Newly weds win court battle against photographer...

[jimitav]

<p>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218248/Newlyweds-win-court-battle-1-500-wedding-photographer-shoddy-pictures-include-missing-heads-car-close-ups.html</p>

<p>Wow, now this is a story...</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>Great (story - not the pictures) but a bit of photoshopping could have helped. Judging from the pictures the photographer did not even try to correct the pictures.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Hopefully, the "photographer" will reconsider his career choice.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>It is hard to justify incompetence. There really are too many people trying to do things they were not competently trained for. If you pass yourself off as a professional you should be held up to the standards of a professional. Charging a fee makes you a professional. Being an artist may be in your mind, but being a professional is in your pocket. There is a very important lesson here about trying to make money with your hobby.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>ah ah ah! it make me smile, because a lot of time, when you give price to client they look at you with this "how come it cost that much for a photographer?" or "well whe think about it and it will be a uncle in the family that will take the picture, he is so good with a camera.. his VACATION shot are always incredible!...</p>

<p>A lot of peoples call themself photographer because they have a bigger camera than the usual guy, they love photography and they think that if someone charge 2000$ for a wedding, they certainly can get one for a 1000$..but they all forget that being a pro is more than just the gear..and bad images like that are the result of such individual.</p>

<p>Happy that they won, but the memories are gone anyway..</p>

<p>My advice; if 5 photogs charge 2000$ for your wedding, and another one charge you 1000$..please make your pick in the 5 expensive one..you should not regret it..hopefully.</p>

[tmcleland]

These are just bad. I don't consider myself to be some amazing photog by any stretch, but these were just embarrassing. That poor couple. It reeks of that strange combination of arrogance and incompetence that we've all seen in people (photographers and otherwise) and this is one of those examples of someone trying to pass off shoddy work as "artistic license."

 

If I had produced results like this, the lawsuit wouldn't have been necessary. I would have given the money back AND given them my cameras...so they would know I would be unable to strike again!

 

Slyvia and MarK...nice touch.

[kevin_delson]

<blockquote>

<p>If you pass yourself off as a professional you should be held up to the standards of a professional.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe in a perfect world.</p>

<p>Physicians are licensed, so are attorneys. Many professionals are required to maintain licenses, get a degree prior to practicing.</p>

<p>Unfortunetly, no such requirements apply to photogs when dealing with the public at large.<br>

Just look at all the CL postings as omne small example.<br>

Anyone can join the professional photo organizations. Just because their business card says "member of XYZ" does not guarantee they are competent.</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Wow, I am that "relative with a camera who thinks he's an artist". However, I know my capabilities, and they are decent. I did my wife's cousin's wedding for free (well, just the hindu ceremony) and I did my brother's as well, again for free as a favor. Both needed photographers on the cheap (IE free) and wanted better photographs then their relatives in the crowd would give them. I certainly delivered that, good decent pictures, but there are plenty of pros that could have done a better job (and probably a number of hobbiests as well).<br>

Its all a question of expectations. If you lead someone to believe you can do an amazing job and fail to deliver then you owe a refund. I certainly didn't lead anyone to expect amazing pictures from me, but delivered some pretty nice ones anyway. My wife's cousin is still going on about how much she loved my pictures and how huge a favor it was to have done it for them.<br>

I am not about to get a swelled head and think I should be doing this for a living though.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

The photographer got off easy. I read of one case in the US in which the judge ruled that the photographer had to pay to re-stage the entire wedding including tux rentals, flowers and hotel accommodations for out of town guests.

[eturner]

<p>wow...that reminds me of my wedding...found the photographer passed out at the reception behind a bush. Luckly the owners of the photography business are friends and in attendance.<br>

They stepped in and finished it out and fired the photographer on the spot.<br>

Actually felt sorry for him later when I found out his wife had just left him, but happy my friends where able to step in and finish it up.</p>

[allen_friday]

<p>The article makes me wonder about some of the posts here on Photonet: "My first wedding shoot is on Saturday, what do I need?" </p>

[photomark]

I wonder what the couple saw in this photographer's portfolio. Were those photos substantially better? It looks like Mr.

Bowers' website is offline so we can't really tell how different his actual work is from his portfolio. And while the

photographer should be ashamed, the professional organizations he is associated with such as the SWPP and BPPA

should also be open to ridicule: http://swpp.co.uk/blogger/2008/07/18/pro-photographer-gareth-bowers-of-castleford-england/

 

Professional groups that have no standards are worse than useless because they lend authority to charlatans in exchange

for membership fees and would-be customers are easily comforted by the false impression that the organizations select

members based on skill of experience.

[rick_helmke1]

While the examples given are truly bad, there are clients who are impossible. Got a referral once from a friend who said he didn't have time. Her first check bounced. Shot the wedding but the groom's people were a sour bunch an NOBODY smiled. Delivered the proof book and she demanded a full refund, wanted to keep the proofs and demanded all negatives. Then the second check bounced. The OP's couple may have had good reason but often when I hear about this kind of thing someone is out of money or running a scam. This kind of nonsense and other things are why I got out of the wedding racket.

 

Rick H.

