# Wedding Photographer Sued



## table1349

Sounds like this is a tutorial on how not to be a successful wedding photographer.
'Photographer from Hell' Sued After Wedding Photography Catastrophe - UPDATE | Fstoppers
http://jezebel.com/extremely-self-actualized-wedding-photographer-took-15-1770562619
Amateur photographer 'ruined' couple's wedding with awful pictures and selfies

Mod edit:
Statement by the Groom:
Wedding Photographer Sued


----------



## Braineack

and they think they have a case why?

she was paid to perform a service, she showed up and did it.

The couple did not do their due diligence in hiring a decent photographer.



> ‘If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn’t. He paid for a student.



this x 1,000,000,000


----------



## tirediron

Mehh... weddings are easy.  What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## tirediron

Braineack said:


> and they think they have a case why?
> 
> she was paid to perform a service, she showed up and did it.
> 
> The couple did not do their due diligence in hiring a decent photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn’t. He paid for a student.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this x 1,000,000,000
Click to expand...

 I don't think we can really make that call...  I certainly didn't see anything that indicated what she may have shown (if anything as a portfolio), what promises were made, etc.  Looking at all of the reports objectively, I would speculate that the clients quite likely didn't do their due dilligence, but it would also appar that the "photographer" grossly over-promised and under-delivered.


----------



## limr

Braineack said:


> and they think they have a case why?
> 
> she was paid to perform a service, she showed up and did it.
> 
> The couple did not do their due diligence in hiring a decent photographer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ‘If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn’t. He paid for a student.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this x 1,000,000,000
Click to expand...


Except her ad never mentioned that she was a student, but rather an established photographer.

She eventually showed up but did not do her job. She did not fulfill her end of the contract.

And what was the clients' "due diligence" anyway? They found a photographer they could afford and they saw pictures on her website that they liked well enough, so they hired her. They never said that they expected her pictures to look like the ones taken by the higher-cost photographers. They just expected her pictures to not look like crappy cell phone snaps taken by a drunk uncle. And apparently, she promised a lot more than 15 pictures, but only delivered 15.


----------



## robbins.photo

tirediron said:


> Mehh... weddings are easy.  What could possibly go wrong?



Absolutely nothing, as long as you have the right equipment.  You know, an entry level aps-c sensor DSLR with a kit lens and no external flash, with a single battery and memory card.  Piece of cake.


----------



## Braineack

she actually describes herself as an aspirational photographer on her website and the FB ad the couple found her through.

he website is atrocious and her body of work sucks--they couple got exactly what they paid for.

This is the text in her Jumbotron when you land on her site:



> *Photography services by a young aspirational photographer in and around Leeds*



and



> Chloe told us she was professional and was an up-and-coming photographer trying to make a name for herself. We took her at face value and were too trusting.




I bet the contract didnt mention: lightstands, flashes, overexpose, cut-off dress, access to the photobooth, etc etc etc.


----------



## Braineack

robbins.photo said:


> You know, an entry level aps-c sensor DSLR with a kit lens and no external flash, with a single battery and memory card.  Piece of cake.



to be fair it was a D7000 with what looks like an 18-105mm DX lens


----------



## robbins.photo

limr said:


> Except her ad never mentioned that she was a student, but rather an established photographer.
> 
> She eventually showed up but did not do her job. She did not fulfill her end of the contract.
> 
> And what was the clients' "due diligence" anyway? They found a photographer they could afford and they saw pictures on her website that they liked well enough, so they hired her. They never said that they expected her pictures to look like the ones taken by the higher-cost photographers. They just expected her pictures to not look like crappy cell phone snaps taken by a drunk uncle. And apparently, she promised a lot more than 15 pictures, but only delivered 15.



Well didn't read through the whole thing, because it's hard to get off on a good rant when you actually know all the facts.  I hate that.  Plus it gives Vintagesnaps the opportunity to come in later and point out I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and lets face it, she lives for that.  So who am I to deny her that joy?  Lol

Ok, so I guess what stands out to me is that the couple apparently had no contact with the photographer between the time they hired her and when she showed up late for the reception.  So I'm just thinking, umm.. that didn't set of an alarm bell of any kind?


----------



## robbins.photo

Braineack said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, an entry level aps-c sensor DSLR with a kit lens and no external flash, with a single battery and memory card.  Piece of cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to be fair it was a D7000 with what looks like an 18-105mm DX lens
Click to expand...


Ya, but I don't like being fair.. so just play along.. lol.


----------



## limr

"Aspirational" does not mean "Student who doesn't know what she's doing."

The photos on her website weren't great, but they weren't as bad as the ones of the wedding.

And we can make all the assumptions in the world of what "we bet" was agreed upon, but the fact remains that the judge, who was privy to all the _actual facts of the case_ and, of course, the applicable laws, decided that yes, the fauxtographer was liable. Legally. So yeah, they did have a case.

I'm so tired of people saying that it's the clients' fault for not paying more. If we're going to make assumptions, how about perhaps considering that they couldn't afford to pay more? How about they thought she was good enough for the price? That the photos on the website were maybe not the best ones they saw compared to others, but they were still good enough in their untrained eyes to suggest that she would not show up and be a total hack?


----------



## astroNikon

quote of the day from the photographer .
"If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn't he paid for a student."

nice


----------



## astroNikon

robbins.photo said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> to be fair it was a D7000 with what looks like an 18-105mm DX lens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, but I don't like being fair.. so just play along.. lol.
Click to expand...

Not only was it a D7000, but it looks like she was in Manual Exposure Mode too
She her skill of really screwing things up was top notch !!


----------



## tirediron

Okay... having read the articles and looked at her website, I would say that this young lady is the very definition of "fauxtographer".  I agree, her body of work is atroctious.  I'm sure if she were to post here for C&C she'd leave in tears very quickly.  I do think that quality of image-wise the couple got all that they could reasonably expect and that they should have looked at things more closely.  Equally however, it seems to me that as the photographer, she was as grossly unprofessional as she could possibly be, and has no business putting her name out there.  She clearly has no concept of what is required to do the job, and being sued into bankruptcy would be the kindest thing that anyone could do; either to her or the wedding photography industry!


