# THINK before you decide to shoot a wedding!



## momo3boys (Apr 24, 2012)

I searched but didn't find this and it looks new so here it is. 
Couple Pays £750 for &#8220;the Worst Wedding Photos Ever&#8221;

A hard lesson learned. It really does take a lot of talent and pride to make pictures THAT bad! The EXIF data would be interesting to see how they were taken. For those of you who think you can shoot a wedding, even for free, really second guess yourself. Shoot as a second first and save these poor people from never getting the memories from there special day.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 24, 2012)

With the number of wedding photographers popping up every day, thanks to digital, I'm not surprised that this kind of garbage is turning up. People see photography as an easy way to make some extra cash on the weekends without  learning or understanding the basics.  It's too bad that people get burned by these amateurs.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 24, 2012)

They probably had a portfolio full of stolen work too.


----------



## ernestoc33 (Apr 24, 2012)

Man I thought my early work sucked. How do you **** up that badly?


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 24, 2012)

They really look like they could have been taken with a phone...  In fact, I think a phone could have done better than most of them.


----------



## ReganP (Apr 24, 2012)

Oh dear! If your shots come out that bad I feel like it would be better to say there was a catastrophe and all of the photos were somehow lost or deleted and you will refund their money. They might write a bad review and bad mouth you, but at least those images wouldn't be floating around the internet in connection with your name!


----------



## SCraig (Apr 24, 2012)

This is a perfect example of why some people around here tell other people around here they are not ready.  These things happen all too frequently and refunding the money and telling them that you are sorry is not good enough by a long shot.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> They probably had a portfolio full of stolen work too.


Which relates directly to my thought, being: "How much research did the couple do?  Did they review the photographer's portfolio?  Did they contact the BBB?  Did they contact any of the reference or "testimonial" providers?"


----------



## PapaMatt (Apr 24, 2012)

Maybe it is just my eyes, but I thought they were beautiful,  :lmao: are you all blind?  What do you think will happen when a photographer PARTIES too :lmao:much


----------



## fotomumma09 (Apr 24, 2012)

Buyer beware! Seriously should have done their homework! Most noob's could prob outdo that photographer on auto


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 24, 2012)

They may very well of had a good looking portfolio or web site, it doesn't take much to put either together, all you really need is 20 good images and that is easy enough, if you shoot enough.  I look at web sites posted on here all the time and wonder how these amateurs can possibly think that they are good enough to be charging people.  I suppose if people come up with cute names for their sites, toss out the right photo packages, create a bio that usually starts off with  "I am passionate about photography and one day my friend said, you should do this for a living, and here I am after only two months of owing a camera, living my dream job" They leave out the "well my full time job is paying for it all"  It's not difficult to create bogus.


----------



## pisicel (Apr 24, 2012)

this happens a lot in the poorest countries.
there are hired photographers that shoot with a phone or singers that shoot weddings.
grooms are to blaim also, as they buy the price not the quality


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 24, 2012)

See if that was the case for me there not a photographer, there a scam artist. Stealing other peoples pics knowing you can't achieve that level is lying plain and simple. It bothers me that someone can't think thru the process far enough to realise they were going to get sued, heck if your going to lie about the photos and not have any skill shouldn't you at least have the common sence to lie about your name so they can't trace you down and sue the heck out of you. To me there is a  diffrence in saying, this is my skill level this is the quality you will recieve versus these are stolen prints, and im knowingly screwing you over.


----------



## lauraxlovegood (Apr 24, 2012)

Oh, my, gosh.  I would die if these were my wedding pictures...  I take better pictures with my iphone!  -.-


----------



## DiskoJoe (Apr 24, 2012)

These people shouldnt have been so cheap and done some more research. The papers said they paid about 17,000 pounds for this wedding and only 750 on the photography. But this is still really bad for that price too. I need to raise my prices.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 24, 2012)

Do they have BestBuy in the UK nowadays?


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Do they have BestBuy in the UK nowadays?


----------



## Jeff92 (Apr 24, 2012)

750 bucks says I could have done better with my DROID bionics camera


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 24, 2012)

Well I feel better about my work now


----------



## kharp (Apr 24, 2012)

My wedding "photographer" was terrible! But compared to this one, she doesn't seem so bad now.


----------



## KmH (Apr 24, 2012)

But, but, but......It's ART!


