Forum Replies Created
August 21, 2013 at 12:36 pm in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #12151
Made it back in time to highlight another photographer. This one isn’t as bad as some of the truly awful ones, but I’m more turned off by their shameless whoring and self-promotion for sub-par photos. I present you “Ann Marie’s Photography”.
When I first found their page, I was shocked that they have only been online since April 1st of this year, yet they are at almost 2000 likes. WTH?!? I checked a couple of honest to God local pros who do this full time, and they were around the 2-3k on likes. I immediately suspected like buying, until I started reading the page. They are apparently obsessed with getting likes, and run a HUGE number of free promotions with crazy rules. Most people require to you like the page and then post a comment under the contest. These ladies take it to an extreme, requiring the contestant to farm likes from their friends to get them “votes” for the contest. Basically whoever can get as many of their friends to like their comment wins. After going through their page, it appears that they are constantly running giveaways and talking up their likes. And these aren’t just family photo giveaways either. Family photos, boudoir sessions, and the usual. But the current ones is a free wedding shoot with 2 photographers! No wonder they have so many likes. Not sure how they are making any money with this setup though. Perhaps they should not be getting paid after looking at their photographs. So here they are in all their glory, with almost 2k fans!
Newest photo session for an expectant mother and her family. Creepy overexposed photo of big sis:
We’re Expecting to not be able to read this sign:
Super flat and really soft with bad shadows. Looks like something anybody in the seats could have taken:
Really soft, blown out, etc.
Glad that they focused on the lamp instead of the dress:
Blurry and a bad pose:
Super dark AND super blown out:
Horribly blown out:
They claim to have three people request wall prints made of this photo. I am glad they did not bother to straighten the damn horizon:
What the shit is this?
Love the selective coloring that just disappears going down her leg:
One of the photographers herself, blown out to hell and back:
Wow, they actually posted fireworks shots that were being photographed handheld. Blurry shit and they still took the time to watermark and post it:
This might be front page material. Awful pose, awful magnolia leaves in the foreground obstructing the view of the subject, and subjects that are exposed terribly:
So yea, interesting case. They have again put the cart before the horse. They are marketing themselves and really pushing to get interest to their FB page (they don’t have a real website). All this work focusing on likes and competitions when they should be spending their time focusing on their photography skills. Learn how to take sharp photos. Learn about lighting and realize that scheduling shots at 2 in the afternoon is not the best time to be doing outdoor photography. And if you have to shoot outside, use shade and fill flash to even up the exposure.August 21, 2013 at 11:25 am in reply to: pretty sure im no fauxtog… but… gotta get an opinion #12148
Here is my critique. The originally posted link with fatpunkphotos did nothing for me. I had to go back 3-4 pages to find a photo I really liked. I will say the first picture of the drift sequence around the corner was nice, but then I went pages before I found something else I liked. The landscape shots at the bottom of page 1 were dull and totally uninteresting to me.
I will say that I was much more interested in the Japan Faves folder. That set had a lot more photos that caught my eye and interested me. I liked the wide shots, the landscapes, F-22 and the car photos there. They were properly exposed and were interesting locations. You didn’t have nearly as many shots suffering from underexposure or softness like the first link had. I would not say you are a “fauxtog”, but you still have some things to learn. Skin tones seem to suffer from being too red or too blue depending on the subject. But this is more nitpicking than anything. I would not imagine you would have to worry about showing up on this site.
