You are not a photographer.

[BLWNHR]

This could be controversial, but we'll see how it goes. Discuss.

http://youarenotaphotographer.com/

[Bennymiata]

We are not photographers, just recorders of light.

[kiwi]

It is controversial indeed.

I dont really like the concept of making fun of other photographers, making fun of photos is fair game though.

[Scotty72]

Thanks for today's good laugh. :)

[Scotty72]

It is controversial indeed.

I dont really like the concept of making fun of other photographers, making fun of photos is fair game though.

If someone claims to be, and indeed charges as, a professional - they open themselves up for criticism.

[kiwi]

Criticism is one thing, public humiliation or ridicule is another matter.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I think I'm comfortable with the concept, but the harsh execution likewise with Darren makes me feel uncomfortable.
Some were funny, some were just awkward because , well, the pictures just weren't that bad ......(not for the level of slander given)
Theres taking the pi** and then there's just outright humiliation - and from who? people who for all we know aren't necessarily in a position to be giving expert criticism themselves.

[reaction]

I duno what to make of this. public humiliation or ridicule is common in many sites, fail blog etc. Photographers shouldn't be immune.

If these are all people who post themselves as a pro-tog or stick 'photography' after their name, then they should be ready for stuff like this. Most of the criticism seems obvious so I guess it could be worse.

Most of the stuff is off FB anyway, and if you put stuff on FB you expect it to spread around.

Anyway, it's funny for a few pages, but after a while it gets boring and repetitive. (haha this photo looks crap)x 100 ... Not a site I'd likely revisit.

[Scotty72]

I guess if the humiliation is bad enough to warrant an action of libel then, it should not be published.

If it is general ridicule then, might I suggest a part of 'professionalism' would be to (ehem) 'grow a pair'.

Imagine if Gillard, Abbott, Brown etc went off whinging at every web-site that poked fun at them?

My profession has web-sites that make unfounded criticisms of the industry and individuals within it.

Again (as with the threads that bemoan competition for 'togs'), I ask, why do some think that photographers should be 'protected species?'

Scotty

[Geoff79]

Yeah, it's an odd one. I guess to each their own if they want to make fun of something or someone, but if the people being ridiculed are the ones earning money from their photography, well I guess they'd have the last laugh?

The only one I found really odd in that lot was the first 'Theirs... Mine!' one, where "theirs" is clearly a better photo. The rest... yeah, they're not my type of shots but I guess there's worse out there who still get paid. I dunno, I guess to me the whole effort was pretty pointless, if not a little amusing.

[Miaow]

some of the pics on that are shocking - really if it was a professional photographer that took them i'd be loath to pay lol

[colinbm]

YAWN :scrtch:

[mcmahong]

Haha, I enjoyed that. There are some pretty shocking photographers out there (who knows, maybe I'm one of them and I am just kidding myself).

Still, I think you get what you pay for. There are shonks in every business. If the client want a Rolls Royce or a Daewoo it is their choice. It pays to do your homework. It's a creative industry and nobody should hire a photographer without seeing their work first. If they don't, then they might just get a white vignette.

[jasevk]

Criticism is one thing, public humiliation or ridicule is another matter.

Couldn't have said it any better myself

[mechawombat]

however there are great bits of advice spread throughout the site as well!

[Calxoddity]

I now feel much better about myself - I think the good laugh might have been part of it, but witnessing the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action was also good therapy.

I'm off to photograph my nostrils and do a spot-colour edit on it....

[fabian628]

If someone claims to be, and indeed charges as, a professional - they open themselves up for criticism.

I agree. These are pretty horrid. Just a though that might be worth discussing, would it be considered that some photos like this from a 'professional' be similar to dodgey builders which are commonly shamed on TV? Both taking money and providing poor services.

[Scotty72]

I agree. These are pretty horrid. Just a though that might be worth discussing, would it be considered that some photos like this from a 'professional' be similar to dodgey builders which are commonly shamed on TV? Both taking money and providing poor services.

Good points.

The common retort towards those whom complain about dodgy services is, 'You shouldda done your research about them before ya handed over yer dosh.'

Yet, when a site opens up allowing the average punter a look in at the dodgy side of the industry, those in the industry suddenly get very shy.

