With this camera I thee behead: Couple Evette and Gary Crack sue photographer who they claim ruined their big day | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312026/With-camera-I-thee-behead-Couple-Evette-Gary-Crack-sue-photographer-claim-ruined-big-day.html)

Ouch'

I suddenly feel a lot better about myself.

These were people who seemed to have a modest income, who hired a someone pretending to be a photographer for next to nothing, and got what they paid for, sadly. The location and setting were not nice, which made things worse. In my area people often hire photographers on craigslist. They do not interview the person they hire, and are often bitterly disappointed.

There is no way to protect people from themselves or from making poor choices.

These were people who seemed to have a modest income, who hired a someone pretending to be a photographer for next to nothing, and got what they paid for, sadly. The location and setting were not nice, which made things worse. In my area people often hire photographers on craigslist. They do not interview the person they hire, and are often bitterly disappointed.

There is no way to protect people from themselves or from making poor choices.

Makes me angry when potential clients ring up and dispute your prices by saying 'oh but he's charging so and so ... why are your prices so high'

FOR REASONS LIKE THIS!

I don't know... that yellow lens flare is very "now"

JJ ABrams would have added it in post though.

Wow...

And I rant about all the dSLR and MacBook kiddies trying to do live conference streaming...

These were people who seemed to have a modest income, who hired a someone pretending to be a photographer for next to nothing, and got what they paid for, sadly. The location and setting were not nice, which made things worse. In my area people often hire photographers on craigslist. They do not interview the person they hire, and are often bitterly disappointed.

There is no way to protect people from themselves or from making poor choices.

Exactly this. The 'photographer' probably isn't even a professional by ANY means either.

I don't know... that yellow lens flare is very "now"

JJ ABrams would have added it in post though.

I don't know about you but I'm a fan of blue anamorphic flares instead haha - This is pretty ridiculous though...

These were people who seemed to have a modest income, who hired a someone pretending to be a photographer for next to nothing, and got what they paid for, sadly. The location and setting were not nice, which made things worse. In my area people often hire photographers on craigslist. They do not interview the person they hire, and are often bitterly disappointed.

There is no way to protect people from themselves or from making poor choices.

Jeff ... your last sentence is spot on.

I would almost bet that the photographer just handed over all the files without bothering to go through them ... just burnt them to a DVD. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if that's exactly what the couple asked for because we all know ... couples want to "see it all."

The fact is that there are a lot of people ... probably the majority ... that look at price first. It is very rare that I feel sorry for couples when this happens.

It is very rare that I feel sorry for couples when this happens.

Unless it was a case of fraud as in when a photog shows someone else's work as their own, or gets away with showing 6 decent photos instead of a real portfolio.

Dang, I'm biting my tongue trying not to make any "Crack" jokes... but anyway...

If the 'tog blamed the venue, I have to wonder how she could call herself a "professional" - EVERY venue is a potential nightmare, that is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for bad deliverables! You learn to push your gear and yourself, and deliver the goods!

I suspect that the delivery must have been "here's a disc" - lo-budget, and career suicide, to deliver unedited, uncropped, unsorted files... I have to wonder if there are SOME good shots in the lot, but those don't serve the purposes of the lawsuit, which looks to be "have another party on the 'tog"... Hopefully there ARE some good shots, and the 'tog can mount a defense by showing them? There is ALWAYS some bad pix/footage, that's how it goes, but looks to me like someone is picking the worst to tell their "side" of the story. Could be interesting to hear how it all turns out!

One issue that interests me is whether a court of law should be passing judgment on what is and is not an acceptable image. Frankly, I think it's subjective and none of their business! Is lens flare a good thing or a bad thing? Is out of focus a good thing or a bad thing? What about extreme cropping? There's plenty of times when I'm intentionally trying for these...

I don't have any guarantees about image 'quality', whatever that means, in my contract.

I think the law still works on the "buyer beware" rule so IF they never looked at the guys portfolio or at least online pics and also assumably never met him then sadly they are at fault.

