Photographer Ruined Wedding ..

Robert Benda · April 22nd, 2013, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Blackhurst

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.

Adrian Tan · April 22nd, 2013, 04:35 PM

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!

Robert Benda · April 22nd, 2013, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adrian Tan

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.

Don Bloom · April 22nd, 2013, 05:40 PM

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.

Nigel Barker · April 24th, 2013, 06:46 AM

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.

Dave Blackhurst · April 24th, 2013, 01:01 PM

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.

James Manford · April 24th, 2013, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

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.

George Kilroy · April 25th, 2013, 03:21 AM

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.

Adrian Tan · April 25th, 2013, 07:01 AM

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.

Shaun Roemich · April 25th, 2013, 08:49 AM

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.

Adrian Tan · April 26th, 2013, 06:40 PM

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-...w-footage.html.

April 22nd, 2013, 04:35 PM	#17
Adrian Tan Trustee Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 1,149	Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding .. 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!

April 22nd, 2013, 05:40 PM	#19
Don Bloom Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,609	Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding .. 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. __________________ What do I know? I'm just a video-O-grafer. Don

April 24th, 2013, 06:46 AM	#20
Nigel Barker Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK Posts: 3,531	Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding .. 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.

April 24th, 2013, 01:01 PM	#21
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding .. 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.

April 25th, 2013, 03:21 AM	#23
George Kilroy Major Player Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Midlands UK Posts: 699	Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding .. 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.

April 25th, 2013, 07:01 AM	#24
Adrian Tan Trustee Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 1,149	Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding .. 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.

April 25th, 2013, 08:49 AM	#25
Shaun Roemich Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada Posts: 4,088	Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding .. 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. __________________ Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/

April 26th, 2013, 06:40 PM	#26
Adrian Tan Trustee Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 1,149	Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding .. 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-...w-footage.html.