[stef]

Some issues with exposure. Tilty water on sunset pic.

It looks like you can generally get things in focus and with the DOF you want, although you also need some work on posing people.

I don’t like your static crops, but don’t hate them… they could be a bit better thought out. Composition overall isn’t bad.

 

[stef]

Regardless, where are the attacks on other photogs? I’ll be happy to believe you as soon as you demonstrate that what you’re saying has a shred of truth. Right now, you’re just spouting undocumented bs. That is the same crime you accuse this fauxtog of doing.

[stef]

How does she find out other people’s clients?

Yes, her shots are bad. I’m just trying to figure out if you’re one of the togs whose clients were being courted.

 

I didn’t actually see any attacks on other photogs on that page.

[stef]

IHF is not vindictive. If you think she is, maybe you don’t know what that means.

 

She might be a little harsh, but I’m not convinced.

[stef]

What’s really scary is that the more successful photographers are those with the strongest business sense, not necessarily the strongest photography skill. (This is ignoring those who shoot for things like Nat Geo.)

[stef]

Of those two portraits, I think the second is composed worse. Eyes in center of image and tilty, and the first conveys much more emotion and presence.

 

[stef]

Some states pay a bounty on the tax collected.

A fauxtog not paying taxes is pulling a fast one, and the legitimate businesses paying taxes are the victims. It gives him an unfair advantage. Being dumb and not having insurance is a risk but he is the one that will suffer. However, evasion is both illegal and unfair to businesses that do play the game.

That said, nobody likes a rat.

[stef]

Yep. It’s definitely feast or famine sometimes. This year has been good, but others not so much.

Having passion for photography isn’t enough. If you have a passion for business, then you have a chance.

[stef]

I do.

 

[stef]

Hi AL. Tell me, what do I have to gain by posting my work? Credibility? I already have that.

 

It’s exactly like someone said.. a food critic doesn’t have to be a renown chef to judge food well. And when they pointed that out, you derided them and said, essentially, “you’re wrong because you’re just mad at me for calling out your husband.” Does that really make someone wrong?

 

Basically, you demonstrated exactly why people should not post their work. You evaluated the validity of a comment not on the merit of the comment, but on an irrelevant point. And you call yourself capable, so imagine how those whom you deride will act.

 

There’s your reasoning for why you’re wrong. You demonstrated it all by yourself.

 

[stef]

I’m teasing about the KR link. I like the guy, and have read most of his site. He’s pretty goofy, though. He’s like a magic 8 ball … sometimes he’s spot on, but sometimes, you need to “ask again tomorrow”.

 

And stop lamenting your equipment. I have some top of the line cameras, but I’ve been spending my off-time buying old equipment and using it. If you’re serious about photography instead of just wanting new gadgets, you can get some amazing deals on great glass and cameras if you are willing to shoot film. You can use your cellphone as a spot meter for a cheap medium format package, and still have money to buy a cup of coffee. So really, I have no sympathy for those who complain about their equipment when all they want is equipment, instead of the ability to make great photos. And you’ll take a lot more time composing your image when you only have 12 or 18 shots per roll, and requiring that kind of patience is exactly what you personally need.

Hit the yard and estate sales, and find yourself a mamiya 645 or RZ67 with a lens, or even an old pentax 67. Some of the old russian cameras are cool, too, but read up on them before buying (so that you can test the mechanism… some are very sensitive and possibly already broken). You’ll be able to sell it for what you bought it for if you don’t like it. You can probably get a good kit with 1 or 2 lenses for under $300, and it’ll take much better pictures than any digital camera at 10 times the cost. I’m not exaggerating, either. Borrow a friend’s scanner now and then and scan all your negatives.

You also get the bonus that negatives generally last a very long time. Far longer than any digital medium short of cuneiform. (Okay, there is one CD that’ll last hundreds of years, but in 100 years, nobody will know wtf a CD is or have a computer that can read it).