Even eBay has photos of the item you want to buy so shame on them for hiring a photog without viewing his work first!! Shucks even a little point and shoot will do a better job than he did ..I wonder if he maybe used his cell phone?? I'm just a videographer but I still carry a full Nikon D90 outfit with a full complement of lenses and all I shoot is some DVD cover shots!

From either a video or photo POV surely it makes sense to make a decent amount of samples available to clients? I have tons of video on my site so the bride can see lots of previous weddings and that gives her a idea what she will expect from me ...I would rather a bride thought that I was not to her liking based on my samples than have her come back after the wedding and say "These are nothing like what you promised me" ... Surely photogs do the same??

Chris

The interesting thing is we don't have any idea if the shots the photog got that weren't featured in the article were any good. (Although I doubt it obviously...)

We all blow some shots here and there (I'm not a wedding guy but the principle is the same regardless) which is why I NEVER release raw footage to a client who isn't a producer I'm freelancing for.

Is is POSSIBLE, regardless of how improbable, that these are the only bad ones out of a perhaps lacklustre batch but possibly worth what the clients paid for? Is it possible the client is using the five or so bad ones that should have been culled from the deliverables to try to get out of paying the rest of the bill?

I've seen some pretty ridiculous client antics, much as I've seen some pretty foul photogs and videogs calling themselves pros...

Buyer Beware in the case of ANYTHING! Photography and video for a wedding are very subjective. What some might perceive as art other might think of as bad framing, exposure and color.
Having said that, I would hope that the photog in question on that job gave the couple everything shot and didn't edit out the bad shots such as the ones that were shown because IF those shots were indicative of the entire wedding photography, I too would insist on some sort of money back. Of course I would have been able to determine whether or not this person was a professional by looking at previous work that had been done or at least asking some of the right questions of the photog. While I too like a good deal on any product or service I buy, I also want quality and in most cases the cheapest price is not the best quality. You need to use some good old common sense.
As I've said to people in the past, "the sweetness of low price is forgotten long before the bitterness of poor quality".

Odds are pretty good that these are the worst possible examples, and with digital photography are a small fraction of the shots taken/delivered - "news" is not always delivered unbiased...

I'd venture the average number of shots taken with digital would be in the hundreds, if not the thousands, out of which a "pro" would at least weed out the truly "bad" ones (EDITING). Having both shot and edited stills, you don't get 100% winners (at least not that often!), the ratio is better the more experienced and talented the shooter, but if you take the 5 worst shots of the day, I'm sure you could make almost any camera op look "bad"!

I could have salvaged the unbrella photo in a few seconds with a crop... and if the photog was shooting bursts, I'm sure the grooms hand moved a few milliseconds later so you could see the brides face...

Somehow I think it'll probably end in divorce in a few months anyway...

I'd venture the average number of shots taken with digital would be in the hundreds, if not the thousands, out of which a "pro" would at least weed out the truly "bad" ones (EDITING). .

While that is, hopefully, what happened, I recall a wedding last year where I couldn't believe how few pictures the photog was taking. When the bride/dad began their processional, I swear, photog only took one photo. From behind. For the entire aisle walk. Same with 1st dance. I barely noticed any clicks.

On the flip side, I am editing a wedding video where I can hear the photog duo *constantly*. It's funny to hear both cameras on continuous shoot when the couple lit the candles. No matter how modest their talents, those photogs will have gotten some decent pics.

Don't know if this is because they started on film, but I think most of the really good photographers I've worked with have only pressed the button when they were ready. Minimal spray and pray. One great shot is better than a hundred shots out-of-focus, overexposed, etc.

So, for any photographers reading this, please think about using that machine gun sparingly!

Don't know if this is because they started on film, but I think most of the really good photographers I've worked with have only pressed the button when they were ready. Minimal spray and pray. One great shot is better than a hundred shots out-of-focus, overexposed, etc!

