Forum Replies Created
I am not sure what the person you mentioned means by natural light. I do not believe that many of her shots did not have off camera lighting. There is one whre the hair has beautiful rim lighting but also has catch light in the eyes. You can always add a catch light in PS but this looks natural to me..
@Seth, I believe off camera lighting was used. Shadows and the One light in the top right of her eye make it look like it to me. I do not think it is over edited. It looks good to me. I often take catch lights out of eyes if they are large or come from multiple sources. Quality lens is also a key here. If you want color like this, out of the box go quality prime or 24-70L if you shoot Canon. Yes it is worth the money. This portrait is pretty well done.. Background is still a bit hot for my personal taste. Willing to bet money though there was an external light source.
The problem was not the xti. It is the lens. I would take a Rebel with a “L” lens any day over a 1D with a cheap lens. Glass is where you put your money first. Both of those lenses are JUNK that she used. Better than nothing but not much.
I agree with everything IHF just wrote above. Except I did see a couple of shots that has promise. The one shot with the curve road imo is one of your better shots. In addition ot everything IHF said and to expand on it.. Learn the rule of thirds and eventually you will know when to break that rule as well. To keep it simple when looking at something to photograph think about what it is you really want to see in the image. Then think about how to compose your image so a complete stranger will know what you are wanting them to see. One more thing that I think will help your landscape photos greatly is pick another time of day. It looks like you are shooting midday or in the bright sun. Try to avoid this. I think that will improve a great many shots just by being in differnt light. Look at what other people are doing. Here is an expample of one of the best landscape photographers I know. http://www.facebook.com/#!/fuphotography/photos. He is a master of light. But like IHF said. If you love it keep doing it. That is the only way to get better.
Erika, based on the criteria I use I would not categorize you as a fauxtog. I looked at your site, not your facebook page. The rates you are charging are more in line with where you probably need to be. I personally do not see what Michael must see on the over processing. But then again I did not look at your Facebook Page. IHF I agree with a good many times and I must say I do with him this time on the mentoring. But then again if you are getting paid $100.00 hr then I would probably do it as well. To me it looks like all of your images are shot with purpose and thought. You are charging a reasonable session fee as well. You may be one of the few who actually makes it.
My point on art.. look at the photo that sold for over 4 million dollars.
@MBCChamberlain.. Art is very subjective. I would never tell someone’s photos are not good enough to sell as art. It is amazing what people call art and buy. To me there is a difference between producing images for yourself and trying to sell them versus calling yourself a photographer for hire. Would any of his images work for me and the publications I work for. Probably not. However he expressed interest as selling and creating them for art work. Personally I think most of Warhol’s stuff is crap but people pay big bucks for it. If he had asked about shooting for hire I would put him in another category.
I judge the criteria of being a fauxtog different from most here. You are not one. In relationship to your photos you have skill and a good eye from what I can see. My only thing would be to straighten the horizon on a couple of shots. It really bugs me on shots of water not to have a compeletly level horizon. All the water is going to run out :). Even your product shots show skill. I like them. They are not easy to do well.. I really like the sailor kissing the girl shot. Best in your port IMO.. I would keep at and try to sell some. I also see you are using a T1i.. You are proof that you do not need a 3k camera to take some great shots.
I do not like the candy corn.. I get the concept.. poorly executed..However I do have a tendency to agree with your husband about what people want to see. It constantly amazes me what people like these days. It is part of the reason sites like this one exist. I am willing to bet that if you ask the same question to the general public most will like it. Shaking head sadly. 🙁
You may also start looking at using a reflector or even an off camera strobe to start being up your eyes some as well.
I cannot answer if you are a fauxtog based on the link given. Since that is where you posted this. However as far a photogrpahy it looks like you have some skill and knowledge of photography. Some of the cloud shots and nature shots are not my personal taste but technically they are pretty sound. Since you shoot a Canon camera I would suggest getting you an 85MM F1.8 to really take some of your portrait shots up a notch. This lens is only about 375.00 new and could almost be L glass . You have the basics imo. Time to step it some with equipment. I like the fact that you do not have any shots with over processing. I do not have the time as some do on here to give in-depth reviews of each shot. I look at thousands of photos a week. Tough to bring myself to do it for fun anymore. But you are much better than many I have seen on here. Watch you composition but I do understand why people are telling you that you are good.
Stef I agree, Business and marketing are the keys to it today. But still it will be only a very small number that can really make a living from it.
“Just because I don’t charge for prints doesnt make me automatically a faux. Its because I am a mom, and I work full time. THEN do this. I do not have a studio. To be honest, it is easier for me to not have to order prints. I’ve done that before. This makes them happier, and me as well. This isn’t my full income, I’m not looking to make a living. I do it because I love it, and I want people to get something better than going to a cookie cutter studio. This doesn’t make me a faux. Yes I am saving up for better camera and lenses. It will come in time. The photosessions are for that.”
The prints were an example of the mindset of a fauxtographer. This entire statement proves my point. You also state on your FB page. That you would love to do this full time. I am not knocking your photography. I actually think overall you have potential, my point is that as long as you have the mindset that you do you will never be able to make a full time living at this. It has nothing to do with the prints or not. That was an example showing your mindset in your own words. That is what seperate photographers from fauxtographers. Read my post about the 99.9% and it may explain it more.
TXGRL, I feel your pain. I have friends who have made a good living for years, that are now just scrapping by or like you have given it up as a means of support. To me this is the real crime of the fauxtographer. What none of the ones realize ,who say that one day they hope to make a career out of photography, is that the very thing they are doing is going to prevent them from ever making it a career. Photography as a business is almost dead. Killed by the fauxtographers, digital, and the biggest killer of all, a public that will settle for mediocrity.
I only see two photos on the link you posted. Not much to go by. The shot of, I guess your wife and kids, the composition is bad. The road behind them pulls your eye to the horizon and takes it off of them. Use lines to take the viewers eye where you want it to go. Not away from it..