# Small Rant



## jcdeboever

I thought to post this in here so I could get it out of my system. Yesterday, I was going over my call reports with my sales assistant who recently got married. She showed me her wedding pictures that cost her $1500.00. Oh my Lord! These were so bad.... it took me a great deal of restraint not to say a word. FINALLY, the words came out of her mouth at her displeasure with them. The professional photographer blamed the poor church lighting, now correct me if I am wrong but if your a pro, is it not your job to overcome this? 14 in the wedding party and she brought in two speedlight w/umbrella's? Really? You could clearly see in the photo's the people on the ends were dark, and the shadows... oh my. All the faces in the photo sittings were blown out and WB was way off. I felt bad for her and I did not say to much. She signed a contract and I told her she should go and take her to small claims court and should win easily. I wish I could show you some of the pics, just awful. People like this need to be stopped.


----------



## goooner

Difficult to comment without knowing both sides. How many pics did she get, did she have a chance to pick the best from a set? It sounds like the photographer was not very professional, but many would say that $1500 is not very expensive for a wedding.


----------



## pixmedic

the price of the wedding is irrelevant. 
did they see pics of other weddings the photographer shot? a portfolio?
have they spoken with the photographer about the picture quality?
most churches are lit poorly...i think ive only shot in ONE that was actually well lit. most have high ceilings with sparse lighting. 
no flash during ceremonies most of the time, so you just have to deal with fast lenses. 

if they used lighting and got blown out faces and bad shadows, it sounds like they didn't know how to use OCF. 
really cant tell much without seeing the pictures though, so everything is really just speculation on my part. 
either way, it will be between the photographer and the customer to figure it out. I sure wouldn't keep quiet over $1500 though. especially my wedding photos.


----------



## Didereaux

Can't stop them.  AND you can't overcome lazy or stupid.   yes, the bride was excited, but when you go tossing around $1500 bucks you don't have to be Einstein to figure that you might want to check out the merchandise first?  Like references, portfolio?  No, the older I get the less tolerant of dumb I am becoming.


----------



## jcdeboever

She did say she looked at her work prior but what she seen there was way different than what she got. She met with her and picked out about 75 photo's and anymore than that would be extra. She claimed there was very little, if any post work done on the 75. She did not buy any prints because of her displeasure with them and voiced this to the Pro. Again, the Pro blamed poor lighting. She asked me if I could do some post work and I told her I could not do that and would not feel comfortable doing so. The photos are clearly the property of the photographer as spelled out in the generic contract. She basically paid $1500 for a CD full of crappy, unedited photos. The xif data was absent from them as well. I think she did everything she could to select the photographer and got taken advantage of. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## pixmedic

jcdeboever said:


> She did say she looked at her work prior but what she seen there was way different than what she got. She met with her and picked out about 75 photo's and anymore than that would be extra. She claimed there was very little, if any post work done on the 75. She did not buy any prints because of her displeasure with them and voiced this to the Pro. Again, the Pro blamed poor lighting. She asked me if I could do some post work and I told her I could not do that and would not feel comfortable doing so. The photos are clearly the property of the photographer as spelled out in the generic contract. She basically paid $1500 for a CD full of crappy, unedited photos. The xif data was absent from them as well. I think she did everything she could to select the photographer and got taken advantage of.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk




if what she got doesn't match the photographers portfolio quality, then I would ask for a refund or go to court. 
a photographer cant blame standard church lighting on poor quality photos...
the threat of court is also trouble for the photographer if they don't have all their business aspects legal in accordance with their state laws. 
its all irrelevant though if your assistant isn't willing to actually follow through with doing something about it. 
first step would be to contact an attorney that deals with this sort of thing. they will be able to tell her what options she has, and find out if the photographer legally shot the wedding or not.


----------



## sscarmack

First step is to ask/demand a refund. More likely than not, the photographer will settle because 90% (made up number), are probably not even licensed and follow the laws.


