Faux-Pro photographer rant and catch-22

[pixmedic]

Earlier this AM I sent the photographer an e-mail...in that e-mail I even took an educated guess that she was using a 50x50 inch Westcott softbox,and I provided here with the URL at B&H Photo.

I just heard back from her. Yep...she said my guess was correct...Westcott 50x50 inch softbox. And 100% REAL catchlights.

sounds like a little better than a guess if you nailed it right down to the size and brand.

 

[rexbobcat]

Well, um, I honestly don't think that the photos are that bad? I mean, they appear to have some intense noise reduction and over-softening of the skin, but it's not nearly the worst that I've seen.

The catchlight is a bit jarring (I prefer the octobox/umbrella look), but I don't think they're 'shopped. I can't imagine a photographer who takes Olan Mills-esque portraits to be able to effectively place catchlights in their subject's eyes.

They appear to be sound images, marred by terrible post-processing.

 

[Derrel]

Well, there are a number of reasons that Westcott 50x50 is so popular...it pops open on an umbrella shaft, which eliminates the need for a speed ring. The price is right. It's a nice size. A great brand. It has GOOD promotion on YouTube and thru CreativeLive.com. It's the biggest Apollo. It has 135 reviews at B&H. I had also looked at about 75 of her images on Facebook, so I could tell it was a BIG, square box. Alsos, the Apollo is a box that doesn't lend itself to a lot of angling and tilting or boom use, without using an articulated arm on top of the lightstand, due to the way the light stand enters the BOTTOM of the box, so the pivot point is literally INSIDE the box. And I could see that was the way she's using the light typically: what Tanya is doing is creating a LARGE, broad source of quality, soft light, with minimal fall-off across the width of the set, which is a smart decision for pictures of little kids! I looked at a bunch of her pics, and gauged the catchlight size against the eyes and the size that "I know children actually are"...when I saw the shape of the catchlights on the shots of the two small kids, lying down on the floor and shot from above, I could tell pretty accurately that it was a large box, placed lowish (I knew that by the placement, obviously),and that the catchlights were actually real ones.

Westcott Recessed Mega JS Apollo 50 x 50 2348 B H Photo

 

[mattpayne11]

The kid is cute...he's in-focus, and the silly hardwood flooring, fake moulding strip, and gaudy "wallpaper" is very much of this era...these photos look like low-end but in-focus toddler pics circa 2010-2015...very,very much of this era. Annnnd, I expect that they cost only $40-$50 per CD.

I would definitely not say much except, "My, how handsome he is!" an "Thank-you." Seriously. I was expecting about 20 times worse stuff.

Man, I totally agree, I was expecting this to be a crapshow but actually there's some decent photos in there. You're one picky dude. The catchlight is obviously from a softbox...

 

[bratkinson]

Thank you all for your replies.

Yes, all parties including the rest of the grandparents are quite happy with the photographs they've been getting. I'm led to believe it's some kind of recurring package deal from a photographer that's near their home. For their wedding 3 years ago, they had an outstanding husband/wife team as photographers. Perhaps convenience and price wins these days. As mentioned by several, I'll continue to repeat 'what a cute kid' (he is) and withhold my opinions of the picture quality. I'll go along with the crowd and keep peace in the family.

But the oversize catch lights overwhelm my eye in every photo. They're just too large in my opinion. I'm just not the kind to turn out anything less than what I consider my best work. Perhaps the photographer thinks they're doing a good job. I also know it's impossible to please everybody. I'm just being overly critical, I guess.

 

[Vtec44]

To be honest, the pictures are not bad at all. I'd personally would love these and don't have a problem framing them.

 

[bribrius]

To be honest, the pictures are not bad at all. I'd personally would love these and don't have a problem framing them.

i would agree except for the catch lights. A few of them i would definitely be in the "wtf" attitude with the photographer. But then again, i didn't pay for them and it isn't my kid so...

carry on... carry on..

 

[bribrius]

Thank you all for your replies.

Yes, all parties including the rest of the grandparents are quite happy with the photographs they've been getting. I'm led to believe it's some kind of recurring package deal from a photographer that's near their home. For their wedding 3 years ago, they had an outstanding husband/wife team as photographers. Perhaps convenience and price wins these days. As mentioned by several, I'll continue to repeat 'what a cute kid' (he is) and withhold my opinions of the picture quality. I'll go along with the crowd and keep peace in the family.

But the oversize catch lights overwhelm my eye in every photo. They're just too large in my opinion. I'm just not the kind to turn out anything less than what I consider my best work. Perhaps the photographer thinks they're doing a good job. I also know it's impossible to please everybody. I'm just being overly critical, I guess.

only because it isn't your child are you being overly critical. If i saw big square boxes in my kids eyes i sure would say something.

Course, for all we know she is paying fifty bucks a shoot, she might be getting her moneys worth.

 

[bratkinson]

Course, for all we know she is paying fifty bucks a shoot, she might be getting her moneys worth.

I don't have a clue what she's paying for the every couple of months photos, but it's probably more than $50.

 

[JulienMassie]

Faux pro is a bit hard ...
Nobody that has no photo knowledge will notice this ...

 

[DanOstergren]

Thank you all for your replies.

Yes, all parties including the rest of the grandparents are quite happy with the photographs they've been getting. I'm led to believe it's some kind of recurring package deal from a photographer that's near their home. For their wedding 3 years ago, they had an outstanding husband/wife team as photographers. Perhaps convenience and price wins these days. As mentioned by several, I'll continue to repeat 'what a cute kid' (he is) and withhold my opinions of the picture quality. I'll go along with the crowd and keep peace in the family.

But the oversize catch lights overwhelm my eye in every photo. They're just too large in my opinion. I'm just not the kind to turn out anything less than what I consider my best work. Perhaps the photographer thinks they're doing a good job. I also know it's impossible to please everybody. I'm just being overly critical, I guess.

Yes, I agree you're being way over-critical.

Now I'm curious to see your work.

 

[petrochemist]

I don't think they're too bad. I've seen worse.

I'm not really into portraits so in club sessions I've certainly taken worse!
There's nothing there I'd want to exhibit if I'd taken them, but most Facebook etc images are miles worse.

 

[soufiej]

Thank you all for your replies.

But the oversize catch lights overwhelm my eye in every photo. They're just too large in my opinion.

Hmmmm ... ?

Solution #1: Have any access to a fine point Sharpie?

Solution #2: Scan the photos and retouch them to make yourself happy. Just don't mention it to the rest of the family or you will definitely be the "ex" of the group.

 

[bratkinson]

bratkinson s photos Photography Forum[/url]

 

[kass617]

I'll pass on the information I got from a radio station manager, when I blurted out one of his employees was editing a piece of audio wrong (I was in school for audio engineering). The employee (turns out was an intern) still got the job done to his bosses liking...

"No one like a know it all" Especially when the final product isn't a s-show like I expected to see.
It's on par with the quality you would get at one of those mall "photography studio's" when they let your kids take pictures with a bunny on Easter.

I took my kids there once. Then I had my wedding photographer come and do a 2 hour family session. $50 vs. $800. You get what you pay for....and there aren't too many people willing to fork over hundreds of dollars over every time they want to capture a moment.

I do agree though, the square is really distracting....I'm not sure if it's because it was pointed out before hand or not. I'm gonna show my wife the pictures later and ask if she notices anything weird.