My Wedding Photography Nightmare.

[mneace]

<p >I had one experience with small claims court and it was an exercise in futility. Even if you win, there is nothing the court will do to force the payment, unless you somehow find out where they bank and account numbers. Even then there are additional steps, and expenses, you must take just to try and get your money. If the judgment is not in the thousands of dollars (out of small claims jurisdiction), I feel it's totally useless.</p>

[stephanie_w]

<p>Yikes... that is a terrible story. If she hadn't lied about her camera bodies I'd say tough noogies, but she obvious misrepresented herself.<br>

Although I do want to say, shame on you for having formals around noontime :P Yuck.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>David, we don't even know if she promised to use a Canon, not that it should make a difference, I know a professional photographer that uses the original Sigma Pro that came out in 2004, he loves the colors he gets from it. </p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>@Ken Papai, what does the camera has to do with this? I never shot a SD14 but from the sample images on the web shows that there is clearly nothing wrong with it and a competent shooter should be able to cover a wedding with it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I could not disagree more. An SD14 is not a tool to use at a wedding gig -- esp. mated with a similar POS slow lens. Check out the EXIF data.</p>

<p>But then again, some people are of the mind that a pro could even cover a wedding with a P&S camera, as if equipment doesn't matter much at all.</p>

<p>The fact the photog used the Sigma camera after claiming a relatively pro Canon setup means she was clueless about equipment. No backup. Wrong flash. Wrong lens. Wrong body. Disaster. Sigma's as pro bodes are indefensible. Case closed. Anyone here want to claim the SD14 as their primary body? ;-)</p>

[gateway]

<p>What a disaster, sorry to hear...<br />Photo restoration might partially salavage some of the wreckage as mentioned, above.</p>

<p>Photo CD's are common from Pro wedding photographers? When I saw "CD", I raised my eyebrow, and was thinking that 'proofs' would likely be delivered as part of a signed contract.</p>

<p>John</p>

[picturesque]

<p>G.E.--Fair use is not in question here. It is prohibited on photo.net forums to upload images that you didn't take yourself. Richard did not do that, so that was fine. However, you took one of the wedding images, taken by Richard's photographer, edited it and posted it. So you posted an image that you didn't take. That is prohibited, fair use aside.</p>

<p>If Richard had taken an image himself and posted it in the thread (this is OK), you edited it and re posted it, that would be OK according to photo.net guidelines. See Item 2 in the following:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/info/terms-of-use">http://www.photo.net/info/terms-of-use</a></p>

<p>As for the thread itself affecting the case, beyond images, you are right--it could. However, once posted, apparently, if one is called upon by the court to submit the information in an online posting, one must--doesn't matter if it was subsequently deleted. So that question is already answered. Richard knows this.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>@Manuel Barrera</p>

<p>I agree with you and David. No one can tell if I am telling the truth or even a reasonable fascimile of it. </p>

<p>Keep in mind though, I had no intention of posting this until people questioned the situation in a previous post of mine titled "Wedding Photography Etiquette" I considered the ramifications of posting this, and figured it was worth the risk to get some insight into what to do.</p>

<p>As I mentioned, I tried very hard to settle this matter out of court, and hope to settle it before going before a judge. The juristiction I live in requires that we meet with the photog in front of an arbitrator to try to resolve the issue without a judgement. This is what I am hoping to do, but I did have to file a small claims case against her to get her to even consider meeting me fact to face.</p>

<p>I have no intention of putting the link back up to the photos. I have been advised by Nadine, and checked with a friend/lawyer who confirmed, that it could be used against me if I do go to court, as well as anything else I post here.</p>

<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. She agreed since she said that she does not make money from prints, but provides them to couples who want proofs and enlargements. She also offered to put a gallery up on her site for family to purchase prints directly, (which after seeing the images she took, told her it would not be necessary). I did not pay for an album as I have some graphic design background and decided, (with my wife's input), that we would design and print our own album. </p>

[lovcom_photo]

<p>Another angle here:</p>

<p>I hate to say it but I don't blame the photographer at all.</p>

<p>I think the fault is 100% on the bride and groom for not investigating the work, knowledge, experience and abilities of that photographer. Too much was taken at face value, and too little researched. Most reasonable people could've found the photographer as an incompetent in 2 minutes after demanding and viewing her work.</p>

<p>At the end of the day, there were steps the B&G could've taken to prevent such a disaster, and on the most important day in their lives. Sady, I think the B&G are a victim of their own incompetence.</p>

[tim_eastman]

<p>I hope you can salvage something via Photoshop. Trying to make the best of a bad situation, my experience has been that wedding albums get looked at less and less, so the loss you feel today will ( may ) seem much less a few years down the road. Good luck.</p>

[warren_sheng]