----------



## jcdeboever

pixmedic said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did say she looked at her work prior but what she seen there was way different than what she got. She met with her and picked out about 75 photo's and anymore than that would be extra. She claimed there was very little, if any post work done on the 75. She did not buy any prints because of her displeasure with them and voiced this to the Pro. Again, the Pro blamed poor lighting. She asked me if I could do some post work and I told her I could not do that and would not feel comfortable doing so. The photos are clearly the property of the photographer as spelled out in the generic contract. She basically paid $1500 for a CD full of crappy, unedited photos. The xif data was absent from them as well. I think she did everything she could to select the photographer and got taken advantage of.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if what she got doesn't match the photographers portfolio quality, then I would ask for a refund or go to court.
> a photographer cant blame standard church lighting on poor quality photos...
> the threat of court is also trouble for the photographer if they don't have all their business aspects legal in accordance with their state laws.
> its all irrelevant though if your assistant isn't willing to actually follow through with doing something about it.
> first step would be to contact an attorney that deals with this sort of thing. they will be able to tell her what options she has, and find out if the photographer legally shot the wedding or not.
Click to expand...

I called my lawyer friend who lives in Ohio and he said she should file a claim in small claims court. He said all it will take is for the judge to look at the photos and she would win. He mentioned that very same thing that if the quality is poor, chances are their business setup is the same. This girl is young and rather timid so I suspect she will let it pass. Real reason for my rant I guess. I explained she has an opportunity  to prevent this from happening to someone else but her body language told me she was very uncomfortable with the idea of suing.  

The lawyer did say she should not have accepted the CD .

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Didereaux

jcdeboever said:


> She did say she looked at her work prior but what she seen there was way different than what she got. She met with her and picked out about 75 photo's and anymore than that would be extra. She claimed there was very little, if any post work done on the 75. She did not buy any prints because of her displeasure with them and voiced this to the Pro. Again, the Pro blamed poor lighting. She asked me if I could do some post work and I told her I could not do that and would not feel comfortable doing so. The photos are clearly the property of the photographer as spelled out in the generic contract. She basically paid $1500 for a CD full of crappy, unedited photos. The xif data was absent from them as well. I think she did everything she could to select the photographer and got taken advantage of.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk




In that case it is time for her to call her Cousin Vinny!


----------



## jcdeboever

Didereaux said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did say she looked at her work prior but what she seen there was way different than what she got. She met with her and picked out about 75 photo's and anymore than that would be extra. She claimed there was very little, if any post work done on the 75. She did not buy any prints because of her displeasure with them and voiced this to the Pro. Again, the Pro blamed poor lighting. She asked me if I could do some post work and I told her I could not do that and would not feel comfortable doing so. The photos are clearly the property of the photographer as spelled out in the generic contract. She basically paid $1500 for a CD full of crappy, unedited photos. The xif data was absent from them as well. I think she did everything she could to select the photographer and got taken advantage of.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that case it is time for her to call her Cousin Vinny!
Click to expand...


I know, right? I just wanted to rant because I was appalled. I will call her today and see if she has them posted somewhere for you guys to see what  I am talking about. I don't do facebook but maybe she does. Will see.


----------



## jcdeboever

sscarmack said:


> First step is to ask/demand a refund. More likely than not, the photographer will settle because 90% (made up number), are probably not even licensed and follow the laws.



She did ask for one but the pro denied her request. I asked her why she took the CD and she started getting teary eyed, so I left it alone. She is a very gentle, sweet girl with a good upbringing, reason I hired her to assist me. She does a fantastic job and is very organized and my customers love her. Her husband has no fight in him either, he is just as gentle. I told her I would be willing to talk with the photographer and she said she would discuss with her husband... LET ME AT HER!


----------



## Designer

Didereaux said:


> No, the older I get the less tolerant of dumb I am becoming.


Me too, but we should keep in mind that some photographers (or any person selling services) excel at selling their services.  Way better at selling than actually providing a quality service.


----------



## Designer

jcdeboever said:


> She is a very gentle, sweet girl with a good upbringing,


That makes me want to start taking up a collection to give their money back to them.


----------



## jcdeboever

goooner said:


> Difficult to comment without knowing both sides. How many pics did she get, did she have a chance to pick the best from a set? It sounds like the photographer was not very professional, but many would say that $1500 is not very expensive for a wedding.



Respectfully, there is no other side as the contract is spelled out. The photographer did not perform all the actions spelled out in the contract. Here is a link to the contract, it is real close to this if not the same as I recall.

Contract for Wedding Photography Services


----------



## jcdeboever

Designer said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> She is a very gentle, sweet girl with a good upbringing,
> 
> 
> 
> That makes me want to start taking up a collection to give their money back to them.
Click to expand...


I know, right? However, I would like to see a little fight in her. I hope they at least let me talk with the photographer, I am a pretty good negotiator except when it comes to the wife.


