True Story From the Outside Looking In

[craigpjenkinsphotography]

<p>I thought ya'll would enjoy reading a true story about a wedding photographer experience everyone can learn from. I only wish I was there. This comes to me from another relative and an eye-witness who was there. The wedding took place only couple years ago but I am just now getting caught up with family gossip. The story goes like this;</p>

<p>An extended relative of mine got married a little too far away for me to make the trip. The wedding was a huge event lasting mid-morning through early evening. No doubt the bill was more than the down payment on my home!</p>

<p>A few days ago I spoke with one of the family whom attended the wedding so I asked how everything went. She tells me the entire wedding was dominated by the photographer to a degree he nearly spoiled the day. The photographer was rude to any guest who brought their own camera. He tried to get anyone with a personal camera to leave it in his custody during their visit. Any time a flash other than his went off he got excited to the point of nearly making a scene by demanding they turn off their flash. This demand was not delivered with tact, on the contrary he spat it out with other comments about knowing how to use the camera features. Many times when he organized a group to photograph he would spin around to snap at guest behind him for distracting the "Eyes" of his group composition. His assistant acted like a scared mouse which really put everyone on edge.</p>

<p>Eventually some friends & family suggested to the groom's mother what an ass-hat this photographer is turning into. This is when it was discovered he is getting $5,000 for this job. (Hushed gasps all around) If he had made a good impression then $5k may have seemed like a bargain.</p>

<p>A few days later the photographers proof CD arrives in the mail. The CD contains just one folder crammed with several hundred thumbnails. Every thumbnail has a large bold watermark diagonally spanning opposite corners. The watermark is so bold it obliterates most of the subjects in each respective photo. This is when the client learns digital copies are NOT available at any price, the photographer retains all originals and copyrights. The most economical option is for 6" prints @ $10/ea. This works out to about $3,500 in addition the his $5k to get all the photos he shot. A completed wedding album was an additional $5k. The groom's mother purchased all the prints, selected some she desired in larger format at an additional ransom, and took the entire stack to a local shop to be composed into a series of three wedding photo albums. This little extra work saved her about $2.5K!</p>

<p>So in the end the groom's mother paid the ransom for the prints and spat blood doing so. Nobody at that wedding will have a good impression of "Professional" wedding photographers, (not, at least, until the next wedding). And this story is too valuable for me to sit on without sharing it here for everyone to learn from. </p>

<p>Take from it what you will.</p>

<p>Craig</p>

[theresa_skutt]

<p>Shouldn't the client have spoken up, and reminded him who the real boss is? The ... client? You get what you get if you put up with it, pay for it, etc. I'd have had a different visit and a with him and a different ending.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>If a <strong>person</strong> quickly asks you for a $5,000 loan, you'd probably ask for a reference (or three) from someone the <strong>person</strong> had paid back on a previous loan.</p>

<p><em>Same logic for a wedding</em>: if you ask for a reference before hiring [or signing a contract] -- you would <strong>not</strong> have a ex-drill sergeant to contend with at the wedding.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Sorry, didn't enjoy reading the story and didn't learn anything from it that I didn't already know. It's a shame and it's too bad that another relative that might have known something about shooting weddings didn't help them out and help screen potential photographers to help them find somebody better....especially for that kind of money.</p>

[irusan]

<p>Yeah, I'm with David here; it's not the first time I've heard such a story.</p>

<p>From what we've been told (and it is third-hand) the photographer certainly comes across as unprofessional on several levels. My biggest concern is the part about the client not knowing that (s)he wouldn't get any digital copies until after the proofs arrived. I am in no way defending the photographer but who hires any kind of service for $5,000 and doesn't ask what they will be receiving?</p>

<p>There seems to be two real issues here: first is the behavior of the photographer. Again, we can only go by what you've told us and it certainly sounds like he was incorrectly believing that he was the star of the day. That's a shame and does a disservice to all of us who work very hard to not only build our own reputations but to overcome the bad reputations that others create.</p>

<p>The second issue is the pricing model the photographer used. I'm sorry, but I am having a really hard time believing that the client didn't know that prints, albums, digital files etc. were not included in the base fee. Frankly, I don't care if someone charges $5000, $50,000, or $50 - while the photographer has a responsibility to tell the client what's included, the client needs to shoulder some of the responsibility as well and ask.</p>

<p>You mention the mother of the bride being the one who paid for all the prints. By any chance was it the bridal couple that met and hired the photographer? If so, the MOTB should also be asking her daughter if she knew that nothing was included. It's possible that the couple signed the contract and didn't tell the MOTB the details.</p>

<p>But, those prices are not necessarily unreasonable. My 4×6 and 5×7 prints start at $8 each and work their way up depending on which options the buyer selects. Depending on which album company the photographer is using, the album that's used, the number of pages, the cover type, and a host of other options, $5000 (although expensive) isn't unrealistic either. Granted, there should be less expensive alternatives available to the couple but $5000 might not out of line for the specific high-end album that the photographer includes in his packages.</p>