<p>Richard,<br>

I'm sorry for your pain. You're understandably angry but one day it will pass. My own wedding photography was not that good (it was done by friends) but the food and everything else was fine. The wife was and is fine too. (It was a budget wedding.) 23 years have now passed. Marriage is a long haul. It could have been worse. Your wedding photography could have been world class AND inexpensive but then you find out your wife doesn't like you at all and vice versa. You part company painfully and expensively soon after but still have 500 perfect images to remind you of the first day...<br>

Having said that, I hope you can get some great pictures taken at a later date. And enjoy your marriage.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>What to do, nothing will bring back the day, if nothing else the bad images have made for a ceremony that you will never forget, in time you will even laugh about it. I will tell you a story about a man I saw once for a citation in the amount of $65, he received while unloading at an airport as he and his family were to embark on a trip to Europe for a month. I saw him about 45 days after the issuance of the citation. He was still very bitter and mad, I asked him if he enjoyed the vacation, he did not as he let that citation bother him the entire time, I mentioned to him that I could tell that he was well off by the type of clothes he was wearing and inquired if he made $100 or $200 an hour he smiled an said "I am very rich". I pointed out to him that the $65 was pocket change to him and he had let a small amount of money ruin a vacation with his family. He realized what had happened and he started crying. Enjoy your new life, your new wife, there will be many memories together that will be much more important than some ruined photos that do not meet the expectations. Happy Wedding</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>@ken</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could not disagree more. An SD14 is not a tool to use at a wedding gig -- esp. mated with a similar POS slow lens. Check out the EXIF data.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's nothing wrong with using an SD14 for a wedding. Is it a Nikon or a Canon ? No...but it is no worse then using a Nikon D1x or D1? or for that matter a D200? or a 20,30 or 40D? </p>

<p>I am 100% in the camp that the tool only gets you so far...the rest is up to the photographer knowing the tool and using it in the proper manner. You can give me the same set of tools that a professional carpenter uses, but I guarantee that the results I provide are not going to be in the same category as theirs.</p>

<p>@Richard -<br>

Good luck in getting this sorted out. I have no doubt as to what / how she presented herself to you... I'm 90% certain that I've sat next to same photographer at least 4 or 5 times at the local coffee shop. (figuratively)</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[ron_steedman]

<blockquote>

<p>HERE IT IS, MY WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHY NIGHTMARE!!!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm very sorry to hear that the photographer you hired failed to capture your wedding day to the satisfaction of you and your wife! My wife and I went through that pain myself many years ago. :(</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It sure looks like equipment failure is a real possibility. For that I feel sorry for her... I would not have been so concerned about her equipment.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If she promised to bring "2 Canon Bodies, one with a 24-70 f/2.8 and one with a 70-200 f/2.8" as Richard claims, and the problem was due to an equipment malfunction as Tom & Ed claim, then I don't feel too sorry for her as she apparently misrepresented her equipment. If she had brought two Canon bodies and lenses as promised then that one malfunction likely wouldn't have spelled disaster.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that damages are not necessarily limited to what you paid, especially if she misrepresented herself and you need to pay a professional to correct those images. That sounds like exactly what you will need to do. Of course, I'm only hearing one side of the story--there may be more to this.</p>

<p>I bring two camera bodies, two flashes, extra batteries, extra cards, etc. on every shoot. Actually, that's the case for most non-Craigslist wedding photographers. We have only one wedding our whole lives--or so we hope! Capturing those moments right so you can look back on the day with fodness for years to come is a wedding photographer's duty. Bargain photographers often turn out not to be bargains.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>What is interesting it that when I shot weddings with another a 4x5 chrown or speed was formals; and a MF camera like a C3 TLR; Kodak Medalist; or Rapid Omega was more for the informal stuff in the 1960's. What mattered was results; no the camera or tools used. I have seen nice wedding images shot with a Kodak 620 folder with a triplet lens; and bad stuff shot with a Blad too.<br>

<br /> Here i printing I have printed very fine wedding images done with P&S digitals; BUT the user used the tool well. Simples stuff like olympus 3030 and 5050's. Now on this thread a 14 megapixel dslr is not enough.<br>

<br /> Try to savage the existing images.<br>

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

[nikbryant]

<p>Richard, just a side note.<br>

few people remember where the pic's are stored 10 years after the wedding. ;-)</p>

<p>I am a photographer that ruined all the shots at a wedding I did. I refunded all the $$ sold most my equipment and didn't touch a camera for years after that. I wish I could use the "camera malfunction" thing but it was all on me! Did too many weddings and got complacent (and lazy)</p>

<p>I feel for the photographer, but she had NO BUSINESS selling her work.</p>

<p>I think you should do what ever is needed to get all the money back, warn all your friends, <strong><em>but also don't let this be a thorn in your side for the next 50-70 yrs. Enjoy your life, wife and kid(s)</em></strong><br>

