You are not a photographer (.com)

It's funny, I guess, to a point.

But criticism, without suggestion, is far too easy to give. It's like people here who'll tear someone a new one for a bad photo, but will never actually offer a photo of their own for critique...
 
It's like people here who'll tear someone a new one for a bad photo, but will never actually offer a photo of their own for critique...

Never seen that happen ....

Only thing worse is the "college lecture critiques" by people who, when they finally put something up, make it clear that the don't listen to their own advice.

That site's amusing, but in a traffic accident kind of way.
 
It's funny, I guess, to a point.

But criticism, without suggestion, is far too easy to give. It's like people here who'll tear someone a new one for a bad photo, but will never actually offer a photo of their own for critique...

Did you take this one???

guitarlog.jpg
 
It's funny, I guess, to a point.

But criticism, without suggestion, is far too easy to give. It's like people here who'll tear someone a new one for a bad photo, but will never actually offer a photo of their own for critique...

Did you take this one???

guitarlog.jpg

Now THAT'S what I call a HOT ONE. Thanks for sharing. :drool:
 
Meh....
As amusing as some of those photos are, especially from "pros", I find hijacked pictures on display for the sole purpose of one sided bashing a bit distasteful.
I think most of the people doing the bashing would find it equally distasteful if it was their own work stolen and displayed there.
 
Yeah, how many would like to see one of their pictures on this site? I bet they would be mad and some file suit against them.
 
I'm just glad that they changed their policy and now just show the pictures, in the past they also displayed links to the original websites and the overall tone was more hostile.

As for if it shouldn't or should be done - eh jury is out on that. I'm also one not to spend time hounding after people; however I also know that there are many "top pro" images that we laugh over when they get things wrong (photoshop accidents or silly editing mistakes like having a pro advert with someone with two left hands and other odd things). One can indeed make the argument that these photos are commercially displayed as advertising for the original photographers and are expected to be out in the open for public view by intent.
 
Agreed, I'm not into the bashing people business, bad karma peeps!
 
It's funny, I guess, to a point.

But criticism, without suggestion, is far too easy to give. It's like people here who'll tear someone a new one for a bad photo, but will never actually offer a photo of their own for critique...

Did you take this one???

guitarlog.jpg

There's not enough money in the world...
 
I don't know a single working photographer who doesn't take at least a few absolute crap photos during a shoot.

The images posted there are meaningless, with regards to whether or not someone's a "photographer", without being able to see the entirety of someone's work...
 
There's not enough money in the world...

Come on Steve, you just have to photograph her not marry her. ;)

Hehehehe... And you would be incorrect, sir. I'm single, happy and handsome. I don't have to do anything...

Well okay, other than eat, sleep and pay taxes. But that's political and we can't talk about that.

So I guess the question is, how would you have posed and shot this one??
 
Come on Steve, you just have to photograph her not marry her. ;)

Hehehehe... And you would be incorrect, sir. I'm single, happy and handsome. I don't have to do anything...

Well okay, other than eat, sleep and pay taxes. But that's political and we can't talk about that.

So I guess the question is, how would you have posed and shot this one??

Well, for starters, I'd have made sure it was in focus.

Second, I would've seriously, seriously recommended against wearing just a jacket and nylons. Does the poor girl not own shoes?

Body language in a photo is much the same as body language in person. After having her put on a pair of Levi's, I'd have had her put her far leg on the log and the forward leg down so her foot was on the ground. As it's posed now, clothed or not, it's closing her off, and making her distant. And, Jesus Mother of God, could she smile?

I'd also get rid of that garbage guitar.

Nothing about this particular image is working, unless its goal is to demonstrate what a bad photograph looks like. That said, though, that's all it demonstrates. I wouldn't be prepared to label the guy a "fauxtographer" based on this single image...
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top