My Wedding Photography Nightmare.

<p>Pete -<br>

I never ask a general contractor if they use Dewalt or Stanley or Craftsman tools - So what difference should it make if I ask a photographer if they use Canon or Nikon or Sigma and then they show up with a different brand?</p>

<p>The simple facts as presented are:<br>

1. She represented that she was qualified to photograph a wedding<br>

2. She indicated that she would show up with <em>2 bodies + high quality lenses </em><br>

3. She showed up with a single body and a kit lens.<br>

By itself that doesn't pose a problem. What poses a problem is that she showed up with one camera and one lens which one of them either failed or she didn't know how to use properly. Period.</p>

<p>Any one who calls themselves a "PRO" or accepts money for shooting weddings (and even those trying to break into the game by doing "Free" weddings) should have at a minimum a backup of every piece of equipment. Not having backup is indefensible.</p>

<p>Also indefensible in my book (and I did say this earlier) is that she did not look at the display to see the results of her work. Had she bothered to chimp - she might have noticed that there was something wrong and could have a) said something or b) asked for assistance...both of which are difficult to do during a wedding, but would have been preferable to what happened.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>To the one who didn't have the change to look at results of Richard's wedding images and it is not allowed to post any of them, I've mutilated one of my own images so that everybody can better judge the results of the images. If have decreased color saturation, focus and increased exposure about 2.5 stops.<br />The EXIF data of the images presented but yet removed stated 1/500 @ f11 @ ISO 200.<br />BTW there's nothing wrong with the Sigma unless it is kaput. Same goes for Canon or Nikon.<br />Using a kitlens most certainly could get you into troubled because it is always cheaply build quality, most likely to fail then a pro lens. Moreover, the color of these kitlenses are most of the time bad.<br />My images are shot by the same exposure.</p>

<p>First the mutilated image:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.xs4all.nl/~cadply/forum/samp-bad.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>The origional<br /><img src="http://www.xs4all.nl/~cadply/forum/samp-good.jpg" alt="" /><br />If anybody is interested in the first image effect, I sell this as an action (LOL).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"diamond in the rough"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Uncut diamonds are not the one you want to buy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“Technically, her photos weren't perfect, but her composition was great”</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Don’t you worry darling, We get the high res files and I’ll fix this with photoshop in a blink of an eye.</em></p>

<p>My question</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“… what did Richard pay for what? Could explain a lot IMO”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No answer yet how much Richard paid for the gig.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As for everyone asking what I paid for. I paid for her services to photograph my wedding and provide a DVD/CD of full-sized, corrected JPEGs and a photographer release.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>“Shoot and burn” is not considered high quality pro IMO. Certainly not if the groom thinks he can outperform design skills of a real pro’s services.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I did not pay for an album as I have some graphic design background and decided, with my wife's input, (SUUUREEEE) that we would design and print our own album.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A typical DIY groom.</p>

<p>There’re 4 scenarios:</p>

<ol type="1">

<li>DIY groom + lousy photographer = no deal</li>

<li>groom + excellent photographer = deal with good images</li>

<li>groom + con = disaster</li>

<li>DIY groom + con = disaster with some extra frustration</li>

</ol>

<p>Of course the photographer should deliver images at pro level. But she appears to be a fraud and not a pro photographer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“What matters in pro work is the results; not the tools used at all”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bad or broken tools won’t do anything at all, whether you are Cartier-Bresson or not. That’s why he used his reliable Leica.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I immediately called and emailed her to try to set up a meeting. Surely that was the least she would do. Her response: "please take half of your money back, just don't ask to meet again, I'm too emotional a person and don't take criticism well."<br /> <br /> When I refused, but offered to pay her for travel, and time (equivalent to what I'd pay a second shooter for a day), she blankly refused and told me her generous offer of half of our money back was off the table. Currently I am pursuing legal action against her in small claims court.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have no doubt that her photos sucked. The only question flows from what you've said here: Quite simply, there's no reason for a meeting. She cannot <em>explain</em> what she's done or failed to do. I would do as others have advised and try to fix what she has broken. The costs you incur will become additional damages (beyond what you've already paid) and may be actionable.</p>

<p>Here's hoping some of the images bring joy to you and your wife, eventually.</p>

<p>I agree with the poster above. There's no reason to meet her. She messed up and has no excuse. (I would hesitate to incur further expenses until I had confirmation from a reputable attorney that the compensation for for "fixing" the problem is actionable, though.) See if an attorney buddy will send a letter (for cheap or free) demanding a full refund and all of the raw files. That's as good or better than you can expect to do in your arbitration and subsequent court proceeding.</p>

