My experience with a "fauxtographer."

[finbarqs]

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.

That's exactly my thought. I'd say, maybe people don't like that over sharpened look. Maybe there's a lot not to like about her work. But, there are 2000+ people who does. THAT's saying something. As what I learned in my weddings and portraiture class, you're not going to please everyone. But to avoid incidents such as this, you better have a meeting and let the client KNOW/UNDERSTAND what they are getting ahead of time. At least, find a middle ground between what your artistic vision and what they want.

 

[Paladin3]

Anyone can be a professional photographer. I often think the business is more about massaging clients rather than your ability. In the work posted I see over processed images with poor focus and highlights lost for no reason. Many shots emphasize the scenery more than the people. Shallow depth of field and these other tricks can look nice when done well, but terrible when used just for the sake of using them. All portraits should not be shot wide open, and explaining away poor technique as "style" should be a crime.

As important as photographic skill for a pro is the ability to understand the client's needs and expectations before the shoot. I don't book a gig until the client views my work and clearly communicates what they expect. Not having such an understanding leads to situations like what the OP is experiencing.

If I was this woman I would offer a reshoot. Preventing negative word of mouth alone is reason enough to keep even the most unreasonable client happy.

 

[finbarqs]

This is my aunt.
http://www.vickibarrettphoto.com/index2.php
She is a Professional photographer.

Please note her technical skills may or may not be any better than some of you jokers, the difference is she gets PAID MONEY to take photos.

Decide for yourselves what you like.

Because she gets paid, she is a PROFESSIONAL photographer. I wouldn't call her a fauxtographer on any levels. Whether I don't like it, or I do, I certainly would not discredit her like a lot of the people on these forums.

 

[alfa147x]

Just because she gets paid doesn't make her a good photographer. When I shot weddings I started by shooting as an assistant to one of the highest paid photographer in Atlanta. I've seen people make $200 off of a wedding to $20,000. There is a reason people are willing to shell out that kinda cash for just pictures.

 

[Throckmorton]

This is my aunt.
http://www.vickibarrettphoto.com/index2.php
She is a Professional photographer.

Please note her technical skills may or may not be any better than some of you jokers, the difference is she gets PAID MONEY to take photos.

Decide for yourselves what you like.

She could really do some more processing... if she does any aside from "sepia". Her normal photos look like they came off a P&S on a gloomy day.

 

[Throckmorton]

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.

You don't think the smeared faces are awful? I like the artistic effects but her pictures are just bad in every way.

 

[nataku00]

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.

Yeah, this was my impression after clicking through a few of the pictures. The PP turned his kids into porcelain dolls from a horror movie. It really was disturbing...

 

[twistedlogic]

All portraits should not be shot wide open, and explaining away poor technique as "style" should be a crime.

+1

She had plenty of light to stop down, especially when there are multiple people in the portrait.

 

[shortylickens]

She could really do some more processing... if she does any aside from "sepia". Her normal photos look like they came off a P&S on a gloomy day.

Amazingly, thats what sells. A professional gets paid, first and foremost. Really they are businessmen who know how to get money. She runs her business well enough to keep the family taken care of. Since its her private business she also has some technical ability. But thats not why she makes money. She knows how to talk to people, she knows what brides like (if they dont have ideas of their own) and she knows how to network, which is key for any business.

For reference, she has a D3.
The only time she uses the full size photos is for prints. All the stuff on that website is low res for a reason.

 

[finbarqs]

that's my philosophy either, but she has a specific style.

Throck: Personally, I don't care about Smeared faces. Yes, sure it's a little over processed for my liking, but some people like that look. Remember the 90's with the soft-focusing/glamour glow that was insanely popularf? Some people loved it, some people didn't.

Now if she didn't nail her exposures, or if she purposely mis-focused an object (i.e. the tree in the background instead of the person), then I would be a bit more harsh.

People who shell out $20,000 for a wedding photog is just showing off, really. It's merely the name of somebody and who's "the one to get" more than their personal work. Sure, they can come off more professional, they can nail their focus 100% of the time, but keep this in mind: they're paying for the style. It's really all about the marketing. You reach a certain level, and pretty much everyone is almost the same (minus the style).

point is, people have different tastes, and that's true in photography as well. Where is the line when it comes to post processing during a wedding? That's a hard line to find for something that's arguably popular.

 

[finbarqs]

Amazingly, thats what sells. A professional gets paid, first and foremost. Really they are businessmen who know how to get money. She runs her business well enough to keep the family taken care of. Since its her private business she also has some technical ability. But thats not why she makes money. She knows how to talk to people, she knows what brides like (if they dont have ideas of their own) and she knows how to network, which is key for any business.

For reference, she has a D3.
The only time she uses the full size photos is for prints. All the stuff on that website is low res for a reason.