<p>I just can't believe that someone would hire the photographer for such a large fee and not ask what they were getting for their money. I assume they saw a picture of the cake before they paid their baker. I assume they spoke with their florist to find out what they would be getting for the money they spent with them.</p>

[john_deerfield]

<p>What did I get out of it? The photographer did a heck of a job. The MOB bought all the prints plus enlargements. You aren't going to buy all that if the images weren't good. As a matter of fact, if the images weren't great, this would be a far different conversation. I am certainly not trying to defend the behavior described, but there are always two sides. Personally, I could care less who else may be taking pictures but I make sure the bride knows that the more people taking pictures when I am taking pictures means that there will be eyes going every which way in the pictures. It's a fact. I will point this out, I will ask everyone to look at me but if there is anyone else snapping away there is no doubt that eyes will be wondering. Is is possible another flash could interfere with the pro's equipment? Sure. Optical slaves, Nikon CLS, Canon's wireless eTTL, it's possible. Again, I would never endorse rude behavior, but all I <em>know</em> is that mom bought all the prints. </p>

[craigpjenkinsphotography]

<p>I try to look at all sides. That is why I have not posted <strong>MY</strong> opinion about this and just present it as 'another' one of 'those' stories that raises the stigma of the profession. </p>

<p>If I were the one paying the bill I would have been much more involved in the entire process and am certain there would not be any surprises. But I guess the client became overwhelmed with other details. I do know the photography services were subcontracted by a professional wedding planning service. </p>

<p>It is all beyond my financial comprehension - I live a meager lifestyle.</p>

<p>BTW - It was the mother of the groom who paid for the wedding. I am pretty sure the entire show costs more than a high-end European luxury sedan. She just sort of floated through the entire session as you'd expect of her on this 'special' day. At the end when the 'wedding planner' went around asking the guests how they enjoyed 'the show' is when someone mentioned the photographer then everyone dog-piled him.</p>

<p>I haven't the people-skills to be a wedding photographer, must be my Military background. But none the less there is a lot of things I have taken from this event, which is why I share it for your amusement, education, and discussion.</p>

<p>Thanks for taking interest.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>"Nobody at that wedding will have a good impression of "Professional" wedding photographers..."</p>

<p>So when folks encounter a jerk they blame everyone in the profession? I'd say buyer beware. Every single article in wedding mags about wedding photography advises that the B & G meet and see the portfolio of the photographer that will be doing the actual shooting. Asking for references is always a good idea when spending big money. I don't understand how the drill sergeant/jerk attitude works in a customer service business, but there are several photographers in my neck of the woods that have that rep. People keep hiring them so they must be happy with the photos.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>What I got out of this... <br>

1) We don't know both sides - granted a bad attitude usually doesn't work for anyone in customer service. And anyone that doesn't think a wedding photographer is in customer service - I have some swampland to sell - cheap....</p>

<p>2) If I'm spending 5k for anything - you can bet I know exactly what I'm getting and not getting. Fault - 50 - 50 - Photographer should have explained and been upfront - "The fee of $5,000 is for photographic services only. Prints, etc are extra and Digital copies are NOT available under any circumstances. " Customer should have asked what was included - Don't assume anything.</p>

<p>3) Cameras at weddings are like baseball, hot dogs and apple pie....they're a fact of life - The photographer needs to learn how to deal with them and cope. If it is a mechanical thing (ie using flash triggers vs radio poppers) then at 5k a wedding he should be able to afford a few PW's and cables. If it is purely a "look at me!" thing - there are a lot of ways to deal with that. Personally I tell the assembled masses (as nicely as possible) that they can take all the photos that they want - AFTER I have finished taking mine... it works wonderfully. Only 1 time in 5 years has it failed to work. And then the bride and I both told the offender to knock it off.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[neilambrose]

<p>He must have been a very good photographer.</p>

<ul>

<li>They hired him for $5k without asking any questions;</li>

<li>They acquiesced to his demands during the wedding, even though reluctantly;</li>

<li>They purchased everything he was offering -- every picture from the sounds of it -- even though they didn't much like him as a person;</li>

<li>He had enough sales skills that he could upsell angry clients by another $3.5k;</li>

<li>They were annoyed enough to be angry, but the value of the work he shot was still more important to them than any point of principle.</li>

</ul>

<p>Not saying it's the best example of people skills, but he appears to have got the job done and completed his contract, and left customers highly satisfied with the work, if not the experience.</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>sounds like a good oportunityb for two large brother-in-laws to demonstrate " family unity"<br>

and act as bouncers.</p>

[laronge photographie coutu]