<p>I thought the kicker was going to be she showed up with a Canon T80, hey it <em>is </em> autofocus... Like the guy said it's the driver, but hope things work out for you, at least your uncle helped you out. Tom</p>

<p>I can't believe this happened to you. I would really like to see the pictures she took if you could repost them!!</p>

<p>If it's any consolation, once the baby arrives you will be having so much fun with family photos you'll probably forget all this. My wife and I hired an amazing photographer for our wedding, everything was great, total pro, well worth the $5K. Beautiful photos. 10yrs later I can't remember the last time I looked at them....That's life i guess.<br>

On another note, regardless of equipment, Canon, Sigma, etc, I just can't fathom a pro (or someone aspiring to be one) not having a backup. The few weddings I've shot, I've been so paranoid something would go wrong I've had three cameras with me just in case. <br>

Best of luck</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=835765">Ed te Pas</a> If anybody is interested in the first image effect, I sell this as an action (LOL).</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Is that your new and improved CellPhone Simulation action for PS?</p>

<p>Is there a way considered legitimate by Photo.net for the OP to provide a reference to the images described verbally in this thread?<br>

This thread is hard to fully appreciate, without seeing samples of the images in question.</p>

 

<p>Ken was right about the Sigma SK14! The SK14 is junk!</p>

<p>http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sigma-sd14/4505-6501_7-32078973.html</p>

<p>"<strong>HE BAD:</strong> Slow performance overall; overly noisy images at ISO 800 and ISO 1600; poor control scheme; inelegant design and ergonomics." It is perhaps the worse DSLR you could use for a wedding!</p>

<p>Sure you'll find one or two that shoot weddings with it and get great pictures, however those are the exception and not the rule. Just like you'll find a contractor that can build a fantastic house with 3rd rate tools from Kmart or Walmart....this does NOT prove those tools should be used for such tasks....that camera is junk for weddings, and it should never be considered by a so called Professional that wants his tools working for him and not against him.</p>

<p>I've seen the work of one Canadian wedding photog that did fantastic artsy wedding work with a HOLGA...so does that prove the HOLGA should be used for weddings? Of course not!</p>

<p>Lets get real folks....quality images is a conspiracy between a skilled human and good tools that support the human requirements for making art. You want the weakest link in that conspiracy to be the human and never his kit.</p>

<p>Hal B, just because someone calls them selves a wedding photog and is expected to deliver the goods does not guarantee that will happen....to assume quality work from pro is ridiculous, absolutely foolish.</p>

<p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Petes; the product being sold is good images of a wedding; the product not sold is cameras.<br /><br />If the results are poor; a slacker/amateur/child blames the equipment; because he or she is not man enough to admit they screwed up.<br /><br />Trying to micromanage what tools a contractor uses already set the stage up for failure; one is closing the loop around what does not really matter; ie the tools used.<br /><br />Dwelling on the gear/tools used is what a child does; since their narrow mindset is such the tool matters alot; and the photographers skills are nothing.<br /><br />Whiners DO stress the tools used; since in their mindset this matters alot.<br /><br />****What really should be focused on is fixing the images. The wedding is long over with.</em><br /><em></em><br>

<br />The first post says the sample images were not technically perfect. How does one expect to have this be better with a wedding where folks are moving; light changing? Does the amateur mindset think that a more expensive tool is like magical beans; ie a fairy tale?<br /><br />Equipment matters alot less than an amateur's brain can accept; it is weak function at best.<br /><br />Thus the dwelling on gear instead of actual results points to the typical amateur mindset that marketers love.</p>

</blockquote>

<em>

<p><strong>Kelly, what you wrote is absolutely wrong times 1 million.</strong><br>

<strong><br /></strong><br>

<strong>How about this...I will you a HOLGA, three HOLGA's a HOLGA flash (3 of them) loads of film and lets see you shoot a world class wedding....you see, tools in fact matter....all this bravado about "it's the photog, not the equipment" is utter nonesense....sure the human counts the most but if his tools cannot support his vision, HE WILL FAIL.</strong></p>

</em></p>

<p>First, Richard I am sorry for your experience. Hopefully others will learn from it and some good can come out of the situation.</p>

<p>Second, since the majority of people here are photographers and not brides, it is pointless to talk about how to select a wedding photographer. Save those posts for the Knot. [btw: Richard, this would make a great article for the Knot.]</p>

<p>Third, To all the photographers out there are reading these posts, this experience should send shivers down your spine - because that could be/will be you. The question is not <strong>will </strong> you have an equipment failure, the question is <strong>when </strong> will it fail. Someday your equipment will fail. It may be your camera, your lens, your flash card, your computer or your raid box. And on that day, you'll wish you had something to "fall back on"</p>

