I Think the Fauxtog is Blind

How exactly does this happen? Is the fauxtog blind? Or did the customer order up a crappy spot-color job.

← Previous post

Next post →


  1. Blind…or drunk? Maybe both?!?!

  2. Clearly drunk.

    The family that is.

  3. Ok, I think the photographer was trying to just colorize that one opening in the fence plus the little girl’s arm extending out. I’m not sure *why* one would attempt this, but I think that’s what s/he was going for here.

  4. JAGged Edge Photo


  5. This seems to be an attempt to be clever. An attempt. Alas that it’s not effective.

  6. It’s a Christmas miracle!

  7. The terrible hodgepodge of techniques aside, awesome hoodie Mom; you look really proud to be with your kids in that moment. These clients are worse than their photographers most of the time. So sad.

  8. LOL I’m surprised that they took the time to colour her whole arm instead of just the top part since it seems they only wanted to spot colour what was in the “box”
    Idiots and their photo editing fails

  9. Nikki Hickey

    Its a square of color cuz you looking into the future from the past LOL yes totally works omg how awesome id pay big for this shat of a color spot job ffs really just go b/w and make it a good b/w at the very least and maybe idk level the ground

  10. The photo is horrible regardless of the spot color.

  11. i am starting not to enjoy this site anymore, i thought we were supposed to be constructively critiquing not assuming people are stupid or blind. i see comments all the time about the color blocking effect, either its a mess or they only did a prop and not the subject, now for people to be complaining b/c its a box!? i dont know this person but for it to be color blocked as cleanly as it is i think is a step in the right direction for this person (lets face it we’ve seen MUCH worse) but people need to be talking about the actual photography going on and not so much the editing like it has been b/c this is just stupid.

    • Most of the photos posted here are not from a professional photographers but think they are. So why not invite them to the site and let them discuss their images?

    • Why would you think this site was about constructive criticism? Why? Is the name of the site misleading?

    • Fail. It’s not color blocked (what does that mean anyway) cleanly. The upper left corner is still B/W.

    • Well this person obviously “color blocks” or whatever. Btw person when u go to school for photography, pictures are critiqued hardee than this. And yes because we are in the age of digital photography, hence the word digital, editing is a huge part of photography.

  12. Chances are the fauxtog is just a lazy SOB lol

  13. omg what a lazy person! Oh hey, I have a question, do the fauxtogs who have pics posted here for “critique” ever contact you to take them down or attempt to explain what their intent was? Now I would LOVE to see those emails they send!

  14. Fotog47

    ALl I know is all this spot coloring has to stop, please. It doesn’t work. If you shoot it for this effect, think of the image as a whole. It worked in the Matrix because a) it was red, and b) it was shot to produce that effect. Not that anyone who does this type of stuff is listening…

  15. I believe that I read someplace, maybe on the originial site that:
    1) the owners would only post photos from photographers that submitted their own work
    2) that the purpose while to poke fun at and show off bad “fauxtography” was to help us all get a little bit better in our craft. Whether it was things to avoid, tips to make the photos (and ourselves) better or what ever.
    3) a secondary purpose was to show clients or potential clients what to look for and what not to look for.

    What this has become is NOT what is stated above. We’ve gone beyond sniping at the fauxtographers and started sniping at each other because we don’t agree that a photo is technically “bad”.

    We’ve also started sniping at the clients of the fauxtogs – either because a) they don’t know better b) because their tastes and styles are different than ours or c) because they are not of the same socio-economic status as we are.

    Personally – on this photo I find the spot color annoying – it adds nothing to the final image. Add that to poor composition, use of the horizon, and mom (?) with a hoodie up and you have a snap-shot at best. Three of the four could have been saved in post (No spot color, recompose, and straighten out the image), but the hoodie can not be saved – Photographer should have caught that and said remove it. Unless of course there is a reason she doesn’t want her face shown – in which case, why is she in the photo?

  16. Leoface

    Who wears a hood and a hat when they’re knowingly in a photoshoot?

  17. Are these and other pics taken by would-be ‘pros’? I think it’s fair to assume so if there’s a watermark, especially if it’s of the form ‘XYZ Photography’, but is this one just a happy-snapper on FB who’s trying to play with some software they’ve got?

    Would-be pros are definitely fair game, I’m just not so sure about those who are just playing – at least in their own minds they’re trying and it helps show that it’s not so easy to get it right (which proper pros do).

    I would thus expect and hope to see the site poke fun at/criticise shots that there is a reasonable chance are would-be pro photography, not random FB pics.

    • You Are Not a Photog

      Lack of watermark does not mean this isn’t from a so-called “pro.”

      • Agreed, but most pros will watermark anything they consider might be commercial, and un-watermarked shots on the likes of a personal FB page (as opposed to a photographer’s/fan/business page) is likely to be a happy snapper. And with so many tools available (eg Picassa and on-line equivalents) let alone editing software built into phones(!), an attempt to edit a shot doesn’t define pro-aspirations either. Is that fair?

        These days, you can’t even assume the use of a DSLR or point and shoot camera defines the type of photographer, though anyone who owns ONLY a p&s probably hasn’t pro aspirations.

      • … so I’m just hopefully gently challenging the picture comment “Or did the customer order up a crappy spot-color job”. I know the spirit of this site seems to be pretty much tongue in cheek, but in a case like this I’m wondering what clue there was that the photographer ever considered their shot would ever have a ‘customer’.

        Don’t get me wrong, I think the shot is awful too, and I couldn’t imagine what miss-guided soul was possessed to even consider it worth showing to their FB friends – I just think it may be a bit unfair to ridicule it on the assumption it was taken by a would-be “pro photographers”, had a customer who could even have considered it any good, etc.

        Just my 2c. I DON’T feel the same way about other shots on this site, where it’s obvious a crap photographer has pretensions of offering a pro service and they haven’t a clue 😉

    • Why do so many people assume that if the name is in the “XYZ photography” format, they are automatically a fauxtographer. i’m a well established, registered, tax paying business and my name follows the so called fauxtographer format. the name is not always the mark of a fauxtographer guys!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • I was trying to say “XYZ Photography” on an image suggests someone who is presenting themselves as a photography business, so they are fauxtography CANDIDATES. They’re not fauxtographers unless they are creating dreadful images too.

        Without “XYZ Photography” on an image they may just be happy-snappers trying their best, albeit producing awful shots, but this may not be fair game to make fun of as they’re not trying to be ‘pro’ in any way

  18. grateful mom

    Wibbly hasn’t a clue!

    • Thanks @grateful mom 😉 But you’ve not spotted any of my own photo’s yet 😛

  19. ok – i think we’ve all been assuming – perhaps incorrectly, that this was a shot from a family shoot or a posed photo… But maybe it’s a grab shot.

    Which still doesn’t excuse the crappy composition, framing and spot coloring.

  20. K. Proulx

    “Look, that’s where mommy threw daddy’s body!”

  21. or they used colorsplash on the iPhone

  22. It’s possible that the fauxtographer has his/her monitor contrast way too high so that those yellow parts are just blown out white – so that she can’t actually see the problem on her monitor.

Leave a Reply