Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Fauxtographers in Court #8926
    Gerbles
    Participant

    Stef- I think the fact that the judge asked about tripod usage is just indicating he was curious to see if the photographer tried ANYTHING (even in vain) to help minimize motion blur- I think he probably knew the BEST way to handle that was with fast glass and a body with high ISO capabilities, but since he asked and the photographer didn’t know what these things were, much less own them, he wanted to see if she made an attempt to get sharper photos. As an aside, I think you may be able to get decently sharp photos on a tripod in the back of the church shooting at a wider focal length during the ceremony when everyone is standing still, depending on the shutter speed needed. It would at least be something I would try in an emergency.

    in reply to: "Real" photographers are dumb #8794
    Gerbles
    Participant

    +1 ^^^ I like what I Hate Fauxtography said about the fact that fauxtogs are actually the ones mocking the photography industry. I just sort of view it as a slap in the face for those of us who take this hobby seriously and have the respect and sense of responsibility to not charge before we’re ready. I find it ironic that most photographers who are hobbyists that seriously practice for years will never make a dime from their photos, while some MWAC will go to the walmart electronics section and pick out a dslr with the sole reason to start a business- and within a month or two, has a tacky facebook fanpage with gaudy watermarks all over her awful photos.

    in reply to: "Real" photographers are dumb #8785
    Gerbles
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: "Real" photographers are dumb #8773
    Gerbles
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: "Real" photographers are dumb #8757
    Gerbles
    Participant

    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.

     

    in reply to: So, am I doing Ok for a beginner? #8545
    Gerbles
    Participant

    OK, Simon, it really seems as if you thrive on the drama you’ve created. You keep saying you’re done, yet you keep coming back for more. You strike me as someone who thrives on strife and pity from others. If you really, truly have such a hard time dealing with people, I suggest getting some professional help and getting off the forums.

    in reply to: So, am I doing Ok for a beginner? #8422
    Gerbles
    Participant

    I would suggest maybe asking for regular critiques on a different site. Digital-photography-school.com is a great site and is really conducive to learning and getting meaningful critiques from knowledgeable people (not that there are some here that aren’t knowledgeable- it’s just not an ideal site for critiques). If you were to get a critique done even once a week on one photo, it will help tremendously. That’s what I do (well, maybe not that often anymore), but I started asking for critiques before I even had a DSLR several years ago and it’s made me a better photographer. And at some point, you will get to a point when YOU are the one giving critiques and that will  benefit you as well. Just keep in mind critiques are NOT meant to be a personal jab and even if you see a particular attribute to your photos as being part of your “style”, it doesn’t mean it’s the right way to go about projecting that “style” and you may need some help in refining it- e.g. the saturation/vibrance issue or the textures you’re using.

    in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #8349
    Gerbles
    Participant

    Lulz… Looks like a night vision shot of a baby being raised by a pack of wild zebras…

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=614707361890730&set=oa.561612817203289&type=1&theater

    in reply to: Need some critiques :) #7874
    Gerbles
    Participant

    To the OP- why is it acceptable to charge people money while you are practicing? Do you think it is right to for a mechanic to charge for practicing? Or a hairstylist? Why do you think you are entitled to people’s money after only a year of shooting? This is something that drives me crazy about photography! So many people have money on the mind when starting out and I feel like that poisons the art of photography. How ’bout this: go out, shoot, read books, attend workshops/classes/meetups for several more years, and maybe THEN, think about starting a business if that’s the route you want to go. And do it the right way (pay your taxes, get liability insurance, etc.), like other posters have discussed. In short- it is quite obvious from your photos you have only been at it a year, and unless someone is a photographic prodigy, a year of experience will never be enough to be prepared to start a business.

    in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #7630
    Gerbles
    Participant
    in reply to: Where Are You in Your Creative Journey? #7540
    Gerbles
    Participant

    @ mrs woo- have you ever thought about putting a split prism focusing screen in your 7D? I just bought one from katzeye, installed it myself, and  it works really well. The main reason was for macro work and my manual focus 85 1.4. It has no bearing on how autofocus works, which is great. It was $165 and that was with the brightener coating.

    in reply to: Feedback Please? #7539
    Gerbles
    Participant

    We don’t see this often: a person asking for critique that really IS ready to start charging (assuming your business skills are up to par). Awesome work, and it helps that you have really good looking friends 🙂

    in reply to: Crit Welcome #7514
    Gerbles
    Participant

    Hate to say it, but if you plan on wanting to sell landscape and wildlife photos, you are going to need years of experience and actually traveling to awe inspiring locations. These are OK for practice (anyone can buy a ticket to the zoo and get the same photos at the same time of day- ie. harsh midday light), but in order to sell prints like you want to sell,  there will by lots of money, skill, time, and travel involved. Just look at the Nat Geo photos. Compare and contrast- what sort of things are they doing that you aren’t? Looking at photos that are leaps and bounds beyond yours is one of the best ways to improve.

    in reply to: Fauxtogs who should end up on the main page… #7467
    Gerbles
    Participant

    @ dont.care- you need to chill the fuck out. This is not a gun forum. And if you couldn’t see why that photo was laughable, then you need glasses.

    in reply to: Best Online Resources? #7137
    Gerbles
    Participant

    I like the Kelby training site. Tons of videos to watch on various subjects and it’s $25/month. I personally just joined and plan on watching all the videos I’m interested in and cancelling my membership in a month or two.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 51 total)