My Wedding Photography Nightmare.

[mechanic]

<p>Richard,<br>

As per original message (<em>The weekend we picked is a particularly busy wedding weekend for local couples due to it's placement between the summer tourist season and the fall foliage tourist season. Because of this, we planned way ahead, booking the hall we wanted and a Pro DJ friend of mine. The only thing missing was our Pro Photographer. </em><em><br /><br /><em>Unfortunately, the two great photographers I would have chosen were booked for the weekend, (my first choice was in Alaska, my second choice had already booked), so my wife and I started looking for photographers)</em></em><br>

<em>The DJ was a friend, It was a well known fact that (Technically, her photos weren't perfect) as per your thoughts BEFORE you became upset. Also, as per your original message "After some discussion and meeting with a few other photographers, we decided to go with the one we felt the best about. We set up a second meeting to verify a few details and seal the deal.</em><em><br /><br /><em>Little happened until the month before the wedding when we went over the final details of the wedding day with our photographer, (over the phone), and went over how final payment would be made.</em></em><br>

In this area as is the case in many other areas, a photographer is booked at least six months or longer prior to the wedding date--sometimes it is a year or longer. Had you did this, very likely you could have got a friend to shoot the event with their XYZ cameras. She gave you a CDs or DVD's of 800 shots and that was likely what you wanted but the shots were not perfect. MY question is "Was this so called poor photographer paid the same rate as an actual Professional Photographer would have charged you for the event and files. What did you pay for her photo services have been asked by many but there never has been an answer. All I see in the above is hear-say and you wanting perfection--nothing from the photographer.<br>

At the start of this a few days I was inclined to blame the photographer but as time goes on and no attempt to say what she charged you forced me to look closer. A very quick check on rates in that area <strong>starting </strong> at $2000.00 to $4400.00. Quite often quality carries a price--weddings is not an area to skimp on. You did have choices! #1 being booking people required for the event well in advance. The above is my opion only.<br>

Garry</p>

 

[lee_richards2]

<p>First let me admit I am a Nikon shooter and have been for a few decades.</p>

<p>The failure here was not because she used Sigma. A good shooter could knock your socks off with a Sigma and good selection of Sigma glass. I'll bet there are any number of pro's here who own at least one and probably more Sigma lenses. It was not long ago by some of our calculating when the Nikon D1's were being proudly used for wedding photography; that or the D100. The SD14 would outperform either of these cameras in all liklihood. I have personally shot a wedding with a D100 (for all the wrong reasons) and the B&G were thrilled with the results. My D2H is still in the car for a third backup and I believe I could do a decent job with that if I had to. From what has been said the conditions present at the wedding would not have challeged the capabilities of just about any digital SLR.</p>

<p>She should have had a backup camera. She should have had a plan. Most of us would have suggested that she go with a Nikon or Canon for the long haul if she intended to be a professional photographer. Nevertheless. What went wrong with this shoot, if it was an equipment failure, could have and probably has happend to all of us who have been around for awhile. The equipment failure was a mere speed bump to a photographer with a back-up camera. If she had not had the failure you might have been very happy with the resuts. Certainly the fact that she used a Sigma in no way guaranteed a bad outcome.</p>

<p>On edit I realize that I missed Kelly's excellent post. He said it far better.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Well, you said that you have sued in small claims court.</p>

<p>So, your course is set. The measure of damages, assuming breach of contract is proven, can vary, but the burden is on the plaintiff to show both. Having a true pro as a witness or affidavit might be helpful.</p>

<p>When the result is in, kindly let us all know what the Judge ruled.</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>While I would agree that the failure is not because his camera was a Sigma, I think that may be an important part of the court case. The client asked what equipment would be used in the execution of the contract, and the photographer named particular cameras and lenses but used other equipment that was not as good. If it goes to court, the client says "these images are bad" and the photographer says "actually, that's an artistic interpretation and I think they're good" and the client now has to make that argument. But two things here that are much easier to argue about in court are:<br>

1. Did the photographer show portfolio images that were not her own? This would be falsifying credentials, which would be fraud.<br>

2. Did the photographer make specific claims that can be proven false? E.g. "I will use two Canon cameras with these two professional grade lenses", and doesn't do that.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>"We stumbled upon what appeared to be what I would consider a "diamond in the rough" wedding photographer. Technically, her photos weren't perfect, but her composition was great and she seemed to have an eye for the moment...something you really can't train."<br>

As stated in other posts, this is your issue. I know a photographer who could shoot a wedding with an iPhone. Gear is not the issue at all. The person you hired was not a seasoned professional wedding photographer. You got what you asked for. You hired an amateur and you got amateur results. It happens all the time. I love amateurs for their passion but I would not hire one to do a professional job, any more than I'd hire a budding young surgeon to operate on me. As for the "eye" that you can't train, sure you can. It is about experience and practice.<br>