----------



## ronlane

<---- is hiding from @tirediron before I get sued into bankruptcy.

(Okay actually, I'm just going to go shoot with a smile on my face knowing that I have MORE of a reason to avoid weddings now.)


----------



## robbins.photo

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> to be fair it was a D7000 with what looks like an 18-105mm DX lens
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya, but I don't like being fair.. so just play along.. lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only was it a D7000, but it looks like she was in Manual Exposure Mode too
> She her skill of really screwing things up was top notch !!
Click to expand...


Well I looked through the article and saw the Chloe's selfies and I guess I'm now left with an even bigger question, why didn't the couple hire the photobooth instead?


----------



## ClickAddict

If you read various follow ups, the clients point out that she has changed her facebook and website since they booked her.  She had initially described herself as a professional experienced photographer only to later say they "hired a student" knowing what they were getting.  (One link in a news story even refers to possible stolen images on her website) So the clients may have actually looked at 'her" work.  She just was not able to create that quality for them.


----------



## robbins.photo

astroNikon said:


> quote of the day from the photographer .
> "If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn't he paid for a student."
> 
> nice




Hmm.. saw this quote from her as well:

"He will do anything to drag my name through the mud, when all I tried to do was help with him and his wife with whatever problem they had against me even though they loved the product, *and he's now done this to a young female.*"

She actually played the "But I'm a girl" card.  So hard to decide which of these quotes is more egregious really.. lol


----------



## limr

tirediron said:


> Okay... having read the articles and looked at her website, I would say that this young lady is the very definition of "fauxtographer".  *I agree, her body of work is atroctious.  I'm sure if she were to post here for C&C she'd leave in tears very quickly.  I do think that quality of image-wise the couple got all that they could reasonably expect and that they should have looked at things more closely.*  Equally however, it seems to me that as the photographer, she was as grossly unprofessional as she could possibly be, and has no business putting her name out there.  She clearly has no concept of what is required to do the job, and being sued into bankruptcy would be the kindest thing that anyone could do; either to her or the wedding photography industry!



I think we are very quick to judge her work based on what _we _know about photography and what we've seen when it's done right. But what did the clients know? It could also be that they - not being trained photographers - thought better of her work than we do. And they expected their wedding photos to _at least_ look like the work on the website, and it did not. I looked at her website. There's nothing special there, but the work there is still _vastly_ different from what she produced for that couple. Even if they realized that she was not that great, she still sucked EVEN WORSE at their wedding. And by a lot. She clearly didn't deliver.


----------



## limr

ClickAddict said:


> If you read various follow ups, the clients point out that she has changed her facebook and website since they booked her.  She had initially described herself as a professional experienced photographer only to later say they "hired a student" knowing what they were getting.  (One link in a news story even refers to possible stolen images on her website) So the clients may have actually looked at 'her" work.  She just was not able to create that quality for them.



One of the articles in the OP included her original Facebook ad that attracted the clients in the first place. No mention of student or even "aspirational."

"_LOOKING FOR A FEMALE, RELIABLE, WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER!?

Look no further.

Here at C Johnston Photography I have a passion for what I do, which showcases throughout gorgeous wedding memories I have captured.

I have photographed different weddings, be that religious or non-religious, as well as various cultures and traditions. I have met some wonderful couples along the way, and I hope to carry this through.

I base my packages around you, to ensure their personalised and all your needs are met. With prices starting from only £125, you know you can get your big day captured, and remembered.

Text/Call or E-mail me today for a quick quote.

I’m more than willing to meet in advance to show wedding’s in more depth and details.

Kind regards,

Chloe Johnston,

C Johnston Photography_"




robbins.photo said:


> Hmm.. saw this quote from her as well:
> 
> "He will do anything to drag my name through the mud, when all I tried to do was help with him and his wife with whatever problem they had against me even though they loved the product, *and he's now done this to a young female.*"
> 
> She actually played the "But I'm a girl" card.  So hard to decide which of these quotes is more egregious really.. lol



Not only does she try to claim to be a victim of sexism, but she also screws up her grammar as well. He's done this to a young female...a young female WHAT? It's distressingly common for people to use "female" or "male" - which are adjectives - instead of "woman" or "man."


----------



## astroNikon

robbins.photo said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> 
> quote of the day from the photographer .
> "If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn't he paid for a student."
> 
> nice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. saw this quote from her as well:
> 
> "He will do anything to drag my name through the mud, when all I tried to do was help with him and his wife with whatever problem they had against me e_*ven though they loved the product*_, and he's now done this to a young female."
> 
> She actually played the "But I'm a girl" card.  So hard to decide which of these quotes is more egregious really.. lol
Click to expand...

actually a "young female"  .. a student (50s, 40s, 30s, 20s? college?  high school?  middle school ?  life ?)

"*e*_*ven though they loved the product"*_
If she listened to her customer afterwards, she might come to an conclusion that the client DID NOT like the end product.  I would think she would get the hint when she was slapped with a lawsuit.  maybe, depending how young she is.


----------



## limr

Oh lord, to hell with her photography. I would have sued her just for the horrible writing in that ad!

"_*I have photographed different weddings*, be *that *religious or non-religious, *as well as various cultures and traditions*. I have met some wonderful couples along the way, and I hope to carry this through.

I base my packages around you, to ensure *their *personalised and all your needs are met. With prices starting from only £125, you know you can get your big day* captured, and remembered*.
...
I’m more than willing to meet in advance to show *wedding’s* in more depth and *details*."_
_
_


----------



## Designer

I seem to remember from a couple of years ago a newbie poster on here was named Chloe, was located in the UK, and said she was an aspiring professional photographer.  

