# worst fauxtographer ever?



## jdreynss (Sep 5, 2012)

Hey guys..... I just stumbled across this Craigslist ad in my area. I can't for the life of me figure how how she can justify trying to charge people for this quality of work.

Affordable Photography


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

I wonder if babysitting is included?

--

i posted on a facebook page:

Me: You know, there is an excellent photography program at the community college you live near.
Her: Yeah, I know. I took a few classes.
Me: You may want to consider taking more
(thread deleted)


----------



## JoshuaSimPhotography (Sep 5, 2012)

Hahaha! I&#8217;ve seen Instagram pics better than that!


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

> I can also send you some examples of my work via e-mail if you wish.



No! Oh gawd, please no!


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=325352770891766&set=a.325354550891588.72789.324956257598084&type=3&theater



View attachment 19433


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 5, 2012)




----------



## gsgary (Sep 5, 2012)

I have seen a lot worse on here from people charging


----------



## jaomul (Sep 5, 2012)

This should make all here realize how gifted they are


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

For as long people PAY for this and take it for "cute", why not? It much depends on those who buy, too, if a product sells or not.


----------



## bratkinson (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm guessing she's an MWAC with a brand new camera kit and, of course, a cheapo "protection" filter on the front of her lens!


----------



## Forkie (Sep 5, 2012)

It's got to be a joke.  It just has to be.


----------



## daveinoz (Sep 5, 2012)

That is too funny - I like that "There are two photographers and a make-up artist" in her crew. I could do better blindfolded with a $5 disposable camera I think lol. Every photo is just rubbish. And the dog one was probably taken by someone else - because its in focus! Thanks for the chuckle.


----------



## rokvi (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm embarrassed for her.


----------



## pgriz (Sep 5, 2012)

jdreynss said:


> Hey guys..... I just stumbled across this Craigslist ad in my area. I can't for the life of me figure how how she can justify trying to charge people for this quality of work.
> 
> Affordable Photography



If someone bites the bait, then they get what they pay for.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 5, 2012)

The up side: She OBVIOUSLY did NOT steal those from any one else!


----------



## snowbear (Sep 5, 2012)

I feel so much better about my stuff; she's a good candidate for You Are Not a Photographer | Exposing fauxtographers since 2011.

I think she missed the mark by not coloring in the logo on the guy's t-shirt in #4, though.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 5, 2012)

Jaemie said:


> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=325352770891766&set=a.325354550891588.72789.324956257598084&type=3&theater



Why, oh why?  Maybe we do need camera (and computer) access control measures.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 5, 2012)

OMG, there are terrible photographers out there. Oh Nozz.

When you belittle others, you say more about yourself than about the others.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

scary


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> OMG, there are terrible photographers out there. Oh Nozz.
> 
> When you belittle others, you say more about yourself than about the others.



This.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

How does a fauxtographer do this?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151179737286742&set=o.324956257598084&type=3&theater

I've seen it so many times before. The normally brown/tan grass goes horribly wrong, almost red? It's under exposed, but that usually leads to cool colors? Under exposed+auto correct, maybe?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

Forkie said:


> It's got to be a joke.  It just has to be.



No.. unfortunately it isn't a joke! There are thousands like this on facebook... and sometimes they show up here. But they usually disappear really quickly. Classic MWAC Wanna Be PRO. Usually has a entry level body (they seem to prefer Canons, but there are Nikons out there too) with a kit lens. Usually don't have a flash except for the built-in, and don't have any idea how to use flash. They typically have no idea how to work with light, no understanding of the basic guidelines of photography, and without AF and AUTO mode, they would have never gone into "business" in the first place!


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 5, 2012)

:-o


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> OMG, there are terrible photographers out there. Oh Nozz.
> 
> When you belittle others, you say more about yourself than about the others.



OMG, there are snarky, critical people out there. Oh Nozz.

When you belittle others......


----------



## Designer (Sep 5, 2012)

jdreynss said:


> I can't for the life of me figure how how she can justify trying to charge people for this quality of work.



Pretty simple, really.  She wants money.

What you should be wondering is why people would be willing to give her money.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> OMG, there are terrible photographers out there. Oh Nozz.
> 
> When you belittle others, you say more about yourself than about the others.



but you just posted this belittling others by implication?

so does this say something about you?


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

Jaemie said:
			
		

> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=325352770891766&set=a.325354550891588.72789.324956257598084&type=3&theater
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19433"/>



I saw this on "You are Not a Photographer", classic zombie picture.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > OMG, there are terrible photographers out there. Oh Nozz.
> ...



I think it says something about people in general.

---

In the case of fauxtography, I think it's more that these people seem to think that photography is "easy money", and in a way belittles our efforts.


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:
			
		

> :-o



Mr. Bill oh noooooo!


----------



## Kolander (Sep 5, 2012)

It reminds me of the *Painting Prodigy*, Ecce Mono, this summer


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 5, 2012)

IByte said:


> Jaemie said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

Lew.. I do that too, and usually the comments are removed quickly!  lol!


----------



## Designer (Sep 5, 2012)

unpopular said:


> OMG, there are snarky, critical people out there.



I resemble that remark.


