[Thom]

She is the definition of fauxtographer. Her images SUCKED bad. My guess is that it was to draw suspicion to herself. Two things come to mind that she could do (keep in mind, I don’t know digital cameras all that well) 1) erase SD card (which I’m told sometimes you can recover files still) 2) take out SD card and throw into shredder than incinerate. I think she genuinely wanted to keep those “precious” memories. She’s really psychotic and glad she wasn’t released.

[Thom]

JC, never said the “how-to” wasn’t there, it’s the “why” she should be concerned about. BUT, if that’s where the winds take her and the convo, I’ve said my piece, and will let it lie. Good luck to all.

[Thom]

Cameralicker: But the tech talk is all worthless if the person is focused on the specs and not on what is actually in front of them. Which is what is going on here. I had to sketch every frame I saw before I snapped a single frame (in college). So whatever I shot, should be worth taking the time to draw. It’s hard to believe there is an inherent learning curve to something that comes from convenience (digital camera) to something that comes from meditating on the “why”. Do you believe they learn from their mistakes this way?

In essence, the lousy fauxtogs that continually make the same mistakes and copy other fauxtogs making similar awful choices. Consider the commonality between the shooters deemed “fauxtographers.” Then read above…where the shooter glazed over the “why” and jumped to the issue being their gear is the culprit.

[Thom]

I’m dismayed at the amount of discussion on specs for gear, when the real issue is learning the craft of observing and absorbing the world first.

[Thom]

Blueeyes…it’s not the lens. Go to an art museum. Observe paintings. Look at drawings. Forget technology for a little bit.

[Thom]

Blueeyes1128: If I’ve offended you, I apologize. I realize this is just a “hobby” for you, and you seem to have fun doing it, it is serious business for a lot of us. Mostly, the frustration comes from fauxtographers clogging up the system of people who’ve sacrificed a lot to learn and get better. What the good natured hobbyist don’t understand is that potential clients have to sift through this muck in order to get the ones worth their $. And when we see poor examples of shots AND that clients had paid $ for them, it goes against every fiber of our common sense. So the lashing out may be directed more towards clients’ poor taste/instruction/demands/ignorance than your talent. Just something to consider when you market yourself as a photographer.

[Thom]

Not bad, but I think you may fall for the “shooting gallery” mistake. Which is having the same pose for every person be the same. In other words, putting them in your crosshairs. May I suggest an experiment? Turn your camera upside down (hopefully your camera doesn’t auto-orientate) and start snapping photos upside down (just don’t see faces, but see shapes). Just a test.

[Thom]

I agree with everything iliketag wrote. The shooter may not have the resources to make the images pop. Nor does he have the subjects/model pools to do so. So I think a lot of these gimmicks are born from distracting you from the real issue. Poor framing and posing. From what I saw, he deals with a lot of people who are really uncomfortable in front of the camera.

[Thom]

I got a chance to look at the rest of his work. What creeps me out is the very “religious” approach to his work. I get people are hardcore Christians and whatnot, but…having been around a lot of die-hard born agains here in L.A….they’ve either really screwed their lives up somehow, or hiding behind God to do some very bad things. His work, in general, is so…I can’t explain it, but…makes me feel uneasy.

[Thom]

Hi Teal,

I like your work. And it seems like you like to do children’s photography. But you don’t have enough images to make an assessment about consistency. They look good though. If Flickr will be the site of your portfolio, may I also suggest (as you have a romantic image there) to separate into categories.

Best,

Thom

[Thom]

I agree with WCS, it is tinted to make them more “vintage” looking. Whilst the fauxtogs look like really bad spray paint and have no context as to why they would do selective coloring. It’s a pretty fine line. I think most consumers, much like the hair pulling decisions made by clients WCS mentioned, are why you do see a LOT of bad selective coloring. To me, it’s just all around bad.

[Thom]

I shoot film, so there isn’t that much to sift from. I do my own retouches.

If you shoot a lot, you may want to look into a retoucher. It does add to your overhead (obviously) so maybe someone who you can grow with and who you have good chemistry with and can work with your rates. They will save you time (and time is $). Really great ones can match whatever look you want to go with. Be careful though, SO many people think they can set up Photoshop and be a retoucher. It’s really an art. And as such should be treated like that. Personal references makes it so much better.

[Thom]

I think this is a cool idea for people who are in school/near out-of-school to solicit funds for pet projects that they feel passion for. I’ve put money in a few Kickstarter programs and feel better since it would’ve been something I could’ve used when I was her age (internet wasn’t really that advanced yet). And it’s not like she’s asking for thousands of dollars. It’s pocket change really. Over $600 raised?…that’s pretty cool.

[Thom]

In defense of your “professionalism”…I work here in Los Angeles, and I’ve looked at my share of headshots/portfolios and I think your portrait work (in particular senior photos) bests some of the shit I see out here who’ve labeled themselves professional. Your shots are well conceived, crafted and natural.That is the toughest nut to crack, since most amateurs throw EVERY single filter, color pack, presets, gimmicks in hopes of NOT seeing the real image. Your work doesn’t have all that nonsense. So personally, I would consider you a professional.

In terms of naming your photo sight, I think just your real name seems to suit your style. I think what ErisedDawn was implying is that the big dogs just use their names. I once had a girlfriend try to talk me out of naming my photo sight “Pudgy Bunny Photography.” She was right. I was wrong.

[Thom]

Hi,

I really like the style. You caught a LOT of energy in her movements. The images are very playful and the color palette works with the backyard garden feel. I like the more muted look. Vintage-ish. But that’s me.

Best,

Thom

[Author]

Posts