Could be a coincidence.


----------



## ronlane

I would have sued for the limited number of images that were received. I think that any reasonable person would expect more than a few images from a Wedding. Even if it were of just the reception.

Of course I do not know if there was a contract and if there was, what the details of the deliverable's were.

I do think that this is another clear lesson for us to learn from and to help educate others.


----------



## Designer

limr said:


> Oh lord, to hell with her photography. I would have sued her just for the horrible writing in that ad!


Her writing should have been as red flags to any prospective client.


----------



## robbins.photo

limr said:


> Oh lord, to hell with her photography. I would have sued her just for the horrible writing in that ad!
> 
> "_*I have photographed different weddings*, be *that *religious or non-religious, *as well as various cultures and traditions*. I have met some wonderful couples along the way, and I hope to carry this through.
> 
> I base my packages around you, to ensure *their *personalised and all your needs are met. With prices starting from only £125, you know you can get your big day* captured, and remembered*.
> ...
> I’m more than willing to meet in advance to show *wedding’s* in more depth and *details*."
> 
> _



Agreed.  Just trying to read through that caused me at least 50k in emotional distress alone.


----------



## robbins.photo

astroNikon said:


> "*e*_*ven though they loved the product"*_
> If she listened to her customer afterwards, she might come to an conclusion that the client DID NOT like the end product.  I would think she would get the hint when she was slapped with a lawsuit.  maybe, depending how young she is.



So your thinking she maybe she should have taken the lawsuit as an indication that her clients weren't happy?  

Hmm..


----------



## robbins.photo

Does make me wonder though if maybe she's related to this guy:


----------



## 480sparky

Wow.  A wanna-be fauxtograper manages to totally ruin a wedding.

Meaning:
The official conducting the ceremony was plastered.
The flowers were dead or wilted.
The cake was tasteless and had no frosting.
The dress was the wrong size & color.
An earthquake (7.2 on the Richter scale) occurred during the vows.
The tuxes were from the 1970s. And they were lime green.
The maid of honor fractured an ankle after a heel broke on her shoes.
The rings ended up being from a box of Cracker Jacks.
The flower girl vomited all over the bridge and groom.
The ring bearer filled his pants.
The bottle of champagne was filled with tap water.
The DJ played only reggae and jazz at the dance.
The roof of the church leaked.
The nuts at the reception were rancid.
The limo broke down on the freeway.
A typhoon flooded the photo shoot.
17 guests were arrested for assault in a brawl (started by the photographer!).
The groom ended up in the ER after thrown rice hit his left eye.
The bride's bouquet exploded when her (unmarried) sister caught it.
The bride's veil burst into flames when lighting the unity candle.
The unity candle had been replaced with a Roman candle.
Everyone got drenched when the Roman candle set off the church's fire sprinkler system.
The bride's maternal grandmother had a stroke during the ceremony.
A 16-ton weight fell through the roof of the church, landing on one of the groomsmen and killing him.
The reception line was interrupted by a gang-led gunfight for 'turf'.
The broom's oldest brother lost his bong.
A drain line backed up at the reception, spewing raw sewage across the dance floor.
Attempting to remove the garter from his bride, the groom broke a finger.

And to top it all off:  The groom's parents are still being detained by the TSA at the airport.


----------



## Braineack

limr said:


> I'm so tired of people saying that it's the clients' fault for not paying more. If we're going to make assumptions, how about perhaps considering that they couldn't afford to pay more? How about they thought she was good enough for the price? That the photos on the website were maybe not the best ones they saw compared to others, but they were still good enough in their untrained eyes to suggest that she would not show up and be a total hack?



Waiting for a spin off of this show:

Adam Carolla - Catch A Contractor | Full Episodes | Spike | Bios | Spike

Catch a Fauxtographer.


Do you realize how hard it is to successfully sue (and collect from) a contractor for poor service?

I'm not saying the couple had to pay more to get better, they got screwed--she's clearly awful, but i don't think it warranted a lawsuit based on subjectivity, nor this amount of "press"  It's an assumed risk and this happens everyday.  I'm not really defending her, but did she actually violate her contract?


----------



## robbins.photo

Braineack said:


> Adam Carolla - Catch A Contractor | Full Episodes | Spike | Bios | Spike
> 
> Catch a Fauxtographer.
> 
> 
> Do you realize how hard it is to successfully sue (and collect from) a contractor for poor service?



Make her come back and second shoot the wedding again with someone who knows what they are doing.. lol.. that would be classic.


----------



## limr

Braineack said:


> I'm not saying the couple had to pay more to get better, they got screwed--she's clearly awful, but i don't think it warranted a lawsuit based on subjectivity, nor this amount of "press"  It's an assumed risk and this happens everyday.  I'm not really defending her, *but did she actually violate her contract?*



Apparently she did because the clients won their case. Would they have won had this been a case in the U.S.? Who knows, but contract law in the UK is really not much different than it is here.


----------



## astroNikon

480sparky said:


> Wow.  A wanna-be fauxtograper manages to totally ruin a wedding.
> 
> Meaning:
> The official conducting the ceremony was plastered.
> The flowers were dead or wilted.
> The cake was tasteless and had no frosting.
> The dress was the wrong size & color.
> An earthquake (7.2 on the Richter scale) occurred during the vows.
> The tuxes were from the 1970s. And they were lime green.
> The maid of honor fractured an ankle after a heel broke on her shoes.
> The rings ended up being from a box of Cracker Jacks.
> The flower girl vomited all over the bridge and groom.
> The ring bearer filled his pants.
> The bottle of champagne was filled with tap water.
> The DJ played only reggae and jazz at the dance.
> The roof of the church leaked.
> The nuts at the reception were rancid.
> The limo broke down on the freeway.
> A typhoon flooded the photo shoot.
> 17 guests were arrested for assault in a brawl (started by the photographer!).
> The groom ended up in the ER after thrown rice hit his left eye.
> The bride's bouquet exploded when her (unmarried) sister caught it.
> The bride's veil burst into flames when lighting the unity candle.
> The unity candle had been replaced with a Roman candle.
> Everyone got drenched when the Roman candle set off the church's fire sprinkler system.
> The bride's maternal grandmother had a stroke during the ceremony.
> A 16-ton weight fell through the roof of the church, landing on one of the groomsmen and killing him.
> The reception line was interrupted by a gang-led gunfight for 'turf'.
> The broom's oldest brother lost his bong.
> A drain line backed up at the reception, spewing raw sewage across the dance floor.
> Attempting to remove the garter from his bride, the groom broke a finger.
> 
> And to top it all off:  The groom's parents are still being detained by the TSA at the airport.


yeah but the bride and groom loved the photos!!


