You are not a photographer

E

esquisite

Suspended / Banned
Messages
81
Edit My Images
No
I know we all have to learn somewhere, and we all start somewhere. But without wanting to sound elitist or anything like that it really annoys me when I see people paying for really bad photographs because someone has had a nice camera purchased for them and the person cannot bother to learn the basic settings on the camera.

I'm still learning and have done a little bit of paid work but this site showcases some real messes.

Have a look, laugh, cry, curse and pray that you never get featured on this website.

http://youarenotaphotographer.com/
 
It's been said time and time again, but as hard as it is for many of us to understand, if the clients are pleased with the photos then it's job done, as far as I'm concerned.

An old colleague of mine has a very particular style of wedding photo (think white vignettes with very little transition) which I can guarantee would be universally panned on here (and fit in well on that site), but he isn't particularly cheap, he has a busy calendar and he is making a very comfortable living from it.
 
Interesting that a site picking holes in other photographers work see's fit to remove their copyright logos, not very professional itself.
 
I'm in no way proffessional, nor do i call my self a photographer.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ukaskew said:
It's been said time and time again, but as hard as it is for many of us to understand, if the clients are pleased with the photos then it's job done, as far as I'm concerned.

An old colleague of mine has a very particular style of wedding photo (think white vignettes with very little transition) which I can guarantee would be universally panned on here (and fit in well on that site), but he isn't particularly cheap, he has a busy calendar and he is making a very comfortable living from it.
Click to expand...

True true, but it does irk me when people pay a fortune for something that can be done for pennies. Just doesn't seem right.

But true if the client is happy I suppose the client is happy
 
Oh I've seen some examples on Facebook which are arguably worse than those seen on that website.

I guess some people think they are great photographers in the same way that some people go on the X Factor utterly convinced they can sing.

What actually amazes me more is the amount of people who think the results are good when they are actually so bad I want to poke my own eyes out with a spoon. They are the real ones to blame.
 
Most of the "crime" fits two categories though:

1) Overcooking processing - an effect you love so much that the only place for the slider is hard on the right

2) The models - nothing you can do if the people you are commissioned to shoot are mingers. However, its not about your choice of models, its about their desire for a photo.

You also don't know where these come from - I would hope not a photographer's own gallery portfolio, but you know people do post their proofs to FB and other places, sometimes even adding some of the crap effects themselves.

None of this we can know.
 
jackflaming said:
For me, photography means perfection. When I had started with photography, I was unknown of many things and the best thing I have learned during my life is that you can learn something only by practice. I don't say that I am perfect, but my photography and picture frames are much better than many others.
Click to expand...

Brilliant.
 
We're all better than some, if you look hard enough you'd never be able to prove you were the worst in the world and given the sheer scale of photos taken every day, you could probably find enough photos worse than yours to say that you are better than "many".

Sorry for being pedantic and welcome to TP Jack :)
 
esquisite said:
True true, but it does irk me when people pay a fortune for something that can be done for pennies. Just doesn't seem right.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean but the conclusion I've come to is who really cares? There'll always be people shooting stuff with a 1DmkIV and getting rubbish results where others get superb results from an 1100D. If the guy can afford a 1DmkIV and wants to use it then let him, at the end of the day it's the results that count and not what equipment's used so if he wants to spend all that money for no real gain then let him go right ahead!

The same happens in music, there are plenty of people playing 4 grand PRS guitars who don't have enough technique to even begin to get the best out of it. It's great seeing these people take their pride and joy guitar along to jam sessions and then get utterly blown out of the water by some truly gifted 16 year old kid playing a 150 quid Squire. :)
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
Interesting that a site picking holes in other photographers work see's fit to remove their copyright logos, not very professional itself.
Click to expand...

If anythigng it has been done to PROTECT the identity of the photographer which can't be a bad thing. Ok, the site is poking fun but there is less damage to a 'photographer's' reputation if their name has been edited out.

I see it two ways, on one hand if the customer is happy then that's great as far as that sale is complete and it's job done but I try to excel for myself, I constantly try to pick at my own images to improve as I think the higher end of wedding (for me) photography DOES expect much better images.
 
