rob_s___san_francisco_bay_ Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Dana, <p> I'm so sorry this happened to you. If the photographer is a decent person, I would expect a full refund along with heartfelt apologies and more. That can make you feel a little better, but those moments/images can't be re-created. <p> The photos you posted just plain suck. They look to be pretty un-salvagable. Proves that a $3000 camera (plus probably some expensive lenses) doesn't come close to replacing years of experience and a good eye.<p> I just had a bride not book me because they are having a friend of a cousin shoot their wedding... apparently, he just bought a brand-new camera (I'd bet it's a 5D) and he thinks he can do a great job at it. I wish them well, but it's a risky move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_leslie Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 I would think he would be embarrassed to submit these photos as a professional. Did you check with the local BBB to see if there is a history of complaints? BTW..very pretty bride! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 One hundred ,percent he should refund your money. You got less than an amateur's effort with pro gear with an incompetent You don't need "years of experience" to shoot awesome shots with a 5D. You just need basic GOOD photography knowledge (exposure/ISO) to pull it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfidaho Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Howdy! It looks like he used fixed 35mm and 85mm lenses. Most of what this guy did has been posted as "optimal" for weddings on this and many other online resources. How many times have you heard "5D", "fast fixed lenses" and "You can shoot an entire wedding at F5"? If you ignore the part about him misrepresenting his experience (and that's a big if), the main thing he did wrong was to think he could just read web posts on optimum settings and equipment and pull this off. I'm sure he really wanted to do a good job. But if ignorance is bliss, this is the happiest guy on the planet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ_butner___portland__or Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Where do we view the pics that you are referring to? Thanks Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 As stated before, this rookie photog shopt these in Manual! mode, Manual! WB, at 1/20, f/5, ISO 400, 84mm focal length. Below is the best I could do to salvage one of these without taking more than 3-4 minutes. It's nearly impossible to believe someone could do such a poor job shooting (and getting paid) someone's beautiful wedding like yours.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sara_vee Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 This is terrible. I feel bad for you that the photos didn't turn out well.<p> I think when choosing a photographer, you should really ask to see one or more "complete" weddings. Websites and just a few "best of" images can be very deceiving.<p> I am sorry for your dilemma, but I hope that it helps prevent others from experiencing similar disasters. I wish more people would post about their "bad photographer" experiences to help spread the word about why it is so important (and worth it) to hire someone with experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dana_hendrick Posted May 10, 2007 Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 Hi everyone! I was able to salvage a few portrait posed pics of me before the wedding by turning them b&w. But none of the ones of my husband came out. The ones of him with his groomsmen look like they are at a funeral and one of the guys looks jaundice. I use dot photo for uploads and will upload all of the pics tonight so you can go and look at them. I will upload the untouched photos. Fortunately, I have a canon rebel 300d and I shot a bunch of pics. I did the pics of my veil with my shoes at the bottom and then did my veil with my jewelry laid out. Basically some of the "storybook" wedding that I was looking for. We went to a night club after the reception and I shot there with my little baby canon powershot 4.0. THOSE pics are better in the pitch dark than what this guy did. And lighting would be a good excuse if the pics on my rebel in the sanctuary before the wedidng didn't come out. AND whoever was using my camera (back and forth between my brother and one of my bridesmaids) was shooting on automatic. Those pics unfortunately are just not useable b/c they are too far away and shot from the side. There was a point made about looking at the pics while you take them, ya think??? This is what I LOVE about my digital rebel!!! He kept looking at the pics and saying "oh that's a great one, that one is cool too, and this one and this one". I think he was secretly shooting someone else's wedding in his head. I'm working on packages to send to the organizations that he is affiliated with. Again, thank you for the information and support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dana_hendrick Posted May 10, 2007 Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 Oh and his portfolio had some wedding pictures that were taken in churches but were done by film and not digital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picturesque Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 It looks like his flash was set to minus compensation or something--the image may be out of focus but it looks like a lot of motion blur too. f5, 1/20th, ISO 400 would have been OK (flash freezes motion) if the flash exposure was adequate and he didn't attempt to photograph subjects with any bit of distance between them, such as the kids. Also, at the subject distances in the samples, a modifier would have diminished flash power to the extent that the flash would be too weak anyway. If I understand you correctly, this is his first digital camera (used for a wedding) and he was shooting film before? If this is the case, he is certainly one of those who hid behind film's latitude, and he definitely broke one of the most important wedding photography tenets--never use new (untried, untested) equipment for a wedding at which you are the professional and main photographer. I would think you would have a very good case in small claims court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_schilling___chicago_ Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Had he attempted those shots with those settings while using film and a Vivitar 283 he probably could have gotten away with it..... Really, no excuse for what you've shown though, too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