----------



## Braineack

limr said:


> Apparently she did because the clients won their case. Would they have won had this been a case in the U.S.? Who knows, but contract law in the UK is really not much different than it is here.



she didn't show up.  lol.


----------



## robbins.photo

Braineack said:


> she didn't show up.  lol.



Did anyone check the photobooth for her?


----------



## astroNikon

She's a Flash in the pan photographer
wait, she was too cheap for the flash part.


ronlane said:


> <---- is hiding from @tirediron before I get sued into bankruptcy.
> 
> (Okay actually, I'm just going to go shoot with a smile on my face knowing that I have MORE of a reason to avoid weddings now.)


Weddings are good
where else can you slip up tremendously AND gain experience at the same time of what not to do ??


----------



## table1349

If you haven't seen it, a statement from the Groom.  Released a few hours ago.

_A Statement by Paul & Chareen Wheatley regarding the claims by by Chloe Johnston. Dated 14th April 2016.

Our original Court Claim is added at the end of this statement, so readers can see exactly what our complaints were.

We refute allegations made by Chloe Johnston photography in relation to recent media coverage and will address the points she has raised in her online statement. Chloe arrived late for the wedding booking which the wedding venue can confirm, along with a text message from Chloe apologising for her lateness. We have not alleged that she was late for the wedding ceremony, we have stated that she arrived after the agreed arrival time, which was 11am. The reason we expected her at 11am was that she had failed to respond to ALL our attempts to contact her over the previous month so we had missed the client meeting and any planning phone calls we should have had. She was supposed to arrive early so we could go through the plans with her. Chloe has never apologised for the stress she caused us when she ignored all our attempts to contact her.

A bride takes two hours plus to prepare for the Wedding so Chloe did capture some getting ready shots and that has never been disputed.

Our main issues surrounded the very poor quality of our group shots and missing coverage. Although Chloe's pre-wedding behaviour deprived us of any opportunity to plan them, we took a list of our required photos to the wedding and gave them to her. We only have a handful of the formal group photos we requested. Some of these are in odd locations like the car park, with cars in the background.

During the booking process, Chloe indicated she wanted to go into the woods near the hotel to do the “couple portraits”, but we warned her the groom is disabled and might not be able to walk that far. On the wedding day, Chloe tried again to get us to go to the woods. The groom explained again that he couldn't walk there and expected to continue the portraits at the hotel. To our surprise, Chloe then persuaded the bride and matron of honour to go to the woods instead. The groom was left alone at the hotel for around 45 minutes. We feel that the trip to the woods cost us coverage we wanted and caused bad feelings. Chloe should have been gathering the coverage we wanted not using our wedding as her portfolio shoot.

Our photobooth supplier was I-Events and it's easy to see that the photobooth images (of Chloe) are of a higher quality than those supplied by Chloe as our “professional wedding photographer.” We never gave permission for Chloe to use the photo booth or sign the guest book.

We received around 276 photographs on a USB from Chloe, however some are duplicates, eg black & white versions. If those images had been quality ones and we had been supplied with the group photos we requested there would probably never have been a court case. We gave the news agency access to the full set of images and a representative selection was chosen for the articles.

In Chloe's statement to the court she claimed that we had been very happy with our images, yet our original statement to court shows this to be untrue. We waited 9 weeks for our images and during that time we were sent a small preview set, which we were happy with. You can see my wife's response to those in Chloe's statement. However, for Chloe to mislead readers by claiming this reaction was to the full set is unacceptable. The first time we saw the full set was 8.30pm on 22nd November. We made our complaint about quality and missing coverage on 25th Nov.

A slightly confusing aspect of some of the media reports surrounds “fifteen photos.” The fifteen photos are in relation to coverage of the evening reception, not the full day. As Chloe was not responsible for running the photobooth we feel that 15 photos is very low for evening event coverage. Despite that, it was not a major issue in the court claim as you will see.

Chloe has also alleged that she had a second case against us for fraud. This is completely untrue, which we will explain in a moment. After our initial complaint Chloe blamed us for all the things we were complaining about and described us as unreasonable. We were unable to get her to take any responsibility for her failings, so realised we either had to shut up or take her to court. We then realised that we couldn't proceed with a court claim because Chloe had not supplied her address or a contract. We texted Chloe to ask for her address and she replied “F*** off” so we had to try and figure out where to serve the court documents. We found out her address but she denied that she lived there, so we drove there to see if there were residential properties on the street. (Google showed it as industrial units so we were confused.) Chloe phoned the police and claimed we were stalking her. She also denied that she lived there, so the stalking claims didn't quite make sense.

We then obtained an address for her father, following a public appeal for information. When we submitted the court claim, we used both addresses at which Chloe might reside, because she wouldn't tell us the truth. So we submitted the same claim against both addresses. The court hearing on 6th April was simply a formality to get the claim against her father's address removed because the claim had been dealt with at the industrial park address.

On the day of our original hearing, Chloe did not attend the court. She claims that she lost because her documents were lost but this was not the case. She had submitted her written defence prior to the hearing and we were sent a copy of it as is standard practice in such cases. The judge had all the information he needed to reach a decision.

