# Breach of contract?



## ryan7783 (Oct 16, 2009)

So my friend (guy I work with) is getting married tomorrow. They were scheduled to be married outside but due to the weather, they had to use their backup rain location which is in a dimly lit recital hall. When he told me this, I made sure to explain that he needed to let his photographers know of the change ASAP so they could readjust strategy. (Side note: He paid a professional photographer a lot of money ~ $3500 to come shoot his wedding. This isn't like he asked johnny shutterbug to shoot it for $300). It's a 2 shooter operation (Husband and Wife)

So he calls them and tells them about the backup location and that everything is moving inside. Well they took the opportunity to tell him they wouldn't be coming because a relative died and they would be attending the funeral. I understand family death is a serious thing so that isn't the issue but they literally gave him 24 hours notice

*In the contract, which he read and signed, it said that in the event that they were unable to attend the wedding, that they would assign replacement for their absence. 
ALSO in the contract is the clause that states that there shall be 2 photographers. They are sending 1 photographer NOT associated with their business but rather someone that they have worked with before.*

So he asks me over the phone (about 30 minutes ago) if it's a breach of contract for them to send only 1 photographer considering the clause stating there shall be 2 photographers. I told him that without reading the contract myself that I couldn't be 100% sure but it sounded like it to me.

Then he asked me if I would come and shoot as a second shooter but that he was worried about stepping on the other photographers toes. I told him that unless there is a clause that says he CANNOT hire another photographer, that I could come and shoot it.

So I'm shooting his wedding tomorrow as a lone gunman. I understand that he has a contract with this other photographer but they're screwing him out of 1 photographer and I would consider that grounds to change the game plan. Usually I wouldn't impose on another photographers territory but I feel like he deserves to have what he expected to have in the first place. Did I instruct him correctly? 
Also what would you do in this situation?


----------



## Village Idiot (Oct 16, 2009)

Talk to the other photographer before you start doing anything.


----------



## ryan7783 (Oct 16, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Talk to the other photographer before you start doing anything.



That's the plan


----------



## Canosonic (Oct 16, 2009)

Just cheering you up.
Get a camera-minigun.
Camera Mingun on Flickr - Photo Sharing!


----------



## KmH (Oct 16, 2009)

Right off the bat: an online forum is the wrong place to be seeking legal advice because laws differ by state, county, and town.

Most good wedding photographers have a mutual support arrangement with other competent photographers, so when a tragedy happens and they're not able to honor a commitment, a wedding has competent photographic coverage.

It's possible the single replacement photographer has more skill, experience, better equipment and will do a better job than the hubby/wife team. It's entirely possible a 2 shooter team just wasn't available.

If you're not an attorney, I would recommend being very careful drawing conclusions about contract language. 

I think were your friend to persue a breach-of-contract action in court, the out come would not be as certain as you seem to think it would be.

Having you shoot at the wedding, could in fact, put the shoe on the other foot, and you and your friend could wind up being the one's breaching the contract.

It's a truly an unfortunate situation for both parties but your friend needs to seek local, qualified legal advice, ASAP.


----------



## IgsEMT (Oct 16, 2009)

Ryan, 
Here's my 2cents...
Generally speaking, studios work with number of photographers and we all have each other's back... meaning, if a buddy of mine calls me now saying that he is sick, I'll cover the gig for him. That is *probably* the case here. The fact that this guy isn't part of the studio 





> They are sending 1 photographer NOT associated with their business but rather someone that they have worked with before.


 is irrelevant once again b/c he is probably a freelancer and IS covering for them. The only issue here is that contract is for two crews and they are getting one crew. 
Now, number of times, I've went on the job where people didn't even know that "studio owner" wasn't going to be there, it sux and isn't write but it is a reality of the business, what *matters* is that they get image quality that they signed up for. I'd assume that this back up photog knows is equally good if not better then the studio owners thus ideally, your friends shouldn't worry about anything. _*HOWEVER*_, THEY are paying for two crews thus if they are getting one crew, this should be deducted upon paying the balance.
*NOW THE LEGALITY of the matter* KMH hit it on the money 





> an online forum is the wrong place to be seeking legal advice because laws differ by state, county, and town.