So, do we close down all criticism (satirical or not) about all industry - it would make my job much easier. ;)

[nightbringer]

Great quote from the site:


“I used take pictures for fun but somewhere I got sucked into the fauxtography business. I created my own little website with my own URL and even a Facebook fan page. Got sucked into buying the stuff, a new camera, lens, lights, etc.. and just spent WAYYYYY too much money. It looked easy, WRONG! Then I noticed that all my other fauxtograhers friends stuff was looking the same, everyone was copying everyone else. Even when I started out they would copy my crap and it was crap! Facebook has created a haven for narcissistic so called photographers who are gasping for any affirmations/comments in praise of their crap shots. Thank the Lord I was able to see the light and only did this for a year. I got a couple of paid gigs but luckily no one else fell for my fauxtography! I sold all my equipment except for my D90 and a couple of lens. I am now back to doing what I love, taking photos for fun at family functions and events I attend, There should be a 12 step program for fauxtograhers and I am willing to become the first member. I am attaching one of my atrocious photoshop, action so called creative photos for you all to use as an example of what not to do. Yes, I kept my day job and I am good at it!”

[Dylan & Marianne]

As an example of how damaging generic humiliation can be, might I remind people that not so long ago, a certain POTW winner on this site involved heavily white vignetted image.
Personally, I hate heavy Peter Eastway style vignetting but as it's a matter of taste, it's not something I post on a site up for public ridicule to validate my opinion.
You might say the site has been put up purely for humour's sake but is it? the level of nastiness seems quite severe if just for that .

[ricktas]

I have seen this site in the past, and was even given the pleasure of talking to a person who's photo had been ridiculed. The site had taken screen shots from facebook and presented them on it (with relevant scribbled out areas), and basically got stuck into the 'professional' photographer for the two photos. Unfortunately, the person who took the photos was neither a professional or selling the photos. She had gone to a wedding, with her point and shoot and put a few shots up on her facebook, nothing more.

Yet the idiots at the site, found the photos, used them and tried to present them as professionally taken photos, done very badly.

Contact by a lawyer, soon saw the photos and review removed, and since that time I have looked at this site as being nothing more than a sham to get people excited, annoyed, furious etc.

Oh and if you have a person called Heather Campbell on your friend list, or try to add you, it is/could be a fake FB profile setup to get access to your albums and grab screen shots for this site.

[Steve Axford]

I was expecting much more, but it is just a silly site. To comment on the point, being a (good) photographer and being a "professional photographer" are two different things. A professional may be a good photographer, but it is not strictly necessary. The main thing is marketing. It does help if you can take good photos, but we've all seen pros that can't and some of them make a good living from it. I think I might finally make an effort to make some money from it because I now see that I do some stuff that is almost unique. And some of this stuff people are willing to buy. Some will have to stay as pure hobby. Wish me luck!

[James T]

Why does this site keep coming up? Every couple of weeks it's being posted everywhere. So very boring. From what I've seen it exists only to generate hype about itself, and maybe to give poor photographers a chance to say, "hey, look, I'm better than those guys!" :sleeping23:

[reaction]

Unfortunately, the person who took the photos was neither a professional or selling the photos.

While I agree this site is just ad-view mongering, all the FB dumps seem to be from people who have named their profile "XYZ Photography". To me, you stick Photography after your name and you're trying to pass yourself off as a pro (and are open to public criticism).

eg Dad fixes the kitchen sink he doesn't call himself XYZ Plumbing. Mum plant some veges don't call herself XYZ Farming. I drive to work I'm not XYZ Driving Services or XYZ Deliveries.

You wanna be a Photography then you get treated as a Photography.

[98kellrs]

Whilst some of the images are indeed of dubious taste, or quality in the eyes of some, I don't think this kind public ridicule is a very "professional" at all. If a "professional" photographer is someone who mocks the best efforts of others, and encourages others to do so, then I sure as hell never want to be that guy/girl.

As for the whole XYZ photography thing, seriously??? With stereotyping like that who needs youarenotaphotographer.com?

RSK Photography

[reaction]

sorry dude, are you saying anyone that buys a camera should call themselves Photography?
and that they do so because it is the correct way to refer to oneself if one holds a capture device, and that there is not a single iota of wanting to appear pro and/or willing to take $?

I don't know anyone who stuck Photography after their name and did it accidentally or thinking it was the correct thing to do to indicate the purchase of a camera. They all did it with a view of going pro, now or later. And if you think someone accidentally opened a separate FB account for their Photography profile, keeps switching accounts so they can post images to the right place, well then you're a very happy person.