One word of advice though for you. Please proofread. Your posts on here are pretty bad, but even your posts on fatpunk have terrible spelling issues. Threw instead of through. No capitalization or punctuation to speak of. Things like that. The blog format itself is not bad, but the way it was written seemed very amateur in my opinion. Just something to consider. Unrelated to your photography itself, but definitely a perception issue.July 23, 2013 at 8:33 am in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #11491
Ok, so normally I wouldn’t do this, but I had a personal experience with a fauxtog earlier this month. I spent the 4th with some family on the coast of NC. While I was there, I caught the fireworks at Edenton. Its a pretty neat historic town with a nice bay that they shoot the fireworks over, so it makes for some nice shots. I had gotten setup early and had my gear up on my tripod, and was waiting to go, occasionally shooting if my kids or something else in the crowd. I saw this lady down the street who was snapping photographs with a small dSLR and a kit lens, and kinda thought it might be like a small town newspaper reporter getting some shots. This person walked down to me and immediately asked “So, what does one of those setups cost?” I was a little surprised, and also reluctant to admit how much my stuff cost in a crowd of people, but I said something like “Oh, a couple grand. Its an expensive profession.” She proceeded to tell me, “I know, I’m a photographer myself” and whips out a card. I said, I was not from the area, but she said “Well, let me know if you ever need some help or something, I will definitely travel.” Ok, I said thanks, she left, and I get back to focusing on my work and pocket the card without a glance.
After the trip is over and I sit down to sort through my shots, I was reminded of this lady and her card, so I go in my wallet and find it. Her company name is “Genuine Imaging” and her motto is “Keepin’ It REAL with Genuine Prices!” Ugh. The front of the card has a sunset shot that is zoomed way out so that the sun is the size of a period. Oh yea, and the horizon is crooked. The back has a sample of her editing work, with a somewhat washed out shot of a flower on the left and the same flower super saturated. Wow. And for the part you have all been waiting for, her website. Well, its just a FB page. Here ya go:
So as you can see, Rebecca only has 21 likes and began this new career . Normally I would not bother to point out somebody this new/inexperienced, but I felt like if she’s approaching other photographers, handing out cards, and actively marketing and representing herself as a photographer, then she deserves to be mentioned.
Here is the shot from the front of the card:
And the back:
Now for the rest. Here is her portraiture folder, where you can see the difference. Yuck.
Some of the most overexposed, poorly composed, horrible work. Pretty much cameraphone material.
Her seascape images:
Also something that could be taken by a cameraphone out the window of the car.
Basically just stand in your backyard with a P&S and take a couple of picture of things. Don’t bother to find anything interesting at all. Oh and if its boring, just pump up the saturation to a ridiculous amount. That is sure to make it more interesting.
Here is her “edinting” (her spelling, not mine) process:
Ugh. Its all just atrocious. I can’t imagine handing out a business card to anybody with a “portfolio” like that. Most certainly not to another photographer who has a professional setup and expect them not to laugh at it. After reading the rest of her page, I found it interesting that she said she does all of her work in CS6, yet all of her edit photos use Lightroom 4. I also love that she decided to make this “career move” in April, and has posted about 50 awful photos that most people could get with a camera phone or iPod, and that has been the totality of her career work for several months. Oh yea, and getting cards printed. Talk about putting the cart before the horse. Not that she can’t learn to do photography and maybe make a career out of it. We all have to start somewhere. But I don’t think she needs to be marketing her services to anybody else yet. Get some books, take a class or two, and join a local photography club. Don’t take some blown out picture of your friends against a wall and at the carwash, post them online, print some card, and expect the cash to start rolling in. It ain’t gonna happen.June 28, 2013 at 11:07 am in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #11108
Yes my friends are the “My First Wedding” Disaster, I am mean photoshoot. They are a funny couple with a really cute little girl, but the photos from the wedding are shit.
I found another HORRIBLE fauxtographer from my FB feed this week. Somebody posted a link to them, so I thought I should share.
She posts most of her pictures on FB in a lower resolution, which I think she rips from her Smugmug account here:
First off, I have to say I can’t stand her watermark and name. “Reflections of Angels Eyes’ Photography” is ridiculously long, and makes for a God awful ugly watermark to smear right across the middle of your photo. It totally distracts from your photo, but that of course assumes you would want to see it. Which in this case, you will not want to. Here are a few choice selections:
I wish that kid had gotten out of the shot. He’s really blocking my view of that gorgeous red barn behind him.