That all may have sounded harsh, but I really am sorry you had this experience. You deserved better. I hope you can salvage some of the images so at least you have something to show for your wedding pictures.<br>

All the best Richard.<br>

Lou</p>

[madeleine_hopkins]

<blockquote>

<p>You got what you asked for. You hired an amateur and you got amateur results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're speaking as though Richard was somehow psychic and should have known he was hiring someone who wasn't up for the task. Sorry, but it sounds like fraud may have been involved (i.e., the photographer used other peoples' photos in her portfolio) in which case Richard could not have known this. Hindsight's 20/20 dude.</p>

[mechanic]

<p>Madeleine,<br>

Hindsight????<br>

When the judge asks to see the samples and she shows samples similar to what Richard got????<br>

Did the signed contract stipulate Canon equipment or was it hearsay. The issue of what can 100% be proved to a judge that what was was actually paid to the photographer may help a judge determine liability and who gets paid as it is very easy to find starting rates for pro's in that area. The Judge will likely not even take into condideration what Richard's friends would have charged him nor should they in my opinion--lots of reasons why people get friends to work for them and expect huge discounts --been down that road once too often. Yes too many questions are unanswered in my opinion.<br>

These are my opions only. Richard may be100% in the right though. It may take a court to decide but it is sad that it had to go this far.</p>

[madeleine_hopkins]

<p>The only point I'm making is that if she showed photographs she hadn't taken herself then it's fraud and Richard should be awarded a full refund plus court costs. However, if the sample photos are her own then it will be up to the court to decide if they are similar or different and award accordingly.</p>

<p>Unfortunately however, if she did indeed steal the images then she'll most likely turn up with a new portfolio and all the stolen images will be gone without a trace.</p>

<p>One of the admin stated earlier that people are caught regularly using images that aren't their own so it wouldn't surprise me. There's just so much dishonesty in the world.</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Madeleine, you'er kidding right? Any third rate photographer (and not necessarily a wedding photographer) could have sized that lady up in 2 minites....just by reviewing her portfolio, and asking a lot of questions....you make it sound like it's a craap shoot, a gamble....no, it is not. You lay the blame on the wrong person...it was the buyer that screwed up, I know, he knows too....how come you don't?</p>

<p>And if she showed someone else's work, asking key questions about those comps can EASILY flesh out the truth...what lens, what f-stop, how did you set up the flash, did you bounce, what mode was the camera in? It would've been exceedingly easy for perhaps all of us to separate the grain from the chaff here.</p>

<p>Buyer beware...</p>

[madeleine_hopkins]

<p>I must have missed some new development further in the thread (I read most but not all of the thread). Richard said her portfolio showed progression to "a great technical photographer with a great eye" and then of their wedding photos "not one was even close to the product she advertised." I don't live in the US so the laws may be different over there, but in New Zealand false advertising is illegal and if either a) the portfolio photos weren't taken by her, or b) they are markedly different in quality according to unbiased opinion, then it would be classed as false advertising.</p>

<p>Like I said, I may have missed something in this thread. I haven't seen either her portfolio or Richard's wedding photos. Maybe all of you have seen her portfolio and the pictures are actually terrible and that's why you're sure it would have been easy to spot that she wouldn't do a good job. Maybe you're right and Richard just happened to be the exception for this ability. Was he tired and distracted perhaps? Were his psychic skills a bit below par that day? Who knows.</p>

<p>I do know that he shouldn't be blamed for trusting her and not questioning her on details of how she took the shot to make sure she really took them. I mean how far is one supposed to go? Make her take a lie detector test perhaps?</p>

<p>I came in here to offer my opinion. I've given it. If you don't agree that's fine, feel free to continue saying so, but I'm through reiterating my point.</p>

<p>I hope you get a positive outcome, Richard. All the best,<br /> Madeleine</p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>Dan Lovell's comment is far too harsh. Paraphrasing slightly "Any third rate photographer would have known not to hire this wedding photographer so it's the buyer that screwed up."</p>

<p>Most wedding couples know a lot less about the technical aspects of photography if anything at all. And most would probably be put off by too much tech talk or even any tech talk. So would Dan make it the photographer's fault if one of those of those couples had the same experience?</p>

<p>Maybe Dan was trolling. As if this thread needs more agitation.</p>

<p> </p>

[KenPapai]

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>And if she showed someone else's work, asking key questions about those comps can EASILY flesh out the truth...what lens, what f-stop, how did you set up the flash, did you bounce, what mode was the camera in? It would've been exceedingly easy for perhaps all of us to separate the grain from the chaff here.</em><br /> <em>Buyer beware...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>What Dan said. That hired Sigma shooter with the kit lens wouldn't have a clue of an answer.<br>