----------



## Designer (Sep 5, 2012)

Aghh!  My eyes!  Thanks for the post, Charlie, even though it will probably be taken down.  No, I did not persue the lady's facebook page to find that example.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> For as long people PAY for this and take it for "cute", why not? It much depends on those who buy, too, if a product sells or not.



yup. cant argue with the law of supply and demand. its just scary that there is a "demand" for that work.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 5, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> LaFoto said:
> 
> 
> > For as long people PAY for this and take it for "cute", why not? It much depends on those who buy, too, if a product sells or not.
> ...


Why is it scary? 
I'm willing to bet Canon sells more XSi's than they do 5DmkII's.
McDonalds sells more $2 burgers than restaurants selling $10 burgers.
WallMart sells more jewelery than Tiffany.
Ford sells more cars than Mercedes.

Why is that? 

Is it that there are more poor people than wealthy people?


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

You have a point here, "Bitter".
On the other hand though, even the poorer can still make choices and go for ONE 10-dollar burger per week or a 2-dollar burger per day.
And when you want to *buy* a photo of your child/loved ones/special day which is different (and hopefully, else why would you pay?)* better* than the photo you could take yourself, why go for really poor quality? 
So I keep seeing the "problem" (if this actually is one...) on the buyers' side. And not because they couldn't possibly afford any better.
But who am I to judge other people's tastes, anyway!?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

She blocked me on Facebook.  Owell.  I was just being honest with her....


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> *She blocked me on Facebook.*  Owell.  I was just being honest with her....




Yep.. me too!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 5, 2012)

I don't think there's anything wrong with going down market. Like Bitter Jeweler suggests, McDonald's is quite successful.

Nobody really wants to admit to being McDonald's, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. There's even a marketing campaign built right in:

   "Considering having your brother Darryl shoot your wedding?"
   "Hire us instead, Not Your Brother Photographic Studios. You'll be surprised at how inexpensive we are."
   "(if you're my brother, Jim, or my sister, Alice, don't bother calling me, ok?"


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 5, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > LaFoto said:
> ...



one would assume that when you buy an XSi, it functions properly, and rightly so. ive never spoken out against photographers charging whatever they wish, high or low, but i personally find it a little scary that neither the photographer in question, OR the clients, seem to have issues with the product. 
If I purchased a $2 burger from mcdonalds, i would STILL expect it to be cooked properly, even if it wasnt a $10 burger. seriously though, if people will buy those photos, it certainly doesn't affect me any. I am all for free market capitalism. Tax ID and business registration and income reporting of course is another matter all together which I wont get into..


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> You have a point here, "Bitter".
> On the other hand though, even the poorer can still make choices and go for ONE 10-dollar burger per week or a 2-dollar burger per day.
> And when you want to *buy* a photo of your child/loved ones/special day which is different (and hopefully, else why would you pay?)* better* than the photo you could take yourself, why go for really poor quality?
> So I keep seeing the "problem" (if this actually is one...) on the buyers' side. And not because they couldn't possibly afford any better.
> But who am I to judge other people's tastes, anyway!?



Taste doesn't often enter the picture when it comes down to cost. Same with quality. Especially when it comes to luxury items and services.


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> But who am I to judge other people's tastes, anyway!?



I think as a competent photographer you are qualified to judge other people's tastes in these matters. You know the craft and what makes the final product good or bad. And let's face it, some measures of photography are clearly objective: proper exposure vs. blown light and dark areas, for example. So, yes, you can say that someone has poor taste in photography if they prefer bad photos. Of course, whether or not you tell people their taste is lacking is another matter.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Taste doesn't often enter the picture when it comes down to cost. Same with quality. Especially when it comes to luxury items and services.



Yes  - I do see what you mean, of course! Sad, somehow...


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 5, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> LaFoto said:
> 
> 
> > You have a point here, "Bitter".
> ...



^^^totally agree there. just because someone has no taste, doesn't mean they shouldn't buy what they want.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 5, 2012)

a win for the good guys.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Jaemie said:


> I think as a competent photographer you are qualified to judge other people's tastes in these matters. You know the craft and what makes the final product good or bad. And let's face it, some measures of photography are clearly objective: proper exposure vs. blown light and dark areas, for example. So, yes, you can say that someone has poor taste in photography if they prefer bad photos. Of course, whether or not you tell people their taste is lacking is another matter.



I'm not thinking of the person's taste who takes these photos, much rather that of the potential clients.
But as you can see in my discussion with "Bitter", sometimes people simply canNOT choose any more. They need to go for "low cost" (so I need not say "cheap").

Though I should add that everyone (!) still has the option NOT to buy ANY of the photos in discussion here.
You're not FORCED to by BAD photos when you can't afford any more.


----------



## KmH (Sep 5, 2012)

I think it's wrong to post a link like that when the person at that link is not a member so they can participate in the discussion.

There can be no doubt, there are a lot of potential buyers in that market segment. In any market segment, it's buyer beware.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> a win for the good guys.
> View attachment 19464


Yes indeed, something you should totally be proud of!

:roll:


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> I don't think there's anything wrong with going down market. Like Bitter Jeweler suggests, McDonald's is quite successful.
> 
> Nobody really wants to admit to being McDonald's, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it. There's even a marketing campaign built right in:
> 
> ...



Yeah but at least have some background in PP.  Even just the basic understanding of the whole triangle...crap spring for cliff notes!


