to save the photography profession’s integrity.  There seems to be a growing lack of respect for the entire industry.  I highly doubt anyone at all would be interested in critiquing/criticizing amateur photography or personal family  snap shots (Unless the tog was aspiring to go pro and seeking critique) and in that respect, the site could be called “you are not a professional photographer”.  But if it was named that then people would complain and say “If the photographer charges, then they are a professional”.  The name of the site isn’t really what’s important here.

I don’t expect everyone to understand, be interested in, or agree to what we talk about here.  Regardless what everyone thinks, not everyone is a photographer.  Forums and sites are built and become active when like minded people participate and converse on topics that interest them.  Most, if not all will have people come and go that disagree or don’t understand, or that lack interest in it.  I would never post in a forum stating “I don’t like this, understand his, or have any interest in this”, but to each their own

[fotopoopie]

Jc you fall into the not “Faux” categories.  🙂

[IHF]

Fotopoopie, then who exactly are you referring to?  From what I have seen anyone that has been called out as a faux, doesn’t regularly participate here.  There has been a lot of talent here, and ive learned a great deal from them.  Then again, I don’t pay attention to threads like “togs who should end up on the front page” there may be a lot of smack talking over there that comes from the mouths of fauxs.

 

[fotopoopie]

IHP,  that must be where ..

[Author]

Posts