[wpahnelas]

<p>those pics really were inexcusable. it can't even be a matter of a serious amateur passing himself off as a pro -- i can't image anyone doing so badly unless it was on purpose. the groomsmen holding the bride, for example: it almost seems like a parody of a cliche.<br>

i also wonder whether the couple bears any responsibility for hiring such a turkey in the first place. let's assume they didn't hire the first person considered. on what basis did this imposter distinguish himself from the rest of the prospective "togs"?<br>

you suppose the standards in the UK are really that low?</p>

[alex_iwonttell]

<p>Well, franky, I've seen worse wedding photos. Some of these could actually be usable/sorta likeable with photo editing. If the photographer minded to do at least some basic editing, that is.<br>

But I'm still wondering who's paying £1500 to someone who is *both* a photographer and a videographer at the same time. Don't people think? Of course you can't shoot a video and take pictures at the same time. Duh.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>I have a lot of respect for the serious professional who does wedddings and I know a couple. They get overbooked. Their hired help can goof up. Things can go wrong technically (from my limited experience) and have gone wrong... Equipment can always malfunction. Lights can burn out. Wedding party can jigger the schedule at last minute. Clergyman can change his or her mind maybe. Locations can have other wedding parties that interfere..The professional is 'combat trained' to deal with the problems and knows the list of must get- right shots...formals can be handled different ways by pre negotiation.</p>

<p>I can't see how anyone, who is not on drugs, could produce such poor results. Would have administered a blood alcohol test perhaps,.. Poop happens. Bad hair day for b and g. Look for a track record and get references as well as portfolio on web site methinks.</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>Wow. That is incredible. I have had bad days, metered poorly, framed poorly, been out of position, had development failures, etc. over the course of my photo-shooting days, but these make my bad days look pretty good.<br>

You have to feel a little sorry for everyone all around on this one: the courts for having to deal with it, the bride and groom for the lost wedding memories, and the poor walter mitty photographer who came hard up against reality in realizing somehow that his kit lens, amateur camera and amateur framing/metering/shooting skills were not up to the level he imagined them to be.<br>

I'm all for people trying to tackle something that represents a reach, a stretch, and making a leap forward. But practicing on paying customers is really a big no-no. Hopefully some of the souls about to post another "my first wedding shoot is tomorrow, what do I need to get?" threads will wisen up and get a back up photographer to help, preferrably one with real skills and experience.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>Makes me feel like maybe we should be speaking up when we see posts like "I just got my first wedding job, should I bring my flash?" and "I'm going to be a pro photographer, should I buy a D40 or an XTi? My cousin has a Canon so I can borrow his 18-55 lens but Ken Rockwell says the D40 is the best camera."</p>

<p>I tend to fall into the friend-who-takes-good-vacation-photos category, so I stay the heck out of the real photographer's way and usually get only a few good shots, but I'm pretty sure I've got this clown beat.</p>

[jmck]

<p> It sounds like this fellow was the one who said"Yesterday I could not even spell Fotoghfer and now I are one"</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Looking at the photos, other then horrible framing it looks like the photographer didn't under stand was the +/- compensation function was for a flubbed it the wrong way (maybe instead of -1ev he ended up dialing in +1 (or 2) ev and vice versa). That would help explain why in daylight photos everything is so blown out and why the indoor photos everything is so incredibly dark.</p>

[allen_r1]

<p>Makes me feel like maybe we should be speaking up when we see posts like "I just got my first wedding job, should I bring my flash?" and "I'm going to be a pro photographer, should I buy a D40 or an XTi? My cousin has a Canon so I can borrow his 18-55 lens but Ken Rockwell says the D40 is the best camera."<br>

Good point. How many times have we seen this on PN. I am not a wedding photographer and do not pretend to be one. I shot one wedding as a favor for a friend and did not charge for it. Now, since the digital revolution, it seems that everyone thinks they can go out, with virtually no experience, and be a "professional" wedding photographer. I suspect this was far less common in the film days.</p>

[ajrobertson]

<p>i think its a matter of expectations as mentioned above. If you call yourself a professional, be prepared to meet the expectations that they have. If you are a friend doing a favour.. explain what you think you can do and make sure they know that there may be mistakes made and many throw aways... and maybe even some shotsa that will be missed.</p>

<p>i got roped into being the photog for a sister in laws wedding because they were low on $$ and wanted some shots that were dedicated to them for the usual scenes and the church only allowed the official photog to be present in many areas etc.</p>

<p>there were tonnes of throw aways, and a lot of post production corrections but considering i didnt even own a camera at the time and borrowed a nikon d80 the day before the wedding, they were happy with what we ended up with.</p>

[jason]

<p>fwiw this is a sample of what was shot.. were they all like this? i am sure not. if they are, it is really sad. also digital ain't film..less latitude than color negative and or very bad scans..some weddings are made in hell. some jobs too. i <strong>never</strong> shot a wedding where i had not met the couple before and had at least 2 or more shoots with them and part of family.. i know it's lot more work. it is worth it! get rid of all problems.when i hadn't done this system, i usually had problems..no not usually, ALWAYS. :>(.</p>