# Transgender wedding photog causes a stir



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2010)

Here's a story about a woman who booked a six foot tall male photographer named David--who showed up dressed in women's attire for the wedding. Apparently, it was the photographer's first time dressed in women's attire. Ultimately, the bride was not impressed with the photos. I thought this photographer's anti-copying technique was interesting: using two lines of marker squiggles to prevent copying of the proofs. Low-tech, but effective.

The story here is rather brief. I expect that people will keep this discussion respectful, even though the topic and subject involved is outside the norm of daily living, I suspect that this will not be the last time this happens.

Sex swap &lsquo;David Brent&rsquo; runs bride&rsquo;s day | The Sun |News


----------



## mdtusz (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm all for open sexual orientation, however, I think "Kate" probably should have mentioned hers... If I were a bride, I would most likely be a little upset if I were put in that position. The pictures on the webpage do look pretty sub-par as well, all other things aside.


----------



## Big (Mar 8, 2010)

It looks like a cheap kit lens on the camera! haha They usually have a silver ring around them right?


----------



## TiaS (Mar 8, 2010)

I don't understand how that could ruin a wedding. It is about the photos, not the person. If the photographer behaved obnoxiously or loudly, than I could see that as an issue, but as far as looks... I don't think that matters. The photography is what matters. I also don't understand how you can be 'diagnoses' with transgender. That does not make the person any less of a person or photographer. 

If I was the bride, personally I would worry about photo quality, not the way the photographer looked (unless he/she was dishelved, stinky, and sloppy), or that they were copywrighted with a line through them.


----------



## Overread (Mar 8, 2010)

Eewwww Derral reads the Sun!  :lmao:

That kind of makes getting an honest answer of out the story a bit of a disaster for a starting point.

Honestly though looks are amazingly important - especailly at a wedding (I mean come on if they weren't would bride spend as much as they do on a dress they wear only a handfull of times). Many I think would have no problem with a transgender photographer; however if they cannot dress correctly and appropriatly for a wedding then their gender or sexuality has nothing to do with it - they are incorrectly dressed. It would be the same if they turned up in a vest, ripped jeans and sporting an afro. 

Clearly we are dealing with the lower end of the photography market, but even so there are some standards that have to be met and attire is one area that most people should not be failing in. 

Photographic quality is highly subjective though - if the images the photographer made are in line with the work they display in their portfolio then the bride has no comeback about the quality - however if the images produced are significantly worse then there is cause for contesting them.

Though the brides comments on the watermarking (neatly effective too) lead me to suspect that neither she nor the photographer are on good speaking terms...


----------



## TiaS (Mar 8, 2010)

I think that she/he dressed professionally by wearing a dress, dress shoes, etc. It's not like he showed up in sweats and a halter top with bra straps showing.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 8, 2010)

TiaS said:


> It is about the photos.



Apparently they weren't very good.



> "What's even worse is I'm not happy with the photos. [...] they're very amateurish. Our friends took better shots."


----------



## manicmike (Mar 8, 2010)

would you rather he came looking like Ricky Gervais? Just sayin'.


----------



## TiaS (Mar 8, 2010)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *TiaS*
> 
> 
> _It is about the photos._
> ...


 
If it was about the photos, than that would have been what the main focus on. As it is, the photo quality seemed to be a sidenote.


----------



## keith foster (Mar 8, 2010)

I would suspect that when she saw the low quality of the pictures the bride started being upset with EVERYTHING, including how the photographer was dressed.  I bet if the pics had turned out topnotch she wouldn't have said a thing.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 8, 2010)

Derrel said:


> I expect that people will keep this discussion respectful



Throw **** against the wind and some will end up on your face...




TiaS said:


> I don't understand how that could ruin a wedding. It is about the photos, not the person. If the photographer behaved obnoxiously or loudly, than I could see that as an issue, but as far as looks... I don't think that matters. The photography is what matters. I also don't understand how you can be 'diagnoses' with transgender. That does not make the person any less of a person or photographer.
> 
> If I was the bride, personally I would worry about photo quality, not the way the photographer looked (unless he/she was dishelved, stinky, and sloppy), or that they were copywrighted with a line through them.



:thumbup: +1




Overread said:


> Eewwww Derral reads the Sun!  :lmao:
> 
> That kind of makes getting an honest answer of out the story a bit of a disaster for a starting point.



Judging from Overread's reaction I have a feeling that my recollection of the Sun is pretty much correct. Trash. Was this story next to the one about Elvis visiting the queen for tea last week?

The fact that you would go dig up such a piece of valuable journalism doesn't say much about you Derrel.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2010)

Well, the odd thing about The Sun, the National Enquirer,and many of the other alternative newspapers is that the stories they carry are often actually true! I learned that while studying university journalism: the same story will be carried across multiple media outlets. It is an odd bit of news. Truth is often stranger than fiction. The British tabloid media has an odd knack for ferreting out the oddness in British culture.

I find it humorous that c.cloudwalker is still trying to disparage me personally, a week later. Last week he called me an ass. I thought maybe moving to Europe might mellow him out, but apparently not,. This post marks c.cloudwalker's second personal attack on me in less than a week. Nice going c.cloudwalker.:thumbup:


Speaking of clowns, I thought it was funny that the wedding photographer has a second job--as a Ricky Gervais impersonator!!!


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Mar 8, 2010)

I don't need to disparage you. You do a fine job of it yourself. I guess I'll be looking for Elvis at the mall... along with his alien friend. :lmao:

I will call you an ass every time you are one and I believe you would do much better by worrying about your own mellowness before mine.

Speaking of clowns, I shouldn't be surprised that you are so interested in them. It takes one to know one.


----------



## terri (Mar 8, 2010)

I'm getting a little tired of opening threads at random and seeing how fast they deteriorate into name-calling and personal attacks.

If you personally don't think much of a member here, then why subject yourself to reading their threads? Is the intent of your time here on TPF merely to look for someone to bash? 

_Use the Ignore List feature. _Continued bullying will only lead to banning.


----------

