Pretty bad...

RAKAMRAK

EOS RP
Aug 31, 2011
306
0
By the way many here have rightly pointed out that we do not know what happened with the other photos.... surely the photographer took at least 500 photos.
 

Zv

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 23, 2012
1,765
0
www.flickr.com
What I wanna know is why did the photographer send them all his shots? Did he not even look at them at all? That in it self is proof he's no pro. Idiot. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
Zv said:
What I wanna know is why did the photographer send them all his shots? Did he not even look at them at all? That in it self is proof he's no pro. Idiot. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Perhaps the contract said ALL shots.... It could be that the photographer took 2000 shots, a dozen or so are bad... it could be a 99 percent hit rate... it could be .1 percent hit rate, we don't know.
 
C

Canon-F1

Guest
The photographer told The Sun the location of the event, a 14th-century manor house, was difficult to shoot pictures in

yeah well that is why you PAY a professionell photographer. what a moron.
 

ereka

EOS 90D
Dec 25, 2011
153
0
UK
Zv said:
What I wanna know is why did the photographer send them all his shots? Did he not even look at them at all? That in it self is proof he's no pro. Idiot. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

The article refers to the photographer in question as 'she' not 'he' ('It's just awful, she's robbed us of everything')
 

Maui5150

EOS RP
Sep 21, 2011
564
0
RAKAMRAK said:
Maui5150 said:
woollybear said:

Looking at the couple, they should be embarrassed. Maybe put down the butter, cake, chips, beer, sweets, and like would have helped too.

The fact thay got that horse in a white tarp and made it look like a dress is an accomplishment though

Are you really serious with your comments?

Did you really have to ask?
 

ereka

EOS 90D
Dec 25, 2011
153
0
UK
Don Haines said:
Perhaps the contract said ALL shots.... It could be that the photographer took 2000 shots, a dozen or so are bad... it could be a 99 percent hit rate... it could be .1 percent hit rate, we don't know.

According to the article 'Mr Crack, 30, has said the collection does not feature any good photographs'.
 

Meh

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2011
702
0
Don Haines said:
Zv said:
What I wanna know is why did the photographer send them all his shots? Did he not even look at them at all? That in it self is proof he's no pro. Idiot. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

Perhaps the contract said ALL shots.... It could be that the photographer took 2000 shots, a dozen or so are bad... it could be a 99 percent hit rate... it could be .1 percent hit rate, we don't know.

Or they couple may have gotten into some argument or debate with the photographer and eventually she gave up, sighed deeply, shouted "oh bollocks", and just handed over ALL the shots and told the lovely couple to piss off. Then, being the miserable type, the couple selected the worst shots and filed a lawsuit seeking the costs of a new reception just to get a free party with more cake. People are like that.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
5,878
3,052
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Like others, I am scratching my head as to how they ever even saw these pictures. It only reinforces my resolve to never let my subjects see the original shots. I mostly shoot for family and friends, but even in those cases, I'm not letting them see everything I shoot.

To me, that's like going to buy a car, getting a truckload of parts delivered and being told to assemble it myself. It's only half the product. I know some photographers give their clients everything and I know that when they are waiving money in front of you, it's hard not to comply. But, I don't want my bad shots being posted for the whole world to see.
 

Meh

EOS RP
Sep 20, 2011
702
0
unfocused said:
Like others, I am scratching my head as to how they ever even saw these pictures. It only reinforces my resolve to never let my subjects see the original shots. I mostly shoot for family and friends, but even in those cases, I'm not letting them see everything I shoot.

To me, that's like going to buy a car, getting a truckload of parts delivered and being told to assemble it myself. It's only half the product. I know some photographers give their clients everything and I know that when they are waiving money in front of you, it's hard not to comply. But, I don't want my bad shots being posted for the whole world to see.

I think you've hit the nail on the head... money talks and it's not always easy, especially for a struggling photog, to turn down money over the risk that a not-so-good shot gets shown around as an example of your bad work. Even if it's not the money, it might seem easier to give into the pressure of a client demanding ALL the photos on the basis that "the photos are of them and therefore it's their right to have them and decide for themselves if the photos are good or not".
 