----------



## pixmedic

im just gonna throw this out there...
im willing to bet that if your assistant got a lawyer to draft an official letter asking for a refund (partial or full, whatever)
or things will progress to the lawsuit phase, she would get a refund pretty quick. 
it might be worth a few hundy's for an attorney  to type up something official to get her $1500 back. 

again...i am absolutely advocating a consult from an actual attorney before making any demands of the photographer.


----------



## sscarmack

And also, maybe the photographer has picked up on that your assistant and husband can easily be shoved around as they have "no fight in them". So I agree with Pix here.

You can't take advantage of someone who doesn't let you.


----------



## Gary A.

Coming in here late, but a pro should know how to deal with all lighting situations they encounter. A real pro would have visited the church prior to the event and spoken to the pastor about the lighting and the do's and don'ts.  A real pro would had admitted that they failed and refunded all the money. Unfortunately, many newly weds skimp on the photographer and look for bargains (ala Uncle Bob), not realizing that the photos are an extremely important element. Sure you have a three tiered cake ... but is will be destroyed within hours ... and a dress to die for ... but in a year or so you'll never fit in it again ... the smiles and toasts will fade and be forgotten, but the photographs will last a lifetime.

It is so sad that many people's greed is of greater value than their honor.

I know you probably have already given a wedding present, (even though I think you have a year before you're officially in default), otherwise I suggest to pony up for an attorney. I sorta like Designer's idea and maybe you get other wedding guests to chip in for an attorney. 

$1500 is a lot of money for kids just starting out.


----------



## tirediron

jcdeboever said:


> Respectfully, there is no other side as the contract is spelled out. The photographer did not perform all the actions spelled out in the contract. Here is a link to the contract, it is real close to this if not the same as I recall.
> 
> Contract for Wedding Photography Services


That's pretty generic; all it calls for him to do is show up and take pictures.  I doubt that there's a substantial or relevant portion that isn't at least partially fulfilled under law.  In addition to a letter from a solicitor, I would also inquire with the appropriate local office to see if he's licensed to conduct business in that area.  

I would NOT be so quick or positive about a successful resolution in small claims court.  Your assistant will have to demonstrate that her images are markedly different than those she was shown.  

No real 'pro' would blame the venue; as Gary points out, any pro worth his salt will have done a venue recce ahead of time, talked to the Rector/Officiant about dos and don'ts and asked for tips.  Any chance we could get a link to the photographer's website?


----------



## jcdeboever

tirediron said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, there is no other side as the contract is spelled out. The photographer did not perform all the actions spelled out in the contract. Here is a link to the contract, it is real close to this if not the same as I recall.
> 
> Contract for Wedding Photography Services
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty generic; all it calls for him to do is show up and take pictures.  I doubt that there's a substantial or relevant portion that isn't at least partially fulfilled under law.  In addition to a letter from a solicitor, I would also inquire with the appropriate local office to see if he's licensed to conduct business in that area.
> 
> I would NOT be so quick or positive about a successful resolution in small claims court.  Your assistant will have to demonstrate that her images are markedly different than those she was shown.
> 
> No real 'pro' would blame the venue; as Gary points out, any pro worth his salt will have done a venue recce ahead of time, talked to the Rector/Officiant about dos and don'ts and asked for tips.  Any chance we could get a link to the photographer's website?
Click to expand...

I'll check with her.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

tirediron said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, there is no other side as the contract is spelled out. The photographer did not perform all the actions spelled out in the contract. Here is a link to the contract, it is real close to this if not the same as I recall.
> 
> Contract for Wedding Photography Services
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty generic; all it calls for him to do is show up and take pictures.  I doubt that there's a substantial or relevant portion that isn't at least partially fulfilled under law.  In addition to a letter from a solicitor, I would also inquire with the appropriate local office to see if he's licensed to conduct business in that area.
> 
> I would NOT be so quick or positive about a successful resolution in small claims court.  Your assistant will have to demonstrate that her images are markedly different than those she was shown.
> 
> No real 'pro' would blame the venue; as Gary points out, any pro worth his salt will have done a venue recce ahead of time, talked to the Rector/Officiant about dos and don'ts and asked for tips.  Any chance we could get a link to the photographer's website?
Click to expand...

Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
I don't do Facebook, maybe y'all can see


----------



## JacaRanda

Is it still not clear that accepting money for something does not make one a Pro?