True that! A true photographer uses the right equipment for the job. Not everything must use a 1Ds camera, or a D3X. Sure, it'll make you 'appear professional'-- which is important, but you can get similar results from a P&S. Especially when you want a long DOF.

It's difficult to be in the photography business without criticism. So most photographers grow a thick skin and fire back at people with the "go with me if you want something right". And they have every right to do so. It's not like selling a product, where you know EXACTLY what you're going to get!

 

[randomrogue]

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/19-c.jpg

Is it my screen (I'm on a shitty netbook) or did she blow the highlights, focus wrong, and lose detail? I'm sitting here moving my screen around and trying from every angle possible and it looks like the only thing in focus with detail is the kid's feet.

Forget the artistic expression of the photographer. I'm not one to criticize someone's style even if I'm not the biggest fan of it. She could have shot the family with a tilt shift and made the pictures look even weirder but that's not really the problem here. It's technique from the looks of it. Check out this picture: http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/7-c.jpg. To me it looks like the father's head is the focal point yet the subject is the kid. How can we possibly excuse these pictures as differences in style?

I'm curious what her images would look like in print.

 

[speedy2]

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/19-c.jpg

Is it my screen (I'm on a shitty netbook) or did she blow the highlights, focus wrong, and lose detail? I'm sitting here moving my screen around and trying from every angle possible and it looks like the only thing in focus with detail is the kid's feet.

Forget the artistic expression of the photographer. I'm not one to criticize someone's style even if I'm not the biggest fan of it. She could have shot the family with a tilt shift and made the pictures look even weirder but that's not really the problem here. It's technique from the looks of it. Check out this picture: http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/7-c.jpg. To me it looks like the father's head is the focal point yet the subject is the kid. How can we possibly excuse these pictures as differences in style?

I'm curious what her images would look like in print.

Exactly. And no, it's not your screen. The color saturation is off the charts. Focus point is the feet for sure. And at f/1.2, makes the image a waste. Any of these in print are useless. I've printed a few of them and I get sick looking at them. I don't consider this a "style" either.

 

[alfa147x]

The lesson her is: Don't let your wife choose your photographer

 

[JohnnyRebel]

This is my aunt.
http://www.vickibarrettphoto.com/index2.php
She is a Professional photographer.

Please note her technical skills may or may not be any better than some of you jokers, the difference is she gets PAID MONEY to take photos.

Decide for yourselves what you like.

And that's it. A Pro gets Paid Money to take photos, and most of the business is outside technical skill.

I really like some of your Aunt's work. Anybody in the business for 20 years has something going.

JR

 

[randomrogue]

Your aunt has some good pictures. She also has some pictures that were taken on ugly days with bad light that aren't that fun to look at.

I think everyone today likes to mess with saturation and vibrance. The OP's photographer did it completely wrong but your aunt did zero. A bit will make the pictures pop more. She could stand to mess with blacks, contrast, and some color.

 

[finbarqs]

Exactly. And no, it's not your screen. The color saturation is off the charts. Focus point is the feet for sure. And at f/1.2, makes the image a waste. Any of these in print are useless. I've printed a few of them and I get sick looking at them. I don't consider this a "style" either.

I don't have an issue with color saturation, as I see that's her style. You may not, but I do. You can say that you're not a fan of her style. Your wife is, but you're not. Focus is something she really needs to work out, and again, the pictures you have aren't very different than the pics on her facebook.

I don't think the fault is entirely her. She stood by her work because she executed exactly what she knows how to do, and apparently over 2,000 people like her work. Her pictures on her face book already shows examples of pictures that aren't perfectly in focus.

If I was in your situation, I wouldn't say she's a "fauxtographer". Rather, I'd say she has pictures that didn't suit your style. It's a lesson to be learned here, and the lesson isn't "don't use her next time." It's let's pick a photographer that both you AND your wife like. Your wife may not care about the out of focus/strangely saturated images, if she saw them ahead of time and thought it was okay. I would just have an honest opinion of the Photographer and ask to see if you can have a discount since you didn't know that was the style you were going to get. Instead, you might have came off insulting and photographers will get into the "I'm the photographer here, you're the client so you don't know what you're talking about" mode. And if she's bitchy at you (honestly by saying she didn't suit your style of photographs isn't insulting at all) then she wont go far in business if that's how she treats everyone.

I don't particularly like her style, nor do I think she's awful. I like strange pictures with tilt-shifts, cross processing, high contrast, high key, high saturation, low saturation, warm, cold, any type of image with feeling in it. Hell, I'm looking into doing some shoots with anamorphic lenses so I can get those amazing flares! I've done 4 weddings now, 2 engagements, some regular portraits, fashion, themed, commercial, landscape, event, and I've never received a complaint from anyone with my "alternative vision". I understand my style isn't for everyone, and I certainly don't allude people into thinking otherwise.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

I don't have an issue with color saturation, as I see that's her style. You may not, but I do. You can say that you're not a fan of her style. Your wife is, but you're not. Focus is something she really needs to work out, and again, the pictures you have aren't very different than the pics on her facebook.