eyeland

Daybreak broke me loose and brought me back...
Feb 28, 2012
152
0
Denmark/Isreal
hahaha having a hard time getting past the name and general appearance of the couple.. I know it's not a nice thing to say and I am sure they are swell people, but without any further information of "proof" I can only relate to this story as comic relief :)
On the topic of handing over originals, I think it's something most of us learn the hard way.. Recently shot a wedding for my brother in-law and complied with his request to give him all the pictures seeing as I didn't really have time to PP as many as he'd like.. Boy did I regret that... :)
 

awinphoto

EOS 5D Mark IV
Aug 26, 2010
2,091
0
www.reno-photography.com
ummm... ok... did ANY good pictures come out of them, or were these representative of the whole batch.... If he gave them even 400 images and these 5 were the worst, and 395 are good and even OK IMAGES, then this lawsuit is meritless.. But, then again, edit out these images... the should NEVER be shown to the clients... Every photographer will get an occasional blurred shot or wrongly cropped shot, but likely the next frame will be in focus and properly cropped... No need to ever show these images... If the photog was a complete airhead and all or even half the images are bad, then sue their butt... I agree there are too many shoot and burners that need to be weeded out in the industry and bringing the industry down reputation wise, but then again, if these are the only bad images, then deal with it.
 

ksagomonyants

EOS 90D
Apr 4, 2012
187
0
Farmington, CT
awinphoto said:
ummm... ok... did ANY good pictures come out of them, or were these representative of the whole batch.... If he gave them even 400 images and these 5 were the worst, and 395 are good and even OK IMAGES, then this lawsuit is meritless.. But, then again, edit out these images... the should NEVER be shown to the clients... Every photographer will get an occasional blurred shot or wrongly cropped shot, but likely the next frame will be in focus and properly cropped... No need to ever show these images... If the photog was a complete airhead and all or even half the images are bad, then sue their butt... I agree there are too many shoot and burners that need to be weeded out in the industry and bringing the industry down reputation wise, but then again, if these are the only bad images, then deal with it.

+1
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,265
1,935
Canada
unfocused said:
Like others, I am scratching my head as to how they ever even saw these pictures. It only reinforces my resolve to never let my subjects see the original shots. I mostly shoot for family and friends, but even in those cases, I'm not letting them see everything I shoot.

I shot "the group" at a family gathering.... I explained that I would take multiple pictures because you get people blinking, strange momentary facial expressions, etc. I set the camera up to take 10 images and we all posed as the camera clicked away for 20 seconds. When I examined the pictures later, there was not a single image without someone blinking or jaw open, one eye shut, etc etc. Photoshop is your friend! The family never got to see the originals, just the composite photoshopped image.
 

risc32

EOS RP
Feb 24, 2012
577
0
absolutely they shouldn't have been given some of these photos. still, without seeing the entirety of the work i can't really say. I take shots like the one of the feet sometimes. I do it for use later in post with WB etc, not for customer use. also this "shoes in" shot is currently popular. Don't ask me, but it is, and sometimes the church coordinator will even set it up. you wouldn't believe the stupid junk the guy was doing with "my" bride/groom at the last shoot i did. of course this shot didn't even show her shoes, but maybe the next frames did.

Typically at a wedding i shoot somewhere in the area of 1200-1500 shots. They are then knocked down to 800 or a 1000 or so. but for a close friend last summer i didn't cut as much as usual. i usually pick one or two besties from any given shot, but for him i left them in. i probably shouldn't of, but i did cut out any random weird stuff i got.
 

rongage

Canon XSi, various Canon/Tamron/Sigma lenses
Dec 7, 2012
10
0
Meh said:
I really have no comment on this particular case since we don't know all the details and haven't see all the photos that were delivered, etc.

But here's a question for the wedding togs... have you ever shot a wedding and the bride, groom, wedding party, guests were not co-operative and/or wouldn't make time for the shots you normally set up? What was the outcome?

I just shot a wedding this past Saturday. It was a low budget ceremony-only wedding. The bride really, really, really did not want to get her picture taken with the groom after the ceremony. Ended up being the last shots taken. I can't say that the shots were my best work (no flash, strong natural light coming in the church windows, etc, etc) but I got some good usable shots out of the thing.

http://www.prgstudios.com/weddings/jason-and-natalie/
 
I have never shot a wedding and never plan to, but I am 100% sure I could take better photos than those shown in the article. Having taken photos at a few formals/dinners in similar conditions it can be challenging but I could have taken better photos on my phone.
Too many people call themselves pro photographers nowadays and they are nowhere near the standard, in terms of final images or the gear required. Taking on someone's wedding is a big step and you have to be sure you're up to it.
Having said that, this story stinks of a couple who have tried to skimp on the cheapest "photographer" without seeing any proof of past work.
 

Maui5150

EOS RP
Sep 21, 2011
564
0
rongage said:
... The bride really, really, really did not want to get her picture taken with the groom after the ceremony.

Might be completely out of context, but if I was a divorce lawyer, I would be circling this couple.
 
<-- start Taboola -->