Ohhhhh, ouch!! Looks like somebody doesn't know anything about his/her camera settings, ... nor flash, ... nor posing, ... nor cropping, ... nor post processing ... nor the option of simply throwing the bad pics away ...
Ohhhhh, ouch!! Looks like somebody doesn't know anything about his/her camera settings, ... nor flash, ... nor posing, ... nor cropping, ... nor post processing ... nor the option of simply throwing the bad pics away ...
Wow... I wouldn't have thought you could get exposures that terrible if you just put your camera in idiot mode (well maybe, but not if you had half a brain to put subjects in decent light). Did he shoot the whole wedding with a low-end point and shoot? lol
Ohhhhh, ouch!! Looks like somebody doesn't know anything about his/her camera settings, ... nor flash, ... nor posing, ... nor cropping, ... nor post processing ... nor the option of simply throwing the bad pics away ...
This is the kind of thing that I imagine every time I see someone asking about how to start a photography business even though their other questions make it totally obvious they don't understand very much about photography.
Really sorry for the couple... :cry
What's interesting, according to the article B&G have chosen the 'tog after being through 11 (eleven) fairs!
Does it mean he simply had a bad day at their wedding or the rest of the crowd was much worse...
Or... maybe he was the cheapest?
Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm 1.8 | Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 | Canon 75-300mm EF f 4.5 III | Opteka Grip | Canon 580exII | 2 Vivitar 383 Flash's and a home studio setup.
Really sorry for the couple... :cry
What's interesting, according to the article B&G have chosen the 'tog after being through 11 (eleven) fairs!
Does it mean he simply had a bad day at their wedding or the rest of the crowd was much worse...
Or... maybe he was the cheapest?
Maybe cheapest? You never know!
Sheeesh!!
nor the option of simply throwing the bad pics away
They said he had 22 usable. So if he threw away ALL the bad pics, there wouldn't be any to give.
They said he had 22 usable. So if he threw away ALL the bad pics, there wouldn't be any to give.
really is quite a horrible photographer, no wonder the couple sued him for damages, I think this is the exact example of when it is applicable to sue for misrepresentation of work. Most guests could have taken better shots!
My hope is that other bride and grooms don't get on the lawsuit bandwagon after this example and decide to attempt to score some free photography.... I mean, how can you proove that a wedding isn't up to snuff with what the photographer showed them in the first place? I wish they would show examples from the photographers portfolio to show exactly why the couple chose them in the first place.
Next thought: as we show our clients only the best of the best of our work, are we misrepresenting ourselves? Not every photo is a portfolio shot. But it may require a bunch more than portfolio shots to properly tell the story of the day.
My hope is that other bride and grooms don't get on the lawsuit bandwagon after this example and decide to attempt to score some free photography.... I mean, how can you proove that a wedding isn't up to snuff with what the photographer showed them in the first place? I wish they would show examples from the photographers portfolio to show exactly why the couple chose them in the first place.
Next thought: as we show our clients only the best of the best of our work, are we misrepresenting ourselves? Not every photo is a portfolio shot. But it may require a bunch more than portfolio shots to properly tell the story of the day.
Thoughts?
I agree completely on both points! Especially scary to think that there isn't anything stopping anyone from filing a lawsuit. Someone commented on that news thread that it's probably someone that's used images from a stock company on their website... it didn't get them very far, did it!
When I have a client interested in my photography work, I make sure they see a few examples of my weddings, start to finish. Printed examples and of course, my portfolio. I don't want any surprises. Truth be told. The average joe isn't worried about lighting, isn't worried about the technical aspects as we are. You know, the technical things that drive us nuts, they are more worried about the content, that it tells a story and speaks to them and a memory from their day. Of course, there is a limit, when a 5 year old can pump out something more correct than this "professional"!
Next thought: as we show our clients only the best of the best of our work, are we misrepresenting ourselves? Not every photo is a portfolio shot. But it may require a bunch more than portfolio shots to properly tell the story of the day.
Thoughts?
That's exactly why you don't show your wedding clients ALL the drafts, only those you culled and worked on...