It's not stereotyping at all. If you call yourself Photography, then I expect I can call on you to provide Photography. Just like I expect all Plumbers to be able to plumb. And Locksmiths to be able to install/fix locks. etc etc. Do you know what stereotyping means?

When I see your sig say Perth based Motorsport Photography I assume it means you know a bit about Motorsport and about Photography and about them together, and are capable of producing good Motorsport photos. I don't think it's just a guy who's been to a race and also owns a camera. And yet you seem to be insisting that's exactly all it should be taken to mean, and nothing more.

maybe by typing this reply I should call myself "reaction Journalism". Or even "reaction International Journalism Services", since I've been o/s before.


I don't think the site is by pro-togs, it's just a bunch of ppl with time on their hands and an adsense account. Feed the troll site at your own peril.

[ricktas]

While I agree this site is just ad-view mongering, all the FB dumps seem to be from people who have named their profile "XYZ Photography". To me, you stick Photography after your name and you're trying to pass yourself off as a pro (and are open to public criticism).

eg Dad fixes the kitchen sink he doesn't call himself XYZ Plumbing. Mum plant some veges don't call herself XYZ Farming. I drive to work I'm not XYZ Driving Services or XYZ Deliveries.

You wanna be a Photography then you get treated as a Photography.

Did I say EVERY photo presented was from a Pro? I was just stating some information about a couple of cases. Yes some appear to be Pro's but not all. Even then, it's easy enough to doctor up an image to add the word photography, etc to a screen grab to create an illusion of some sort of status by the photo owner. I just think the whole site is a sham, and breaching copyright, cause even non-pro's own copyright over any photo they took, and I bet the site hasn't asked anyones permission to put their work up on it.

[crf529]

Welcome to the internet. Still don't know why everyone takes things so seriously? I'm with reaction here, if you go to that length of calling yourself a pro and produce that garbage then by all means ridicule away. And to be honest the 'humiliation' that you may think inappropriate or 'mean' really isn't the end of the world, it's a largely unkown website mocking FB fauxtography, is it really that upsetting to you? Besides if you produce poor work and use expired film like 1 post suggested for paying customers, you deserve worse.

Even if there is fake content on there, no 'pro' is losing credibility so who cares?

Anyway I thought it was a bit of a laugh...

[Scotty72]

Well, if the site is misrepresenting a P&S happy snapper as a pro - then that is misrepresenting the facts.

If it were a genuine site exposing dodgy togs, that would be one thing but, this smells a bit off.

[kiwi]

IF the photographers can't be identified I think it's probably ok. But it still makes me a bit uneasy but some if it's humorous, some of it's cringeworthy and maybe some illustrates what not to do.

I'm still on the fence on this one.

[BecdS]

Feed the troll site at your own peril. :th3:

[reaction]

A wise man once told me, criticism is of 2 types: valid and invalid. If it's invalid - why worry about it? If it's valid - then you've been done a service as now you can improve yourself.

To me the site is like the crazy drunk screaming in the streets you see sometimes. You can get worried about what he says, or you can ignore him. Some of it is funny, some is irrelevant.

The site is only of interest to amateur photogs (see all the camera gear affiliate links? see the self-promo 'editorials' from wannabe togs?) and of little repeat visit value. I don't see any pro-tog losing clients over this, nor do I see any potential-tog-clients visiting such a site. So while if you're posted you may feel upset, you're better off taking more photos than losing sleep over it. I'm sure the site visit count has multiplied tenfold just from the existence of this thread. And I doubt many of us will visit it again.

[mickyj]

Wow, so many photos where people have just tried way to hard. They have over done the post processing and produced far out images.
Maybe it is what their clients wanted ? One persons trash is another persons treasure.

I agree, I don't like any of the photos and many are in my view flawed but some people might really like these.

I am sure time and effort would be better spent praising people for photos they found appealing rather than spending their time trawling for rubbish. If people want to laugh at rubbish, they could just use the Google images search. That would keep them ammused and avoid encouraging them to leave unwelcome criticism.

[campdog]

Really, I cant see what the problem is. They are just products of the digital age. Digital Cameras at an affordable price.Access to a computer and Photoshop. Access to the internet and sites like facebook.It just seems that they are not very experienced or someone is encouraging them to do this.
But I dont mind.It makes my photography look good anyway:p.If they enjoy it and makes someone happy then let it be.

John:D

[sunny6teen]

as awful as the images are, I'm assuming that the portfolios aren't being falsely advertised. I'd be more concerned about the lazy/indifferent clientele.