Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
alexandraParticipant
^From what I found, she uses the “no flash mode”
alexandraParticipantOkay one more:
https://www.facebook.com/michaelbrayphotographyUhhhhhh…. nice studio?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=438418992947441&set=a.438418832947457.1073741851.420296158093058&type=1&theaterEdit: so apparently he doesn’t charge, so not exactly a “fauxtog” but he’s definitely in need of a lot of learning and practice
alexandraParticipantI keep finding so many terrible ones on the kijiji page from where I live. Lately there are at least four bad ones for one decent one. I feel like if I shared them all, they may find out who I am and come after me, but I cannot help it for this one – those boudoir photos are just plain scary…
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Christina-Stuart-PhotographerOwner/158890087499655
alexandraParticipantDarn. I was so going to steal these by downloading them, but I won’t because of the huge watermark and “copyright notice” as the caption.
But seriously. Do they really think someone’s going to steal their photos?https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=219968024838719&set=pb.191120434390145.-2207520000.1384812905.&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=226189190883269&set=pb.191120434390145.-2207520000.1384812905.&type=3&theaterAlso, does it bother anyone else as much as it bothers me – when they make an ad/announcement/collage, and they resize the image disregarding its original proportions?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=206775709491284&set=pb.191120434390145.-2207520000.1384812905.&type=3&theater
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=194467737388748&set=pb.191120434390145.-2207520000.1384813511.&type=3&theateralexandraParticipantnadaphotographer – I think they tried to photoshop clouds in that second last one in the corner where the sky came out white, but failed miserably
alexandraParticipantOh and this last one I posted also has a classifieds ad:
http://london.kijiji.ca/c-services-photography-video-YOU-DONT-TAKE-A-PHOTOGRAPH-YOU-MAKE-IT-W0QQAdIdZ532563508I think another faux that was mentioned in this forum did this too: “An outdoor shoot at any location of your choice WITH NO TIME LIMIT!”
alexandraParticipantwft – well here’s another one (except for it being a Thanksgiving one and having no advertising purpose)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=572625489451750&set=pb.571861842861448.-2207520000.1382408177.&type=3&theaterBut still, I hate it when people do that. I guess if you’re a fauxtog, it’s pretty difficult to recreate a similar image like the one with the ornaments and the bokeh yourself.
alexandraParticipantSince I’m on a roll:
https://www.facebook.com/anthonygentilephotoshttps://www.facebook.com/CindyWintersPhotography
oh and this one says her editing talents are known globally. “There are not many local photographers that can offer the quality of editing i can do”
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Keeperofdreams-Photography/1425282171024841
and here’s my favourite example of her “globally-known talents”
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1425294494356942&set=pb.1425282171024841.-2207520000.1382405458.&type=3&theateralexandraParticipantHere’s one:
https://www.facebook.com/TamaraRayPhotographyA lot of bad editing, out of focus, pop-up flash use basically…
And here’s one that’s definitely not her’s:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=483002031818342&set=pb.424708350981044.-2207520000.1382402359.&type=3&theateralexandraParticipantSo the other day, my sister brought home proofs from her school photo session. They weren’t terrible, but the background they used surprised me a bit. It was one of those “hand-painted, scenic backdrops”, and yes, the way it was painted (combined with depth of field and proximity of the subjects to that background), you could see the paint splotches, and it looked like they just posed the students in front of some mediocre painting produced in one of the art classes. So I took it to their website. From their other work, you can tell they seem to have other, more typical backdrops they’ve previously used, but that’s not the point. They do seem to use a single-light setup for most of their studio work, creating very flat-looking photos, but their wedding photography is much worse in my opinion. Weird framing, flash for just about everything, not to mention the photo they used for the banner at the top of their website is not even in focus…
The way they made their gallery, you can’t link to their photos individually, but some of my favourites are:
The baby’s head photoshopped into a yellow rose in the “portraits” section
Anything found in “Samantha and Jerry’s Album” (after clicking the “wedding photo galleries” section)
The black and white photo from “Engagement photos” that just looks like a creepshot taken with flash of an unsuspecting couple in the woodsalexandraParticipanthahaha browneyedgirl that one killed me! At first I thought it was just a poorly done “selfie” but then I saw what it said on her shirt.