<p>The Professional Photographers of America includes an indemnification trust in its dues. There are specialized lawyers on retainer that work with you and client to achieve an acceptable solution. And if the service failure is covered under the policy (most are, but your second shooter is not) then the trust pays for refunds and any damages. PPA dues are not cheap, but they are cheaper than stress, anxiety and monetary loss caused by an angry client. <br>

For more information: <a href="http://www.ppa.com">ppa.com</a></p>

<p>Larry J Foster<br>

Certified by the Professional Photographers of America<br>

<p><strong>Kelly, what you wrote is absolutely right times 1 million!</strong></p>

<p>Just my opinion...</p>

 

<p>Indeed a nightmare.. I am so glad I have a wedding to shoot Saturday. Yep, got my authentic Canon gear, complete with the 70-200 f/2.8 IS... :)</p>

<p>Ian Danziger<br>

Member PPA, Accredited BBB, Geared up and ready to shoot!</p>

<p>Of course equipment matters. You can't shoot a wedding with f3.5 kit lens and think youre going to get any real pictures. It doesnt matter whether it's Sigma or Nikon, but it has to be good.</p>

<p>When I read this thread I wonder how photographers ever managed to shoot weddings with their Canon D30, D60, and 10D bodies or Nikon 1D, D100 and D70 bodies. How did they manage to produce decent wedding albums back then. Were those bodies unusable at wedding, of course not and I am sure those that actually could produce decent wedding photos had many happy customers. The problem with the Richard's wedding photos was not the chosen equipment but that the photgrapher failed to realise that the equipment was not working properly, was not familiar enough with the equipment to use it or was just not good enough to be shooting weddings in the first place.</p>

<p>Any decent wedding photographer that has had time to become familiar with the equipment could go to a wedding with a pair of Nikon FM2 bodies a Nikkor 28-85 3.5-4.5 zoom a series E 75-50 3.5 zoom, 50mm F2 and their choice of flash equipment and produce a decent wedding album. It may not be in their usual style and they may not enjoy the experience but they would be able to do it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em><strong>How about this...I will you a HOLGA, three HOLGA's a HOLGA flash (3 of them) loads of film and lets see you shoot a world class wedding....you see, tools in fact matter....all this bravado about "it's the photog, not the equipment" is utter nonesense....sure the human counts the most but if his tools cannot support his vision, HE WILL FAIL.</strong> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can point you at three photographers who use Holgas either in whole or part in their wedding coverage. All three are well-known, have a reputation for excellent work and command significant fees to match.</p>

<p>I first saw examples of this type of work in Grace Ormonde. Naturally it looks like it was shot on a Holga - soft, vignetted, defocused in places. But it was very different and very good, mostly because these photographers are governed by their vision, not their gear. They can produce work that has aesthetic value, emotional resonance and an enduring purpose — even using tools with substantial limitations.</p>

<p>I side with Kelly's point about the gear. It's less important than the person using it. I've shot weddings with cameras that some people might think are very unsuitable. I once shot a wedding (as a friend) with a camera that had no meter and only two working shutter speeds — and the results were good enough for a fine album and a 24" print that still hangs on the couple's wall five years later.</p>

<p>One thing that is apparent here is that what a photographer is using for gear has some effect on the opinion the client is going to have about his level of professionalism. I suspect that using odd gear such as holgas is probably the province of photographers whose reputation is strong enough to warrant a higher level of trust on the part of the clients. The Canon 5D (or maybe the mk II these days) may be a more common (confidence building) choice, but any kind of decent professional wedding photographer could have probably shot the wedding with Sigma SD14's. I read lots of reviews of this camera because I liked the idea of the DP-1 (which has the same sensor) and on average it was moderately well received by reviewers. Clearly here there are more problems than the camera.</p>

<p>Conversely, had I tried to shoot the wedding with my 5D, the fact that I had a pretty decent camera wouldn't have resulted in good work since I know nothing about weddings or even portrait photography. I might not go as far as a holga, but given good skills and experience, almost any semi-decent equipment would probably do. Better equipment would probably elevate the work but even with an SR-T-101 and a normal lens, a good wedding photographer could probably do something the client would be satisfied with.</p>

<p>Holga's are gadgets besides an overall professional kit. You must have a weird bride to want a full Holga wedding album. Moreover, you can always create your own Holga effect, 99.99% of the brides won't notice the difference. And I doubt if a pro will see the difference if it's done well, because every Holga has its own characteristics.<br>

My attempt.<br>

<img src="http://www.xs4all.nl/~cadply/forum/holga.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="553" /></p>