He’s still in the shot, and now he’s making it all blurry.
He wants to touch the barn as much as I do. I think. Its so blurry its hard to tell.
WTF is this effect on the sides?? She like squeezed it in the middle. Thank God for that and the vignette to distract me from the lady with her closed eyes and hair all in her face.
She has horrible focus issues, but yet continues to post this shit online like people will enjoy it anyways.
Obviously pop-ip flash with that horrible shadow on the wall behind her. Awesome.
“Unfocused Photography” would be a better name judging by her shots.
WTH is this?
Nice focus on the trees a quarter mile behind them. Glad this still got posted.
Most awkward pose ever.
I think you have something on the back of your dress there.
Artistically unfocused shooting again?
First shot of the set is a girl so out of focus I can barely make out WTH she is.
Rest of the set is crap, with constant shots being posted that are focused on objects way behind the subject. That does not instill confidence.
Everybody loves shots where the subject is squinting straight into the sun.
Looks like she finally found a way to at least get one subject in focus.
From her FB page, I love her camera choices. A little Nikon and a little Canon? WTF. Lets get the crappiest gear from both sides instead of choosing one and investing in, I dunno maybe a $100 prime lens or a used flash? Nah, cheapest body and kit lens from both. Almost totally uninterchangeable.
Now obviously she has not been doing this long. Looks like she posted her first picture about 4 months ago. But, scoping out the About on her FB page I found this gem:
Tiffany started taking pictures just for the fun of it and found that she loved it. So she enrolled at the New York Photography Institute and completed their photography courses. When you come to Reflections of Angel Eyes Photography you will not have to worry about the high cost of photos. Tiffany prides herself on keeping her sessions very affordable but with high quality images. There is no session that will be to big or to small.
Ugh, really? You took and completed the courses at NYPI and you still take photos that are more out of focus than shots my 6 year old takes? Get the hell outta here. If this was just a MWAC popping photos for fun, I could forgive this. But this lady is putting herself out there as a professional photographer when most of her shots are blurry shit. Learn how to use your camera and then maybe expect to get paid for your work. She even booked a wedding according to her FB page earlier this month. God help whatever poor bride gets the shots afterwards and find 1/2 of them are totally out of focus.June 27, 2013 at 3:43 pm in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #11101
I’ve been a little busy to post, but I have hit a couple of new ones that are goldmine lately. First, I feel bad that I have some friends who I have previously done some photos for and they got married last month. I was unable to shoot their wedding when asked, so I gave some suggestions of photogs to use and avoid to the mother-in-law. She ended up going with a “friend” who shot it. Here is her website.
I was out of town, so I had no clue they had picked her until after the wedding was over and the photos started showing up on FB. Wow. I thought it was just somebody in the audience and not the hired photographer. I talked to my friends later on and they said that she was the photographer and charged $300 for her work. They knew they were in trouble she pulled out one camera with a kit lens and pop-up flash for her whole kit. She never changed up lenses, as is pretty obvious by the shots. I felt really bad for them and wish I did not have the previous engagement already scheduled.
Thanks for posting this. I have been looking to send off for some high quality prints, and I think after reading through this I am going to check out ProDPI. The photographer I mentored under always talked about loving the work he got from Bay as well, so I may toss a couple at them and compare them for myself. I have finally gotten a few shots I want to do on canvas, so has anybody done canvas from any of these groups? I see a lot of them do it, but most of the comments have been really only about prints, so I didn’t know if the quality holds for canvas prints as well.March 21, 2013 at 11:57 am in reply to: Critiques? #8074
Yea even a blind monkey finds a banana now and then. You are only showing us a very small selection of shots. The current shots you have shown us however are good stuff. I agree on the second shot of Candice having a weird color mix, but you seem to have a good grasp of photography, at least by these photos. By this selection alone I would say you are a good photographer, though obviously this is quite a small portfolio. If you are just starting off and haven’t built a large one yet, then I would say you are on a good path, but strive to improve and don’t settle for your photography being “good enough”.