Come think of it, you can return from a typical weddding with 1,500..2,000 frames.Yet you need to present your client with 100.200 top (most of the albums wouldn't hold more than that anyway). Which means, 75%..90% is a trashbin material this way or another. Why would you give your client 9 of10 chances to call you an n00b/r00kie and sue you? Just do your homework and you'll be fine.
Of course, if *that* was the top 10% - well, maybe he should be sued...
I was at the park yesterday. There were at least 30 photographers there with clients. Myself and one other had off camera flash, I only saw 3 other photographers that even had a flash and they all had Gary Fong type diffusers on their flashes for outdoor sunny day photography.
And the places they were posing people, and the way they were posing, and the lack of interaction.
Doesn't surprise me a bit that wannabe photographers get sued....but really the people that hire them are just as at fault.....unless the photographer has misrepresented his abilities with a falsified website....which I know does happen.
If a photographer only has 8 or 10 example photos on his website then run don't walk to the next .....
And if someone hires a photographer cause he is cheap and don't see examples of his work then you get what you paid for.
Someone commented on that news thread that it's probably someone that's used images from a stock company on their website... it didn't get them very far, did it!
I shot 2nd at 3 weddings last year for a studio that used stock photography in their portfolio... I was shocked and ran away screaming from that one! She was a competent photographer but didn't have the creative skills to pull off the kind of shots she new clients were looking for. I nailed some really great stuff while shooting with her and I wonder how many of MY images are now in her portfolio. She wouldn't allow me to use my own images that I shot for her on my website...
This is a nightmare for sure. I'm glad the client won.
Shoddy photography is a self correcting problem. Word-of-mouth will put such a photog out of business quick enough.
Now, you let someone win in court due to "unsatisfactory" images. Hmmm...
How many judges are good photographers, or KNOW enough about it to set court precedence? Once its on the books, its like an open can of worms.
I know of a local photog that was taken to court with a law-suit due to the bride claiming his images made her look fat. Well, the judge didn't have to be knowledgeable about photography to observe that she was in fact large. Luckily the case was thrown out.
But what if it hadn't been?
Too fat
Too thin
Too far away
Too close
Too many closeups
Not enough closeups
Feel bad for the bride and groom. Other than that though...
HAHAHAHAHA
Most non-photographers wouldn't do that bad with point and shoot cameras.
Photographer is to blame for the legal action too. They should have been covered by their contract. "All photographs will be taken at the sole discretion of the photographer." (i.e. If you don't like it, or I forget to take it, you can't sue me.) Of course I keep my quality so high that I never expect this to be an issue, and thanks to that clause, I know it never will be.
Shoddy photography is a self correcting problem. Word-of-mouth will put such a photog out of business quick enough.
Now, you let someone win in court due to "unsatisfactory" images. Hmmm...
How many judges are good photographers, or KNOW enough about it to set court precedence? Once its on the books, its like an open can of worms.
I know of a local photog that was taken to court with a law-suit due to the bride claiming his images made her look fat. Well, the judge didn't have to be knowledgeable about photography to observe that she was in fact large. Luckily the case was thrown out.
But what if it hadn't been?
Too fat
Too thin
Too far away
Too close
Too many closeups
Not enough closeups
On and on and on...
This same thing happend here. The photographer is actually the guy I intern for now. The photog shot my friends wedding. They misunderstood some things about what they were getting. He said the cameras would be synced so that if he was taking a shot and his 2nd was taking a shot it would be covered. They thought he meant they would be synced and when he took the shot both camers would take the picture at the exact same time. Also she complained about the looking fat issue and went into the studio crying and threating to take him to court for breaking his contract. He decided to go to the reception to test lighting and such and those pics were left out of the 500+ he gave them out of thousands. She said he broke his contract because he didnt provide those images even though all of his contracts unless modified say x amount of hours of wedding day coverage. So my friend and his wife do nothing but bad mouth his work to everyone else. A few months later I talked to another friend and his wife tells me they liked the pics, but the bride didnt lose 30lbs and said she looked fat in all of them. Needless to say she ruined some potential business for him over the fact that she didnt lose weight when she wanted to. That situation is the #1 reason why I probably will continue to shoot 2nd at weddings for the next couple of years before making the jump.
