Exposing Fauxtographers..

[groovesection]

I am sure many of you will be aware of this website, But if you are not prepare yourself for a laugh.
To think these people charged for the pictures is just shocking :O

http://youarenotaphotographer.com/

[Steaphany]

A problem I have with the site is how they hide the identity of the fauxtographers and the fauxtographer's studios.

If these are featured examples of the best that the fauxtographer can achieve, why not identify who they are and provide links to their sites and pages.

[groovesection]

I would assume it is to stop legal claims of libel.
Any fauxtographer featured could claim it is affecting their business etc etc

[Steaphany]

True enough, but is it actually libel if the fauxtographer's own site is featuring what they consider their best work, even if no one else considers the images as having any merit ?

There is nothing wrong with pointing out a fauxtographer from what the public views collectively as photographers. Just as "Consumer Reports" in the US evaluates products saying what is good versus bad or TopGear saying what vehicles are good versus bad, it is matter of consumer protection to warn the buying public of photographers who aren't worth investing their money.

Think of it from a personal perspective. These fauxtographers hurt our image and taint public opinion of anyone into photography professionally. If someone hires a fauxtographer instead of a photographer to shoot their daughter's wedding, spending in excess of $1000, and get a collection of crap, they will surely be telling their friends and family never to do that again, advising everyone that a child with a superphone can do "just as well".

[Shadowman]

True enough, but is it actually libel if the fauxtographer's own site is featuring what they consider their best work, even if no one else considers the images as having any merit ?

There is nothing wrong with pointing out a fauxtographer from what the public views collectively as photographers. Just as "Consumer Reports" in the US evaluates products saying what is good versus bad or TopGear saying what vehicles are good versus bad, it is matter of consumer protection to warn the buying public of photographers who aren't worth investing their money.

Think of it from a personal perspective. These fauxtographers hurt our image and taint public opinion of anyone into photography professionally. If someone hires a fauxtographer instead of a photographer to shoot their daughter's wedding, spending in excess of $1000, and get a collection of crap, they will surely be telling their friends and family never to do that again, advising everyone that a child with a superphone can do "just as well".

I think a small percentage of people who hire photographers actually look at their websites or the photographers invites them to do so. So if any visits their websites and still hires them, then they are just looking for a lawsuit to happen.

[Loose Canon]

I had this site once, lost it and thought it was about the most hilarious thing I had seen. I may have tried them while they were changing the site over.

Well, let me revise that! I thought it was about the most hilarious thing I had seen until I realized that some of my stuff could be on it!