Frankly I'm terrified! That will likely give me nightmares! :D
 
Oh lord, some of you need lightening up! I think that site is hilarious :D
 
Damn, I was laughing ... I guess I'm not a photographer :D
 
If the water marks had been removed wouldn't that be copyright infringement?
 
I fail to see the connection between your post and the site?!!
 
esquisite said:
These are not just people taking pictures. The site takes pictures that have been taken in paid shoots
Click to expand...

Really, (I am very cautious about judging people )) I thought they were just people with camera and having fun. this happens in every profession I guess. People will try their luck :-). hmm ... i better read more, so funny.
 
I have an original oil painting from an unknown artist and I never tire of looking at it. I Got it for next to nothing because nobody else liked it.

What I am saying is beauty is different things to different people.
 
srichards said:
If the water marks had been removed wouldn't that be copyright infringement?
Click to expand...

it matters not if the water mark is there or not it's still a website full of copyright infringement.

Truth be told I might not like the images, but there is a big difference in not liking something and openly mocking it :(
 
Any of those taken using 3 flash heads, with a snoot and 2 softboxes, oh and a 5dmk3 and 70-200?
 
MWHCVT said:
it matters not if the water mark is there or not it's still a website full of copyright infringement.

Truth be told I might not like the images, but there is a big difference in not liking something and openly mocking it :(
Click to expand...

How are they infringing copyright?
 
god and i thout i was bad there's hope for me yet lol
 
neil_g said:
I doubt they're being rehosted with permission for starters
Click to expand...

Do you need permission to rehost a link....as we do on here?

I am asking as links can be displayed as images using the code tags (I am non-geeky so don't know what they are called)

How do Google get away with displaying millions of images in their image search facility, if your rationale were the law?
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
How are they infringing copyright?
Click to expand...

So do you think that that the owner of that website, that judging by all the adverts on there is clearly a commercial venture (not that, that actually matters) is in the right to make a copy of someone else's work and host it on his own server while also in most of the cases modifying them is not infringing on the copyright owner of those photo's then? really?
 
tiler65 said:
Do you need permission to rehost a link....as we do on here?

I am asking as links can be displayed as images using the code tags (I am non-geeky so don't know what they are called)

How do Google get away with displaying millions of images in their image search facility, if your rationale were the law?
Click to expand...

This website is not linking to the photo though is it? have you actually clicked this link?
 
MWHCVT said:
So do you think that that the owner of that website, that judging by all the adverts on there is clearly a commercial venture (not that, that actually matters) is in the right to make a copy of someone else's work and host it on his own server while also in most of the cases modifying them is not infringing on the copyright owner of those photo's then? really?
Click to expand...

I understand your frustration but are they actually infringing copyright?
 
Last edited:
MWHCVT said:
This website is not linking to the photo though is it? have you actually clicked this link?
Click to expand...

I never said this website was...I said we allow web links to be displayed as images.......
 
neil_g said:
arent threads that crit work from photographers that are not on here to defend themselves frowned upon?
Click to expand...

It's not posted on here.. it's linked, and the link is to a site that merely displays the work of others.... who aren't identified.

Fair game if you ask me, and some of those are ****ing funny!! come on... don't you dare tell me you never laughed :)

I'm neither advocating the posting of the link, or decrying it BTW.... nothing to do with me... all I know is that I laughed so hard a little bit of wee came out :)
 
Last edited:
tiler65 said:
I understand your frustration but are they actually infringing copyright?
Click to expand...

tiler65 said:
I never said this website was...I said we allow web links to be displayed as images.......
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think that they're not? under what definition are they not infringing the photographers copyright? bringing google into the frame was foolish, google are not hosting the images that show in there searches the thumbnail links directly to the website/server that the image is hosted/displayed on
 
MWHCVT said:
Do you honestly think that they're not? under what definition are they not infringing the photographers copyright? bringing google into the frame was foolish, google are not hosting the images that show in there searches the thumbnail links directly to the website/server that the image is hosted/displayed on
Click to expand...

Why does TP allow linked photos then to be placed in image tags or whatever they are called. Loads of photos in threads have no permission then...should TP ban all hotlinked photos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top