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 5, 2012)

KmH said:


> I think it's wrong to post a link like that when the person at that link is not a member so they can participate in the discussion.
> 
> There can be no doubt, there are a lot of potential buyers in that market segment.



are  you kidding? thats free advertising! maybe it will drum up some business for her! we might have some members here look at her work and feel they have to go  hire her!


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Why would you say so, Keith?
In Photographic Discussions we can also talk about the works of photographers that have made themselves a name and they are not members and cannot participate.
This person has gone into public with her photos, is advertising their work, and must therefore be open to public critiquing, I think.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 5, 2012)

diffrent people like diffrent things, should i start making fun of people profile pictuers because i feel that they have poor taste in clothing? I have peole here at work who have pictures of there kids printed out on a black and white copier paper hanging on there boards at work. not everyone wants high end photos and not everyone chooses to spend a lot of money on photos.

And I really hope this site doesn't start posting all these sites of poor photographers to riducle them. that would just be seriously low class.


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:
			
		

> I'm not thinking of the person's taste who takes these photos, much rather that of the potential clients.
> But as you can see in my discussion with "Bitter", sometimes people simply canNOT choose any more. They need to go for "low cost" (so I need not say "cheap").
> 
> Though I should add that everyone (!) still has the option NOT to buy ANY of the photos in discussion here.
> You're not FORCED to by BAD photos when you can't afford any more.



Yeah but if you want low cost go to one of those Walmart studios or something.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> Why would you say so, Keith?
> In Photographic Discussions we can also talk about the works of photographers that have made themselves a name and they are not members and cannot participate.
> This person has gone into public with her photos, is advertising their work, and must therefore be open to public critiquing, I think.



It's one thing to actually discuss some work, it's quite another to simply mock the work and the person who made it.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> Why would you say so, Keith?
> In Photographic Discussions we can also talk about the works of photographers that have made themselves a name and they are not members and cannot participate.
> This person has gone into public with her photos, is advertising their work, and must therefore be open to public critiquing, I think.



I have to go with Corinna on this one...


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> LaFoto said:
> 
> 
> > Why would you say so, Keith?
> ...



you mean like a lot of the C&C here?


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

amolitor said:


> It's one thing to actually discuss some work, it's quite another to simply mock the work and the person who made it.



Well, I hope it can be seen that I try to discuss the work (or much rather the fact that apparently work like this sells, too) and try not to ridicule the person behind it. I don't even know that person! 
It's just that seeing the work she offers FOR SALE makes my hair stand on edge... I must admit it.


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

KmH said:


> I think it's wrong to post a link like that when the person at that link is not a member so they can participate in the discussion.
> 
> There can be no doubt, there are a lot of potential buyers in that market segment. In any market segment, it's buyer beware.



Agreed. If this person posted her images here then it is 'fair game' so to speak. But to seek out her images/website for the sole purpose of making fun of her is mean spirited, ugly, and hurtful. 

I really do not understand why members of this forum get so much pleasure by demeaning or bullying others. As artists we should be here to critique,  encourage, and inspire each other. Instead this forum can only provide hurtful non helpful opinions.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> *diffrent* people like *diffrent* things, should i start making fun of *people* profile *pictuers* because* i* feel that they have poor taste in clothing? I have *peole* here at work who have pictures of *there* kids printed out on a black and white copier paper hanging on *there* boards at work. *not* everyone wants high end photos and not everyone chooses to spend a lot of money on photos.
> 
> And I really hope this site doesn't start posting all these sites of poor photographers to *riducle* them. *that* would just be seriously low class.



Buddy.... SPELL CHECK!!! (And you have been doing much better, btw!)


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 5, 2012)

I think C&C is fine because when I post soemething up on here I want the C&C no matter how bad it is.

I have been to sites that do things like this and the site is just a big crapfest of bashing anything and everything. nothing is learned, nothing is gained and its just a bunch of people trying to crap on other peoples work to be cool. Id just hate to see this site take that same path.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > *diffrent* people like *diffrent* things, should i start making fun of *people* profile *pictuers* because* i* feel that they have poor taste in clothing? I have *peole* here at work who have pictures of *there* kids printed out on a black and white copier paper hanging on *there* boards at work. *not* everyone wants high end photos and not everyone chooses to spend a lot of money on photos.
> ...





Sorry, tired, havn't been sleeping well and wasn't paying attention.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's wrong to post a link like that when the person at that link is not a member so they can participate in the discussion.
> ...



yea.. you're right... we NEVER offer assistance or HELP anyone at all, right? 

Artists? Hmmmm.....

So would you consider the individual this post is about about an "ARTIST" ?


----------



## Designer (Sep 5, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> If I purchased a $2 burger from mcdonalds, i would STILL expect it to be cooked properly, even if it wasnt a $10 burger.



I actually have much lower expectations at McDonalds.  If I purchase a $10 burger at a sit-down restaurant, I expect it to be excellent, whereas in Micky-D's I'm happy to get approximately what I ordered.


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



Charlie you really are the king of starting sh*t aren't you now. I just love how you feel the need to put words into peoples mouths. Of course, helpful advice is given here. But I see far more negative remarks. Not even critique, just mean words. Does it make you feel like a big strong man with a huge d*ck for writing on a strangers fb page how her photo is the worst one you have ever seen? I hope so, then at least something good was accomplished by that.

and yeah, you don't have to be good, to be an artist do you? I didn't realize there was a test you had to pass....


