Nice Photo Effect

It’s nice how in this one the fauxtog made the subject almost unrecognizable with their crazy editing techniques. Nothing worse than a photo that actually captures and highlights the subject!

← Previous post

Next post →


  1. am I allowed to cry?

  2. oh wow smh thats horrible

  3. That… is NOT a photograph. I mean how could it be fit to be called one? Unbelievable! I despair at shit like this from people who call themselves professionals and put the word “photography” after their name! 🙁

  4. Wonder if this is post production or if the fauxtog got it all in camera?

    • lucas

      Your photos are ok, Ed, but sorry to say, your site is a candidate for the sister blog.

  5. Wait what? I thought the photo didn’t load. Lol

    • lucas

      I only browse this site ot look at the sites of the people who comment, there being, of course, where the real fauxtographic jewels can be found, but: You, sir, had to ruin my fun, with your ridiculously good portraits. Pff.

  6. there are no words. bad editing, bad pose, just plain bad

    • Teenie

      You shouldn’t comment. Most of your pictures belong on this site. I only take shots of my little family and don’t even TRY to pretend I’m a photographer. So, I just get on here for giggles. I don’t make critiques.

      • Hobbyist

        You just did

      • Yeah, I hate to say it, but your photos are not good. You’re suffering from very poor lighting, bad composition and wrong lens choice. It’s like I’ve said time and time again, I don’t mind people learning photography, but I can’t stand when they decide to start charging people before they know what they’re doing. I won’t mention the spot color on your site, I know I’m guilty of it, however, I chose to give it up.

      • Have to agree with Teenie … looks like all your shots are done with a pop up flash, poor composition, poorly exposed … your pics should be on this site.

    • photochick

      giggity giggity I’m hitting send on the submit button right now and it’s full of Shanen’s photos. Honey you can’t comment, you’re just as bad!

  7. This is an actual edit? It looks more like it was taken in the dark.

    • Canaduck

      Yeah, in the dark or from behind a smokescreen. What the hell were they thinking?

  8. Is this the digital equivalent of rubbing vaseline on the lens?

    • You could take a photo through a tub of Vasoline and it would probably still turn out better than this did.

  9. beer goggles

  10. robert

    One wonders how many of these facebook photographers are actually selling stuff.
    Aren’t we looking at amateur shots from people who add “photographer” to their name because it looks cool, but really only took some pics of their auntie.
    I mean: Are they really *selling* this? Who would be *paying* for it? Is this actually what the client wants? Or are we as photographers that bad explaining/educating what good photography is all about?
    Sometimes it feels like being a chef while all of the world rushes out to cram some fastfood into their faces.

    • Intuition

      People are paying for this, because these fauxtographers are charging as little as 30 dollars with a cd for it ( at least in my area which granted is Fairbanks Alaska).

  11. FalconGTHOI

    This is just some chicks personal FB pic, right? This in a room next to a doorway. There is NO “photography”, pro or otherwise, at work here.

  12. I agree. It is clear that the false photographer has neither common sense, technique nor ability, so it’s difficult to find a customer willing to pay for the aberrations of their insane minds.

  13. Pelham

    Fauxtogs undermine the pros with their rock-bottom prices, lack of basic lighting and comp, and ‘ooh lookit what this kewl slider does!!’ That and the fact that they cater to people’s vanity, the market of images that people want captured forever. Weddings, portraits, infants, maternity – people are always getting married, pregant etc etc.

    Trust me, you won’t see fauxtography on any stock site worth their salt, beit fotolia or Alamy. Why? Simple. Stock sites have standards and will reject shitty material without apology. Fauxtogs aren’t good at rejection.

    • THIS is a perfect rant on the subject from a great writter. He looks at it from the writers point of view but it applies to us 100%.

      BTW, my website currently sucks and hasn’t been updated in like forever … I’m redoing it but I’m in my busy season right now (wedding season).

    • You have to ask yourself, is it the Fauxtographer or the client paying them for their services that’s the problem. One would hope that a person would look at the work and say, “yeah, these are terrible”, but if someone thinks it’s good, then that’s who they’re going to go with. It’s a sad fact and a scary market to be in.

  14. BurninBiomass

    Last time I saw a picture of mine look like this, I shook it harder so the Polaroid would develop faster (did that ever really work BTW?).

    • spike

      LOL I was thinking the same thing. It looks like a Polaroid taken with paper that has gone out of date or been stored in bad conditions.

  15. Amanda

    Anyone also notice that there’s red-eye?

  16. it looks like a prison photo..

Leave a Reply