Forum Replies Created
If you work under a skilled and experienced photographer, why not ask for their advice on equipment??
Is it just me, or is focus not that difficult a concept? I mean, most of these new cameras have “autofocus”, right? If the camera can’t get it right, most let you do the focus yourself, right?
Regarding the wedding:
I think the problem has to be mainly due to really poor processing. I am not familiar with Sony DSLRs, but I would have thought even on full auto they would do a better job than these. Auto white balance should not usually cause that amount of orange and you can’t blame the camera for so many out of focus shots.
She does have a few good composition ideas and managed to capture some good expressions – but then ruined basically every one. Some of it is being too ambitious without the skills – such as shooting with brightly lit windows behind but not being able to control the exposure. Some need good cropping. Some are over-sharpened to all hell. Most are completely oversaturated. Something is going on with the clarity as well, which is horrible.
She really needs to learn to be selective with what she posts – no-one needs to see every single photo. There’s nothing wrong with taking eight of the same group photo, to make sure you get one where people are not blinking or looking away – but don’t post all eight! It merely shows your failures. Nor do you need to post every shot you took at the altar – including the ones where the groom is glaring at you for taking too many photos! She must realise that some of the shots simply didn’t work – no crime there, but don’t post them for the world to see!
The ‘Jackson Building’ photos with the guy who obviously fancies himself more than a little were… just plain weird. In almost every one his head looks like it has been photoshopped onto another body. It is the wrong size for his body and the skin on his face and head is an entirely different colour to the body. I suspect it is just his weird body development and his head being tanned (but his body not exposed) but coupled with the harsh and flat lighting, it just looks wrong.November 28, 2012 at 7:43 pm in reply to: Will someone please go tell this woman she is a fauxtog? #4922
Anna – I had been sympathetic to your perspectives and to the idea that these bad fauxtogs are not harming the business of actual professional photographers.
Yes, we all have to start somewhere. The difference with, say, Ashley is that she has already been shooting for a few years but is still totally inept (there is no excuse for red eye, completely out of focus shots – including out of focus still objects – no understanding of cropping, dreadful and amateurish post processing, terrible lighting, awful facial expressions and so on) and is clearly not interested in learning or growing as a photographer.
On the other point, after commenting on Ashley’s FB page I received a message from someone who is a professional photographer in the same small town as Ashley. I imagine that a small town can only sustain a small number of professional photographers. The other woman does really good work and having someone like Ashley around sucks away at her business. It also likely reduces total business in the town as no-one looking at Ashley’s photos would ever think “that’s great – I might get a professional photographer to do some shots of my family too”. So, this is a definite example of where a fauxtog is actually harming a real tog.November 28, 2012 at 3:02 am in reply to: Will someone please go tell this woman she is a fauxtog? #4884
I agree with browneyedgirl89. Priscilla has some bad shots but also some good and she has the potential to produce solid work.
Ashley Adey, on the other hand, is a consistent train wreck. Yeah, it is tricky. I live in Australia and am not a professional photographer anyway, so she is no threat to me on any imaginable level apart from the rather intangible threat she presents to the overall image of photography. At the same time, there is a perverse fascination in looking at her images and trying to work out how she got some of them so wrong. Clearly on-camera flash and auto setting are a big part of the problem, but there is no excuse whatsoever for out of focus portraits and red eye in ‘professional shots’. She has no apparent knowledge of basic editing, such as cropping or spot removal. The harsh lighting and shadows are dreadful. The funny thing is that some of her early shots (taken outside) were better. The worst thing she did was move inside, but her apparent refusal to look critically at her work and learn from it is a big mistake.
Ashley also seems to have a really alarming effect on children, who often seem scared or confused around her. This could be explained by the number of shots of babies playing with live electrical wires. I commented on one of her photos about the dangers of this and she deleted the comment. I commented on the big bubble of saliva that made one baby photo quite grotesque, but she protested saying it made it look like a normal baby (shouldn’t all portraits of babies look like ‘normal’ babies, or am I simply displaying my dislike of Anne Geddes?). I asked what another photo was, as I genuinely didn’t know. She replied ‘catapillar’. I have to confess that her inability to spell does negate my view of her, but that is my own thing. The fact that her ‘catapillar’ was badly out of focus and the ‘after’ processing shot was significantly worse than the ‘before’ processing shot has not helped my view either.
The thing is, though, that Ashley’s clients actually seem to like what she does. Sure, they are probably all friends and family and she is probably not building immense personal wealth with her business, but they do seem happy with the outcomes – the word ‘awesome’ gets used a lot – so who are we to argue?