Before: A lackluster snapshot. After: A total train wreck.
← Previous post
Next post →
OOOH WHITE VIGNETTING!!! INSTANT CLASSIC!!!
Wow, looks like someone puked all over it, I was editing photos for a girl and she wasn’t happy with what I was doing, she kept saying “just boost the contrast” and wanted photos that looked like junk a 15 year old would put on myspace.
Thats art Bailey :-p
Words of Bambi Cantrell and Me oddly though cut down a bit:
I don’t let them see the unfinished, unprocessed and unpolished shots as that is not the product I am selling and I sure as hell don’t want them unfinished shots representing my brand.
Think that’s where most are going wrong now, there are a lot of yes men with little belief or knowledge in what they are peddling, just grasping for the job.
The horrors I have heard :o(
Oh and that image up top??? WTF?? seriously???
Which is why you never, ever give seniors digital files; they do horrible things to them!
this is picasa vintage i believe.
It looked better before.
Tee-hee! Clicked through to the photo, and it is now ‘Private’. I guess the faux-tog decided that there really IS such a thing as bad publicity!
That’s on the YANAP flickr page, Julie. LOL
Wow, puke central!
First of all “my eyes my eyes” second of all to the person editing photos in front of a client…Um why? A client should never see unfinished photos……..even if it’s just a color correction and blemish touch up…..
I’ve hired ONE photographer prior to being part of the professional photography world. He gave us a copy of every single untouched photo. Now mind you this was back in 2004 I was so disappointed these were my wedding photos. To this day I regret using this particular fauxtographer. After my experience I would NEVER allow a bride or ANY paying customer see any product that had not reviewed and at least color corrected. Now we all aim to take those images that we don’t have to do anything with, but we can only control so much.
I think the mark of a great photographer is someone who CAN show unedited work, and it stands for itself. I get wanting to show the best product… but when the finished product is far enough from the unedited shot that the photographer is worried about showing unedited work, I think it says something about the photographer’s skill.
I want to get the lighting, the color, everything right in the camera, and do MINIMAL post-processing.
Just my .02.
blah blah blah.
no offence but I hear this all the time – “you should be able to not edit”.
Guess what, photography has always been edited – either deliberately or not. Ansell Adams – hopefully a “great” photographer as you would say, said that the negative is the score and the print is the performance. He was right – they are never directly the same.
Software is just the modern darkroom, you should edit EVERY shot you want to show to a client. Not maul it like this piece of crap but enhance it to make it look its very best
This snobbery about software enhancements is just boring – but I understand that “work” like the above is what makes people snobby about it
I agree with Mark. That’s like saying a movie shouldnt be edited and all the visual effects should be done while shooting or coloring shouldnt be done. The point of editing photos is to get the look you want and convey it. Look at HDR, astrophotography and landscape photography. those things need tweaking and editing. That guy is justifying that putting in extra work and effort in a photo is a waste of time.
ermmmmm….looks like Oscar the Grouch puked all over the shot! wow!
I think they may have had to much of that beer I see in the corner
I would not bother to pry this photo off a 1970’s sticky album even if you offered me $20 to do so. It is just that horrible.
The entire photostream has nothing available to the public, the account name is “notaphotog”, and the profile is blank. If this is a case of making fun of one who learning, trying, and /not/ calling themselves a professional (I see no watermarks), then I think some redress is in order.
Yeah, it’s OUR Flickr account….
It’s still not green enough.
I think the Flickr account is run by the guy who runs this site, not the original fauxtog. Hence the name “notaphotog”. Sort of like the name of the site. And the email address.
Wow, are some people so desperate to defend fraudulent photographers that they don’t notice these details?
Give me indication this by someone saying they are pro and not anyone with a a new camera trying to learn as they go and I will be glad to laugh at it. This gives no indication. This looks like an elitist dogpile on an amateur.
Yes, it’s our Flickr. We host images there. It helps with site load time.
St Patrick’s Day s coming – needs more Green!
Hey nice to see yu guys back – have missed the entertainment the days you took off.
Is this person claiming to be a photographer/fauxtographer? It’s locked down now. I stand by my general position of “Do whatever you want if it’s just for you or just messing around, but when you’re trying to run a photography business, the game changes.”
I’m not sure I agree with you but I know where you are coming from. If they are “pro” photographers then of course this is more than a little disappointing but I don’t understand why running a business changes the game. If they are running a business and its their own business then they can do whatever crap they want. I hope it fails and I know it devalues what we do but there are crap restaurants, crap clothes, crap cars. We can all just not buy them. It’s not up to the companies to come up to our standards (although it would be better for them if they did), its up to us to buy from the ones who do.
“Locked down now.” Do you mean the Flickr? It’s our Flickr account.
If it’s on this site, it’s someone trying to claim to be “professional” and charging money. That’s the entire point of the site.
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.