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 5, 2012)

well, I can honestly say that after reading this thread and some of the varying opinions here, many different than my own,  I have seen how narrow a view I have taken on other people's work that I consider "bad". And I apologize for that. I shall henceforth seek to broaden my interpretation of "art", and attempt to displace my own hurtful opinions and replace them with notions of helpfulness and goodwill towards fellow photographers.


----------



## Tee (Sep 5, 2012)

12sndsgood said:
			
		

> diffrent people like diffrent things, should i start making fun of people profile pictuers because i feel that they have poor taste in clothing?



Funny you mention that. A certain mod went on a bipolar rant last year to a member about their avatar picture making a racist comment and belittling their clothing style.  Anyways....

I agree with lafoto- if someone is in business, charging money and is marketing themselves, then yes- they should be open for criticism.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> well, I can honestly say that after reading this thread and some of the varying opinions here, many different than my own,  I have seen how narrow a view I have taken on other people's work that I consider "bad". And I apologize for that. I shall henceforth seek to broaden my interpretation of "art", and attempt to displace my own hurtful opinions and replace them with notions of helpfulness and goodwill towards fellow photographers.



Very commendable, pixmedic! Applause!


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

Tee said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



criticism or mockery?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



wow... no need to get upset! I was asking a simple question! Would you consider that individual an Artist? Period!

I find your other comments rude, and rather inappropriate.... especially since you don't know me! As far as my critiquing someone, somewhere.. possibly it will spur them into finding out why I said what I said, and they will seek to improve! 

But I admit I doubt it.. so many MWAC "wanna be" PROS don't really want to improve or learn.... it seems endemic!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm sure there are enough memebers on here that have facebook accounts that we can go on each others pages and rip each other to shreds if that's what people are wanting.


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> I have to go with Corinna on this one...



Charlie's a sucker for the ladies(skilled) with a camera lol.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Well, feel free to come to my Facebook site.
It's just that mine's for Friends Only - if this person had this advertisment open for all "Public", they just run a great risk. Even that of having someone say the photos are the worst he's ever seen. Sorry, but that's Facebook for you - and that's the internet for you, with all the chances to link to other sites and all that.


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> wow... no need to get upset! I was asking a simple question! Would you consider that individual an Artist? Period!
> 
> I find your other comments rude, and rather inappropriate.... especially since you don't know me! As far as my critiquing someone, somewhere.. possibly it will spur them into finding out why I said what I said, and they will improve!
> 
> But I admit I doubt it.. so many MWAC's don't really want to improve or learn.... it seems endemic!



you are correct. I do not know you. But I do know who you perceive to be via this internet forum is a bully towards those who do things or see things different than you. 

I also think the MWAC comment is a slap in the face to any female photographers with children. I would say there is (and always has been) an epidemic of PEOPLE who have cameras and don't know how to use them...probably since the invention of photography. Or at least since the sale of cameras to the general public.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> I'm sure there are enough memebers on here that have facebook accounts that we can go on each others pages and rip each other to shreds if that's what people are wanting.



Have at it.. my FB is linked in my SIG! The thing is... that people that know photography, and know me... will discount untrue negativity. The others... well, I don't really mind what they think! 

Usually when I make negative comments... there is a reason, and it is usually very obvious!


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure there are enough memebers on here that have facebook accounts that we can go on each others pages and rip each other to shreds if that's what people are wanting.
> ...



yeah, it is obvious. you enjoy belittling others.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > wow... no need to get upset! I was asking a simple question! Would you consider that individual an Artist? Period!
> ...



Let me rephrase that.. MWAC PRO! Is that better? All those MWACS that have hung out shingles, and charge for bad photography! Does that provide enough separation for you? (Oh.. and I didn't invent the term... I just find it appropriate!)

I even edited my post above to make you happy!


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Hey, will I have to close this thread any time soon now?
Is it getting out of hand?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> Hey, will I have to close this thread any time soon now?
> Is it getting out of hand?



I hope not, Corinna... I am trying to remain civil!


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Let me rephrase that.. MWAC PRO! Is that better? All those MWACS that have hung out shingles, and charge for bad photography! Does that provide enough separation for you? (Oh.. and I didn't invent the term... I just find it appropriate!)
> 
> I even edited my post above to make you happy!



I still think it is extremely sexist seeing as how plenty of men are charging for sub par photography too.


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

I think this thread should be closed. And should have been after post 1. Is this what this forum is for? Finding 'bad' photographers and talking crap about them? Why do I not see any PHOTOS being posted anymore? And when photos are posted, hardly anyone comments on them.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

There are PLENTY of photos posted on this forum every day. Just not in the Photographic Discussions... this section is for Photographic Discussions.


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

you are right, there are. So how about we comment on those photos.....


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me rephrase that.. MWAC PRO! Is that better? All those MWACS that have hung out shingles, and charge for bad photography! Does that provide enough separation for you? (Oh.. and I didn't invent the term... I just find it appropriate!)
> ...



You just can't go wrong with half-naked women.


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

I've seen numerous new threads with photos. But a couple, at least, were started by new members who have demonstrated hostility, rudeness, and generally immature behaviour recently, and I had to wonder if the low number of replies reflected a reluctance to further engage the OP.

And the photos were pretty bad, too, imo.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 5, 2012)

I had planned on posting up a shot today but didn't get it uploaded, so it will have to wait for tomorror


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:
			
		

> I still think it is extremely sexist seeing as how plenty of men are charging for sub par photography too.