What I'd suggest your role to be in this case is optimism. Number of us told you same thing, pass that to your friends. They *have to smile* for their pictures and not worry about WHO EXACTLY is their photographer. They already pissed and there's no need to take it out on the guy who'll be there documenting their happy day. Tell them to enjoy their day and have fun with their friends and family.
My wedding: we had 2 crew photog, one did formals, ceremony and reception and 2nd was concentrating on guests and printing 4x6 for them on the spot as a souvenir from us (B&G). My wedding album included images from 5-6 cameras, two above and guests with their SLRs and P&S.
Therefore, _*ENJOY THE WEDDING *_


----------



## ryan7783 (Oct 17, 2009)

I'm going but I'll be there as a "friend with a camera". He's not paying me so I don't see where this will be a problem. Dozens of people bring cameras to weddings... I'm just another one of them. The point of the 2 shooters was to have 1 in the balcony and 1 on the floor during the ceremony. Obviously 1 person can't be in two places at the same time so I'm shooting from the balcony. It's likely the other photographer won't even know I'm there.
Maybe I didn't clarify that I'm NOT shooting the entire wedding as I would if I were the primary photographer. I'm just there to take pictures as a friend - I'm not doing business. He offered to pay me and I said no


----------



## erphoto (Oct 17, 2009)

As a wedding photographer, I find the fact that they didn't take the opportunity to tell him they wouldn't be attending until HE called them a bit appalling.  And yes, if they were contracted for 2 and they are only sending 1, then it should be deducted in the cost they paid.  But that's just my opinion.  I'd say if the pictures aren't up to snuff to the quality he was expecting he should explore his options... but it is rather upsetting that it will probably affect their day.  I hope they are able to breath a sigh of relief knowing that you are there as a "friendly" back up.  I shoot as lone shooter on all my weddings and if there is a balcony situation, I try to actually find a friend of the couple to shoot from the balcony if they want.    They don't have to pay them and I don't either.


----------



## ryan7783 (Oct 17, 2009)

erphoto said:


> As a wedding photographer, I find the fact that they didn't take the opportunity to tell him they wouldn't be attending until HE called them a bit appalling.  And yes, if they were contracted for 2 and they are only sending 1, then it should be deducted in the cost they paid.  But that's just my opinion.  I'd say if the pictures aren't up to snuff to the quality he was expecting he should explore his options... but it is rather upsetting that it will probably affect their day.  I hope they are able to breath a sigh of relief knowing that you are there as a "friendly" back up.  I shoot as lone shooter on all my weddings and if there is a balcony situation, I try to actually find a friend of the couple to shoot from the balcony if they want.    They don't have to pay them and I don't either.



The real messed up part about this whole thing is that they have fought tooth and nail on almost every aspect of the wedding process. Her dress was all wrong when it arrived and then, after weeks of arguing with and not being able to get in touch with the dress people, they finally got it to her only to have somehow stained it so it took her another 2 weeks to get them to fix that. Then their caterer bailed on them, the chair/table rental place double booked the chairs they wanted so they had to frantically choose another style of chair, and now it's raining so they have to move the whole outdoors set inside to a secondary, less attractive, venue. They've spent nearly $15,000 to get subpar service.


----------



## erphoto (Oct 17, 2009)

Awww man.    That really blows.  It's literally been falling apart since the beginning.


----------



## chakalakasp (Oct 17, 2009)

Elope!  Elope!


----------



## ryan7783 (Oct 17, 2009)

So I got there and went straight to the balcony. After the ceremony I went downstairs and only got a few pictures at random times. The other photographer and I started talking and she was super cool about everything. She even asked me to take a look at her primary camera because it had stopped working (Mirror had stuck) but she had a backup camera. 
So we spoke for 10-15 minutes while everyone was eating and then exchanged business cards. 
I only got about 80 pictures. I took IgsEMT's advice and enjoyed the wedding. I spent less time worrying about pictures and more time enjoying the bacon wrapped scallops.


