[stef]

titli, keep in mind he posted in the “Am I a fauxtographer?” forum. He was directly asking other shooters what they thought. This forum has taken on the life of a fairly harsh critique forum, but is not driven out of harshness, but lack of face-to-face hesitation (and sometimes lack of manners, but that’s another issue).

I wouldn’t take the opinions above as gospel. What are they saying exactly? that you need to work on your photography and because of that you are a “fauxtographer?” I think you should follow your own heart and if it is a subject passionate to your heart go after it. I am not a “photographer” but i like your photos. They have feeling and they are presented in an interesting and intimate way. Keep in mind that you are not shooting to impress other photographers. Who is your target audience? Do you need other people to approve your art? Does the fact that at this moment in time you don’t have the same technical skills as them mean that you cannot aquire those skills.Go after your dreams and stop apologising for it.There will always be critics.

[stef]

So what are the opinions firstly, of the original pic, and could it have been taken better in camera
F/22 1/25 ISO100 50MM

Unless you’re doing something funky, like causing rays out of light sources bouncing off the aperture leaves, once your f stop is higher than 8, your images will suffer from diffraction which looks like softness or lack of focus.

If you don’t have a good reason, don’t shoot higher (smaller) than f/8 on your 7D. Other cameras have different values for where diffraction starts to affect the image, but the 7D is around f/7…. you can shoot up to f/11 without noticing it greatly, but higher than that starts to become obvious at full resolution or large prints.

 

I liked the saturated sunset pic, just like I liked the other sunset pic you did. You should always consider “How does this improve the picture” when you’re doing post processing.

 

[stef]

All metadata is stripped on facebook photos, btw.

[stef]

“Family pets may be incorporated into photographic sessions without a license. But, the pet or pet owner must be the person/people being photographed. There must be an established pet ownership relationship or the owner must be present. For example: The photographer may not sell a pet to the client for the length of the session and then have the client sell the animal back. It must TRULY be the pet of the client or the owner must remain present.”

So, this says one of two things:

1. I cannot photograph someone else holding my cat, because I’m the owner and not being photographed. Likewise, I cannot use a pet bunny.

or

2. I can photograph children holding my pet bunny, without getting a license.

 

Cats and rabbits are both pets. The owner (me) is present, but NOT the one being photographed.

 

Which is it? If it’s #1, that sounds kind of strange to be unable to legally photograph a friend holding your cat.

 

If it’s #2, then this whole thread is immaterial.

 

[stef]

How to avoid being called a fauxtographer in 10 steps

 

 

[stef]

I suspect if we let you self-examine and post a few more times, you’ll be back to your top post again. But the next time around, you might think about it more.

 

It’s rough to hear any kind of criticism, and it’s especially rough on this forum although I think Brownie’s was pretty tame.

 

You have a great lens collection, covering all the important stuff. All the ingredients are there, but you’re trying to bake before preheating the oven. While saying “That’s how I like the picture to look” seems reasonable, others see it like you’re dumping half a jar of salt into your soup and exclaiming that’s how you like it. And then inviting others to taste it, ready to jump on them if they say it’s too salty.

 

I looked through a few pages. The saturation in most of the shots is way too high for it to not look like a cartoon. Some of the shots work with saturation turned up to 11 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/94214228@N05/8577505302/in/photostream/) but most do not. It’s not abstract or art… it’s too much salt.

 

There’s definitely some bad photoshopping. Most of it is passable, but there’s some that’s just bad. http://www.flickr.com/photos/94214228@N05/8577509684/in/photostream

 

And your compositions could use some help. I see you’re having a lot of fun with that 100L, so maybe it’s time to start looking at making more interesting images with it. Nearly all your macro shots are bullseyes. You had one nice moth with a shadow under it that was pretty good, although I would’ve liked to see some more of his back.

 

If you asked, I’d call you a fauxtographer in a heartbeat. As a beginner, you’re not doing bad at all. You’re having more advanced issues right off, and already showing some real artistic skill. It’s not that you can’t make a good photo, it’s that if you hone your basic skills of composition and post processing, your good photos will be more than just 1% of the total. Saturate all you want, but that’s not the only issue you’re having.

[stef]

The idea that I cannot take a picture of someone holding my own cat without a permit boggles me.

 

I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m saying *something* is wrong.

 

[stef]

Online proofing works great, as long as you include a calibration chart as your first photo.

 

However, online proofing is crap for selling prints. I believe prints are good, but unless you spend the time to pull people into your studio to view them, you won’t make many print sales.

 

[stef]

That article says I can’t take a picture of a friend holding my cat.

It says I can’t take a picture of my neighbor’s horse in his field.

Both of those things sound reasonable to me, so I have trouble believing the article. Maybe it’s spot on, but it sounds wrong.

 

But after seeing the image of the kid holding up a bunny by an ear, I can understand what the animal welfare act is supposed to prevent… things like that.

[stef]

Youch. Now the front page has an example of a kid holding a rabbit by one ear….

[stef]

It is not a show. It’s a picture on display, not an animal.

But I guess it depends how the gov interprets it.

 

I’ll go inform everyone who ever posted a picture of a cat.

[stef]

I don’t see anything pertaining to photographers in that.

 

[stef]

“I learn something new every day and I’m seriously obsessed with photography. It’s a true passion as I’m sure it is with many of you.”

Be prepared to lose some of that passion. When you turn it into a job, the worst part is realizing it’s no longer your job. Your new job becomes that of salesman, or figuring out how to apply that passion. You can’t just go shoot a bunch of stuff you want, and magically get paid for it.

You are, however, starting with a bit of an advantage. You have another job, so you can actually photograph what you want without starving. Maybe you can do a book or something. Just be aware, to some degree your new job will be a significant percentage of non-photography. As a 2nd job, you should make sure to keep your expenses separate and buy new equipment only with money you’ve made from photography. If nothing else, your passion will pay for itself that way, and you’ll have more money because you’re no longer spending anything from your day job.

 

I can meet my expenses. But the bulk of my photography business hasn’t involved me picking up a camera in 2 weeks. It’s been all sales, among other (non-paying) things.

 

[stef]

What’s up with the masking on http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmatrisotto/8576121152/in/photostream ?

 

Is that how it came out of camera? Looks like a bad PS job darkening, or blurring the background.

 

[stef]

The edges are certainly OOF, but very few 35mm lenses can handle edges well. Even canon’s 35L sucks in the corners at wide apertures. Sucks bad.

 

Is there actually a question here? You’re the one that will know if there’s a focus issue. They’re pretty easy to recognize… if a lens is suddenly no longer sharp at the focus point when it used to be, then something is wrong. Compare it to older pics taken with that lens.

 

 

[Author]

Posts