An aspect of our claim was misrepresentation because Chloe had advertised as an experienced wedding photographer capable of producing “stunning romantic photographs.” It was only when we complained that she changed her story and blamed us for booking a “student photographer.” We based our decision to book Chloe on her professional website (now taken down) her Facebook page (also down) her advertising in Facebook groups and her verbal representation. We truly believed that she was an experienced wedding photographer because she consistently claimed to be one. Yet on the day of our wedding she attended with a cheap consumer DSLR and cheap lens. Her work falls below the quality of the work of the photobooth supplier.

After the judgement Chloe initially refused to pay. Then she sent two men to my front door to bully & intimidate me into accepting part payment. When I asked them to leave my property they refused. The police were subsequently called, during this time these men could see I had a ten month old baby in my arms. The remainder of the debt was recovered via bailiffs as Chloe refused to pay and only did so to avoid a further CCJ. I had to pay additional costs to get the bailiffs to recover monies owed.

To gain sympathy with readers Chloe has claimed that she fears for her life and has seen us waiting outside her property. She failed to disclose that she lives next to the Royal Mail delivery office for Bramley! This is where residents have to go to collect any parcels that arrive when they are out. We have had to collect two parcels from there this year, which hardly constitutes harassment!

Chloe claims to be against cyber bullying, yet she posted unkind and defamatory remarks about us online after we complained to her. This happened before we ever mentioned the dispute publically. All of this situation is Chloe's own doing. All we did was complain about our missing group photos and her taking the bride and matron of honour to the forest for a photoshoot while the groom was made to wait at the hotel. We never demanded a full refund. We simply tried to discuss our complaints with her but she would not accept any responsibility for the problems. So we went to court to ask a judge to determine how much we were owed and we were awarded a full refund and costs.

As a business she should listen to her customers. We know of two other couples unhappy with her work on their wedding day. We have been abused, called vile and references were made which disgusted me. Sadly court was the only option. We are shocked that Chloe has made an untrue statement online yesterday which seeks to absolve her of any blame for her own poor service. Chloe's website claimed that “each and every wedding is treated with individuality, care and love.” We have been treated terribly by Chloe Johnston.

Paul & Chareen Wheatley

14th April 2016

Below is our original statement submitted via the Small Claims Court website

Our claim against Chloe Johnston-Winterburn trading as Chloe Johnson Photography (CJP) revolves around the following issues:

Misrepresentation - We can prove that Chloe advertised extensively in Facebook wedding groups claiming to be a "reliable, experienced, creative, trustworthy female wedding photographer" who could "create stunning romantic photographs of the bride & groom" and “gorgeous wedding memories.”

We were urged to "allow C Johnson Photography to capture your day how you would like it to be captured" because “I base my packages around you… to ensure all your needs are met.” On her website we were reassured by phrases such as “Each and every wedding is treated with individuality, care and love. I work alongside you both to ensure we can create stunning and never ageing photographs. To ensure I capture all your minor details of your day I'm always there in the lead up to the wedding to help out where I can.”

We booked CJP on the basis of her online claims and paid £500 for 8 hours wedding photography booked for 13th September 2015. We believed that Chloe was a professional wedding photographer. We checked her website and Facebook page. We have now discovered that Chloe did not even bring any professional photographic equipment to our wedding. She came with a cheap consumer grade camera, a Nikon D7000 and cheap 18-105mm zoom lens. We don’t think she had a proper flash and do not remember one being used.

The lead up to the wedding was very stressful as after we paid the final balance in early August we found we were unable to contact Chloe again.

We posted on her Facebook page, emailed and phoned her but she was gone, we got no response. Chloe had asked us to make the payments via Paypal but use “friends and family” option which took away our chance to claim anything back from Paypal. We hadn’t realised Chloe was cheating us out of our paypal protection, she said she was just avoiding fees. In a panic we even arranged an emergency replacement for her by phoning a guest to ask them to step in as wedding photographer. Finally, at 11pm on 12th September, the night before the wedding, Chloe responded by text informing us that she would be attending.

The agreed start time was 11am but CJP did not arrive until around 12.15.

Due to Chloe not responding to any attempts to contact her before the wedding we were unable to have the pre-wedding meeting and discussions that we expected. Despite this, we were organised and supplied Chloe with a comprehensive written list of group photos and desired shots when she arrived at the venue. We have only received a portion of those. Several of the formal group photos are missing. The important "main group" of all guests together is of little use as it has been taken from too low an angle so that many people's faces can't be seen. This is due to the photographer's neglect in not finding a good place to take the photo. The venue provides two other good locations for the group photo which would have enabled all guests to be seen. We have obtained examples of these after searching online.

CJP failed to take into account the groom's disability when providing the wedding photography service. The extended time taken to arrange the main group on grass meant that the groom was in severe pain and this is evident by his expression on the few groups that were taken afterwards. Prior to moving onto the grassed area, Chloe was informed that the groom could only stand on hard ground comfortably.

The situation worsened when Chloe insisted she wanted to take us into the nearby forest to do the "stunning romantic photographs of the bride and groom" we had anticipated. The groom explained that due to his serious knee injury there was no way he could walk into the forest. Instead of taking more portraits at the hotel, Chloe persuaded the bride to go to the forest without the groom. She took the chief bridesmaid instead, while the groom was left for approx 45 minutes waiting at the hotel. He felt he could not go to the room to rest because he didn’t know when his wife would return, so he waited in the bar.

This experience had a negative impact on the groom’s enjoyment of the day and means that there are fewer nice couple photos than we expected. After delivery, we complained about the shortage of nice couple photos and Chloe blamed us for not spending enough time doing them!