Now after reading that article it made me mad. Im not going to go into my wedding photog that had 30+ years of photography experince to be using a GF diffuser outside and shooting at ISO 800 in bright sunlight outside. Thats just a tid bit of the problems. Anyways I went on long enough! Glad the couple won in this case!
Feel bad for the bride and groom. Other than that though...
HAHAHAHAHA
Most non-photographers wouldn't do that bad with point and shoot cameras.
Photographer is to blame for the legal action too. They should have been covered by their contract.**snip**
Good communication and rapport go a long way as well. If you form a friend-like relationship with your clients then they are more often than not easy to deal with on all levels. If you fully explain your processes and abilities to them and let them know what to expect this also makes things easier. Just because you have it in your contract doesn't make them any happier. Of course in the case of this guy he was either 2 sheets to the wind or he just sucks. Either of which will get you sued!
Comments
Wow... I wouldn't have thought you could get exposures that terrible if you just put your camera in idiot mode (well maybe, but not if you had half a brain to put subjects in decent light). Did he shoot the whole wedding with a low-end point and shoot? lol
Craig Maunder Photography: commercial and wedding photography for Hamilton, London, Toronto, Waterloo and Southern Ontario
This is the kind of thing that I imagine every time I see someone asking about how to start a photography business even though their other questions make it totally obvious they don't understand very much about photography.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
What's interesting, according to the article B&G have chosen the 'tog after being through 11 (eleven) fairs!
Does it mean he simply had a bad day at their wedding or the rest of the crowd was much worse...
Or... maybe he was the cheapest?
My Site http://www.jayclarkphotography.com
Canon Rebel T1i | Canon 50mm 1.8 | Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 | Canon 75-300mm EF f 4.5 III | Opteka Grip | Canon 580exII | 2 Vivitar 383 Flash's and a home studio setup.
Maybe cheapest? You never know!
Sheeesh!!
They said he had 22 usable. So if he threw away ALL the bad pics, there wouldn't be any to give.
www.tednghiem.com
really is quite a horrible photographer, no wonder the couple sued him for damages, I think this is the exact example of when it is applicable to sue for misrepresentation of work. Most guests could have taken better shots!
Facebook: Friend / Fan || Twitter: @shimamizu || Google Plus
My hope is that other bride and grooms don't get on the lawsuit bandwagon after this example and decide to attempt to score some free photography.... I mean, how can you proove that a wedding isn't up to snuff with what the photographer showed them in the first place? I wish they would show examples from the photographers portfolio to show exactly why the couple chose them in the first place.
Next thought: as we show our clients only the best of the best of our work, are we misrepresenting ourselves? Not every photo is a portfolio shot. But it may require a bunch more than portfolio shots to properly tell the story of the day.
Thoughts?
I agree completely on both points! Especially scary to think that there isn't anything stopping anyone from filing a lawsuit. Someone commented on that news thread that it's probably someone that's used images from a stock company on their website... it didn't get them very far, did it!
When I have a client interested in my photography work, I make sure they see a few examples of my weddings, start to finish. Printed examples and of course, my portfolio. I don't want any surprises. Truth be told. The average joe isn't worried about lighting, isn't worried about the technical aspects as we are. You know, the technical things that drive us nuts, they are more worried about the content, that it tells a story and speaks to them and a memory from their day. Of course, there is a limit, when a 5 year old can pump out something more correct than this "professional"!
Come think of it, you can return from a typical weddding with 1,500..2,000 frames.Yet you need to present your client with 100.200 top (most of the albums wouldn't hold more than that anyway). Which means, 75%..90% is a trashbin material this way or another. Why would you give your client 9 of10 chances to call you an n00b/r00kie and sue you? Just do your homework and you'll be fine.
Of course, if *that* was the top 10% - well, maybe he should be sued...
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003085685580
And the places they were posing people, and the way they were posing, and the lack of interaction.
Doesn't surprise me a bit that wannabe photographers get sued....but really the people that hire them are just as at fault.....unless the photographer has misrepresented his abilities with a falsified website....which I know does happen.
