Another wedding photographer screws couples over..

Kevin Kramer

horrible..

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/business/Wedding_Photo_Nightmare_For_Newlyweds_Philadelphia.html

Moogle Pepper

whoa! This is really close to home!!

Kevin Kramer

Moogle Pepper wrote:

whoa! This is really close to home!!

yeah it sucks that he's doing this to people in the New Jersey/Philadelphia area.. it's pretty pathetic.

Shima

Very sad that no one caught on and shut him down sooner too.

Ed911

Am I wrong, or it that woman sitting in the back on the right, the same woman that was the plaintiff in the video of the Judge Joe Brown show that's been going around...or just a reasonable facsimile. On the JJB show the wedding had taken place back in 2008...and plaintiff did say that she was looking for another photographer...

Maybe just a conscidence...

Agnieszka

Sorry, that will sounds bad (not trying to defend him here AT ALL), but at least they got SOMETHING! I know a bride that didn't get one RAW photo ...... NOTHING, and she paid like $6,000!!! dunno

I hope brides that experience stuff like this are able to connect via internet & trace down the photographer ... it's ridiculous how some photographers do their business!

The_Fat_Zebra

This makes me wonder about the quality of reporting. First, the reporters did not rebut whether this man indeed have a long string of difficulties in his family life? Second, they did not state that he did not wish to talk to them after tracing him down, so what did he have to say? Third, what was the quality of the RAW files, was it purely about prints not arriving and could this be fixed by partial reimbursement? Fourth, the reporter implied that he left to hide from his clients, but they did not prove this. He may have moved because past failures have tarnished his image? Sure he made many mistakes, and may be a scam-artist and/or should have corrected past wrongs. However, this report may have also destroyed a second chance of a person who climbed out of a deep hole.

Tay

The_Fat_Zebra wrote:

This makes me wonder about the quality of reporting. First, the reporters did not rebut whether this man indeed have a long string of difficulties in his family life? Second, they did not state that he did not wish to talk to them after tracing him down, so what did he have to say? Third, what was the quality of the RAW files, was it purely about prints not arriving and could this be fixed by partial reimbursement? Fourth, the reporter implied that he left to hide from his clients, but they did not prove this. He may have moved because past failures have tarnished his image? Sure he made many mistakes, and may be a scam-artist and/or should have corrected past wrongs. However, this report may have also destroyed a second chance of a person who climbed out of a deep hole.

Yeah, it seems fishy. Especially where they played the video of them coming up to his door, and then never said another thing about it, haha. Why on earth would they point it out and then not provide what he had to say, or whether or not he even answered the door? Crummy, sketchy reporting.

Luckily these couples at least have CD's of their photos, and can still seek editing and prints. Makes me wonder, since he at least provided those, that his excuses weren't sincere... I dunno.

jdorseydesign

Here's the guy's new site according to the news report.

http://charlesjosephs.com/

Scott_Quier

jdorseydesign wrote:

Here's the guy's new site according to the news report.

http://charlesjosephs.com/

Just went to the site and, with the possible exception of one photo, they all look a bit soft - well below anything I would want to use as an advertising draw.

ShepsMom

His new website link didn't work for me. It took me to Go daddy's page ??

Art Scott

ShepsMom wrote:

His new website link didn't work for me. It took me to Go daddy's page ??

I followed the link also and landed on
godaddys page.......wow that was a quik take down.


EDIT: just went to the GoDaddy Page the link takes you too and checked out the Who IS.....and that even looks fishy, smelly.......I use GD for my doamain regristrations but all the contact info is to me Here in Wichita where my business base is...........and charlesjosephs.com doesn't expire until march of next year......whole thing just seems scammy.............

WillCAD

The_Fat_Zebra wrote:

This makes me wonder about the quality of reporting. First, the reporters did not rebut whether this man indeed have a long string of difficulties in his family life? Second, they did not state that he did not wish to talk to them after tracing him down, so what did he have to say? Third, what was the quality of the RAW files, was it purely about prints not arriving and could this be fixed by partial reimbursement? Fourth, the reporter implied that he left to hide from his clients, but they did not prove this. He may have moved because past failures have tarnished his image? Sure he made many mistakes, and may be a scam-artist and/or should have corrected past wrongs. However, this report may have also destroyed a second chance of a person who climbed out of a deep hole.

First, does it really matter what personal problems a business owner is having if he takes money for products that he never produced? If he went through a divorce, his mother died, his phone was cut off, his house burned down, or whatever, NONE of that excuses ducking your clients and not delivering the products you contracted to provide, or refunding the money you were paid to provide them.

Second, I agree that the report didn't present the photographer's point of view or any footage of any interview with the photographer. I'd like to hear his side of the story, even though I'm inclined to side with the clients in this case.

Third, the story said nothing about the quality of the RAW files other than one client saying that the CDs contained un-retouched files. But it did say, several times, that the photographer had not delivered ANY of the other products he was contracted to deliver, including prints and albums, except for a single engagement print that one client received prior to their wedding.

Fourth, whether he left to hide from his clients or he left to retrace Lewis and Clark's epic journey or he left to help Jack Bauer recover a lost nuke doesn't matter; he has not contacted any of those clients or responded to any of their attempts to contact him, and that's ducking your clients.

However, he's not a "person who climbed out of a deep hole." He never climbed out of the hole, he never made an effort to make good on his contracts or refund the money to those clients, and he moved to a new house and opened a new business under a completely different first and last name. It seems pretty obvious to me that he ran out on these clients; whether he was a total scam artist or just a guy who ran into some bad luck, there are no circumstances short of entering Witsec that would excuse such a cut-and-run.

Bottom line - WHY he ducked out on his clients and defrauded them is unimportant. What's important is that he DID duck out on his clients and defraud them, and until he makes good on his contractual obligations, he has no right to expect a "second chance"; he's still not done screwing up his first chance.

A man who screws up big time and tries to make amends deserves our sympathy and support. A man who screws up big time and tries to run away from the consequences, at the expense of other peoples' happiness, is not deserving of our sympathy or support, only of our scorn. And in this case, of legal prosecution for fraud.

bmoreshooter

One sided or not, makes no difference. A quick glance at his contract shows that he promised enlargements and video. He made an agreement and did not follow it. Also, he charged TAXES. Mayby a call to the IRS is in order.