----------



## rub (Apr 24, 2012)

KmH - this is much closer to FART than ART, in my opinion


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 24, 2012)

A little more than a month ago, I went as ex-stepfather/guest to my ex-stepdaughters' wedding. Of course, I took my 60D and 24-70 f2.8L along, too, to get some shots mostly for myself. Fortunately, they had a 'real' photographer there with assistant/2nd shooter, so I knew I wasn't under any pressure to do any more than I wanted to do. 

Thankfully, the real photographers not only took lots of pix before/during/after the ceremony, but, as expected, they turned out great. What blew me away was the wedding & reception was on Saturday night and the pix were available online on the following Tuesday! 

I, on the otherhand, struggled with doing my best to correct my lousy work (in my eyes) in addition to not knowing squat about real white balance handling at the time (I've learned a lot, since). As I have a 'regular' full time job and other 'outside' requirements, it was almost 4 weeks before I was able to get the fruits of my work back to her. None were even half as well done (eg, half-a$$ed) as what the pros did. At least it was free. 

Bottom line...I should have left the camera home. I should have known how to handle screwy dimmed incandescent lighting with chandeliers and wall sconces making hot spots. I should have known more about white balance handling. I'm thankful, though, I wasn't "THE" photographer for the wedding. They would have sent out a hit-man to smash my camera after seeing my work if that were the case!


----------



## tirediron (Apr 24, 2012)

rub said:


> KmH - this is much closer to FART than ART, in my opinion


----------



## vipgraphx (Apr 24, 2012)

pisicel said:


> grooms are to blaim also, as they buy the price not the quality



Brides could be to blame as well for wanting such an expensive wedding and ring to brag about that there is little room for a proper photographer...Besides its the brides side that pays for the wedding....just saying!


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Apr 24, 2012)

Jeff92 said:


> 750 bucks says I could have done better with my DROID bionics camera



+1

Or that "X100" in the other wedding photo thread


----------



## camz (Apr 25, 2012)

Wow what a scam.  ID 10 T syndrome.

I hope they get their money back and then some.


----------



## TheFantasticG (Apr 25, 2012)

kharp said:


> My wedding "photographer" was terrible! But compared to this one, she doesn't seem so bad now.


 
Dang. I thought the exact same thing.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 25, 2012)

camz said:


> I hope they get their money back and then some.


I don't remember if it was in the linked article, or the one that linked to - but they didn't get all of their money back.  The photographer(s) sold all their gear to pay for refunds, but that apparently didn't cover them all...

The good news is that this photographer is now without a camera, and has a ruined reputation.  No more harm can be done by this person.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Apr 25, 2012)

vipgraphx said:


> pisicel said:
> 
> 
> > grooms are to blaim also, as they buy the price not the quality
> ...



Cheap out on the ring and you will have a similar situation.
There are others that will do what I do for less $$$, but then, I'll be the one fixing it later. LOL


----------



## Overread (Apr 25, 2012)

imagemaker46 said:


> They may very well of had a good looking portfolio or web site, it doesn't take much to put either together, all you really need is 20 good images and that is easy enough, if you shoot enough.


 
They don't even need to do that. Just attend one or two group lighting sessions - the kind with all the lights and model already posed and setup and all they do is click the shutter. Lets them really get ahead without having to learn nor use the details. 



DiskoJoe said:


> These people shouldnt have been so cheap and done some more research. The papers said they paid about 17,000 pounds for this wedding and only 750 on the photography. But this is still really bad for that price too. I need to raise my prices.



To be fair its newspaper quotes there - that number might well be fairly innacurate it might also reflect costs we are not specifically thinking of (maybe they paid for flight tickets for family or hotel rent costs for key members staying nearby etc..)


----------



## camz (Apr 26, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> > I hope they get their money back and then some.
> ...



Darwin may have been right all along


----------



## Vtec44 (Apr 26, 2012)

I feel like Ansel Adams looking at those pix.  Wait, I don't think he ever did wedding.  Nevermind... hahaha


----------



## ghache (Apr 26, 2012)

selling all his gear didn't cover the refund? damn.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 26, 2012)

Reckon this is bad enough to make me think I can do it, right now. Should have my website set up by the weekend


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 26, 2012)

ghache said:


> selling all his gear didn't cover the refund? damn.


Must have been a cheap entry level body with just the kit lens.  That's the only way I can see selling it not covering the refund.

Apparently whatever gear they had was not worth £750.

The article didn't say whether or not there were other clients seeking refunds too.


----------