I don't think the fault is entirely her. She stood by her work because she executed exactly what she knows how to do, and apparently over 2,000 people like her work. Her pictures on her face book already shows examples of pictures that aren't perfectly in focus.

edit.
this one
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/7-c.jpg

If I was in your situation, I wouldn't say she's a "fauxtographer". Rather, I'd say she has pictures that didn't suit your style. It's a lesson to be learned here, and the lesson isn't "don't use her next time." It's let's pick a photographer that both you AND your wife like. Your wife may not care about the out of focus/strangely saturated images, if she saw them ahead of time and thought it was okay. I would just have an honest opinion of the Photographer and ask to see if you can have a discount since you didn't know that was the style you were going to get. Instead, you might have came off insulting and photographers will get into the "I'm the photographer here, you're the client so you don't know what you're talking about" mode. And if she's bitchy at you (honestly by saying she didn't suit your style of photographs isn't insulting at all) then she wont go far in business if that's how she treats everyone.

I don't particularly like her style, nor do I think she's awful. I like strange pictures with tilt-shifts, cross processing, high contrast, high key, high saturation, low saturation, warm, cold, any type of image with feeling in it. Hell, I'm looking into doing some shoots with anamorphic lenses so I can get those amazing flares! I've done 4 weddings now, 2 engagements, some regular portraits, fashion, themed, commercial, landscape, event, and I've never received a complaint from anyone with my "alternative vision". I understand my style isn't for everyone, and I certainly don't allude people into thinking otherwise.

Are you kidding ? look at the one with the dad holding up the kid.

Focusing the dad's ulgy head (sorry OP but its kinda balding and look really bad) and not the beautiful kid makes that picture look utterly horrible. The shallow DOF should've been used to gloss of the balding head. Instead its right there, popping out at you.

edit.
This one.
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/7-c.jpg

 

[randomrogue]

Finbarqs what about the blown highlights? You've excused the style (which I'm fine with since it's subjective) but how can you excuse the focusing issues and blown highlights?

Lets be realistic, how many things can you screw up before you're a bad photographer? I think she crossed that line.

 

[speedy2]

Are you kidding ? look at the one with the dad holding up the kid.

Focusing the dad's ulgy head (sorry OP but its kinda balding and look really bad) and not the beautiful kid makes that picture look utterly horrible. The shallow DOF should've been used to gloss of the balding head. Instead its right there, popping out at you.

edit.
This one.
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd260/valenciajewelers/7-c.jpg

Haha, no problem. I know my head looks bad, especially at that angle. That shot is one of the worst. And clearly shows that she has no clue how to use individual focus points. She drove up in a Land Rover. Wearing running shorts and a T-shirt. I think she had the money to blow on a 7D and nice lens and thinks she's a photographer.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Most of the shots look in proper focus, with a couple exceptions. I like the composition of most of them. White balance and/or tone mapping is subjective.

What I don't like is that they're WAY over-processed / stylized with brushing, smoothing and/or noise reduction (which should be largely unnecessary with that 7D and 85 1.2 anyway). Those are be subjective qualities, and some may love what she did....too much for me.

 

[slayernine]

Photographers that put massive logos on their photos can go eat a pile of shit. Pros never pull that crap, live on referrals not on sleazy forced advertising. Maybe I actually want to print some extras.

In most cases you are better off to just take your own damn photos and do a quick bit of Google searching on how to take photos rather than hire some random "photographer".

 

[angry hampster]

Photographers that put massive logos on their photos can go eat a pile of shit. Pros never pull that crap, live on referrals not on sleazy forced advertising. Maybe I actually want to print some extras.

In most cases you are better off to just take your own damn photos and do a quick bit of Google searching on how to take photos rather than hire some random "photographer".

From first hand experience, it's incredibly difficult to make a living as a full-time photographer. Unless you've expressly purchased rights-released images from me, why should I allow you to print my work for free? That's called theft.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

this is a classic case of not knowing how to use the AF on a 7D. Always use single point on that awesome camera. Anyone who doesn't is clueless about that camera.

But aside from that I think the PP is a bit messy. I don't like it, but perhaps its her style. I wouldn't say it's flat out horrible. The photographer has an eye for composition and what not.

None of this is horrible except the AF failures. If you take that away, then the photos are just badly postprocessed. However, if that's just her style, then... well it's not THAT bad. I'd be more annoyed if it's standard facebook quality (and by quality I mean composition) crap.... lol

 

[Aharami]

looking at those pictures made my eyes hurt!