worst fauxtographer ever?

[Tee]

MWAC= mom with a camera. Mom buys Canon Rebel, friends tell her she's awesome, mom buys Florabella action set and opens FB page

Or

GWC= guy with camera. A GWC is a guy with a camera claiming to be a photographer for the sole purpose of photographing partially clothed/ naked women for self enjoyment with no intent of artistic merit or love of the craft.

Now Paige, you're trying to tell me the MWAC connotation is worse than being a GWC? The only reason you don't see GWC being used here is because this isn't an environment that encourages the posting of models.

 

[KmH]

It's one thing to actually discuss some work, it's quite another to simply mock the work and the person who made it.

Well, I hope it can be seen that I try to discuss the work (or much rather the fact that apparently work like this sells, too) and try not to ridicule the person behind it. I don't even know that person!
It's just that seeing the work she offers FOR SALE makes my hair stand on edge... I must admit it.

More power to that person if they can get people to actually pay for the work.

I've seen way worse.

In a free market economy, those businesses that do not deliver sufficient value for the $$$ go out of business.

In my mind, there is indeed a difference between referencing the work of an established photographer, be it for praise or criticism, than to reference the work of a photographer that is not established.

Kind of like having a battle of wits, with an unarmed person.

 

[LaFoto]

"Bitter", I'm sure you know that I fully well understand what you're saying and what we are talking about with regards to being forced to by low cost products!
Even though someone said, in the course of this discussion (in those parts that are not about MWAC etc), that people who can't afford too much can make use of the little mobile studios that go from supermarket to supermarket (we have those things here, at least), where each photo looks the same, but each is unique to the family who had their baby/kids etc. photographed. So actually, the potential clients have other options, also in the low cost segment.
And I tried hard not to judge the person with said FB account.
Unfortunately, though, those photos are ... erm ... how do I put it? "Quite sub-par".

 

[Derrel]

As the great Jane Momtographer once said, 'My momma used to tell me: Jane--never worry about being the worst photographer. It's just not worth it! No matter how bad you manage to be, there will ALWAYS be somebody who is worse than you are. Striving to be the worst is a lose-lose deal...so Jane remember these words of wisdom: Shoot! Shoot! Shoot! Just keep shooting Jane...you can fix it later in Photoshop."

[not really]

Here is Jane's blog: http://gigglesandcutiepumpkinsphotography.blogspot.com/

 

[unpopular]

I say we turn this thread on ourselves, and discuss who is the worst photographers on TPF.

Quick, someone make some popcorn!

 

[paigew]

MWAC= mom with a camera. Mom buys Canon Rebel, friends tell her she's awesome, mom buys Florabella action set and opens FB page

Or

GWC= guy with camera. A GWC is a guy with a camera claiming to be a photographer for the sole purpose of photographing partially clothed/ naked women for self enjoyment with no intent of artistic merit or love of the craft.

Now Paige, you're trying to tell me the MWAC connotation is worse than being a GWC? The only reason you don't see GWC being used here is because this isn't an environment that encourages the posting of models.

No I don't think one is worse. But MWAC is used far more than GWAC. My point is that we should stay away from judgmental sexist stereotypes

 

[jwbryson1]

I say we turn this thread on ourselves, and discuss who is the worst photographers on TPF.

Quick, someone make some popcorn!

I'd like to nominate myself! Can I get a second?

 

[jwbryson1]

No I don't think one is worse. But MWAC is used far more than GWAC. My point is that we should stay away from judgmental sexist stereotypes

When somebody plays the (1) sexist card or (2) the race card, I generally walk away because it's typically not worthy of discussion at that point. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if this person is a man or a woman--that's NOT the point. The point is that the work they are selling is sub par. Period.

Does that mean they should be made fun of in this forum? It's kind of a crappy thing to do and the short answer is "no" IMHO, but on the other hand, they are putting themselves out there for hire and I think that leaves them open for comments (good or bad).