I'm a J(ock)WAC, it may seem sexist but not really.  For example, not too long ago there was thread about a guy stealing from 37 photographers.  My only guess is that it seems more women buying cameras is because they buy it for family outings, receive praise and want to start a business.  But I know they're others scenarios out there.



PS Mind my typos and grammar, I'm at the gym


----------



## Tee (Sep 5, 2012)

Please...for the love of cool whip do not lock this  thread. It'll run it's course.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Let me rephrase that.. MWAC PRO! Is that better? All those MWACS that have hung out shingles, and charge for bad photography! Does that provide enough separation for you? (Oh.. and I didn't invent the term... I just find it appropriate!)
> ...



The term MWAC was created in response to a social phenomena.... in which large numbers of women who bought cameras to photograph their children, discovered AUTO and Ambient "NATURAL" Light.. and decided they were good enough after two weeks or 4 months, or a year or so... to claim to be professionals. There was a huge surge in these numbers (primarily female to start with... and yes, then the GWACS started coming on.. when they figured they might as well try to get some of those idiot dollars too!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/business/yourmoney/15cameras.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1



 MWAC Mom With A Camera. Member of the skyrocketing  group of amateurs-turned-wannabe-pros who start part-time photography  businesses shooting mostly children and babies, who make a living by  undercutting real pros. They can do this b/c their spouses have  supporting jobs, and because photography has become easy to do on a  basic level because everything, from click to print, is so easy to do  now.

Urban Dictionary: mwac


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

IByte said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

Jaemie said:


> I've seen numerous new threads with photos. But a couple, at least, were started by new members who have demonstrated hostility, rudeness, and generally immature behaviour recently, and I had to wonder if the low number of replies reflected a reluctance to further engage the OP.



I swear, it wasn't me!


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Tee said:


> Please...for the love of cool whip do not lock this  thread. It'll run it's course.



Let's hope for the best - and I'm having my eye on it.


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

nice charlie, I think we all know what MWAC stands for/means. My point is that it is a rude, disrespectful, and sexist comment. Do you want me to google the definition of those words for you?


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's wrong to post a link like that when the person at that link is not a member so they can participate in the discussion.
> ...



I don't have any problems commenting on anyone offering services to the public when they put themselves in the public arena  and I see my first responsibility to be honest.
When I see someone who ignores the incredible available bounty of information and then offers a public service for a fee, effectively cheating their clients from getting what they are paying for, my concerns for them personally are diminished.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > KmH said:
> ...



^^^THIS!


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

I have three adult daughters. I have a camera. *realizes the significance*   :shock:

But seriously, I've always felt the term MWAC is rather gauche.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Sep 5, 2012)

Corina, I worked at a jewelery store that advertised, and sold 1ct diamonds for $999. They were absolute sh!t.
People with low incomes bought them because the size of the diamond was a status symbol. They were often milky white, semi opaque, with fractures, inclusions, big black carbon spots, etc.

People with a little more money, would scoff at the quality, and opt for a smaller diamond, of much better color and clarity, for a little more money. Quality was more important than the size.

Then you have the people who would pay $20K for a colorless, flawless, ideal cut 1ct. These people cared about quality, and the status symbol.

Then we have people who will not think twice about dropping $150k on a 5ct diamond.

So certainly we can sit back and judge people on their decisions. But why judge the poorer person, who opted for the the best they could afford, and oftened paid on lay-away. Are the wealthy people better people because they have refined tastes, and more money? Was that store doing a disservice to the industry by catering to all customers, not just the wealthy, and informed? 

This photographer wasn't hurting anyone. But we as an educated group hurt her, because we judged her. 

Lew proudly claimed "we won". What did we win?


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

unpopular said:


> Jaemie said:
> 
> 
> > I've seen numerous new threads with photos. But a couple, at least, were started by new members who have demonstrated hostility, rudeness, and generally immature behaviour recently, and I had to wonder if the low number of replies reflected a reluctance to further engage the OP.
> ...



Not you. You're a sweet donkey.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> nice charlie, I think we all know what MWAC stands for/means. My point is that it is a rude, disrespectful, and sexist comment. Do you want me to google the definition of those words for you?



As I said.. I did not invent the term!  And it is common usage, even among non-photographers..... so I guess the whole world is rude, disrespectful and sexist? Or maybe there is a grain of truth behind it that bothers some people! 

I don't know! Maybe none of us should use popular common terms...


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> ...effectively cheating their clients from getting what they are paying for, my concerns for them personally are diminished.



and how would you say their clients are being cheated? They are clearly aware of the price and skill level of the photographer they CHOSE to employ no?


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > nice charlie, I think we all know what MWAC stands for/means. My point is that it is a rude, disrespectful, and sexist comment. Do you want me to google the definition of those words for you?
> ...



You know charlie, It doesn't bother me when the term is used occasionally. But YOU, you use it every chance you can get. If a photographer is a woman, and her photos less than stellar you label them a MWAC. You throw that term around with intent of being hurtful and rude. At least that is the way you come across via internet forum.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > ...effectively cheating their clients from getting what they are paying for, my concerns for them personally are diminished.
> ...



Claiming the term PROFESSIONAL has obligations, even for clients to dumb to know better! It is an ethics things... you dig? Or maybe you don't?


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Claiming the term PROFESSIONAL has obligations, even for clients to dumb to know better! It is an ethics things... you dig? Or maybe you don't?



well I know you are older than I am. So I would think by now you are aware that there are different skill levels for ANY service/profession. Photography, home building (track homes vs custom homes anyone?), pet training, hair cutting, culinary arts, jewelers, make up artists. Yeah, the list is way too long to continue.


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Corina, I worked at a jewelery store that advertised, and sold 1ct diamonds for $999. They were absolute sh!t.
> People with low incomes bought them because the size of the diamond was a status symbol. They were often milky white, semi opaque, with fractures, inclusions, big black carbon spots, etc.
> 
> People with a little more money, would scoff at the quality, and opt for a smaller diamond, of much better color and clarity, for a little more money. Quality was more important than the size.
> ...


 
So what you are saying, we grew up in a world thinking BIGGER is better, rather than looking at the smaller, better quality product?  Point well taken.


----------



## Trever1t (Sep 5, 2012)

When I want to feel better about myself I just spend 15 minutes (not a minute longer) walking around WALMART. I don't need to say anything to anybody


----------



## Tee (Sep 5, 2012)

MWAC= mom with a camera. Mom buys Canon Rebel, friends tell her she's awesome, mom buys Florabella action set and opens FB page

Or

GWC= guy with camera. A GWC is a guy with a camera claiming to be a photographer for the sole purpose of photographing partially clothed/ naked women for self enjoyment with no intent of artistic merit or love of the craft. 

Now Paige, you're trying to tell me the MWAC connotation is worse than being a GWC? The only reason you don't see GWC being used here is because this isn't an environment that encourages the posting of models.


----------



## KmH (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > It's one thing to actually discuss some work, it's quite another to simply mock the work and the person who made it.
> ...


More power to that person if they can get people to actually pay for the work.

I've seen way worse.

In a free market economy, those businesses that do not deliver sufficient value for the $$$ go out of business.

In my mind, there is indeed a difference between referencing the work of an established photographer, be it for praise or criticism, than to reference the work of a photographer that is not established.

Kind of like having a battle of wits, with an unarmed person.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

"Bitter", I'm sure you know that I fully well understand what you're saying and what we are talking about with regards to being forced to by low cost products!
Even though someone said, in the course of this discussion (in those parts that are not about MWAC etc), that people who can't afford too much can make use of the little mobile studios that go from supermarket to supermarket (we have those things here, at least), where each photo looks the same, but each is unique to the family who had their baby/kids etc. photographed. So actually, the potential clients have other options, also in the low cost segment.
And I tried hard not to judge the person with said FB account.
Unfortunately, though, those photos are ... erm ... how do I put it? "Quite sub-par".


----------



## Derrel (Sep 5, 2012)

As the great Jane Momtographer once said, 'My momma used to tell me: Jane--never worry about being the worst photographer. It's just not worth it! No matter how bad you manage to be, there will ALWAYS be somebody who is worse than you are. Striving to be the worst is a lose-lose deal...so Jane remember these words of wisdom: Shoot! Shoot! Shoot! Just keep shooting Jane...you can fix it later in Photoshop." 

[not really]

Here is Jane's blog:    http://gigglesandcutiepumpkinsphotography.blogspot.com/


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

I say we turn this thread on ourselves, and discuss who is the worst photographers on TPF.

Quick, someone make some popcorn!


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

Tee said:


> MWAC= mom with a camera. Mom buys Canon Rebel, friends tell her she's awesome, mom buys Florabella action set and opens FB page
> 
> Or
> 
> ...



No I don't think one is worse. But MWAC is used far more than GWAC. My point is that we should stay away from judgmental sexist stereotypes


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

unpopular said:


> I say we turn this thread on ourselves, and discuss who is the worst photographers on TPF.
> 
> Quick, someone make some popcorn!




I'd like to nominate myself!  Can I get a second?


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> No I don't think one is worse. But MWAC is used far more than GWAC. My point is that we should stay away from judgmental sexist stereotypes




When somebody plays the (1) sexist card or (2) the race card, I generally walk away because it's typically not worthy of discussion at that point.  It makes NO DIFFERENCE if this person is a man or a woman--that's NOT the point. The point is that the work they are selling is sub par.  Period.

Does that mean they should be made fun of in this forum?  It's kind of a crappy thing to do and the short answer is "no" IMHO, but on the other hand, they are putting themselves out there for hire and I think that leaves them open for comments (good or bad).

YMMV.


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

I tend to agree with paige - but what is the first thing that people comment on whenever there is a beautiful woman as the subject - how beautiful the woman is! And if you comment about how that woman was portrayed negatively, look out, you might get banned.

Funny thing is, I doubt very much that if a model was criticized for appearing too chubby, pointers would be offered on how to make her appear thinner. Likewise is not the same for a model portrayed too thin.

Photography is often held to men's standards.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Just wow @ this thread


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

Getting back to the matter of taste vs. status symbol, quick production vs. craft, here's an example that really annoys me (Return to Tiffany jewelery):

http://www.shopjewellry.com/shoppic/201012661012316.jpg


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...




lol! This must be "Pick on Poor Little Charlie Day!" I am NOT the only one that uses that term, Paige! Please don't let your personal dislike of me lead you into making false statements!


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Actually, I don't mind of this thread turns towards ourselves. 
It need not be a "who's the worst photographer here on TPF"-contest, though, since I don't like popcorn!

But we might try to find out if the "MWAC"-phenomenon is a worldwide one?
I'm asking this, in all honesty, because I don't see this trend in my country!


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 5, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> This photographer wasn't hurting anyone. But we as an educated group hurt her, because we judged her.
> 
> Lew proudly claimed "we won". What did we win?



She was hurting someone.
She was hurting the clients by cheating them because, for the same money, she could have provided pictures in focus- reasonably colored and within some sort of normal OK-ness.
It wasn't her prices that I was quibbling about; it was her lack of interest or drive to do it at all well.
If a sidewalk vendor doesn't refrigerate his food because he's lazy and so his clients have a decent chance of getting sick - AND THE CLIENTS DON"T KNOW- I don't think it is wrong to criticize the vendor.

'What we won' is that someone actually got and responded to a message, maybe she'll actually hear it and try to learn something.


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Lol this hit home, because I live in upstate NY Charlie


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

jwbryson1 said:


> It makes NO DIFFERENCE if this person is a man or a woman--that's NOT the point. The point is that the work they are selling is sub par.  Period.



exactly, it makes no difference. So why label them MWAC?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

interesting:

MWAC Attack « You Are Not a Photographer | Exposing fauxtographers since 2011


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> Actually, I don't mind of this thread turns towards ourselves.
> It need not be a "who's the worst photographer here on TPF"-contest, though, since I don't like popcorn!
> 
> But we might try to find out if the "MWAC"-phenomenon is a worldwide one?
> I'm asking this, in all honesty, because I don't see this trend in my country!



You are so lucky! I know it is extremely prevalent here in the US (seems like you can't go anywhere without tripping over one where I am!), and I have heard that it is becoming more popular in the UK... but I would have to let our UK members speak on that!


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

LaFoto said:


> IByte said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...


----------



## Derrel (Sep 5, 2012)

"*No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.*"-- Henry Louis Mencken is widely credited with that quote, which goes wayyyyyyy back, approaching a century now.

"*There's a sucker born every minute.*" P.T. Barnum.

BOTH of these men spoke the truth.


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> She was hurting someone.
> She was hurting the clients by cheating them because, for the same money, she could have provided pictures in focus- reasonably colored and within some sort of normal OK-ness.
> It wasn't her prices that I was quibbling about; it was her lack of interest or drive to do it at all well.
> If a sidewalk vendor doesn't refrigerate his food because he's lazy and so his clients have a decent chance of getting sick - AND THE CLIENTS DON"T KNOW- I don't think it is wrong to criticize the vendor.
> ...



oh come on. She wasn't hurting anyone. That is like saying Express stores are hurting men for providing skinny jeans. If people like it, they buy it. They are not forced into it.


----------



## IByte (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> jwbryson1 said:
> 
> 
> > It makes NO DIFFERENCE if this person is a man or a woman--that's NOT the point. The point is that the work they are selling is sub par.  Period.
> ...


 But you are taking as Mothers With a Camera, you can change it to Men With a Camera... then BAM! instant gender change lol.


----------



## jhodges10 (Sep 5, 2012)

Bitter is spot on with his assessment. I didn't see this persons work before it was taken down and maybe it was as bad as you guys say but there's a line between criticism and being an a-hole. I always see comments that buying an entry level DSLR and shooting on auto doesn't make you pro. That's true enough but I think most would agree that if you give an amateur a P&S and have them take some pics then give them a DSLR and shoot some pics they're much more likely to get some decent shots with the DSLR. If someone wants to sell their services and they can find a buyer what business is it of yours? No one is forcing her customers to buy from her. If you want to run off the people that cater to lower income customers then you might as well start campaigning against Sears, Picture People, JC Penney etc. for the generic stuff they sell. Not everyone can afford to go to an artsy boutique photo studio and drop $500 on a family portrait. I read a lot of posts on this forum before I ever made a single comment so I knew going in you have to have thick skin and realize some people try to help and some are just trolling. Apparently there wasn't enough material to troll in the forum so now we have to hunt down material from outside the forum. It's kind of sad.


----------



## mishele (Sep 5, 2012)

Charlie, you're a sexist pig....just sayin.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

IByte said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > jwbryson1 said:
> ...



How about Moron with a Camera... that could easily be non-gender specific!


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

Here is a crappy photo of mine. Enjoy!

http://

 Cathedral - L&amp;A by jwbryson1, on Flickr


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

mishele said:


> Charlie, you're a sexist pig....just sayin.



I don't know how that could be.. I know I have lesbian tastes!  

Or did you mean "Sexy Pig".. I could go with that! lol!


----------



## Tee (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:
			
		

> No I don't think one is worse. But MWAC is used far more than GWAC. My point is that we should stay away from judgmental sexist stereotypes



Again, you're sensitive to MWAC because you happen to be a mom who prefers to shoot in natural light. You see this term used more because 1) MWAC's are more visibly seen at parks, swimming pools and at the neighborhood coffee klatches 2) it's your circle of influence. An MWAC is harmless. 

At a shoot I did this past weekend the model thanked me for not being a creepy GWC. She told her friends about me and now I have more contacts for future practice shoots, all because I was normal and fun.  That's my photographic world I shoot in. Knowing that for everyone like me there's 10 dudes out there using a camera to get in a models pants. 