<br /> And earlier (4 days ago) I called out the Sigma shooters... so far zilch. All these false claims of "a true artist could shoot a 2010 wedding with an iPhone, or a Walmart P&S, or a Canon D30..." are simply posturing (and nonsense). Thanks!</p>

[hal_b]

<p>Ken, there was this one:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Martyn Fox, Feb 18, 2010; 03:17 p.m.<br />I have been reading through this post and noticed a lot of critism of the camera used on the day. It may, or may not be of interest to you, to have a look at this link <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.rytterfalk.com/?s=wedding+shoot+with+the+sd14" target="_blank">http://www.rytterfalk.com/?s=wedding+shoot+with+the+sd14</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I certainly wouldn't defend all cameras, but you could probably do professional work with any interchangeable lens SLR camera system. Even the new Micro 4/3 cameras are probably sufficient. Some of the better Point-and-shoots can produce good results, but somewhere in that murky water is the line between absolute garbage and the bare minimum level of quality for "professional" work. For example, I wouldn't hesitate to use the Canon G11 with some flashes on a hotshoe trigger, and that camera can fit in a large pocket.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>And earlier (4 days ago) I called out the Sigma shooters... so far zilch.(Ken Papai)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's been a fair amount of commentary about alternative cameras and processes in this post. Perhaps you've missed them.</p>

<p>The Sigma isn't a bad camera, actually. Maybe you're overlooking a few things. The Foveon sensor is a specific design that offers a richer dynamic range within a low signal amplification threshold. Meaning it's limited at high ISO but at lower ISO it captures an image with more information than sensors with Bayer filter arrays. The pixels are typically described as hyperspectral due to their response curve for different wavelengths of light.</p>

<p>One of the interesting side effects is the Sigma can offer some advantages for digital black and white, for example, with more information available for channel conversion than non-Foveon cameras. Often this translates to smoother and richer tonality than can be provided with other digital cameras.</p>

<p>Another interesting side effect is the sensor design makes it impervious to focusing aberration and chromatic aberration, since pixel depth is unusually shallow (under five micrometers). If coupled with good glass, Sigma has the potential to actually out perform other cameras on a quality basis — at least at small image sizes, where it's not losing ground to resolution.</p>

<p>The final image size will of course be a lot smaller than from D700/5D alternatives, but that doesn't make it unsuitable or unusable. And, I suspect if used with by the right hands (and with supplementary light sources), it could produce excellent results. On a specification level it's not much different that the Fuji S2 Pro which was a highly capable wedding camera in its day.</p>

<p>It comes back to the point about tools. Any tool is useless unless used with understanding. But, with understanding, any tool can be made to perform usefully.</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>There's been a fair amount of commentary about alternative cameras and processes in this post. Perhaps you've missed them.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course I have not missed anything. THIS POST and this OP is about the sub amateur performance of a hired shooter and their substandard (in said shooter's hands) Sigma cam and junk lens. I don't go around changing the subject. And pondering "What ifs..."</p>

<p>I could just as easily as you've done written about the small Foveon sensor (and its obvious to me advantages and disadvantages) in the Sigma. Nothing new there to me as I follow DSLR developments more than the vast majority of SLR shooters.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>Fair enough. I shall say no more. Your response has told me all I need to know about your understanding.</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>Another interesting side effect is the sensor design makes it impervious to focusing aberration and chromatic aberration, since pixel depth is unusually shallow (under five micrometers). If coupled with good glass...</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>That part was new to me and is very cool.... too bad the photog was focus challenged! And job overwhelmed challenged! And backup challenged! And glass challenged! And exposure challenged!</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Ken;<br>

the pickle is that a pro can shoot great wedding images with a lessor camera than you love to dog; ie "Sigma came and junk lens".<br>

<br /> Thus you support the dogma that it is about equipment and not about the craft; ie amateur/slacker dogma where one can blame ones gear instead of oneself if one screws up. It damns understanding, experience and the craft.<br>

<br /> How do you handle the cases where somebody goofs up the wedding images but has all the latest cameras and the best lenses known to man? Do you then blame the camera maker?<br>

<br /> Both you and Richard are focused on the equipment; instead of the results. It really does not matter if the gear was 100 years old and shot with glass plates; if the images are great.<br>

<br /> The wedding was 5 months ago; Richard and you still cannot fess up that the user is a strong component to the image quality or lack of quality. You are what marketers dream about; it is all about the gear; and nothing about the user. This keeps the economy rolling; if Kilroy buys a better tool; he is gets better results.<br>

<br /> The images are the ones to judge; that is the goods one is paying the contactor for. The person is an independent contactor; NOT an employee. In the employee case one can micromanage the chaps tools; with a independent contactor; you pay the chap to unclog the toilet; shoot wedding images; cut your yard; paint a sign. One normally doesnt manage a plumber about his tools; one wants pro results.<br>

