you are not a photographer

[Mcary]

from the "about" section:
"Being a photographer means owning more than one lens, [...]"

🙄

+1
Not sure but the last time I check a good photographer with one lens was still a good photographer, while a crappy photographer with a bunch of lens was still a crappy photographer 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

Would anyone actually go back to the site? I mean, the joke soon wears thin.

Cheers,

R.

 

[emraphoto]

I keep going back to figure out who the mystery man is. I suppose I could be called a bit of a sucker?

 

[emraphoto]

Those photographs are bad but not nearly as awful as the person who runs that website.

Talk **** to & about your peers and superiors if you really want to be like that. You'll still be a jerk but at least you're not a grown man picking a fight with a child.

Can you link me to the %*!¥ talking? Not a challenge, genuinely curious and on the road so navigating all this on my phone while trying to catch a nap waiting out something.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Unfortunately a great proportion of the public think that a photographer presses the button and not much else, and the camera does the rest. Or photoshop does the rest, and it's like a self feeding cycle, getting bigger and more prevalent.

The top end of the market is unaffected but the industry as a whole IS affected by the photographers in question, no doubt about it. It cheapens the industry significantly.

I actually missed the "mission" of the website: it is directed exclusively at those who are in the business of providing photography.

It is very very true: since digital cameras are so accessible, people think that "anybody can press the button" (which is true), but cannot begin to understand the work involved in making it not look like crap. It's like cooking eggs: anybody can turn the stove and just "put the eggs" on the pan; so, of course, why should anybody pay $20 for eggs at a good restaurant? I mean, you can get it in a muffin at McDonald's for about $1, right?

That these "photographers" are providing a product to a client (they're the ones paying) is not the photographer's fault, it's the client's: the spread of Borders and Barnes-and-Noble's('s's) effectively killed the specialized, pop-and-mom bookstore. It's accessibility, convenience and affordability; consequences be damned, everybody likes to make a quick buck and pinch pennies.

Nevertheless, this has a very personal, sour and aggressive tone. It really could use a little buttering over, but then I think again about those really intolerant people who can't handle "backhanded humor": to them it's an extreme of "shutting up" vs. "being offensive", nothing in-between when it comes to opinion.

And you can tell whether it's a newbie or an old curmudgeon: the newbie is always defending holy wars, while the curmudgeon just attacks anything that is not done to his liking.

In my opinion, this site is just part of the problem. I wonder if "they" themselves take feedback.

 

[gavinlg]

I actually missed the "mission" of the website: it is directed exclusively at those who are in the business of providing photography.

Yeah this is the important part - it's not just amateurs, it's people who are actually in the business.

 

[efix]

For those who frequent the internet and Leica crowd, it isn't hard to narrow this down to who the website owner actually is. No, I won't be naming him.

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

 

[Jamie123]

Yeah this is the important part - it's not just amateurs, it's people who are actually in the business.

No this is not the important part. It doesn't really matter whether or not these people make a buck with their photography. People are hiring them because they like what they see. Period. If a pregant lady wants a portrait with selective color and stuffed animal that's really her choice.

I'm all for free speech but let's not forget that the guy who runs this website makes money ridiculing other people's work.

 

[gavinlg]

I'm all for free speech but let's not forget that the guy who runs this website makes money ridiculing other people's work.

I'd agree that it's harsh to just put a frownie on someones personal style, but then at the same time I don't really care that much. I wouldn't do something like that (the website) - too many bad vibes - what you put out you get back in equal measure.

But the important aspect of it is the cheapening of the industry - and that's VERY real.

 

[jsrockit]

I'd love to see the website creator's work...

 

[RanceEric]

I'd love to see the website creator's work...

I was thinking the same thing... Do you think it's the Christine Barker advertised at the top of the screen on every page? If so, her work isn't nearly as bad as some of those photos, but I think I could pick out a photo or two that should be added to that list..

 

[Jamie123]

But the important aspect of it is the cheapening of the industry - and that's VERY real.

The cheapening of the industry does have a lot to do with inexperienced photographers. Not so much, though, with crappy photographers. Having done photography for a long time doesn't really warrant having good taste. There are loads of photographers who have been doing photography for decades and they produce crap. Technically proficient crap but still crap.
On the other hand, there are loads of very young, inexperienced photographers who do amazing work. The problem is that they give it away for free.

