• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

My experience with a "fauxtographer."

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
GoSharks said:
She shot in Av.

And by equipment issue, I mean that it is a possibility that her setup has an inherent front focus (which she should correct...)
Click to expand...


There's no way it's front focusing that bad. Especially when areas that are really easy for the camera to focus on are clearly in focus. I would bet that if I had a RAW file, my assumptions on where it focused would be correct.

Anyway, I've already chalked it up to a loss and don't care what she does from this point on. It just annoys me to know people are paying her for this work.
 
speedy2 said:
Anyway, I've already chalked it up to a loss and don't care what she does from this point on. It just annoys me to know people are paying her for this work.
Click to expand...

Many people are not as discerning as you. Just look on facebook, I'm sure you will easily find regular snapshots of mediocre quality that generate tons of "amazing/outstanding/etc" type comments.
 
This is obviously her "look" You did see a portfolio before you hired her, right? Sure the PP is a bit heavy handed, but many people don't want a "straight out of the camera" look when they hire someone. I know if I got back your s95 shots from a pro, I wouldn't be very happy with them either.
 
I get the feeling this forum has quite a few fauxtographers... I guess that makes sense since this is a forum for gear not the art of photography.
 
Yeah. A lot of people go nuts over stuff like this. Again, editing aside. Out of focus shots look like crap. And even more so in print. I don't see how that is acceptable in any form. I don't consider it a "look" or style or anything. It's out of focus, plain and simple.
 
Lol that crap is not art. No art is to be found that way. You need to understand the rules before you break them. She clearly does not understand them.
 
Throckmorton said:
Well fuzzybabybunny... you may yourself be a fauxtographer!
Click to expand...

Again, it's a matter of taste. I've seen a LOT of photography by a LOT of different photographers from all over the country and from different countries. I'm a photographer myself (although not in the same genre). Some prefer high contrast, crushing the blacks, making hard features of the face pop out like dark eyebrows, dark hair, etc. Some overexpose and put a lot of emphasis on hiding the flaws in skin on the face. A lot of people like the high key look. The sepia look. The undersaturated look. Some parts are purposefully blown out. Everyone has different tastes.

Bottom line is you look at a photographer's portfolio. If you don't like the look, don't go with them, or tell them to avoid it.

The focus is off though on a number of shots - there is no reason to focus on the wife's hair and not the eyes, for example.
 
At first I was going to bash you for being so harsh on such a subjective matter (what makes a good photo) but then I clicked on her photos. Frankly, she makes your children look like porcelain dolls. It's quite disturbing.
 
Wow, those are very over-processed. The compositions are okay in some of them but they are all over-sharpened, and over-saturated.
 
People can't understand the difference between touch up and remove blemishes vs. plastic face with alien eyes.

I can't say I'm the exception. When I toyed around with it at first, I did the same. But that was long before I got paid for portraits.
 
sygyzy said:
At first I was going to bash you for being so harsh on such a subjective matter (what makes a good photo) but then I clicked on her photos. Frankly, she makes your children look like porcelain dolls. It's quite disturbing.
Click to expand...


+1

I can see the look she is going for, its quite a popular one. That she miss focuses and tries to process her way out of a lack of skill is bad but the over processing of skin on family portraits is terrible.

She needs to sort out her focus, 85/1.2 wide open is a tricky little monster to get right and she hasnt.
 
fuzzybabybunny said:
Again, it's a matter of taste. I've seen a LOT of photography by a LOT of different photographers from all over the country and from different countries. I'm a photographer myself (although not in the same genre). Some prefer high contrast, crushing the blacks, making hard features of the face pop out like dark eyebrows, dark hair, etc. Some overexpose and put a lot of emphasis on hiding the flaws in skin on the face. A lot of people like the high key look. The sepia look. The undersaturated look. Some parts are purposefully blown out. Everyone has different tastes.

Bottom line is you look at a photographer's portfolio. If you don't like the look, don't go with them, or tell them to avoid it.

The focus is off though on a number of shots - there is no reason to focus on the wife's hair and not the eyes, for example.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some people like this over processed look. If you take away the mis-focusing, it's a look that some people really go for. Others don't like it at all. You have to look at the person's portfolio ahead of time to determine if your style matches theirs.
 
I didn't look into it. Wife chose her. I should've done my homework. But, I didn't think someone who had no clue how to use nice gear would be getting paid by anyone. Much less 2,100+ likes. It's all over now, and I don't really expect anything now.
 
Even in this economy, $150 for an hour + all images on DVD and that's about what you get.

Before hiring any photographer you should view lots of their work, fall in love with it, and then worry about what it will cost.
 
I agree. I didn't look into it. But, the list of links you see are all the photos that came on the CD. That's all we got. I wonder how bad the rest of the shots were that didn't make the cut. :\
 
with the small pictures posted, I can't really tell the focusing issues. In portrait photography, it's crucial that you get the eyes in focus. Now, maybe we'll say you're older fashioned, but many people like this "old-ish look". The only one I see that doesn't have acceptable focus is #10 (where the hair is in focus). She may not suit your style, but she isn't a 'faux-tographer'. that's being a bit harsh.

She has a vision, and a clear style. It may attract your wife, but perhaps not you. And in the end, maybe it isn't her fault if it's her style. Your wife should've discussed it with you. The only thing I find her guilty of (when shooting multiple people) is shooting with such a narrow DOF. 85 f/1.2 II is good for single person shots... even then, you'll have to be PERFECT straight on to get acceptable focus.

But I don't see anything wrong with her shots (again, maybe it's because the small size pics) except for #10, where the focus is on the hair. I don't know her in anyway, but your not talking about her ability to take photographs, but more of her style.

I guess if I was talking with a client before a shoot, I would definitely talk about shots. Have an interview to see what the client is looking for. I'd definitely ask to see if they would have ANY pictures that they admire, and go after that. Photography is very subjective, when you mix art into it. If people want a standard picture, please ask for it.
 
going through her album on facebook, it does seem like she has a focusing issue, and she's trying to repair them in PP. I guess my recommendation to her is to fix her focus issue, and she'll be good to go.

She even has a 7D, which has superior AF abilities than the 5D Mark 2... *sigh* Nikon still wins in AF... Personally, I'm obssessed with AF on my shots, and I know the 5D Mark 2... is a PIA to get perfect focus a lot of the times. I know I'll get a lot of flack for my shots, but hey, it's my style.
 
Like I mentioned before, I think they all look washed out and front focused. For her to not offer you a re-shoot or refund after you showed discontent is unprofessional IMO.
 
Paladin3 said:
Even in this economy, $150 for an hour + all images on DVD and that's about what you get.

Before hiring any photographer you should view lots of their work, fall in love with it, and then worry about what it will cost.
Click to expand...

I was about to post this. OP you paid bargain basement prices and you got exactly what she's showing on her site.

If her 'artistic' representation of photographs were not to your liking you should have chosen someone else.

It's sad everyone above is ganging up on this chick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top