Jaw Dropping

I literally felt my jaw drop when I opened this one. How could you ever think this was good? There’s no way.

← Previous post

Next post →


  1. pixelmunkie


    Sometimes I really wish you would include the link, are they all that bad?
    My sick sense of curiosity wants more!

    It’s like a car wreck – I can’t look away 8-0

    • I agree – it really annoys me that you don’t take advantage of (3) things. a) let users submit directly so you aren’t liable for copyright, b) don’t bother blurring out the names, and c) give us a link.

      You would have loads more content and potential to monetize your traffic, less work to maintain/post, and a better user experience – not to mention the virality of letting fauxtogs trash your site on their own pages…

      • Yeah but see here’s the thing – these people think they are GOOD and would never think of submitting here.

        I made a lot of money doing retouch when the MWACs started appearing, but the stuff was so g’damn bad I couldn’t do it anymore even for decent money. Because a few of them were willing to pay almost anything to fix the shoot they blew.

  2. The condom is an interesting touch.

    • It’s a pacifier.

    • I thought it was a condom, too. Maybe the one that failed to prevent this horrible monster of a baby.

      • Ann

        Critiquing a photo is fine. Insulting a baby (who you only see the hand of) is not. I think your comment shows just who the horrible monster is in this situation.

  3. I can see how someone (brand new fauxtographer who has overpromised and has to find something to deliver) might think the composition is good. Tender little moment, you know? But the bizarre spot color? Inexcusable. 🙁

  4. Laughing my arse off

    Wow, that is just bad, even without the selective colouring.

  5. WTH???? Is that seriously a condom??? This made my eyes water!!! And not with emotion! What on earth is going on with the colours???? Sheesh….

  6. I don’t think it’s a condom. Looks like the pacifier that you can put your finger in.

  7. One of those times I truly feel badly for the client. Its so bad.

  8. They had a good idea, but it was executed badly. The graininess and horrible color, and part of a pacifier in the photo just makes it bad. Definitely NOT something I would put in a portfolio.

  9. I just vomited in my mouth a little bit.

  10. This is a bloody nightmare, and I mean that for any subject treated this way, never mind a mother and baby. Nothing is right about this, that’s what’s so impressive. I was going to say at least the basic shot was OK–the finger and the baby’s hand–but I think mom’s ring detracts from the shot. So even that doesn’t work for me. The grainy ugliness, the horrific condom-pacifier that should never have been in the shot at all and *absolutely* shouldn’t have been spot colored…and most (?) of all, the almost criminal pink-yellow-red color scheme that has resulted. This achieves whole new levels of badness, and I am a worse human being for having seen it.

  11. I amend–the background, while not brilliant, could have been a lot worse, like if the sofa (I assume that’s a sofa) were intensely patterned. Although having said that, it might have distracted the eyes from the rest.

  12. Looks like a condom to me, too. I know it’s not, but it sure looks like it.

  13. The ring catches my attention first, horrid color spotting next, condom pacifier, then babys hand. All the graininess made me think of zombies, and with the babys hand so small and low in the composition, to me it seems to be an after thought.

  14. 2004 camera phone and a run through piknik?

  15. I feel like this isn’t the entire photo, like the cropped out 80% of it which would account for the bad quality.

  16. I can see where somebody was trying for a concept, but if I were making that same picture I would 1) lose the pacifier, 2) go with a low ISO and a shorter range minimal off-camera flash or light source to achieve an almost dark background and a softer light on the hands, and c) probably do the whole thing in either greyscale or very muted colour. The adult hand appears to belong to an older person, perhaps a grandmother, and would appear more bluish in tone next to the pink skin tone of an infant…even though this picture makes the poor baby’s hand appear jaundiced.

    Honestly it looks like somebody tampered with the hues of this photo before putting the spot-color effect…or more like splotch-color effect. And I agree, I bet this was just cropped from a much larger photo..thus the noise.

    As for the repost, that isn’t actually a repost. The image is so bad it is now burned into your retinas. Time to get your eyes degaussed.

  17. Upon first glance, I really thought this picture was illegal.

  18. This really is the begiining of the end (removed re-post)

    One of the faux tographers of the apoclypse

  19. Oh goodness. I love that they took the time to watermark the image for their brand, but didn’t take the time to even do the selective color right. (not that selective color can ever be done right… but at least put a LITTLE effort into masking it correctly…)

  20. It does look like this was a larger shot that was cropped–mom’s leg is to the right of the hands where the spot color is blue from her jeans– which accounts for the awkward angle. Perhaps they didn’t get any shots better than this and were trying to make some in editing.

    I’d say that is the first sign, of many, that you shouldn’t have a watermark on your pictures.

  21. Bahahaha! I, too, thought the baby was resting it’s hand on a condom… like a public service announcement! I don’t really post for fear that one day one of my photos may end up here, but wow…. condom or baby had to be thrown out there.

  22. Here’s another condom vote – I thought that’s what it was too, and when I thought that, my stomach turned a little.

  23. This is a terrible photo, no doubt. But @Ann: calling the baby ‘monstrous’ was absolutely crossing the line of tact. Stick to the photo in discussion. Don’t say ugly things about the subjects, especially a baby.

  24. Wsroadrunner

    Let’s see… if I take this instamatic shot from 1972, try scanning it without cleaning the glass on the all in one scanner, crop it in on the hands and add spot color, and call it art…… nope, that wasn’t even as bad as this shot.

Leave a Reply