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.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

speedy2

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2008
1,294
0
71
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.
 
G

GoSharks

Diamond Member
Nov 29, 1999
3,057
0
76
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.
 
Midwayman

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
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.
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
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.
 
S

speedy2

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2008
1,294
0
71
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.
 
alfa147x

alfa147x

Lifer
Jul 14, 2005
30,058
99
91
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.
 
fuzzybabybunny

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
35
91
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.
 
sygyzy

sygyzy

Lifer
Oct 21, 2000
14,001
4
76
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.
 
Franz316

Franz316

Senior member
Sep 12, 2000
976
431
136
Wow, those are very over-processed. The compositions are okay in some of them but they are all over-sharpened, and over-saturated.
 
foghorn67

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,885
53
91
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.
 
R

randomrogue

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2011
5,462
0
0
Her pictures are not good, not ok, not bad, but terrible. You can tell she has good gear but is a bad photographer.
 
Throckmorton

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,830
3
0
OP, do you have a link to an album? I want to show this to people so they know how bad fauxtographers can be.
 
R

RobDickinson

Senior member
Jan 6, 2011
317
4
0
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.
 
XZeroII

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
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.
 
S

speedy2

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2008
1,294
0
71
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.
 
Paladin3

Paladin3

Diamond Member
Mar 5, 2004
4,933
877
126
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.
 
S

speedy2

Golden Member
Nov 30, 2008
1,294
0
71
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. :\
 
finbarqs

finbarqs

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2005
4,057
2
81
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.
 
finbarqs

finbarqs

Diamond Member
Feb 16, 2005
4,057
2
81
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.
 
alkemyst

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,967
19
81
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

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom