# Faux-Pro photographer rant and catch-22



## bratkinson (May 10, 2015)

I'm stuck between being a 'politically correct' ex-grand-stepfather to my ex-stepdaughter in regards to the photographer she's contracted with for regular photo shoots with her now 10-month old son.  Or, do I 'open up' and let her know she's getting gypped!  I'm a thousand miles away so I can't say much or go take the pictures myself, unfortunately.

It was obvious in the first photographs I received that the supposed pro-photographer apparently set up a studio with nothing more than a very simple background or two and a chair or two and that's it.  That I could live with.  But it was apparent last July that he had little knowledge of portrait photography and/or studio lighting as it looked like he was using a single window somewhat to the side and in front of the subject for lighting.  The problem is that the catch light in my step grandsons' eyes covered the entire pupil and more in each eye and was clearly rectangular.  I mentioned his to her and in subsequent photos, it improved very slightly.

Now, I am not, have not, nor have any desires to be a professional photographer, nor one who takes portraits for pay.  But I'm at the point where I can't stand it any longer.

Here's a link to the photographers pictures of my step-grandson:

Picasa Web Albums - Fix - Sebastian 10 ...

I'm told it will be up for a week or so.

He's clearly improved his studio with various new backgrounds, but it looks to me that he's taken to Photoshopping in catch lights in Sebastians' eyes.  Every one is exactly square, exactly the same size, and still overwhelms me as the viewer.  Why do I say they're Photoshopped in?  Because catch lights, whether natural or the result of a well-positioned light source, will always be in the same place in both eyes.  Maybe at 4 o'clock relative to each pupil, maybe 10 o'clock, whatever.  But never in different positions relative to the pupil and this is the only case I've seen of very square catch lights.  Either he's one really-bad photographer or has a rather screwy home-built, too big, square 'flash box' of some kind.

So, here's my problem.  Do I tell her as I have after the first set of shots they are all good pictures, etc?  Or do I tell her the truth?  It's time for a different photographer.  I promise I won't say a thing about his head being cut off, or the wiggly line wall paper has to go, etc!


----------



## tirediron (May 10, 2015)

While I agree 100% on the quality of work, there are many more issues than just the horrible catchlights, but in my opinion:  Keep the peace.  Keep your pie-hole shut! 

If you were next door, you could try the old, "Hey cool pictures, I had an idea I've been wanting to try...." but as that's not an option...


----------



## sm4him (May 10, 2015)

Lol--in photo 18 of 30, it kinda looks like he accidentally cloned one of those "catch lights" into the kid's mouth. 

My first thought on reading your situation:
Is the child's mother pleased with what she's getting, or has she said anything about them that leads you to believe she thinks they could be better?

If she is happy with the results of what she is paying for...well, then, see John's post above.

It might be YOUR grandson...step-grandson...relation...but it AIN'T your circus, or your monkeys.


----------



## bribrius (May 10, 2015)

if it bothers you that much, find a great photographer around her where she lives. Send them a check, and tell her she has free portraits coming. Then she will know the difference.


----------



## Derrel (May 10, 2015)

The kid is cute...he's in-focus, and the silly hardwood flooring, fake moulding strip, and gaudy "wallpaper" is very much of this era...these photos look like low-end but in-focus toddler pics circa 2010-2015...very,very much of this era. Annnnd, I expect that they cost only $40-$50 per CD.

I would definitely not say much except, "My, how handsome he is!" an "Thank-you." Seriously. I was expecting about 20 times worse stuff.


----------



## bribrius (May 10, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The kid is cute...he's in-focus, and the silly hardwood flooring, fake moulding strip, and gaudy "wallpaper" is very much of this era...these photos look like low-end but in-focus toddler pics circa 2010-2015...very,very much of this era. Annnnd, I expect that they cost only $40-$50 per CD.
> 
> I would definitely not say much except, "My, how handsome he is!" an "Thank-you." Seriously. I was expecting about 20 times worse stuff.


they really aren't that bad imo, but i know  about nil on portraits. The catchlights, are down right annoying and tacky though. Makes the photos just suck, when they could have been pretty decent.


----------



## Forkie (May 11, 2015)

I'm afraid I don't see any evidence of Photoshopped catchlights.  Those are catchlights from a softbox camera-left.  

If you look at picture #2, you can see the reflection of the softbox and also where light from the softbox is bouncing off of the wooden floor.  So, either the catchlights are real, or the photographer has a super-human attention to detail in processing, but lacks it in all other areas - which I reckon is unlikely.  

I actually think it's not a bad set of photos and that the little lad's eyes look bright and alert and happy.  Yes, there are a few shots in there that are not from the best angle, but you'll always have the odd one like that, here and there, no matter who shoots them.  The most important thing is if the mother likes them.  They are very standard toddler portraits which we see time and time again.  They're not particularly innovative or new, but they are good photos.  

Maybe the photographer is just starting out and doesn't have a full range of light modifiers.  I only have a couple of softboxes myself.  Building up a collection of lighting and modifiers takes time (if you even _want_ a full range of them) and it is by no means a pre-requisite to being professional.


----------



## gsgary (May 11, 2015)

Let her learn from her mistakes


----------



## DanOstergren (May 11, 2015)

I honestly don't see what's so bad about these photos and personally I don't think your opinion is any of your ex-stepdaughter's business.

Also, I happen to believe a single window creates an excellent indoor light source, nor does using one instead of studio lighting make anyone a "faux-tographer".


----------



## Braineack (May 11, 2015)

bratkinson said:


> He's clearly improved his studio with various new backgrounds, but it looks to me that he's taken to Photoshopping in catch lights in Sebastians' eyes.  Every one is exactly square, exactly the same size, and still overwhelms me as the viewer.  Why do I say they're Photoshopped in?  Because catch lights, whether natural or the result of a well-positioned light source, will always be in the same place in both eyes.  Maybe at 4 o'clock relative to each pupil, maybe 10 o'clock, whatever.  But never in different positions relative to the pupil and this is the only case I've seen of very square catch lights.  Either he's one really-bad photographer or has a rather screwy home-built, too big, square 'flash box' of some kind.



He made a mistake of positioning the light too low, but he didn't photoshop these catchlights.

faux-analyzer.


----------



## pixmedic (May 11, 2015)

the lighting on these isn't terrible. the wallpaper is terrible. 
if anything, they needed more light camera right for fill either by another light source or a reflector. 
the square catchlights are _*really*_ throwing me off though.  I guess im just used to the round variety of catchlight. 

lotta duplicates here. the 3 pictures with the kid in the chair all have different DOF's.  Personally, i would have picked the one with the entire kid in focus and just used that one.  A couple are missed focus, or pretty soft focus, and a couple that I would have definitely wanted more DOF on. 

Sorry...you probably weren't looking for critique. force of habit. 
Overall though, you don't have to feel too terribly bad for the parents...this really is not an awful set. I was expecting to see much worse after reading your post. 
I suspect they will be pleased, and that the bill wasn't overly extravagant. 

My advice?
let this sleeping dog lie. (lay?) whatever_*.*_
it doesn't seem worth a possible ex-inlaw-twice removed-whatever family feud over mediocre pictures. 
The kid looks happy, the parents are probably happy, it probably didnt cost them much...it sounds like a good time was had by all. just let it be.  you gotta pick your battles wisely.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2015)

Forkie said:


> I'm afraid I don't see any evidence of Photoshopped catchlights.  Those are catchlights from a softbox camera-left.
> 
> If you look at picture #2, you can see the reflection of the softbox and also where light from the softbox is bouncing off of the wooden floor.  So, either the catchlights are real, or the photographer has a super-human attention to detail in processing, but lacks it in all other areas - which I reckon is unlikely.
> 
> ...


i don't know how he did it, other than that, the images are decent. But the square catch lights looked frucked.
Ain't no way around that.


----------



## DevC (May 11, 2015)

Honestly, the photos aren't that bad.
Sure they aren't perfect, but man are they livable.


----------



## 480sparky (May 11, 2015)

Myself, I don't care for the faux catchlight.   But if the customer who's forking over the money for them is happy, then we're not in any position to judge them.

Time to move on and go shoot something.


----------



## Braineack (May 11, 2015)

they aren't faux catchlights.


----------



## AlanKlein (May 11, 2015)

Send her a few empty picture frames and tell her what a great grandson she made for you.  Also stop the "step-" this and the "step-" that.


----------



## waday (May 11, 2015)

I don't think they're too bad. I've seen worse.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2015)

AlanKlein said:


> Send her a few empty picture frames and tell her what a great grandson she made for you.  Also stop the "step-" this and the "step-" that.


hang them on a wall the catch lights will be even more obvious. Easier overlooking that kind of thing on a tablet or computer screen.


----------



## astroNikon (May 11, 2015)

Good enough pictures for your ex-step-daughter and for memories of his youth.
Be thankful the photographer didn't buy a "gee-whiz-bang" f/1.4 lens yet.


----------



## Designer (May 11, 2015)

bratkinson said:


> So, here's my problem.  Do I tell her as I have after the first set of shots they are all good pictures, etc?  Or do I tell her the truth?


I always blurt out the unpopular truth.


----------



## Dave442 (May 11, 2015)

Is she sending you the photos sets for critic, to see the grandson, or to select the ones you want prints of?


----------



## Braineack (May 11, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Good enough pictures for your ex-step-daughter and for memories of his youth.
> Be thankful the photographer didn't buy a "gee-whiz-bang" f/1.4 lens yet.



they were shot using a 5DmII and a 24-70 2.8L.   They were shot at f/3.5, should have been f/5.6 to prevent the DOF issues.

just want to get this in again:* the catchlights aren't fake.*


----------



## astroNikon (May 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Good enough pictures for your ex-step-daughter and for memories of his youth.
> ...


Why are you repeating this to me ?


----------



## 480sparky (May 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> they aren't faux catchlights.



Myself, I don't care for the catchlight. But if the customer who's forking over the money for them is happy, then we're not in any position to judge them.

Time to move on and go shoot something.


----------



## soufiej (May 11, 2015)

Should you be sitting at the table when the waiter brings out the proscuitto blanco for your family, would you begin to comment on the region of the pig from which the proscuitto was taken?  And why that was so completely incorrect for making "proper" proscuitto blanco?   Why the aging of the meat was so vastly inferior to other proscuitto's you've had served in Parma?  If no one else at the table had said anything about the proscuitto?  If someone other than you were paying for the meal?  

Really, you are tearing apart something that doesn't need comment.  And you are blowing it completely out of proportion if you have reached the point of asking a photography forum about the issue.  *There are times when you are allowed to make a comment.  Basically, when you are asked to do so.  And there are times when you simply keep your mouth shut.  Basically, all the other times.  *

Unless you have been asked to critique the photographer's work, shut up and be happy with the new addition to your family.  Don't mention you will never display any photos of the child since you are insulted by their very existence.  If you wish to have a happy relationship with this side of the family going forward, realize no one asked for your opinion and, therefore, no one desires to hear your hyper-criticism of the photos.  If the mother is not asking, you shouldn't be talking.   

I would agree with the idea of locating a high end photographer and paying them for their services.  They should be for a formal family portrait which will be a keepsake.   Give the session as a gift with your best - your very best -  wishes and tell how much you've enjoyed having the photos of the child.  THE CHILD!  Remember?  You've been sent photos of "THE CHILD"!  

Really?!  You can look at that face and only notice catchlights?!   Good Grief!


----------



## vintagesnaps (May 11, 2015)

Did she get one of those packages where they get repeat sessions as the child gets older? If she did I don't know that she'd want to switch photographers now.

These don't seem to be great but not the worst either so I suppose it depends on your relationship; you may be able to say something about the quality if you can figure out how to say it in a tactful way. But as long as she gets some photos where the kid looks cute she might be happy with that.

And he is a cute little guy, although in a few of the photos I don't think he looks too happy. And doesn't look like he's sitting too comfortably in a couple of those, the one that's a wooden u shaped seat and the white chair (even if there's an adult close by that looks too high for a child that age).


----------



## MOREGONE (May 11, 2015)

I think the pictures look fine. Sure they could be better, but what is the real point that you're trying to make?

That this photographer isn't worth of taking pictures for money? Or not worthy of taking pictures of your ex-step grandchild?  I don't work for free and don't expect other people too. We all start somewhere and need practice to improve. This photographer put time and effort into these photos. There is nothing Faux about this photographer.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 11, 2015)

Adorable grand kid


----------



## jovince3000 (May 11, 2015)

Looking at these pictures, I can see myself doing worst without actually trying. 

Though, I would have maybe positioned the softbox a big higher and probably have used a rectangular one or an octagon-shaped softbox for the catchlight, I agree that the perfect square is sooooooo anoying.


----------



## Derrel (May 11, 2015)

Earlier this AM I sent the photographer an e-mail...in that e-mail I even took an educated guess that she was using a 50x50 inch Westcott softbox,and I provided her with the URL at B&H Photo of the one I thought she was using.

I just heard back from her. Yep...she said my guess was correct...Westcott 50x50 inch softbox. And 100% REAL catchlights.


----------



## pixmedic (May 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Earlier this AM I sent the photographer an e-mail...in that e-mail I even took an educated guess that she was using a 50x50 inch Westcott softbox,and I provided here with the URL at B&H Photo.
> 
> I just heard back from her. Yep...she said my guess was correct...Westcott 50x50 inch softbox. And 100% REAL catchlights.



sounds like a little  better than a guess if you nailed it right down to the size and brand.


----------



## rexbobcat (May 11, 2015)

Well, um, I honestly don't think that the photos are that bad? I mean, they appear to have some intense noise reduction and over-softening of the skin, but it's not nearly the worst that I've seen. 

The catchlight is a bit jarring (I prefer the octobox/umbrella look), but I don't think they're 'shopped. I can't imagine a photographer who takes Olan Mills-esque portraits to be able to effectively place catchlights in their subject's eyes.

They appear to be sound images, marred by terrible post-processing.


----------



## Derrel (May 11, 2015)

Well, there are a number of reasons that Westcott 50x50 is so popular...it pops open on an umbrella shaft, which eliminates the need for a speed ring. The price is right. It's a nice size. A great brand. It has GOOD promotion on YouTube and thru CreativeLive.com. It's the biggest Apollo. It has 135 reviews at B&H. I had also looked at about 75 of her images on Facebook, so I could tell it was a BIG, square box. Alsos, the Apollo is a box that doesn't lend itself to a lot of angling and tilting or boom use, without using an articulated arm on top of the lightstand, due to the way the light stand enters the BOTTOM of the box, so the pivot point is literally INSIDE the box. And I could see that was the way she's using the light typically: what Tanya is doing is creating a LARGE, broad source of quality, soft light, with minimal fall-off across the width of the set, which is a smart decision for pictures of little kids! I looked at a bunch of her pics, and gauged the catchlight size against the eyes and the size that "I know children actually are"...when I saw the shape of the catchlights on the shots of the two small kids, lying down on the floor and shot from above, I could tell pretty accurately that it was a large box, placed lowish (I knew that by the placement, obviously),and that the catchlights were _actually real ones_.

Westcott Recessed Mega JS Apollo 50 x 50 2348 B H Photo


----------



## mattpayne11 (May 11, 2015)

Derrel said:


> The kid is cute...he's in-focus, and the silly hardwood flooring, fake moulding strip, and gaudy "wallpaper" is very much of this era...these photos look like low-end but in-focus toddler pics circa 2010-2015...very,very much of this era. Annnnd, I expect that they cost only $40-$50 per CD.
> 
> I would definitely not say much except, "My, how handsome he is!" an "Thank-you." Seriously. I was expecting about 20 times worse stuff.



Man, I totally agree, I was expecting this to be a crapshow but actually there's some decent photos in there. You're one picky dude. The catchlight is obviously from a softbox...


----------



## bratkinson (May 11, 2015)

Thank you all for your replies. 

Yes, all parties including the rest of the grandparents are quite happy with the photographs they've been getting.  I'm led to believe it's some kind of recurring package deal from a photographer that's near their home.  For their wedding 3 years ago, they had an outstanding husband/wife team as photographers.  Perhaps convenience and price wins these days.  As mentioned by several, I'll continue to repeat 'what a cute kid' (he is) and withhold my opinions of the picture quality.  I'll go along with the crowd and keep peace in the family. 

But the oversize catch lights overwhelm my eye in every photo.  They're just too large in my opinion.  I'm just not the kind to turn out anything less than what I consider my best work.  Perhaps the photographer thinks they're doing a good job.  I also know it's impossible to please everybody.  I'm just being overly critical, I guess.


----------



## Vtec44 (May 11, 2015)

To be honest, the pictures are not bad at all.  I'd personally would love these and don't have a problem framing them.


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2015)

Vtec44 said:


> To be honest, the pictures are not bad at all.  I'd personally would love these and don't have a problem framing them.


i would agree except for the catch lights. A few of them i would definitely be in the "wtf" attitude with the photographer. But then again, i didn't pay for them and it isn't my kid so...

carry on... carry on..


----------



## bribrius (May 11, 2015)

bratkinson said:


> Thank you all for your replies.
> 
> Yes, all parties including the rest of the grandparents are quite happy with the photographs they've been getting.  I'm led to believe it's some kind of recurring package deal from a photographer that's near their home.  For their wedding 3 years ago, they had an outstanding husband/wife team as photographers.  Perhaps convenience and price wins these days.  As mentioned by several, I'll continue to repeat 'what a cute kid' (he is) and withhold my opinions of the picture quality.  I'll go along with the crowd and keep peace in the family.
> 
> But the oversize catch lights overwhelm my eye in every photo.  They're just too large in my opinion.  I'm just not the kind to turn out anything less than what I consider my best work.  Perhaps the photographer thinks they're doing a good job.  I also know it's impossible to please everybody.  I'm just being overly critical, I guess.


only because it isn't your child are you being overly critical. If i saw big square boxes in my kids eyes i sure would say something.

Course, for all we know she is paying fifty bucks a shoot, she might be getting her moneys worth.


----------



## bratkinson (May 11, 2015)

bribrius said:


> Course, for all we know she is paying fifty bucks a shoot, she might be getting her moneys worth.



I don't have a clue what she's paying for the every couple of months photos, but it's probably more than $50.


----------



## JulienMassie (May 11, 2015)

Faux pro is a bit hard ...
Nobody that has no photo knowledge will notice this ...


----------



## DanOstergren (May 12, 2015)

bratkinson said:


> Thank you all for your replies.
> 
> Yes, all parties including the rest of the grandparents are quite happy with the photographs they've been getting.  I'm led to believe it's some kind of recurring package deal from a photographer that's near their home.  For their wedding 3 years ago, they had an outstanding husband/wife team as photographers.  Perhaps convenience and price wins these days.  As mentioned by several, I'll continue to repeat 'what a cute kid' (he is) and withhold my opinions of the picture quality.  I'll go along with the crowd and keep peace in the family.
> 
> But the oversize catch lights overwhelm my eye in every photo.  They're just too large in my opinion.  I'm just not the kind to turn out anything less than what I consider my best work.  Perhaps the photographer thinks they're doing a good job.  I also know it's impossible to please everybody.  I'm just being overly critical, I guess.


Yes, I agree you're being way over-critical. 

Now I'm curious to see your work.


----------



## petrochemist (May 12, 2015)

waday said:


> I don't think they're too bad. I've seen worse.


 
I'm not really into portraits so in club sessions I've certainly taken worse!
There's nothing there I'd want to exhibit if I'd taken them, but most Facebook etc images are miles worse.


----------



## soufiej (May 12, 2015)

bratkinson said:


> Thank you all for your replies.
> 
> But the oversize catch lights overwhelm my eye in every photo.  They're just too large in my opinion.




Hmmmm ... ?  

Solution #1: Have any access to a fine point Sharpie? 

Solution #2:  Scan the photos and retouch them to make yourself happy.  Just don't mention it to the rest of the family or you will definitely be the "ex" of the group.


----------



## bratkinson (May 12, 2015)

DanOstergren said:


> bratkinson s photos Photography Forum[/url]


----------



## kass617 (May 14, 2015)

I'll pass on the information I got from a radio station manager, when I blurted out one of his employees was editing a piece of audio wrong (I was in school for audio engineering).  The employee (turns out was an intern) still got the job done to his bosses liking...

"No one like a know it all"  Especially when the final product isn't a s-show like I expected to see.
It's on par with the quality you would get at one of those mall "photography studio's" when they let your kids take pictures with a bunny on Easter.  

I took my kids there once.  Then I had my wedding photographer come and do a  2 hour family session.  $50 vs. $800.  You get what you pay for....and there aren't too many people willing to fork over hundreds of dollars over every time they want to capture a moment.

I do agree though, the square is really distracting....I'm not sure if it's because it was pointed out before hand or not.  I'm gonna show my wife the pictures later and ask if she notices anything weird.


----------