If you truly want to learn photography, you will at least consider starting down the path of film, price it out, and learn about it. It requires less commitment, but more patience. You can shoot a roll a day for a year and still pay less than a digital camera, and in the end you will have a much better understanding and appreciation of what makes a good photograph.

[stef]

Crops aren’t great (many are pretty bad), and -1 for quoting Ken Rockwell. Often the viewer is left guessing at your subject. A lot of vaguely interesting shots, but I didn’t really see anything I thought was particularly well-executed, framed, and exposed.

 

But overall I didn’t see gaping problems. I accidentally viewed your webpage thinking it was another “Here’s a really bad fauxtographer” someone linked, and I was thinking “These aren’t bad.” So, if that’s any consolation, while mistakenly looking at your page thinking you were a fauxtog, I was convinced you were not 🙂 Some of your stuff is “arty”, and actually might be salable with better crops and processing.

However, if you’re charging for your work in general, I would definitely call you out as a fauxtog. You need more experience, but you’re heading in the right direction.

 

My suggestions:

Be able to articulate your subject. “I want to convey solitude with this boat” or “It’s just a dying flower”. Whatever it is, it’s not coming across well.

Watch the entire frame. If there are wires that detract from the composition, move. Or remove them in post. Or crop in. Or zoom in. Or something, but don’t leave them in.

Don’t oversaturate. Too much saturation doesn’t make an uninteresting shot more interesting. It makes it worse. Composition makes something “pop”, not post processing. Post can help a good image become great. Trying to save a bad one is a waste of time. Shoot better.

Lastly, crop better. You might correct for your lenses, too… there’s some distortion, but that’s the last thing you need to look at.

Composition is what you need to concentrate on.

[stef]

You’re not a fauxtographer but not a particularly gifted photographer, but the other is a fauxtographer to the core.

 

I literally had trouble looking at the images in that other link you posted. I had to force myself to go back to look, just to be sure.

[stef]

(this post intentionally left non-blank)

[stef]

I looked at this earlier, and thought I responded. I apologize that I haven’t done any drinking for this C&C.

 

For the most part, looks like you have basic camera handling down, and are able to connect with your subject reasonably well. I liked some of your crops, and didn’t like others. One shot looked like you widened the subject’s eyes with liquify (although you probably didn’t) … https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/200757_217818945014363_228782690_n.jpg and it gets a bit of “uncanny valley” effect. I also don’t like the crop with the chopped hands.

 

The next image is a good shot, but the colors look off in this warm light. Otherwise, it would be a great shot. There’s a red spot in the center of his forehead that you might smooth out. https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/574459_217778625018395_1295910862_n.jpg

 

Your black & white images of Savannah are really good. The color ones, not as much, probably due to lack of modeling on the face and lighting. Part of this is the light, but part because of the pose — you told her to smile and it looks fake. But you converted the b/w images where she wasn’t smiling, and you did a good job with the conversion. If that was done manually, congrats. If not, you should figure out what made it good and be able to replicate it. (Hint: primarily tonality and facial modeling, combined with darkening the greens caused her to stand out better.) https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/196797_218420964954161_530571283_n.jpg

 

Some of your other b/w images are not as good, both due to the conversion and the shot itself.

Bad conversion and bad shot: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/555642_214764115319846_1496941180_n.jpg

Good conversion, bad shot: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/418458_214764258653165_1032016680_n.jpg

Watch for things like branches coming out of people’s heads, hair blowing across the face, etc.

 

Some of your kid shots are really pretty cute. The ability to get kids to be kids in front of the camera or to pose when desired means you have a good connection to not only them, but more importantly, the parents. It’s too easy for a parent to become domineering over a kid, especially when they’re paying for something (like shots of their kids).

 

So, while I think you need a lot of work on lighting and posing and processing, you also seem to have a lot of what it takes to be good at it. You especially need to pay more attention to your backgrounds.

You are not a fauxtographer.

[Author]

Posts