 

[btgc]

....thousands and thousands of completely inexperienced people with an entry level DSLR or super zoom compact advertising via social media to do weddings for prices as low as $100. There aren't many industries where one can do such a thing - most industries are regulated with standards and qualifications. Photography doesn't have any.

Is there something wrong at all? If wedding photography would be regulated, most of $100 customers wouldn't hire real photographers because of their rates. And if someone is going to have their wedding covered by $100 photographer we have to ask if this is more evil than thousands and thousands of people eating junk food and drinking instant coffee? It's just their choice, period.

My opinion is $100 photographers can't kill industry, they just attract new customers who would use their friends with a camera otherwise.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The blogger sounds too pompous to be taken comically.

I strongly suspect somebody whose last name rhymes with "leaks". I would not be surprised one bit.

 

[shadowfox]

IF the intent of the website is to generate income,
then the author approach this from a wrong angle.

Rather than *ridiculing* those fauxtographer, feature the photos and criticize them constructively in a professional manner. Most of these people may end up paying for tips and lessons, and more may submit their work voluntarily to be evaluated. And in the end it'll improve a lot of people's skills (and taste).

Good intention, wrong approach.

 

[dcsang]

I've searched the "whois" databases and if someone knows how to get beyond "domains by proxy" as the owner of that site then feel free to let me know - until then, it's pure speculation who is (or could be) the person posting.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[re_visible]

The only problem I see with that Site, is that it is not funny. It is covered with annoying and unrelated ads, and it is not very well written...

There are some really bad examples of "Professional Photography" out there, not at all because there is a market that asks for it, but because there are too many bad photographers who don't know that they have to learn and practice some more before they can sell them selfs.
Or even get some REAL photographic (or arts) education!

Unfortunately, there are customers that go after the cheapest solution out there, and have no quality standards. But it's the photographers job to know what HE is supposed to do, an deliver at least a decent work.

 

[christian.rudman]

I love how this **** goes through all these people's facebook pages wasting countless hours just trying to find crap to **** on. I understand the idea and sure, people who suck at what they do need to be reminded of that from time to time, but I just love the hypocrisy. How can you **** all over other people's work, then in a letter claim to be a humanitarian and puff yourself up into a saviour? Even claiming that it is his "human calling," as well as trying to sell things for charity, then saying that he will be using the funds for "marketing efforts" and "airline tickets." I don't know if the writer is the same person as Rhys Harper, but still an amazing amount of simple and utter crap. Hope his server crashes permanently.

 

[leicashot]

You're preaching to the choir on this one. I've been so affected by the this revolution that I'm considering getting out of my profession. I rely on photography for 100% of my income, supporting myself and my family. Every month there is a decline, but getting on the internet and and choosing random images from random people to criticize and speak negatively about is just plain disgusting behavior. It's worse than those out there trying to 'be a photographer' without the skill set. At least they're giving it a go. What is the author of the website doing? Trying to promote negativity amongst those that share the same passion.

How can he be sure that the people he's singling out are guilty of the crimes he's accusing them of? Just because he doesn't agree with their photography has ZERO reflection on what they do to the industry. There's no proof, only negative accusations!!! There are more professional, positive ways to promote better business in the photographic community and he is NOT exercising those in any way, shape or form. Attacking pictures with people's children and pregnant women is distasteful in the worst kind of way, and insulting to the subjects in the photographs.

I'm not wasting one minute more on giving this website any more attention. It deserves squat.

On the majority of photos shown he calls for viewer feedback to help the photographer in question to improve.

The public isn't educated enough on photography, and that's why a large portion of the industry is struggling hard. Digital cameras and social networking have compounded the problems 100x - there are thousands and thousands of completely inexperienced people with an entry level DSLR or super zoom compact advertising via social media to do weddings for prices as low as $100. There aren't many industries where one can do such a thing - most industries are regulated with standards and qualifications. Photography doesn't have any.

Unfortunately a great proportion of the public think that a photographer presses the button and not much else, and the camera does the rest. Or photoshop does the rest, and it's like a self feeding cycle, getting bigger and more prevalent.

The top end of the market is unaffected but the industry as a whole IS affected by the photographers in question, no doubt about it. It cheapens the industry significantly.

 

[leicashot]

I strongly suspect somebody whose last name rhymes with "leaks". I would not be surprised one bit.

You may be onto something 😉