Congrats on the baby on the way! (hint: give your wife a Mother's day gift this year)<br>

Good Luck,<br>

Nik</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p><em>"I only looked at the sample portfolio...shame on me." -Richard S.</em></p>

<p>Yep! There's plenty of newcomers that don't have a clue to getting good exposures and actually covering a wedding. You stated earlier that you thought she was a "diamond in the rough" so you already began making excuses for her before the ceremony ever happened. It's always important when screening photographers to see several full weddings to get a representative idea of what to expect. In this case you got much more "rough" than "diamond", and I think you seriously under-estimated wedding photography which is likely exactly what your newcomer did as well. The only one who really wins anything in court is generally the lawyers. Her offer of 50% seems reasonable since I would consider your judgement in hiring a "diamond in the rough" would leave you to share significant culpability.</p>

<p>As a side-note: I also get somewhat peeved when a new shooter joins the forum, asks for a critique of their website and then gets extra help from forum participants to "cherry-pick" the best images to present in their online folio. Leaving them to decide what represents their work seems more honest.</p>

[hal_b]

<blockquote>

<p>Sigma's as pro bodes are indefensible. Case closed. Anyone here want to claim the SD14 as their primary body? ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ken, this really made me laugh. I would have also defended the Sigma, as it appears to be a perfectly functional camera, and not to blame. Truthfully, I don't think the camera is to blame. But I will admit I would never bring that camera to a paying gig in 2010. It's just not professional. And regarding some confusion of others: This is a 4MP camera, not 14. Sigma used some experimental pixeling technology that greatly diminished the resolution, but they claimed it produced "better pixels". In practice, it was just another 4MP camera without quality glass to support it. I would use a broken down old Canon Digital Rebel on a paying gig before I pulled out a Sigma, and I think any other responsible photog would, too. I applaud your challenge to bring out a single photog who actually shoots with a Sigma as the primary cam.</p>

<p>Even if you were to defend the Sigma camera, you can't defend the decision to show up without a backup camera. Assuming the Sigma had malfunctioned, or the lens diaphragm was malfunctioning, it would have been a simple matter to replace it with the backup before too much damage was done. That right there is the case for negligence. The photographer was negligent in her duty (and that's aside from the issue of misrepresentation).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the fault is 100% on the bride and groom for not investigating the work, knowledge, experience and abilities of that photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is just ridiculous. It's a professional's responsibility to accurately represent the product. The client (as far as we know) was given a standard, brief presentation including a portfolio. Although the portfolio would have been a collection of best works, it MUST be a representation of the quality of goods to be delivered. You can't defend any position to the contrary. The fact that the client actually called the references is proof of a reasonable amount of research before committing to the contract. According to the OP statement, the client was swindled, plain and simple. The only way this isn't the case is if the facts we've heard aren't accurate.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Richard, going back to your first post -- "Technically, her photos weren't perfect." I'm very sympathetic to what has happened to you, but once you saw that she wasn't proficient technically, that should have been the end of your dealings with her. If someone is holding themselves forth as a professional photographer of any kind, wedding or otherwise, having the technical end down cold is the minimum standard. You can argue over whether one photographer's pictures are better or more creative than the other, whose personality is best, who is most reliable, etc. But if they have pictures in their samples that are out of focus, not properly exposed, etc., then they shouldn't be charging and potential customers -- especially a photogrpaher who knows about these things -- shouldn't be hiring.</p>

[rayt]

<p>Back in the film days I used to take three camera bodies to weddings. At one wedding I had all three cameras failed. Yep, I was diligent in that I brought backups. But the planets aligned, the moon was in the seventh house and Jupiter aligned with Mars. Whatever I was severely stuck. After much frustration and the loss of a roll of pictures I was able to get one camera unjammed. That single camera served the rest of the wedding.</p>

<p>As others have said the camera was/is not the issue. I could photograph a wedding quite nicely with my Sony DSC-F717. A lowly 5 mpix camera that many would regard as a P&S as it has no raw support or interchangeable lens. It is the operator of the camera that determines the ultimate results unless the camera is one of the Thane Cameras (use the web).</p>

<p>Also don't expend too much energy on this effort. The most you will be able to recover is what you paid. You will still have bad pictures. Don't let the emotions get to you. My wedding pictures are fading and I cannot find the negatives. After 35 years they only remind me that I am getting older and fatter. Watched the wedding film once.</p>

<p>Remember, sometimes it is like mud wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.</p>

[silverfox]

<p>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 href="http://www.rytterfalk.com/?s=wedding+shoot+with+the+sd14">http://www.rytterfalk.com/?s=wedding+shoot+with+the+sd14</a> </p>

[pete_williams1]