----------



## KmH (Oct 17, 2009)

So the stand in photographer was using Canon gear huh?


----------



## ryan7783 (Oct 18, 2009)

KmH said:


> So the stand in photographer was using Canon gear huh?




Yup. 

I'm a Nikon guy myself but almost every photographer I know personally uses Canon. Even my wife uses Canon...The first digital camera I ever bought was a Nikon D60 - used it for about 3 weeks, returned it and bought a Canon 40D - used THAT for about 3 days and went and bought myself a Nikon D300. That was 2.5 years ago and I couldn't be happier with it.


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 18, 2009)

KmH said:


> So the stand in photographer was using Canon gear huh?


Oh you!!

I must admit, My mirror has stuck once, A simple on/off/on job done the trick


----------



## Overread (Oct 18, 2009)

to digress for one moment I have had the shutter stick on my 400D as well - though the only times it happens are when I am using a lens with IS and the batteries have run very low (I use a battery grip which might or might not affect this also). Basically I think the camera budgets its power for the shot and thinks it has enough - but then the IS sucks out the remaining power and the camera panics and dies. (which is why they always say use fully charged batteries when lifting the mirror for cleaning).

First time it happened I got really worried, but quickly worked out what was happening when I stuck fresh charged batteries in.


----------



## UUilliam (Oct 18, 2009)

Overread said:


> to digress for one moment I have had the shutter stick on my 400D as well - though the only times it happens are when I am using a lens with IS and the batteries have run very low (I use a battery grip which might or might not affect this also). Basically I think the camera budgets its power for the shot and thinks it has enough - but then the IS sucks out the remaining power and the camera panics and dies. (which is why they always say use fully charged batteries when lifting the mirror for cleaning).
> 
> First time it happened I got really worried, but quickly worked out what was happening when I stuck fresh charged batteries in.


Nothing to do with IS lens, MY only IS lens is my 18-55mm at the time i had my 50mm i think..

I also use a battery grip and my batterys were low so most likely that.


----------



## ryan7783 (Oct 18, 2009)

Nope wasn't her battery. She put a new one in and it still wouldn't work. She said she couldn't change settings in manual mode either. *shrug*


----------



## Canosonic (Oct 19, 2009)

IS drains battery life? What the heck? Why would I want to get that?
So a 70-200 f/2.8 is better than 70-200 f/4 IS?
Never had any issues like this with my 400D. Yet.
And I personally consider battery grips a waste of money. Except if you want to give your camera some balance with your heavy lens/flashgun.
Instead just get 2-3 batteries and switch em when there dead.


----------



## Overread (Oct 19, 2009)

Well IS is a motor just like AF - it has to run of something - even in body IS is a motor driven component. AF is also draining your battery 

As for the 70-200mm f2.8 vs 70-200mm f4 IS - if you need/want the IS and don't need the wide aperture of f2.8 then the f4 with IS is the better - but if you need that wider max aperture (working in low light) then you need the f2.8 - because for all the IS in the world it won't counter subject movement.

As for battery grips I consider them differently. Firstly, even if you don't have big hands (which I certainly don't) a camera body without a grip does not have any space for your small finger on your right hand, it sort of hangs off the bottom and rubs on the edge of the camera (a right pain). A battery grip gives you that space for your pinky finger.
Secondly they add portrait aspect controls - even if you don't shoot dominatly in portait mode its great to have a shutter as well as aperture and other controls on the side of the grip when you take a portrait shot - rather than having to hold your camera from above with your right hand.
Battery life is also great when you use 2 at once - you can shoot for full day - heck 2 days even without having to change batteries - of course you still have to have a set of 2 spares (fully charged) for when your batteries do die.

As a final point for nikon shooters - battery grips have even more worth as they will (on most models of camera) give you a faster frames per second.


----------



## chakalakasp (Oct 19, 2009)

Canosonic said:


> IS drains battery life? What the heck? Why would I want to get that?



That's like saying "Four wheel drive reduces gas mileage?  Why would I want to get that?"