The real question comes in with, do you charge, what are the majority of your shots like that you post, are you representing this as your work, are you attempting to use other people’s shots as your own, etc. Its not just about the photography (though obviously that is a big part) but the marketing and professionalism you use. That is probably just as big a part of being a “fauxtog” as the actual photography. We all take bad shots. Pros take multiple shots to get it right, trash the ones that are bad, and certainly don’t post them online and brag about how great they are.March 21, 2013 at 10:26 am in reply to: Fauxtog, Yes or No? #8068
I will chime in on the whole UV filter/hood usefulness. I don’t always carry a UV filter or hood on my lenses, especially if I am using a flash. And actually I often times take off the filter when I’m about to do a shoot and all setup. That said, I have had two lens accidents in my life, and both time they were saved by a UV filter/hood.
First time I was still quite a newbie. I was picking up my stuff after going through a search line at an arena entrance and it fell to the concrete floor. Thankfully this was my D40 and little kit lens, so this thing was really light. Anyhow, it hit right on the filter ring edge and bent it just a little bit. No damage and no big deal.
Second time was a lot worse. D200 and my 17-35 2.8 lens. Much heavier combo. I had been offloading pictures and went to pick it up from next to my computer, not realizing the damn USB cable was still plugged in. The cable did not come loose and the damn thing hit the floor hard. Bent the UV filter ring good and busted my hood. I could not unscrew the UV filter all the way and was pretty worried. Took it to a guy in Durham who does mechanical work on cameras and he fixed it in 10 seconds. Just bent it back in place and didn’t even charge me anything for it. I bought a new loop and he even said using that same filter was still fine. I shudder to think what would have happened to the lens itself if that hood and UV filter hadn’t been there to absorb the majority of that impact.March 11, 2013 at 12:13 pm in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #7653
I also have to add this one from Photography by Cynthianna:
Love the obvious clone stamp all over that bench that is in the shot before. Guess it was too much work to just get the kid on the damn ground.March 11, 2013 at 11:52 am in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #7652
Alicia Rose is truly frontpage worthy as well. Geez, just look at this ad to get started:
Wow 15 pictures on a diks and ALicia Rose. She changes it in her other shots, but a few of them she did a capital L as well. I love the change in tense, changing use of Capitals For Every Word, but only on some lines. And please remember “Limited Spots Booked In Now” WTH?!? Oh yea and behind crime scene where the English language was murdered is an underexposed, dirty and thoroughly unintersting photograph that could have been taken with a cellphone and instagrammed.
I love that in her photos she touts all these horseshit props she’s getting and can’t wait to use, and then the picture that is posted with them is just awful. Blurry, underexposed shots of them just lying on your nasty carpet and often out of focus to boot, and that is before you put them on some poor child who is stuck in front of your camera. Lets see what she did with all these props:
Wow they look like they are about to cry. And don’t worry about the rule of thirds or anything, just stick their heads right in the middle and cut their legs off. Oh wait, she got it in the next shot:
A pink and blurry mess.
Awesome natural light shot. Love how the umbrella just merges right into the background. And the girl on the left is obviously thrilled to be in this photoshoot.
Speaking of looks happy in this shot. Of course its hard to tell because its focused on the bush behind him. Minor details.
WOW. I love this photo on so many levels. And I really wish she had kept the name Magical Photography instead.
WTH is this shot? Oh its a b&w, blown out, baby bump shot? I totally got that from this shot.
The models just LOVE getting in front of her lens.
I’m glad she spent the time to convert that shot to B&W, because that really save it.
Mother of God.
Wish those people would get out of the frame so she could get the fullness of that bush behind them.
Candid Camera, fauxtog style.
And she uses the name Heart & Soul Photography as well. So like 3 names inside of a year. That makes sense?