Chloe has been trying to discredit us online and to the Police by stating that Mrs Chareen Wheatley said how happy she was with the photos and it's just Mr Paul Wheatley who later objected to the quality & service supplied. However, this is untrue. As the photos took so long to be delivered we kept contacting her asking for updates re progress and she sent over a couple of small selections which amounted to less than 10 photos in total. It is this small preview set that we liked and were happy with. We finally received the full set of images on a USB drive at 8.30pm on 22nd November, 9 weeks after the wedding. Our initial complaint was made on 25th November. There was no point after delivery of the images that we said we were satisfied with them.

Our package included an engagement shoot which we swapped for a Christening shoot for our baby. We have not received the images from this shoot at all.

Chloe claims that she has “fulfilled the contract” despite having never issued a contract. After our complaint, Chloe stated that her clients should expect 250-700 images from a full day wedding. We only have 276 and some of these are duplicates or watermarked web versions. We do not have 250 quality images of our wedding.

Initially we asked to discuss the matter and find some resolution due to the various issues we had:

Missing images

poor quality of images

failure to take into account the groom’s disability on the day

excessive delay in delivering the images

misrepresentation of her skills and experience

her bad attitude to our complaint

Chloe accused us of trying to grab money back from our wedding suppliers by faking complaints and refused to discuss our complaints or requests for a refund. She insists there is nothing wrong with her service or the product supplied.

We were sent screen shots by a local amateur photographer friend who saw her being disrespectful about us in a Facebook group.

After this we realised that we needed to take action via Small Claims court but when we went online to commence the claim we did not have an address for Chloe. That’s when we realised we should have been given a contract and proper trading address details for her. We texted Chloe to ask for her address but she refused to provide it. We believe there has been a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in that CJP did not issue proper documentation, did not display any address anywhere online and refused to give us an address when it was requested.

We searched online but could find no address anywhere so turned to Facebook for help as we are not very internet savvy. A photographer in the Midlands discovered CJP’s domain was registered to an address at LS13 2EF but he warned us that on Google maps there did not seem to be any residential properties there. We drove to that address to see if we could spot a car we might recognise but it looked like industrial units and a pet shop.

We were left to plead for help on the Leedsface. Facebook group as a last resort. When we did that we were contacted by another of Chloe’s clients who explained they had to involve Trading Standards before managing to obtain their wedding photos.

As a result of our appeal for information Chloe called the Police and said we were harassing her. The Police have been phoning and coming to our house due to Chloe lying to them about our dispute.

As CJP refuse to deal with our complaint and have made insulting comments about us online we would like to bring the matter before the court to determine what compensation and refund we are due._

It can be found here: C Johnston Photography in Leeds, UK
Apparently the photographer also likes to "borrow" photos for her Facebook site.


----------



## Light Guru

Same person. C Johnston Photography in Leeds, UK

She didn't even use her own photos on her website. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

interesting, though long, read.
I guess she got her day in court to prove her side, and lost.


----------



## Braineack

again, don't hire a cheap 20yo without skills (photography, communication, etc.)  to capture precious moments that you cannot recreate.


----------



## jcdeboever

I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Hmmm..  depends.  Saltines or cheeseits?

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

robbins.photo said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm..  depends.  Saltines or cheeseits?
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I don't know. I stole the line from @limr, I still crack up every time I think about that comment. Couldn't wait to use it.... I did and I liked it....

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm..  depends.  Saltines or cheeseits?
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. I stole the line from @limr, I still crack up every time I think about that comment. Couldn't wait to use it.... I did and I liked it....
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough.  Lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## 480sparky

Hmmmmm:

C Johnston Photography in Leeds, UK


----------



## vintagesnaps

Why is fstoppers using info. from tabloids? That seems to be the only place this is showing up.

Lenny I was thinking when I read what was on her site - maybe she should sign up for a writing class at your school! lol too bad she's not in your area.

But you gave me a great idea for a photography business - Drunk Uncle Snaps. Just show up, drink beer, wander around and take photos with your phone, done for the night!!


----------



## robbins.photo

vintagesnaps said:


> Lenny I was thinking when I read what was on her site - maybe she should sign up for a writing class at your school! lol too bad she's not in your area.



That's an interesting thought.. can you learn english as a 2nd language if you weren't able to master it as your first?



> But you gave me a great idea for a photography business - Drunk Uncle Snaps. Just show up, drink beer, wander around and take photos with your phone, done for the night!!



Actually I was kind of hoping to maybe get an email address for that photobooth, man I'd like to 2nd shoot for him.  Wow.

Lol


----------



## pixmedic

limr said:


> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read various follow ups, the clients point out that she has changed her facebook and website since they booked her.  She had initially described herself as a professional experienced photographer only to later say they "hired a student" knowing what they were getting.  (One link in a news story even refers to possible stolen images on her website) So the clients may have actually looked at 'her" work.  She just was not able to create that quality for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the articles in the OP included her original Facebook ad that attracted the clients in the first place. No mention of student or even "aspirational."
> 
> "_LOOKING FOR A FEMALE, RELIABLE, WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER!?
> 
> Look no further.
> 
> Here at C Johnston Photography I have a passion for what I do, which showcases throughout gorgeous wedding memories I have captured.
> 
> I have photographed different weddings, be that religious or non-religious, as well as various cultures and traditions. I have met some wonderful couples along the way, and I hope to carry this through.
> 
> I base my packages around you, to ensure their personalised and all your needs are met. With prices starting from only £125, you know you can get your big day captured, and remembered.
> 
> Text/Call or E-mail me today for a quick quote.
> 
> I’m more than willing to meet in advance to show wedding’s in more depth and details.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Chloe Johnston,
> 
> C Johnston Photography_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. saw this quote from her as well:
> 
> "He will do anything to drag my name through the mud, when all I tried to do was help with him and his wife with whatever problem they had against me even though they loved the product, *and he's now done this to a young female.*"
> 
> She actually played the "But I'm a girl" card.  So hard to decide which of these quotes is more egregious really.. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only does she try to claim to be a victim of sexism, but she also screws up her grammar as well. He's done this to a young female...a young female WHAT? It's distressingly common for people to use "female" or "male" - which are adjectives - instead of "woman" or "man."
Click to expand...