I dunno, maybe because for some shooters, IS is more important than battery life?  Batteries are dirt cheap, you know.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 19, 2009)

I wonder if her Canon was hit by the all-too-common Err99 problems so many Canon models are plagued with? I've had both my 20D and 5D suddenly freeze up and become inoperable due to Err 99 problems on multiple occasions.

I am appalled that the backup photographer had a camera breakdown during the event. Wow....that's reliable gear she was using--not!

Did her Canon's mirror perhaps fall off when the cement failed?

Support - EOS (SLR) Camera Systems - EOS Digital SLR Cameras - EOS 35mm SLR Cameras - Lenses - Flashes - EOS 5D - Service Notices - Canon USA Consumer Products


----------



## Overread (Oct 19, 2009)

Err99 isn't exactly a problem as such on its own - its what the camera reports when it has no idea what is wrong with it - so it can be a range of things from just dirty contacts between lens and camera to a shutter death. (remembering that DSLR shutters have a limited lifespan).

As for reliable gear - well that's why all pros past and present have backup gear


----------



## Flash Harry (Oct 20, 2009)

Sounds like a disaster from beginning to end, whens the divorce. H


----------



## dmfw (Oct 20, 2009)

ryan7783 said:


> So my friend (guy I work with) is getting married tomorrow. They were scheduled to be married outside but due to the weather, they had to use their backup rain location which is in a dimly



out of curiosity, has your friend decide to pursue legal action over the breach of contract?  

before acting, I would suggest looking at the entire contract and seeing if the change of venue might have triggered a breach by the bride/groom.  I would assume that a very last  minute change from daylight to dark hall may have caused the bride or groom to be in breach of the contract.


----------



## chip (Oct 20, 2009)

Well done and I am glad it worked out well. Hopefully your friends had a good wedding and have many good pictures of their special day.

I have shot many weddings for my friends at church who couldn't afford to hire a professional. I am an amateur and never been paid. I enjoy taking pictures. I don't think one person can cover a normal size wedding. I usually team up with my father in law. We were both Nikon shooters but now he is a Canon shooter and so am I (mainly). Taking wedding pictures is serious business and we all should try our best. We may not realize it but sometimes marriages are saved because of wedding pictures! As I look at my own wedding photos from time to time I am reminded of the commitment I made to my wife before family and friends and most of all the Lord Jesus Christ. It really is an awesome responsibility to be a wedding photographer.


----------



## ryan7783 (Nov 21, 2009)

So bringing this back from the dead. They finally got their photos back from the photographers who were SUPPOSED to shoot the wedding. 
They kept stalling 

They emailed this link to my friend saying "Here are ALL your pictures" ...portraits included. Mind you this was $3000 worth of work. I'm less than impressed
http://mobbsphotography.com/previews/Augusta+David/

Now I'll admit SOME of them are decent but 2 portraits and a bunch of sub par photos just wouldn't cut it with me


----------



## KmH (Nov 21, 2009)

Ah.....PJ.


----------



## ryan7783 (Nov 21, 2009)

KmH said:


> Ah.....PJ.



?


----------



## battletone (Nov 21, 2009)

ryan7783 said:


> So bringing this back from the dead. They finally got their photos back from the photographers who were SUPPOSED to shoot the wedding.
> They kept stalling
> 
> They emailed this link to my friend saying "Here are ALL your pictures" ...portraits included. Mind you this was $3000 worth of work. I'm less than impressed
> ...


Wow!  I need to get in this biz because if you can cut off the brides head while taking the photo of them kissing, and still cash a $3500 check with a clear conscious, then anyone can do this job.

So coming from an amateur point of view, the only thing I saw from those photos was mediocre composition.  Maybe that is what happens when you have to shoot on the spot, with no do overs, but I wasn't impressed.

If I had paid that much money, I would compare what I got with what the original photographers portfolio looks like.  If it isn't even close then I would be contacting a lawyer.  The reception photos aside, the shots that really counted at the alter are piss poor IMO.


----------



## KmH (Nov 22, 2009)

ryan7783 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Ah.....PJ.
> ...


PJ = Photo Journalism.


----------