True, though the very young lady I use as an example just didn't seem that discerning. She seemed.... unconcerned.

When I started as a still photog back in 1971, I was using both 35mm and 6X7 format which was the preferred format for weddings. 220 Kodacolor film was costly and in the 6X7 format gave you 20 shots per roll. An entire wedding would be 300 to 400 shots. PERIOD! IF you took more than one shot for a pose or a scene (say lighting the unity candle) you would bracket the exposure, 1 up and 1 down from where you started. Today, it's so much easier for a photographer to fire off 5 or 10 shots of one scene and hope that 1 will be OK isn't unusual. Today many if not most of the photogs I know will end up with between 1200 and 2000 images for a wedding after editing.
Things are different today.

I hang out in a photography forum where I read the fuller story. The photographer did the gig for £100 as she had no experience shooting weddings & wanted shots for her portfolio. She was bullied into supplying all the images that she had shot without any culling of duds.

Hmm, sounds like a) they got what they paid for and b) they set the 'tog up for a lawsuit... "nice" client... biting tongue even more on "Crack" jokes...


As for the differences in shooting, much wedding photography today is "journalistic" or docu style vs. the traditional "formal" posed style. You HAVE to shoot on the fly, catch what you can, and cull out the stuff that doesn't "work" - not terribly unlike video actually!

I've shot film, with all the expenses, and I have to say I'd rather shoot digital, and take "a few" more shots, maybe bracket or burst a sequence I can't reshoot and get ONE great shot out of a series than miss it entirely.

I'm sure some "spray and pray", but that's not always the case. There are always "amateurs" and noobs that will benefit by overusing the features of the equipment to get "acceptable" results, but that doens't bump them to "pro", just means that the equipment makes up for the lacking skills! Of course someone who knows the gear will also probably take every advantage of the capabilities of the technology... and get better results.

I hang out in a photography forum where I read the fuller story. The photographer did the gig for £100 as she had no experience shooting weddings & wanted shots for her portfolio. She was bullied into supplying all the images that she had shot without any culling of duds.

She should of shown them her middle finger then!

How sick do you have to be to pay some one £100 on the basis they are new to weddings and then try and sue them!? WTF.

Makes me mad to be honest ... We all have to start somewhere.

When someone is starting out it's tempting to offer a reduced rate to build a portfolio. That's all well and good if the person is competent and confident in their ability but if the job is a learning event for the shooter as well, i.e. never done a wedding before and just hoping they'll manage it on enthusiasm alone, then I'd say it's best to do it for free. Once money is involved in the transaction, no matter how little, clients will expect a professional product. All the talk of new to the business, wanting to acquire show footage etc. will wash over their head. When they get the results they'll be as critical, excited or disappointed as if they had paid top dollar. It's their big day and they'll expect everyone they've hired and paid to be there to give it their maximum effort and involvement.
We don't know the full story on this and as Nigel has pointed out there is another side but I've met couples (well brides mostly) who'll be full of demands but deaf to anything they don't want to hear just taking it for granted that everything they demand will be provided.

It's a lesson hard learned for the photographer who it seems may have been out of her depth in the occasionally stormy world of weddings, but should be a salutary warning to couples to give the hire of every professional they'll commission on the day just as much due diligence and concern as they do when choosing the wedding dress or rings.

It'd be unkind to refer to the photographer in simian terms but we all know what peanuts buy.

By the way, from a video perspective, what this incident amounts to is a warning not to supply clients with raw footage. You don't know how they're going to use it -- to damage your reputation, demand a discount, take you to court, etc.

Hmmmm... sounds an awful lot like what the wise fellow said in post #13 on the previous page.

I think I'll bookmark this page to send to my (video) clients who ask why I will not supply the raw.

Sorry Shaun! Yep, your earlier comment made mine redundant.

By the way, raw footage has been discussed here before. Here's another thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-event-videography-techniques/494040-why-not-give-all-raw-footage.html.