----------



## tirediron

jcdeboever said:


> Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> I don't do Facebook, maybe y'all can see


Another graduate of YUP* by the looks of it.  This is the REAL problem caused by the 'cell-phone selfie' generation.  Most people haven't seen enough real professional photography to recognize it any more.  This person is someone who's just enough better than the average bear to be seen as 'good' by Joe & Jane Q. Public, but this page is full of lighting issues, off-level images, and such that 20, 30 years ago, people would have seen it as amateur-ish.  Now it's 'good enough'.  Sad, really.


*YouTube University of Photography


----------



## jcdeboever

tirediron said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> I don't do Facebook, maybe y'all can see
> 
> 
> 
> Another graduate of YUP* by the looks of it.  This is the REAL problem caused by the 'cell-phone selfie' generation.  Most people haven't seen enough real professional photography to recognize it any more.  This person is someone who's just enough better than the average bear to be seen as 'good' by Joe & Jane Q. Public, but this page is full of lighting issues, off-level images, and such that 20, 30 years ago, people would have seen it as amateur-ish.  Now it's 'good enough'.  Sad, really.
> 
> 
> *YouTube University of Photography
Click to expand...

I agree. Seriously, you guys know how bad I am but I could have done a better job than her. I would never attempt to one for money because I assisted on one this summer and the Pro had 8 lights and three helpers. It was a lot of work and took a great deal of skill which I don't possess yet. I moved things, got things, and took some video at the tables. I didn't learn a lot because I busy listening to his direction and he kept me busy with the little things. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Designer

I agree with tirediron.  Too bad about your assistant, though, and not meaning to criticize her, but I didn't see anything that would make me want to hire this photographer.


----------



## sscarmack

^^Exactly, and its not like 1,500 is cheap by any stretches. Certainly not expensive, but its still a chunk of change.


----------



## pixmedic

before things start to spiral, as they often do whenever a fauxtographer's web page is presented...
let me make the plea for people not to get *too* uncivilized about the horrible fauxtography that jcdeboever linked to. 
I did note on the FB page that this person just acquired a studio, and said "A stop that started as me purchasing a light ended up with me purchasing an entire studio. 99.9 percent of which i had no idea how to use. I had to learn a new camera, new computer system, studio lighting, photoshop, how to frame an image, and many other countless things."...

ill just leave it at that.


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> before things start to spiral, as they often do whenever a fauxtographer's web page is presented...
> let me make the plea for people not to get *too* uncivilized about the horrible fauxtography that jcdeboever linked to.
> I did note on the FB page that this person just acquired a studio, and said "A stop that started as me purchasing a light ended up with me purchasing an entire studio. 99.9 percent of which i had no idea how to use. I had to learn a new camera, new computer system, studio lighting, photoshop, how to frame an image, and many other countless things."...
> 
> ill just leave it at that.



Ok, so they can go with the lawyer, or we can go with plan B.

We'll need 3 ninja costumes, a can of black spray paint, a stun gun, some superglue and a large coconut.  

I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## DarkShadow

Everybody got to eat but this is very sad. You really do have to check the portfolio and reputation.When my wife and I got married I herd by word and mouth about a great wedding photographer but when I went and  checked him out not only could we not afford him he was booked solid.I seen his portfolio and work was crazy good and his reputation from people that could afford him was nothing but fantastic.


----------



## tirediron

robbins.photo said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> before things start to spiral, as they often do whenever a fauxtographer's web page is presented...
> let me make the plea for people not to get *too* uncivilized about the horrible fauxtography that jcdeboever linked to.
> I did note on the FB page that this person just acquired a studio, and said "A stop that started as me purchasing a light ended up with me purchasing an entire studio. 99.9 percent of which i had no idea how to use. I had to learn a new camera, new computer system, studio lighting, photoshop, how to frame an image, and many other countless things."...
> 
> ill just leave it at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so they can go with the lawyer, or we can go with plan B.
> 
> We'll need 3 ninja costumes, a can of black spray paint, a stun gun, some superglue and a large coconut.
> 
> I'll just leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the badger, we need the badger.


----------



## DarkShadow

I like the Ninja Idea.


----------



## robbins.photo

tirediron said:


> Don't forget the badger, we need the badger.



Actually I already have the badger.  I've been feeding him only about once a week, poking him with a stick and saying nasty things about his mom, so he's properly motivated.


----------



## jcdeboever

What to do with the coconut?


----------



## robbins.photo

jcdeboever said:


> What to do with the coconut?



We leave that to the discretion of the badger, of course.


