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.
Upvote
0
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 photographer told The Sun the location of the event, a 14th-century manor house, was difficult to shoot pictures in
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
rongage said:... The bride really, really, really did not want to get her picture taken with the groom after the ceremony.