<p>The fact of the matter is, she promised two Canon bodies, and 2 nice lenses. She came with a Sigma body, and a kit lens. If she did experience equipment failure, she should have rented a body or two, and a nice lens for the event. This is someone's wedding, it only happens for the first time ONCE. You don't show up with an incompetent camera when the client SPECIFICALLY ASKED what kind of equipment you use, BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO THE CLIENT. The photographer is 100% in the wrong here, she should fess up and repay for damages atleast. I don't care if it was an honest mistake, you don't run and hide from it, especially when it is something as important as a wedding. <br>

@the people questioning what her portfolio looked like. Obviously she isn't going to put photos of this quality in her portfolio, I can't understand why anyone would think this is the bride and groom's fault. A professional photographer, whether it be a first year, or someone with 30 years of experience, knows their limits. She claimed to have shot weddings before, she claimed to have nice equipment, she claimed to have shot in low light situations before, etc. Her shots not only make me question the low light claim, but also any previous experience in photography at all. Shooting in full auto mode the ENTIRE TIME as a professional photographer is unacceptable. I realize she may have needed it to catch a moment, but for the posed photos she should have atleast been in a sub-manual mode. <br>

My condolences to the OP, hope you get this sorted out. Like another user said, just try to put it all behind you once you get this figured out. No need to let it affect your marriage or lead to arguments. Good luck with the baby!</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Folks should be a man about this matter; and not be little kids. It is NOT about equipment; it is about end results.<br /> <br /> The end user is at fault not the gear used. Folks should drop the slacker; amateurish kids stuff and grow up.<br /> <br /> Learn to stop whining; act like an adult. Stop blaming the tools; blame the user.<br /> <br /> Grow out of the amateur pond; learn to take responsiblity from ones actions.<br /> <br /> One can shoot a wedding with far lessor tools than the amateurs on this thread blast. Being a whimp and blaming ones gear means you are an amateur.<br /> <br /> The goof is the guy you see in the mirror; one who blames the gear instead of oneself.</p>

<p>Cameras are not incompetent; the users are if they go not understand the tool and what it can or cannot do.<br /> <br /> Grown professionals do not whine about gear; they use it and get results.<br /> <br /> The beef is if the photographer delivered the required results or not; NOT about what tools the photographer; plumber, etc used.<br>

<br /> Good photography is NOT about gear; but amateurs seem to think so.<br>

<br /> It is actually about results.</p>

[pete_williams1]

<p>No kidding, the problem here is the fact that she promised two nice cameras, something he obviously cared about, ie HE ASKED, and she came with a Sigma. I agree it's about end results, but what happened here? The end results weren't up to par, or even close for that matter. You make a decent point but in doing so make it sound like you're an elitist. Obviously it is the operator who is in control of how great the images are, but when he SPECIFICALLY ASKED what equipment she used, again, BECAUSE IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HIM, she should have came with what she promised. </p>

<p>Don't pull the amateur/slacker/whining garbage, none of what you said even pertained to my post, although I know it wasn't solely directed at me. I said nothing about the image quality of the Sigma, I said nothing about a professional's ability to shoot a wedding with it. What I DID say was that the equipment was important to him, she promised him two Canon bodies with two nice lenses, and she didn't deliver.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<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>

<p><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>

</em></p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Isn't the SD14 Sigma's Foveon Camera which uses something like three 5MP or so layers (instead of using interpolation as conventional sensors do) in order to get supposedly better color? The reviews I've read indicate it is the approximate equal of a 10MP or so conventional sensor with very high fidelity color. I don't have an SD14 and have never used one but the reviews I've read wouldn't have led me to think it was a terrible camera to take to a Wedding. Maybe not a conventional choice but not a bad machine.</p>

<p>I don't know what the kit lens was, but my 5D uses a 24-104/4L and that is also referred to as a kit lens even though it's quite a decent lens. So it is possible to have a good kit lens. Again not sure how bad this one is. This kind of story is why when friends ask me to take their wedding (I'm merely an amateur landscape photographer) I say NO I'm in no way qualified. Sorry things turned out so badly for you though. Good luck with your small claims suit.</p>

<p>Excerpt from Pop Photo review: <a href="http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Sigma-SD14?page=0,0">http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Sigma-SD14?page=0,0</a><br>

Our image quality tests came down in favor of RAW files over JPEGs. In JPEG mode at ISO 100, the SD14 captures detail on par with an 8MP DSLR such as the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT. Combined with an Extremely High color accuracy (9.9 Delta E), JPEGs earn an Extremely High image quality rating.<br>

But in RAW, also at ISO 100, the SD14 performs more like a good 10MP DSLR, capturing about 10 percent higher resolution and Excellent color, earning it an Excellent image quality rating. Still, NEF RAW files from the $920 (street) 10.2MP Nikon D80 show higher detail. So this is not what you'd expect from a camera billed as having 14.1 megapixels.</p>