Pet fauxtography. I’ll throw your mutt in the pool and then lean over it and take a a photo and then smash their name into the shot somehow. Captivating.
I could go on but the only one really suffering would be my liver, as this endeavor only makes me want to drink that much more.March 11, 2013 at 11:17 am in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #7651
Wow ya’ll found some gems! Nice work.
First off, that Anytime Photography. I can’t STAND this:
It looks like in so many of her shots she is using a kit lens or a high f/stop and then selecting the background and blurring it. But her selection is terrible. Just look at the lines running down his back or in front of their face in that shot. Ugh. If you are going to do that, then do it on a second layer and then blend that shit in. Here is the original shot that she edited to hell:
This shot is nothing amazing, but if you bumped up the light some it would have been a lot better, instead of the obviously faked blur. I do love that she has the typical fauxtog photo effects though, including:
Out of focus and blurry shots for her profile picture.
More faking the blurred background. Yuck.
Again, and this time with no kids looking anywhere close to the camera.
Wow can’t believe that photo with the Carlie’s face completely hidden in shadow would not get some likes!
So damn obvious she is using just a pop-up flash on this shot. Those wedding shots she got the “honor to photograph” could have easily been done by anybody in the crowd with a nice cellphone.
My favorite part of that whole page is that she hasn’t done shit in almost a year and only has like 7 albums, most of which nobody even liked a single picture. Then she starts this “Cutest Kid Contest” after ignoring her page for a year and all of sudden has over 700 likes. The metrics show that she had nobody looking or like the page, so bravo for a good marketing gimmick, but that is all it really is. The only reason the winner will be happy is that the shots will be free, so they aren’t really out anything. But what a horrible fauxtographer in general.March 8, 2013 at 10:12 am in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #7621
Got another Faux on the hook today! This one is Kathy’s Creative Photography:
Right out the bat she’s got her full price sheet listed in her info. $400 to shoot your wedding! You get way less than what you pay for though. I must also say that this lady is so lazy, or just doesn’t understand Facebook Albums, that most of her Albums are simply titled “Untitled Album”. I guess the pictures speak for themselves as to what the event is?
First album up, its untitled of course, but the description says her husband gave her room for all her photography gear. So check it out!
Interesting that all of her photo gear is a bunch of props and dresses. I don’t see any actual photography gear, except for two backdrops, one of which looks like the back of an abandoned building, and one light stand with what appears to be just a normal light on it. Not a strobe, flash, or speedlite, but just a regular house light. And even though its her studio, most of the shots are blurry, out of focus, and some show white balance problems.
Now we move on to a wedding set. Ohhh, I can’t wait!
The fauxtographer herself in action. Hard to see because its very underexposed.
The groom anxiously waiting. I love how she captures the people playing in the ocean behind him, while he looks away from the camera towards his bride to be coming down the stairs.
The bride blurry coming down the stairs. Major light issues continue. Her face is barely visible.
I love the gentleman walking behind them, so we have his pants and shoes in the shot. I also love the comment on this photo:
“This is a very nice moment captured of two people in Love, what a great photographer!”
Ummm, yea. Here is another great moment caught by this faux that is so underexposed I can barely see a damn thing:
Moving on to family fauxtos:
A great blurry family in front of a blown out background is “my favorite” too.
Another blessedly blurry shot with no definition and obviously not enough light.
Even a blind monkey finds a banana sometimes. This is easily the best shot of the set, but the bar hasn’t been set very high.
Senior Photos as seen by a Senior Citizen without their glasses on.
Summer, blown out by excessive light on the face and another blurrific shot, even with all that light.
Another wedding album! Thank God it appears that this was just a guest with a camera and they have real photos taken by an actual photographer.
Smells like fauxtog.
All the people commenting on how great this shot is must be hipsters. That is the only way anybody can like this shot.