----------



## tirediron

pixmedic said:


>


Did anyone else just hear Lenny keel over from a heart-attack?


----------



## pixmedic

tirediron said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone else just hear Lenny keel over from a heart-attack?
Click to expand...

It's ok...I can fix that!


----------



## limr

pixmedic said:


>


----------



## limr

pixmedic said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did anyone else just hear Lenny keel over from a heart-attack?
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok...I can fix that!
Click to expand...


That's good, because the vision is getting all sorts of tunnely right about now...


----------



## table1349

pixmedic said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read various follow ups, the clients point out that she has changed her facebook and website since they booked her.  She had initially described herself as a professional experienced photographer only to later say they "hired a student" knowing what they were getting.  (One link in a news story even refers to possible stolen images on her website) So the clients may have actually looked at 'her" work.  She just was not able to create that quality for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the articles in the OP included her original Facebook ad that attracted the clients in the first place. No mention of student or even "aspirational."
> 
> "_LOOKING FOR A FEMALE, RELIABLE, WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER!?
> 
> Look no further.
> 
> Here at C Johnston Photography I have a passion for what I do, which showcases throughout gorgeous wedding memories I have captured.
> 
> I have photographed different weddings, be that religious or non-religious, as well as various cultures and traditions. I have met some wonderful couples along the way, and I hope to carry this through.
> 
> I base my packages around you, to ensure their personalised and all your needs are met. With prices starting from only £125, you know you can get your big day captured, and remembered.
> 
> Text/Call or E-mail me today for a quick quote.
> 
> I’m more than willing to meet in advance to show wedding’s in more depth and details.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Chloe Johnston,
> 
> C Johnston Photography_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. saw this quote from her as well:
> 
> "He will do anything to drag my name through the mud, when all I tried to do was help with him and his wife with whatever problem they had against me even though they loved the product, *and he's now done this to a young female.*"
> 
> She actually played the "But I'm a girl" card.  So hard to decide which of these quotes is more egregious really.. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only does she try to claim to be a victim of sexism, but she also screws up her grammar as well. He's done this to a young female...a young female WHAT? It's distressingly common for people to use "female" or "male" - which are adjectives - instead of "woman" or "man."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## snowbear

pixmedic said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ClickAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you read various follow ups, the clients point out that she has changed her facebook and website since they booked her.  She had initially described herself as a professional experienced photographer only to later say they "hired a student" knowing what they were getting.  (One link in a news story even refers to possible stolen images on her website) So the clients may have actually looked at 'her" work.  She just was not able to create that quality for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the articles in the OP included her original Facebook ad that attracted the clients in the first place. No mention of student or even "aspirational."
> 
> "_LOOKING FOR A FEMALE, RELIABLE, WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER!?
> 
> Look no further.
> 
> Here at C Johnston Photography I have a passion for what I do, which showcases throughout gorgeous wedding memories I have captured.
> 
> I have photographed different weddings, be that religious or non-religious, as well as various cultures and traditions. I have met some wonderful couples along the way, and I hope to carry this through.
> 
> I base my packages around you, to ensure their personalised and all your needs are met. With prices starting from only £125, you know you can get your big day captured, and remembered.
> 
> Text/Call or E-mail me today for a quick quote.
> 
> I’m more than willing to meet in advance to show wedding’s in more depth and details.
> 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Chloe Johnston,
> 
> C Johnston Photography_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm.. saw this quote from her as well:
> 
> "He will do anything to drag my name through the mud, when all I tried to do was help with him and his wife with whatever problem they had against me even though they loved the product, *and he's now done this to a young female.*"
> 
> She actually played the "But I'm a girl" card.  So hard to decide which of these quotes is more egregious really.. lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only does she try to claim to be a victim of sexism, but she also screws up her grammar as well. He's done this to a young female...a young female WHAT? It's distressingly common for people to use "female" or "male" - which are adjectives - instead of "woman" or "man."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


One of the kid's 4th or 5th grade teacher used the "take it for granite," in a letter to the parents.  Then she mentioned, that in math, they were studying _basis_, like base 10.  A bright one, she was.


----------



## table1349

Sounds to me like she was a pour speller in school.


----------



## 480sparky

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sounds to me like she was a pour speller in skool.



Fify.


----------



## robbins.photo

gryphonslair99 said:


> Sounds to me like she was a pour speller in school.


I guess now would be a good time to check Limr's life support machine, it's getting one heck of a workout today.

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## table1349

robbins.photo said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like she was a pour speller in school.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess now would be a good time to check Limr's life support machine, it's getting one heck of a workout today.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


----------



## limr

robbins.photo said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like she was a pour speller in school.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess now would be a good time to check Limr's life support machine, it's getting one heck of a workout today.
> 
> Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Are you kidding me? This is nothing, dude. NOTHING! This would be just a paragraph in one of my stack of essays. And a relatively good paragraph to boot!

As annoying as those errors can be (seriously, folks, how hard is it to remember that an apostrophe IS NOT FOR PLURALS??) at least I understand what is being written. Hows about you try to sort the meanings of these:

1. Ideally, we are all born. And at some point have parents.
2. Will a human being stifle their animal nature to strive to be a good parent?
3. Therefore, within responsebility [sic] comes trust, and within trust comes you being old enough to handle being responseable [sic].


----------



## table1349

Looks like the defibrillator worked!


----------



## robbins.photo

limr said:


> Hows about you try to sort the meanings of these:
> 
> 1. Ideally, we are all born. And at some point have parents.
> 2. Will a human being stifle their animal nature to strive to be a good parent?
> 3. Therefore, within responsebility [sic] comes trust, and within trust comes you being old enough to handle being responseable [sic].