So yeah, sensationalizing MWAC for pity is a little comedic to me.


----------



## mishele (Sep 5, 2012)

I seriously don't understand how anyone could be offended by that term, unless it hits a little too close to home for them.


----------



## jhodges10 (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> How about Moron with a Camera... that could easily be non-gender specific!



That's what I thought it meant the first time I saw you use the term.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Tee said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



^^^^^good post


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

mishele said:


> I seriously don't understand how anyone could be offend by that term, unless it hits a little too close to home for them.



The term is obviously meant to be an insult. So why wouldn't moms with cameras be insulted?


----------



## mishele (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm a mom. Doesn't bother me one bit.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Yep.. me too!



Me three. And all I posted on her wall was that her work was ".....interesting" oh, and that Zapfino scribble doesn't count as a logo.

Chick is a skid mark on the drawers of the photography industry.


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

Annie Leibovitz is a mother. I wonder how she would feel being called a MWAC.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

If i fit the bill as "natural light photographer" and MWAC, I doubt i would give a %$#^ what any of you think about it all  heh


----------



## MTVision (Sep 5, 2012)

mishele said:
			
		

> I'm a mom. Doesn't bother me one bit.



I've been called a MWAC - on this forum actually. I know it was meant to be derogatory by the person who wrote it but it's the truth. I am a mom with a camera. 

I, think, there is even a photographer on here whose business is named something similar to mom with a camera - cant remember the persons forum name.


----------



## paigew (Sep 5, 2012)

Jaemie said:


> Annie Leibovitz is a mother. I wonder how she would feel being called a MWAC.



I am sure that no one would ever call a successful, renowned female (mother) photographer a "MWAC". Why...because the term is meant as an insult.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:
			
		

> I think this thread should be closed. And should have been after post 1. Is this what this forum is for? Finding 'bad' photographers and talking crap about them? Why do I not see any PHOTOS being posted anymore? And when photos are posted, hardly anyone comments on them.



Oh, for Pete's sake, cut the holier than thou crap. If people want to post about this travesty masquerading as a photographer, who are you to whine through 10 pages of posts?

If you don't see value in a thread, here's an idea, go somewhere else. Plenty of other threads to complain about.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:
			
		

> Lew.. I do that too, and usually the comments are removed quickly!  lol!
> 
> <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=19454"/>



I've seen it 1st hand how quickly your comments get removed!  It's kind of funny how this thread popped up right after my little experience.....


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm a mom. 
And guess what: the first photos of my kids looked just like you'd expect MWAC-photos to look like! I have albums full of awful (yet to me dear!) photos of my kids when they were little!!!
Only did it never occur to me to sell those or any photos of mine!
I always knew about my limits.


----------



## Jaemie (Sep 5, 2012)

paigew said:


> Jaemie said:
> 
> 
> > Annie Leibovitz is a mother. I wonder how she would feel being called a MWAC.
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 5, 2012)

jhodges10 said:


> Bitter is spot on with his assessment. I didn't see this persons work before it was taken down and maybe it was as bad as you guys say but there's a line between criticism and being an a-hole. I always see comments that buying an entry level DSLR and shooting on auto doesn't make you pro. *That's true enough but I think most would agree that if you give an amateur a P&S and have them take some pics then give them a DSLR and shoot some pics they're much more likely to get some decent shots with the DSLR.* If someone wants to sell their services and they can find a buyer what business is it of yours? No one is forcing her customers to buy from her. If you want to run off the people that cater to lower income customers then you might as well start campaigning against Sears, Picture People, JC Penney etc. for the generic stuff they sell. Not everyone can afford to go to an artsy boutique photo studio and drop $500 on a family portrait. I read a lot of posts on this forum before I ever made a single comment so I knew going in you have to have thick skin and realize some people try to help and some are just trolling. Apparently there wasn't enough material to troll in the forum so now we have to hunt down material from outside the forum. It's kind of sad.



No, P&Ss are easier for a total newb because of the automatic everything and the great depth of field of the lenses.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 5, 2012)

honestly, this thread has been allowed to fester FAR longer than I would have expected. especially with a few mods weighing in on it. 
so....Kudos for letting this thing run its course. Im not exactly sure what wisdom can be gleaned from this...but hopefully someone has gotten something out of it. besides a good chuckle that is...


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

mishele said:


> I'm a mom. Doesn't bother me one bit.



Yea.. but you are a SUPER mom! and a qualified and proven Arteest!


----------



## unpopular (Sep 5, 2012)

Let's start posting our own worst stuff. From the "it's always better in over processed HDR" fauxtographic appraoch, I m proud(ish) to present "Lines":


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

Jaemie said:


> Annie Leibovitz is a mother. I wonder how she would feel being called a MWAC.



I suspect she would KNOW it was not an applicable term for her!  And Laugh about it!


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> ...besides a good chuckle that is...



... and since we were asked not to smother a good chuckle at once... 

But I agree. It is about.
Plus I'm hungry and need to go get myself some dinner.
Hence I can't be here any more and try to keep a lid on things.
Which calls for the padlock, I'm afraid.


----------



## LaFoto (Sep 5, 2012)

And "unpopular" - feel free to start a Themes Thread in the Photo Themes on our worst photos, ok? That's the place for the kind of collections. (There might even be one there, for all I know...)
Off to get myself something to eat then...


----------