<blockquote>

<p>This is when the client learns digital copies are NOT available at any price, the photographer retains all originals and copyrights. The most economical option is for 6" prints @ $10/ea. This works out to about $3,500 in addition the his $5k to get all the photos he shot. A completed wedding album was an additional $5k. The groom's mother purchased all the prints, selected some she desired in larger format at an additional ransom, and took the entire stack to a local shop to be composed into a series of three wedding photo albums. This little extra work saved her about $2.5K!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So the the groom's mother stole from the photographer.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<blockquote>

<p>I do know the photography services were subcontracted by a professional wedding planning service.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In that case, the wedding planner has a lot to answer for. On hearing the deal about the photos, I would have gone straight to the planner and asked them what sort of rude, cash-ripping people they subcontract to: a lot of their profession relies on word of mouth and they may have agreed to come to some arrangement.<br>

Having said that, I presume that the planner sent the photographer's T&C to MOB in which case I agree that she has some responsibility in this.</p>

<p>I find it amusing that the MOB pays for a bash of that size and then complains over 2.5k for photos.</p>

[DWScott]

<blockquote>

<p>"So the the groom's mother stole from the photographer."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't follow your logic. No intellectual property was stolen. She bought prints from the photographer. She owns the prints. She can pin them to her refrigerator, she can frame them in a frame from Walmart, she can stuff them in $3 albums, or she can hand them to another professional who can insert them in a top-grade album.</p>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>Agree with David Scott. Not all albums are flushmounts make out of digital files. She's entitled to do what she wants with the prints (not including duplicating them) including calling the neighbors over to burn them in a voodoo hex ritual aimed at the photographer.</p>

<p>The client was simply poorly informed and didn't understand the <em>kind </em>of photographer she was retaining. Clearly this guy was part of the crowd that charges 1)big up-front fee and 2)big back-end fee. There's nothing wrong with this if you can back it up with skills. Further, as a person who charges a big fee, he is accustomed to being able to order guests around and not be questioned. That's fine, but when one investigates a photographer they should know that. If fact, I know a photographer in my market who gets decent photos and tells the bride up-front that he will be in charge of where the cake is placed. He wants to ensure he gets the best possible light for the cake-cutting and so tells them where to put the cake.</p>

<p>Really there's nothing wrong with this approach--it can help to ensure the best possible photos for the cake cutting or whatever else. I personally dislike these kinds of heavy-handed approaches because I believe there's a balance to be struck between getting the most perfect photos, and actually letting the B&G/others enjoy the day. Either approach has its adherents.</p>

<p>If the MOB didn't understand the kind of photographer she hired, it's her fault. She also should have asked more questions about the photographer.</p>

<p>One area where I can feel for the MOB is where the photographer prohibited other cameras. This is almost always allowed and if the photographer wants to do something out-of-the-ordinary, he has a duty to affirmatively warn others. His lighting slave setup is no excuse. He should turn off the slave function or get something else if his equipment can't handle a flash or two in the background.</p>

<p>Because he prohibited other cameras, he left the family without any choice but to buy his photos if they wanted photos of the wedding. Because of this, whether or not the MOB bought the photos gives me no meaningful information about whether they we acceptable or not.</p>

<p>In short--buyer beware. Watch out for primadonna photographers who think it's "their" wedding.</p>

[laronge photographie coutu]

<p>@David Scott<br>

You may be right, there's a lack of info in the story. I interpreted "composed" as scanned to make a flush mount album.</p>

[DWScott]

<p>@Josh, I agree, scanning would not be OK.</p>

[parv]

People, it was MOTHER of GROOM who PAID for the photographer & the prints, NOT mother of bride. Get with OP already; apparently OP's reiteration of that fact was in vain.

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>parv,</p>

<p>I made this mistake. I could have double checked who paid, but I didn't see how it would affect my analysis of the situation. I still don't.</p>

[parv]

(It is the amazing continued assumption which is stated as fact that bride's mother was the big spender, even after OP pointed out that error.)

 

Juanita, yes, that won't affect your analysis. Then, why even drag somebody's mother in there? Just mention that Doe was the one who paid for things.

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>Parv,</p>

<p>Here's the deal. Unless you were the bride's mother being accused of big-spending, who cares. This is a third-hand story. Only one person knows the actual individuals behind the scenes and even he may not know them that well. </p>

<p>He did clarify that it was the MOG, but again, doesn't affect anyone's analysis. Most of us are busier thinking about how to answer the meaty part of the question rather than the minutia of who paid for what. Since in most cases the MOB pays (though in fact the FOB probably pays in many cases and no one gets bent out of shape about that distinction) I myself wasn't worried about the distinction.</p>

<p>Frankly MOB or MOG is as anonymous and courteous as "Doe" where only one person here even has any connection whatsoever with the people. I see your point. But here this assuming it was the MOB offends no one--with the possible exception of the OP who I'm sure is only minimally offended. </p>