<br /> Any lawsuit should focus on what one was buying; ie wedding images. Leave the childish stuff about the tools at home. It is up to a contractor to know ones craft. Do not support childish excuses by blaming the tools; it is insulting and it really does not matter. Focus on what matters; ie what one was buying; ie images. Do not waste the courts time with amateur hour playing gearhead. In a way it means you are letting contractor off the hook as to delivering the goods; since alot of the focus is about tools instead of results; ie justifying the contactors goofs.</p>

<p><br /> The damages if any are poor images.<br>

<br /> ALL somebody has to do to burst the amateur hour worry over gear; is to show some nice wedding images shot with a camera alot more lame than the "Sigma camera with junk lens" and dogma gets tossed out of court. Here in printing I have printed nice wedding images shot with an Olympus 3030 and even a D360L 1.3 megapixel too; BUT again they were shot by somebody who understood these tools and used them well; ie a pro.</p>

<p> </p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>So after 140 posts people are debating whether a wedding can be shot with a sigma SD14. Come guys if you can't shoot a wedding with an SD14 it's not the camera fault now is it. It may not be the best choice for many photographers but it is certainly capable in the right hands. I don't think anyone believes that you can't shoot a wedding with a Nikon F2 or a Leica M2 but they don't have AF, AE and film can still be pretty grainy at higher ISOs or even lower ISOs but few here would say that they are not suitable weddings and probably everyone would agree that if you can't shoot a wedding with one of those bodies then you probably shoot stay well away from wedding until you can. It's not the gear that makes a great photo.</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<blockquote>

<p>Tom Boston wrote: "Dan Lovell's comment is far too harsh. Paraphrasing slightly "Any third rate photographer would have known not to hire this wedding photographer so it's the buyer that screwed up."<br>

Most wedding couples know a lot less about the technical aspects of photography if anything at all. And most would probably be put off by too much tech talk or even any tech talk. So would Dan make it the photographer's fault if one of those of those couples had the same experience?<br>

Maybe Dan was trolling. As if this thread needs more agitation."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tom, we're not talking about any bride and groom...we're discussing the experience of an experience shooter, the OP, the guy that misjudged the hired "pro". Perhaps I'm a troll, or you need to read better ;-)</p>

<p>Of course I'm harsh....a couple's wedding memories were at steak here...</p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>Dan, the real issue here is that the photographer apparently delivered bad images. If the images had been anything like the sample portfolio, then the use of an SD14 or any other camera or lack of backup equipment would not have been an issue.</p>

<p>Even the bad images would have been less of an issue if the photographer had not misrepresented herself about the gear. Having lied about the gear casts doubt over whether the sample portfolio are even her own images.</p>

<p>You are blaming the victim. Obviously, the poster feels bad about letting himself be cheated. And sure, with his photographic experience he might have asked more questions, possibly to the great ennui of his fiancee. Richard started by asking about equipment. She cited good gear. They had a good feeling about her. She showed decent photographs. Even possibly her own. She didn't deliver.</p>

<p>The photographer accepted money for the job. Accepting responsibility for the results goes with that. "The groom is a photographer and should have known" doesn't mean anything. The photographer took the money but didn't deliver. She should give the money back and take ownership of her failure.</p>

<p>All the speculation over what went wrong with her equipment (stuck aperture, wrong flash settings, etc.) or whether the bad results came from operator error is interesting but irrelevant.</p>

 

[hal_b]

<p>mmmm....steak....</p>

[barbara_sung]

<p>Reminds me of my Photographer horror story. For my sons graduation we tried <em>link removed per forum guidelines</em>. Found a great Photographer and Really started enjoying photography again</p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Tom, yes the camera she used is secondary, and not directly the issue here; agreed.</p>

<p>However her choice of camera is indicative of her lack of skill. Why would anyone use a high noise camera for a wedding?</p>

<p>Had she been taken to task about how she makes pictures, very quickly would it become appearant that she was inexperienced, incompetent.</p>

<p>In short, this situation could've been avoided, and I feel the pain of two newlyweds, so much in love, and they have crud pictures to memorialize the day.</p>

<p>Yes I blame the victim, like I blame the lung cancer patient who smoked his whole life. But with blame comes empathy, and sadness because it could've been avoided easily. Especially these days, when every other person with a DSLR is offering wedding photography services on CraigsList...so many shooters, so few true professionals.</p>

[tom_boston1]

<p>Sorry Dan, the cigarette analogy doesn't hold. The photographer didn't show up with a portfolio that said "Warning. This photographer may be hazardous to your wedding album memories."</p>

<p>I can't imagine the photographer responding in small claims court with "But your honor, he's a photographer too and should have known I'd do a bad job."</p>

<p> </p>