Umm...  Confucius maybe?  Did Confucius ever drop acid?  Hmm.. Ok, time to put on the old thinking cap I guess.

1.  Obviously postulating the ramifications of immaculate conception.  Very deep stuff.  We're into the mind of a genius here.

2. Obviously this is the students way of relaying to you that they were raised by wolves, and that contrary to popular belief wolves do not make good foster parents.

3.  Ok, so if you are responsible people trust you, and if they trust you they are less likely to kill you in your sleep, allowing you to live long enough to become even more responsible.  Hmm, a little paranoid maybe but a certain amount of Darwinian logic in there.. lol

Sent from my N9518 using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread

Nothing we've not seen before in this; although it is refreshing to read more detail in the form of the Grooms statement; normally we only have the tabloid and internet news sites to get details from and; as the Groom's statement shows, they have a woefully huge shortfall in information and twist things around very easily. 



Note I stuck a link to the statement into the opening post for those new to the thread. 

*flees from the thread before the teachers with red pens get them out to grammatically correct everything*


----------



## astroNikon

robbins.photo said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lenny I was thinking when I read what was on her site - maybe she should sign up for a writing class at your school! lol too bad she's not in your area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting thought.. can you learn english as a 2nd language if you weren't able to master it as your first?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you gave me a great idea for a photography business - Drunk Uncle Snaps. Just show up, drink beer, wander around and take photos with your phone, done for the night!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I was kind of hoping to maybe get an email address for that photobooth, man I'd like to 2nd shoot for him.  Wow.
> 
> Lol
Click to expand...

Now that I think of it
She may have been better off just pushing the photo booth around and using it to snap pics of the wedding ceremony.


----------



## runnah

Flagrant stupidity on all sides.


----------



## snowbear

limr said:


> 1. Ideally, we are all born. And at some point have parents.


Kind of goes without saying unless you're an amoeba.



limr said:


> 2. Will a human being stifle their animal nature to strive to be a good parent?


Some animals eat their young.  Probably not a good trait if you want to be a good parent in modern society.



limr said:


> 3. Therefore, within responsebility [sic] comes trust, and within trust comes you being old enough to handle being responseable [sic].


A quote from the past:  "Error: Circular Calculation" -- Lotus 1*2*3


----------



## thereyougo!

tirediron said:


> Okay... having read the articles and looked at her website, I would say that this young lady is the very definition of "fauxtographer".  I agree, her body of work is atroctious.  I'm sure if she were to post here for C&C she'd leave in tears very quickly.  I do think that quality of image-wise the couple got all that they could reasonably expect and that they should have looked at things more closely.  Equally however, it seems to me that as the photographer, she was as grossly unprofessional as she could possibly be, and has no business putting her name out there.  She clearly has no concept of what is required to do the job, and being sued into bankruptcy would be the kindest thing that anyone could do; either to her or the wedding photography industry!



Is what you see there now what was showing on her website and her Facebook at the time that they booked her?  Just a thought...in the f-stoppers article there is talk that she used images that weren't hers and presented them as hers.  That would put a whole new complexion on things...


----------



## astroNikon

thereyougo! said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... having read the articles and looked at her website, I would say that this young lady is the very definition of "fauxtographer".  I agree, her body of work is atroctious.  I'm sure if she were to post here for C&C she'd leave in tears very quickly.  I do think that quality of image-wise the couple got all that they could reasonably expect and that they should have looked at things more closely.  Equally however, it seems to me that as the photographer, she was as grossly unprofessional as she could possibly be, and has no business putting her name out there.  She clearly has no concept of what is required to do the job, and being sued into bankruptcy would be the kindest thing that anyone could do; either to her or the wedding photography industry!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is what you see there now what was showing on her website and her Facebook at the time that they booked her?  Just a thought...in the f-stoppers article there is talk that she used images that weren't hers and presented them as hers.  That would put a whole new complexion on things...
Click to expand...

her website and facebook had photos on it that were not her own .. she took them from the internet.  fstoppers (or who ever) found the photos on the internet belonging to other people.
She quickly took down her facebook and website after that.


----------



## tirediron

snowbear said:


> ...Some animals eat their young.  Probably not a good trait if you want to be a good parent in modern society....


 I'm not so sure that doesn't in fact show a greater regard and sense of civic responsibility, at least based on some of the "young" of our species with whom I've had dealings...


----------



## table1349

snowbear said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Ideally, we are all born. And at some point have parents.
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of goes without saying unless you're an amoeba.
Click to expand...


I might dispute that statement.  There are a couple of individuals around here that I suspect crawled out from under a rock.



> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Will a human being stifle their animal nature to strive to be a good parent?
> 
> 
> 
> Some animals eat their young.  Probably not a good trait if you want to be a good parent in modern society.
Click to expand...


Oh I don't know.  You ever watch a young tiger with it's mother.  Quite attentive and well behaved.  Tigers eat their young.  Perhaps a little legalized teenager eating would be good for society in general.  Their best slow cooked over a low fire or smoked so as to break down their grisly nature. 



> limr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Therefore, within responsebility [sic] comes trust, and within trust comes you being old enough to handle being responseable [sic].
> 
> 
> 
> A quote from the past:  "Error: Circular Calculation" -- Lotus 1*2*3
Click to expand...


----------



## Philmar

robbins.photo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mehh... weddings are easy.  What could possibly go wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely nothing, as long as you have the right equipment.  You know, an entry level aps-c sensor DSLR with a kit lens and no external flash, with a single battery and memory card.  Piece of cake.
Click to expand...


...and an old face cloth to clean the lens in case you spill some of your free drinks on them


----------



## robbins.photo

Philmar said:


> ...and an old face cloth to clean the lens in case you spill some of your free drinks on them



Which as a photographer should be the very first question you should ask regarding a wedding...

"Open bar?"


----------



## table1349

She certainly missed this class on wedding photographer day. 8 Traits that Make a Good Wedding Photographer Great


----------