YMMV.

 

[unpopular]

I tend to agree with paige - but what is the first thing that people comment on whenever there is a beautiful woman as the subject - how beautiful the woman is! And if you comment about how that woman was portrayed negatively, look out, you might get banned.

Funny thing is, I doubt very much that if a model was criticized for appearing too chubby, pointers would be offered on how to make her appear thinner. Likewise is not the same for a model portrayed too thin.

Photography is often held to men's standards.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Just wow @ this thread

 

[Jaemie]

Getting back to the matter of taste vs. status symbol, quick production vs. craft, here's an example that really annoys me (Return to Tiffany jewelery):

http://www.shopjewellry.com/shoppic/201012661012316.jpg

 

[cgipson1]

nice charlie, I think we all know what MWAC stands for/means. My point is that it is a rude, disrespectful, and sexist comment. Do you want me to google the definition of those words for you?

As I said.. I did not invent the term! And it is common usage, even among non-photographers..... so I guess the whole world is rude, disrespectful and sexist? Or maybe there is a grain of truth behind it that bothers some people!

You know charlie, It doesn't bother me when the term is used occasionally. But YOU, you use it every chance you can get. If a photographer is a woman, and her photos less than stellar you label them a MWAC. You throw that term around with intent of being hurtful and rude. At least that is the way you come across via internet forum.

lol! This must be "Pick on Poor Little Charlie Day!" I am NOT the only one that uses that term, Paige! Please don't let your personal dislike of me lead you into making false statements!

 

[LaFoto]

Actually, I don't mind of this thread turns towards ourselves.
It need not be a "who's the worst photographer here on TPF"-contest, though, since I don't like popcorn!

But we might try to find out if the "MWAC"-phenomenon is a worldwide one?
I'm asking this, in all honesty, because I don't see this trend in my country!

 

[The_Traveler]

This photographer wasn't hurting anyone. But we as an educated group hurt her, because we judged her.

Lew proudly claimed "we won". What did we win?

She was hurting someone.
She was hurting the clients by cheating them because, for the same money, she could have provided pictures in focus- reasonably colored and within some sort of normal OK-ness.
It wasn't her prices that I was quibbling about; it was her lack of interest or drive to do it at all well.
If a sidewalk vendor doesn't refrigerate his food because he's lazy and so his clients have a decent chance of getting sick - AND THE CLIENTS DON"T KNOW- I don't think it is wrong to criticize the vendor.

'What we won' is that someone actually got and responded to a message, maybe she'll actually hear it and try to learn something.

 

[IByte]

Let me rephrase that.. MWAC PRO! Is that better? All those MWACS that have hung out shingles, and charge for bad photography! Does that provide enough separation for you? (Oh.. and I didn't invent the term... I just find it appropriate!)

I even edited my post above to make you happy!

I still think it is extremely sexist seeing as how plenty of men are charging for sub par photography too.

The term MWAC was created in response to a social phenomena.... in which large numbers of women who bought cameras to photograph their children, discovered AUTO and Ambient "NATURAL" Light.. and decided they were good enough after two weeks or 4 months, or a year or so... to claim to be professionals. There was a huge surge in these numbers (primarily female to start with... and yes, then the GWACS started coming on.. when they figured they might as well try to get some of those idiot dollars too!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15cameras.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1

[TD="class: index"][/TD]
[TD="class: word"] MWAC[/TD]
[TD="class: tools"][/TD]

[TD="class: text, colspan: 2"] Mom With A Camera. Member of the skyrocketing group of amateurs-turned-wannabe-pros who start part-time photography businesses shooting mostly children and babies, who make a living by undercutting real pros. They can do this b/c their spouses have supporting jobs, and because photography has become easy to do on a basic level because everything, from click to print, is so easy to do now.

Urban Dictionary: mwac [/TD]

Lol this hit home, because I live in upstate NY Charlie