And yes! I’m with you on iPhones taking far better photos than entry-level point-and-shoots. I had to explain all about that to my mom the other day. I think this is a pretty good example. The fact that you have to press a physical shutter button, makes it far easier to produce blurry images. Not to mention the noise is horrible despite the ISO only being at 200:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10200134564361606&set=a.1171162133975.22089.1675673854&type=1&theateralexandraParticipantYay! Free shout-outs from Monkey Butt / Cookieboo
Congratulations on figuring out how to use page insights or what not. Now, all you need to do is figure out how to improve your photography skills, business etiquette, spelling and grammar, and your willingness to learn.
I would have commented this on your page, but in response to your multiple requests to not post anything “mean” (aka a critique, or the truth), I will spare your “fans” from publicly viewing my “negative opinion”
Also, you should have linked to our work and personal profiles there too, so those fans of yours could get a better insight on how photos taken by photographers and photo enthusiasts are supposed to look.
Yes, I visit your page daily as it is always a good source of entertainment. The only way to stop us from visiting your page is if you learn to spell and express your ideas in a coherent manner, learn to take photos, and reduce your posts to your best work only. Then, submit that work to different online forums, and have people critique it, so you know what to improve. Don’t charge anyone for your services until you feel like you know exactly what you’re doing, and you receive mostly positive feedback from strangers (friends and family don’t count).
You seem to have a pretty good idea of who we are, so if you need any help distinguishing a good photo from a bad one, I’m sure a lot of us wouldn’t mind if you messaged us with any questions. Until then, I guarantee you will have traffic coming to your page from the readers of this forum.alexandraParticipantebi – that awkward moment when you find out that everyone else in this forum is bitchplz except for you… lol just kidding, but I was just wondering – Does anyone else have a list of favourite “confirmed fauxtographers” from this forum whose pages they like to visit once in a while to see if there’s any new material worth a good laugh? Cause WTAF is this:
alexandraParticipantthanks for the clarification @cameraclicker – found that one a little hard to understand with all the random punctuation and everything.
Also, this one here was obviously done on purpose – parodying fauxtographers and all – I found it to be pretty hilarious, so I thought I’d share:
https://www.facebook.com/uselessmomentsalexandraParticipant@msbitch2468 it was a screenshot posted by Monkeying Around Sweet Photography of someone who stole their photo by cropping it to conceal the watermark. The profile was clearly fake, because the caption (which said something about them having taken this photo that day) was written in the same incomprehensible language as anything ever written by Monkeying Around Photography. Also it was taken about a minute after the “photo thief” had posted their photo, so it is clear that this was set up.
To sum things up, I said “lol this” because:
– Monkeying Around Sweet Photography went to a great extent to make themselves look like a victim of something they were guilty of earlier
– The poor grammar and incoherent flow of ideas in the thief’s caption could only have been written by one person…
– The owner of Monkeying Around Sweet Photography tried to impersonate a lawyer, and now a thief
– No thief would would want to steal that blurry rose photo with gaussian-blurred edges https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=502382226513267&set=pb.483534371731386.-2207520000.1380084562.&type=3&theaterAlso, who’s this “bitch 2” you’re referring to? I don’t think her age matters when it comes to looking at a photo or situation critically and judging whether it’s good or bad, and deciding, for example whether it’s appropriate to charge someone for a certain kind of work, or whether impersonating lawyers and thieves is a good idea. But if you are referring to me, I’m 21, and I’ve been coming to this website for the past year to learn what not to do. I often submit my work to online forms for critique so I can continue learning and improving. I have two camera bodies, four lenses, a studio with proper lighting equipment, and until I feel like until I know exactly what I’m doing, I will not be charging anyone for my work.
-
AuthorPosts