If a photographer only has 8 or 10 example photos on his website then run don't walk to the next .....
And if someone hires a photographer cause he is cheap and don't see examples of his work then you get what you paid for.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
I shot 2nd at 3 weddings last year for a studio that used stock photography in their portfolio... I was shocked and ran away screaming from that one! She was a competent photographer but didn't have the creative skills to pull off the kind of shots she new clients were looking for. I nailed some really great stuff while shooting with her and I wonder how many of MY images are now in her portfolio. She wouldn't allow me to use my own images that I shot for her on my website...
This is a nightmare for sure. I'm glad the client won.
Matt
Bodies: Canon 5d mkII, 5d, 40d
Lenses: 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4.0L, 135 f2L, 85 f1.8, 50 1.8, 100 f2.8 macro, Tamron 28-105 f2.8
Flash: 2x 580 exII, Canon ST-E2, 2x Pocket Wizard flexTT5, and some lower end studio strobes
Where does it end?
Shoddy photography is a self correcting problem. Word-of-mouth will put such a photog out of business quick enough.
Now, you let someone win in court due to "unsatisfactory" images. Hmmm...
How many judges are good photographers, or KNOW enough about it to set court precedence? Once its on the books, its like an open can of worms.
I know of a local photog that was taken to court with a law-suit due to the bride claiming his images made her look fat. Well, the judge didn't have to be knowledgeable about photography to observe that she was in fact large. Luckily the case was thrown out.
But what if it hadn't been?
Too fat
Too thin
Too far away
Too close
Too many closeups
Not enough closeups
On and on and on...
Most non-photographers wouldn't do that bad with point and shoot cameras.
Photographer is to blame for the legal action too. They should have been covered by their contract. "All photographs will be taken at the sole discretion of the photographer." (i.e. If you don't like it, or I forget to take it, you can't sue me.) Of course I keep my quality so high that I never expect this to be an issue, and thanks to that clause, I know it never will be.
My latest project: Worship Backgrounds
My twitter habit: Daniel Roberts
This same thing happend here. The photographer is actually the guy I intern for now. The photog shot my friends wedding. They misunderstood some things about what they were getting. He said the cameras would be synced so that if he was taking a shot and his 2nd was taking a shot it would be covered. They thought he meant they would be synced and when he took the shot both camers would take the picture at the exact same time. Also she complained about the looking fat issue and went into the studio crying and threating to take him to court for breaking his contract. He decided to go to the reception to test lighting and such and those pics were left out of the 500+ he gave them out of thousands. She said he broke his contract because he didnt provide those images even though all of his contracts unless modified say x amount of hours of wedding day coverage. So my friend and his wife do nothing but bad mouth his work to everyone else. A few months later I talked to another friend and his wife tells me they liked the pics, but the bride didnt lose 30lbs and said she looked fat in all of them. Needless to say she ruined some potential business for him over the fact that she didnt lose weight when she wanted to. That situation is the #1 reason why I probably will continue to shoot 2nd at weddings for the next couple of years before making the jump.
Now after reading that article it made me mad. Im not going to go into my wedding photog that had 30+ years of photography experince to be using a GF diffuser outside and shooting at ISO 800 in bright sunlight outside. Thats just a tid bit of the problems. Anyways I went on long enough! Glad the couple won in this case!
Good communication and rapport go a long way as well. If you form a friend-like relationship with your clients then they are more often than not easy to deal with on all levels. If you fully explain your processes and abilities to them and let them know what to expect this also makes things easier. Just because you have it in your contract doesn't make them any happier. Of course in the case of this guy he was either 2 sheets to the wind or he just sucks. Either of which will get you sued!
matt
Bodies: Canon 5d mkII, 5d, 40d
Lenses: 24-70 f2.8L, 70-200 f4.0L, 135 f2L, 85 f1.8, 50 1.8, 100 f2.8 macro, Tamron 28-105 f2.8
Flash: 2x 580 exII, Canon ST-E2, 2x Pocket Wizard flexTT5, and some lower end studio strobes