<p>Interesting. It looks exactly not like an image made with a Holga. :-)</p>

<p>Weird brides? That's quite an assumption. I know one couple whose album has primarily Holga and Polaroid imagery. She's an art director in well-known London advertising agency, who eats and breathes photography and knows exactly what she wanted from her wedding photography. Their album is a particularly beautiful example of emotional and evocative lifestyle imagery. It's also unique - a true art piece in its own right.</p>

<p>Any 'alternative' approach to imagery is by definition not mainstream. But that doesn't make it weird. More often it makes it bespoke, artisan, unique — and frequently highly valued. Which may be one reason why some photographers who work this way have a fairly high-end client base.</p>

<p>And the other reason, of course, is that the people who work this way are very good technically. When you're using a camera with one shutter speed and one effective aperture, the only control you have is your choice of film stock and the way you develop it. Which demands absolute understanding of true, technical photography. There is no 'fix it later in Lightroom'.</p>

<p>OK everyone,</p>

<p>This thread has evolved from an "I'm curious about what happened, so let us all know" thread into a "Who's/What's to blame for the situation?" thread.</p>

<p>Let me say that I take some of the blame for the situation. I did not do my due diligence and ask to see an entire wedding shoot. I took the photog's portfolio as what I should expect from her, and I took her word that she had adequate equipment and experience to do the job.</p>

<p>However, that does not excuse the photog. She did not have adequate equipment, (apparent by the lack of a backup camera/lenses), and she did not provide any images that were remotely usable without serious correction. I do not blame the equipment for failing, I blame the photog for not having any back up. </p>

<p>As for the solution of chimping...she did. I have several images taken by P&S relatives showing the photog chimping in 90% of the shots she was in. It is apparent by the exclusive use of "AUTO" that she either did not know her equipment or she knew something was wrong and didn't know how to fix it.</p>

<p>On to the "why did he care about her equipment? Equipment shouldn't matter" issue.</p>

<p>When I asked about equipment, it was not to find out what brand of camera she used, but to make sure she had adequate equipment, (2 bodies, multiple lenses, multiple flash heads, etc). Like I said earlier, I have shot weddings for friends at the site where my wedding & reception took place. I knew the difficult lighting situations that could arise during the course of a day.</p>

<p>To help you understand how I feel about equipment, I will use myself as an example. When asked by a friend/family member if I can shoot their wedding, I explain that I am not a pro, so they shouldn't expect pro results. If this is not agreeable, I give tips for picking a photog...(something I may reconsider doing due to the results I got when I actually picked one). If the couple understands that they will not get the results a pro typically provides, I explain that I will not charge for my services, but they should consider it their wedding gift, (not quite so harsh). If this is agreeable, I have them sign a contract, (PPA type without a 'sole photographer' clause). I then explain that if they decide to go with a pro, please let me know so that I don't incur any expenses.</p>

<p>My equipment consists of a D90 with a variety of lenses. My typical style of photography requires 1) a fast prime and 2) a fast tele-zoom, so I rent a 24-70 f/2.8 when I shoot a wedding. I know that I can get by with what I have if a friend asks me to shoot their wedding, HOWEVER, I know that the 24-70 makes my life a whole lot easier, which is why I rent it. I also have my D70s as a backup body should anything fail. About a week prior to the actual wedding, I scout the location, take test shots, and make sure that all of my equipment is working properly. If there is any fear of failure, (it has happened), I will rent a second body when I rent the 24-70.</p>

<p>Hope this sheds some light on the subject</p>

<p>

Now hiring an experience carpenter to build a professional quality deck off the side of my 21 story apartment balcony. Must have own top of the line equipment. I can't pay you anything for the labor or the building supplies but you can use the deck for your portfolio and i'll tell a lot of other people you built the deck. Sound like a deal?</h3>

</p>

<p>A very interesting thread, Richard, and I am sorry for the tough situation. If it is any consolation - I was married 6 years ago and paid a good photographer a fair amount of money to produce some lovely shots, which he gave to us as printed 4x6s, negatives and a CD. I got about half of the best ones into an album, which now sits in a shoebox with the other prints. We haven't looked at them in years. Not to diminish the value of good wedding shots, but hopefully you will have many years to take pictures of your wife, kids, and even yourself.</p>

<p>I might take the worst, or most humorously bad, of the bunch, and print them up for a display at home, and call it a day.</p>

<p>@ Jeff</p>

<p>Seriously? Did you read the whole thread or just assume I didn't pay the "pro" that shot my wedding? </p>

<p>@ Nick</p>

<p>Thanks for the advise. It's something I'll consider doing, just for a laugh, once everything has been settled.</p>

<p> </p>