This picture and the comments on it are what is wrong with fauxtography these days. This picture is NOT good. Not even close. Its underexposed, with tons of noise, I can’t see the grooms face and only can see part of the brides. Plus to top it off Kathy put a shitty vignette around it. Yet even with all that is going against it, she has people telling her what a great photo it is.
The Headless Help, I guess? Anyways, I could go on for hours with this one. This shit is BAD.March 7, 2013 at 3:50 pm in reply to: Critiques and feedback please. #7604
Sorry I don’t have a lot of time to go shot by shot, but you have a lot to work on. First off though, kudos for getting some good looking models for your shoots. You are doing well on recruiting.
Now for the bad. A lot of it is, in my opinion. Some shots are blown out, with really bad highlights on the faces. The next shot might be too dark. Micaela is very pretty, but that whole set needs some serious work, or just take it down. You go from one end of the spectrum to the other. There is little definition to the light on them. No profile and no shadows on most of them. Or they are too close to the background and throwing an ugly shadow on it. Honestly your best lit shot is the “accident” shot of Kenzie, though her arm pose looks like she is just showing off her armpit or something as that seems quite awkward. The one of the chick with tats in the chair, you obviously had it crooked and tried to straighten it up. But you went too far and just let gray shit around the sides. Either make a border to go around the edge, or crop that crap out. Get some speedlights or reflectors for some outdoor shots as none of those pictures seem right to me. Most are too dark, blurry, or just have no definition to separate them from the background. Sorry I don’t have more time to cover it right now.March 5, 2013 at 12:42 pm in reply to: Surprise engagement? #7562
It might not be possible with your gear, but what would be really cool is to have a second camera or “backup” and take some shots, but really just have it sitting on a tripod and running a video of the actual moment itself. Depending on how smart or how much photographic knowledge the person has, and of course depending on the lighting situation, that could make for an even greater capturing of the event, both in stills and video to get the total reaction. Just a thought, but I have never done something like this myself. I did a shoot that the guy wanted posted as quick as possible because he proposed to her that evening, and they really didn’t have any shots together, so this was what they were using as “engagement” shots.February 28, 2013 at 11:22 am in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #7408
A new day means a new fauxtog! She specializes in selective coloring, railroad track shots, and every other cliche that a fauxtog brings to the table. Today I present B.Pair Photography:
Starting off with the profile photo and Timeline photo and we have a couple of gems!
Completely blown out and not very sharp either.
Super dark with blown out spots on her.
Honestly this session wasn’t horrible, but was not great either. Usually in focus, but lighting is obviously something she is working on. This last shot though, who would think that I want to focus on that Christmas decoration instead of the three blurry children behind them??
Same couple as in the profile picture that were super blown out. And while this isn’t a bad place to shoot, pick a better time to shoot. Or at least get a reflector to kill all that light on half her face. Wow.
This one is pretty bad for a couple of reasons. The way she is shooting the flash makes the grooms ears throw bad shadows on the back, which makes them look even bigger. Additionally if she wanted the groom to have his arms around the ladies, she probably should have had him unbutton his jacket, as it looks like that button is about to die. Not his fault, but she didn’t pay attention when posing him.
This wedding set is pretty bad. This shot is too dark, her dress is about the only thing you can see, and its shot over their head, but nothing is being framed above them but darkness.
This whole set is quite bad as well. No fill flash or anything, so the Alayna appears to just blend into the background.
I love how she is so far away from the ring that its barely visible, and its obscured by grass. And its out of focus.
And whose idea was white shirts on a larger couple? You don’t want to accentuate their size. They can’t help that part, but the faux is doing no favors by posing them in awkward positions and bright shirts that do not slim them down at all, especially the bride.
Unfocused means push delete, not post on FB.
I like how the focus is on the brick wall between the photographer and the subjects hands.
Metering for outside the window? Either give it some fill flash to balance the light with outside, or expose properly for the room and have a bright light coming in from outside, or do the silhouette thing. Not sure what is going on here.