Wedding Photographer defamed

This might be of interest :

 

US couple forced to pay wedding photographer $1.35m

I saw that. Just more proof that couples don't read their contracts and we have to be sure they understand anything that affects their end result and payment schedule.

I saw that, and nice pictures.

It's funny though, one never knows...My nephew got married last October, nearly a year ago. $3000 later, still no pictures. They will 'get around to it', a direct quote. I shot a fairly large wedding this past June and was able to have proofs to everyone in three days and a complete album printed in 5 weeks. Sometimes the photographer gets screwed but sometimes he deserves it. In our case though, brides dad is a federal prosecutor. Hhhmmm, I wonder how that will turn out.

 

Rick H.

It's all about managing expectations. If you shoot 50-60 weddings a year full time, your turnaround is likely very different from someone who shoots 5 to 10 and doesn't have them stacking up on each other. A photographer might also have a day job and can only process in their off hours. Ultimately, you know what your workflow is and if you set the expectation up front that it takes a certain amount of time, no one is waiting around and wondering.

 

A year, though? Yeah, that's too long. If that photographer told your nephew up front that it would take a year or more, I doubt that photographer would have gotten the job. I prefer to under-promise and over-deliver. I tell my couples six to eight weeks and even in the busiest times of year never take more than four or five. :-)

How things have changed........

 

When I shot weddings professionally, we were expected to shoot in the afternoon, keep a lab open on the Saturday to run the C-41 process, contact and proof all shots ready for the wedding reception in the evening. That's when the alcohol effect meant that many orders were placed for the family/group shots and we made our money.

 

Of course, the album and staged shots were built into the price, but the reception purchases were very lucrative.

 

We'd normally close up a package within 2 weeks......and expect repeat orders as the bride/groom/parents passed the album to family/friends.

 

Mike

How things have changed........

 

When I shot weddings professionally, we were expected to shoot in the afternoon, keep a lab open on the Saturday to run the C-41 process, contact and proof all shots ready for the wedding reception in the evening.

 

So, not C-22?

lol, no, C-41.....shows you how long ago it was :-)

$1.35m? isn't that too much? What happened by the way?

$1.35m? isn't that too much? What happened by the way?

 

I don't think it's too much, factor in 2 years of lost revenue, legal fees, the fact that the person who defamed the photographer directly profited from the situation, ya 1.35 million is a little low in my opinion. Plus you have to figure she won't see all of that due to lawyers getting paid first and no way the guilty people will be able to pay that.

$1.35m? isn't that too much? What happened by the way?

 

Did you read the story?

Hope she gets every penny from them and the bloggers end up with their reputation ruined in the end. They certainly deserve it.

This would be my resolution ...

 

All the idiots who made a judgment about a photography studio based on the word of a couple of bloggers with no independent corroboration or investigation should have to have their heads examined. One Internet blog going viral, it should by now be known, is NOT a source of reliable information. If you allow yourself to be “virally” influenced without a better source of facts and truth, the only thing you have is a dumber than dumb virus.

 

The Daily Mail should have to offer the photography studio three years of free advertising for running the story without doing some fact checking. People who rely on the Daily Mail for information should be made to sit in the corner for an hour or two.

 

The wedding couple should, in five ever years when they are seeking a divorce, be forced to stay together for life.