el_fang Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Holy crap. These "pictures" are absolutely horrible and I would be embarrassed to present them even to a bride who paid me nothing. The fact that you deserve far better notwithstanding, there are some very serious red flags on his website that should have given you some second thoughts before you ever booked him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaimie blue Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Looks like you have every right to go all the way with this. I have never seen work like this delievered to a client, while representing himself as a professional photographer. I am stunned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ni_gentry Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 one more..... Did you see any more of his work and meet in person beforehand? <p> It was only $1000 bucks... you get what you pay for sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
savagesax Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Ouch! These are the worst Dana. Sometimes when I hear a bride say the photos weren't too good I wonder if they can be corrected. The samples you posted really can't be fixed. I sure hope most of them turned out better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regas chefas Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 The pictures posted are absolutely terrible. I would have told the client that they didn't turn out and refunded money, offered to re-shoot, rent tuxes again etc... I take special care and preparation to try and ensure that I never produce those type of pictures. An hour in an aquarium should give you an idea of the limitations of your equipment better than this photographer had. If the photographer was a film guy and this was his first digital 'experiment' then it's unconscionable. Both to be so unprepared and incompetent and to treat it this way afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian_betti Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Weddings have to be most nerve wrecking painstaking and most fun shoots ever, but this is unacceptable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ni_gentry Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Hmmm... I just looked at the EXIF data for the photos that were posted above.<p> The comments above about using fixed focal length lenses is NOT "entirely" true. <p> At least in the 3 photos I looked at, the lens shows up as a 28-300mm zoom. Anyway, it just goes to show that you shouldn't take everything you read here as the end-all, be-all truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknagel Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Handle this professionally, present the facts, ask him again for a refund, consider a compromise if possible, then if nothing is resolved ask yourself if $1000 if worth the ulcer of going to court for a $1000 or less. Don't bother with lawyers, they'll take all the money. Any lawyer in Chicago or any city will take his retainer fee and represent him, that means nothing. I'm the negotiating chairman for our pilot's union, I deal with lawyers, contract law, grievances and lawsuits everyday. Sometime its worth (for sanity reasons) to say lesson learned and move on. Not the popular vote here, but MAY be the healthiest. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_levine Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 I would safely bet he doesn't have the money to refund. Contact the professional associations with some strongly worded letters, and then move on. I have personally trained dozens of wedding photographers. And frankly I've seen high school photo "majors", shoot better after an hour of lessons. Some people have an eye for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elnoralouisa Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 When I was married, the photographer had a film go bad, it was on the formals at the reception. Sure we were upset about it, but he did give us all our proofs for free, and I think he threw in something else. It's very sad that this happened, but is it worth putting someone out of business because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ni_gentry Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 <p> Most of us wedding photographers take our work VERY seriously and understandably get upset when we see photos like those posted. We NEVER want to have that happen to any bride and the initial gut reaction is to beat up on the photographer. BUT we should use a little restraint UNTIL we know the ALL the FACTS. Has anyone (besides Dana) seen the rest of the photos from the wedding... or any other "complete" weddings from this guy? Maybe they all are terrible? Maybe not? <p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolleiflex users Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Where is DANA? looking forward to have a link for the rest of the wedding pictures. Are all pictures taken in the very same bad shape? or just some?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfidaho Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Howdy! This is a purely technical note. I think I figured out why the pictures are out of focus. Lets say Photographer X (He Who Must Not Be Named) is used to working with high grade parfocal lenses, which do not change their focal point if the focal length changes. Typically Photographer X would zoom in on a high contrast area, lock focus either automatically or manually, then zoom out to recompose. The trouble is that the 28-300mm (either Canon or Tamron) is about the least parfocal lens out there. And there's no labeling on the box to indicate whether it is or isn't parfocal. If a photographer assumed it was parfocal without testing it first, most (if not all) of the images would be out of focus. Rule of thumb: If the physical length of the lens changes when the focal point changes, it probably isn't parfocal. (I believe there might be one or two exceptions to this rule). How do I know all this? Been there, done that, with a 28-135mm IS. But fortunately never on the clock. Later, Paul Thomas, PIFF (Politically Incorrect Forensic Fotografer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfidaho Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Chuck Westfall's rule of thumb: Only constant aperture L series lenses are parfocal. Chuck goes on to say that the 17-55mm F2.8 IS is designed to be parfocal, but is difficult to calibrate for perfect focus throughout its range. Therefore best results can be obtained by treating it as a non-parfocal lens. (There's a word for a non-parfocal lens, but I can't remember it right now). Later, Paulsky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now