----------



## Derrel

Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt

Her FB page shows ratings of 5.0 out of 5 possible stars; 19 reviews; typically replies within minutes.The business's website shows only five publicly-viewable images, one single briade-and-groom-by-lakeshore shot, two of a young woman, two of the same newborn baby--so the huge preponderance of her images are only shown publicly on Facebook.

I looked through all of the FB pics, click-click-click. She shows some flashes of creativity, meaning cute ideas or novel ideas, but has a lot of compositional problems. Not very good overall on the technical, nor on consistency, but does have SOME decent-looking images on Facebook. But, as was mentioned earlier, most people in the general population can not actually tell good from below average, and at the lower end of the price spectrum, PRICE is a big factor in who gets booked.

Again...I looked at her Facebook page, which is the main advertising and promotional vehicle she seems to have, and there are just enough cute pictures that I can see that she could get some work, that some day she'll be able to handle shooting a wedding indoors.


----------



## DarkShadow

Dang, dat girl got some beautiful eyes in dat santa coat.


----------



## Derrel

DarkShadow said:
			
		

> Dang, dat girl got some beautiful eyes in dat santa coat.



Yeah, she was born with them once Adobe invented its Iris Enhance Tool in Lightroom. lol. But seriously...yeah...artificially "worked" eyeballs draw a lot of people today.


----------



## table1349

JacaRanda said:


> Is it still not clear that accepting money for something does not make one a Pro?


Accepting money for something makes one a pro.   It doesn't make one accomplished, just a pro.    There in lies the problem, people think that the word professional in a business like this means something.  All it means is they make money, not that they are accomplished.


----------



## JacaRanda

gryphonslair99 said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still not clear that accepting money for something does not make one a Pro?
> 
> 
> 
> Accepting money for something makes one a pro.
Click to expand...


I bet we could extend this thread to 1000 pages if folks had time to debate 'accepting money for something makes one a pro' statement. 
Chris Rock's daughters are probably pro's based on the amount of cash they accepted from the Hollywoods, but the scouts that accepted my money were just.....Girl Scouts.


----------



## table1349

JacaRanda said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still not clear that accepting money for something does not make one a Pro?
> 
> 
> 
> Accepting money for something makes one a pro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet we could extend this thread to 1000 pages if folks had time to debate 'accepting money for something makes one a pro' statement.
> Chris Rock's daughters are probably pro's based on the amount of cash they accepted from the Hollywoods, but the scouts that accepted my money were just.....Girl Scouts.
Click to expand...

They were professional girls scouts, but were they accomplished girl scouts?


----------



## JacaRanda

gryphonslair99 said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it still not clear that accepting money for something does not make one a Pro?
> 
> 
> 
> Accepting money for something makes one a pro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet we could extend this thread to 1000 pages if folks had time to debate 'accepting money for something makes one a pro' statement.
> Chris Rock's daughters are probably pro's based on the amount of cash they accepted from the Hollywoods, but the scouts that accepted my money were just.....Girl Scouts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were professional girls scouts, but were they accomplished girl scouts?
Click to expand...


The word pro-bably should not be shortened.  When it comes to TPF, I consider pro=profession.  Some may consider pro=professional.  Oh welp.....


----------



## sscarmack

Look at all the "Professional" athletes that get paid millions of dollars for playing like ****.....Just because they are professional athletes getting paid, doesn't mean they are actually any good.

End of topic lol


----------



## calamityjane

jcdeboever said:


> goooner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Difficult to comment without knowing both sides. How many pics did she get, did she have a chance to pick the best from a set? It sounds like the photographer was not very professional, but many would say that $1500 is not very expensive for a wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, there is no other side as the contract is spelled out. The photographer did not perform all the actions spelled out in the contract. Here is a link to the contract, it is real close to this if not the same as I recall.
> 
> Contract for Wedding Photography Services
Click to expand...

Is it the same or not? And which bit does the photographer breach?


----------



## calamityjane

jcdeboever said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, there is no other side as the contract is spelled out. The photographer did not perform all the actions spelled out in the contract. Here is a link to the contract, it is real close to this if not the same as I recall.
> 
> Contract for Wedding Photography Services
> 
> 
> 
> That's pretty generic; all it calls for him to do is show up and take pictures.  I doubt that there's a substantial or relevant portion that isn't at least partially fulfilled under law.  In addition to a letter from a solicitor, I would also inquire with the appropriate local office to see if he's licensed to conduct business in that area.
> 
> I would NOT be so quick or positive about a successful resolution in small claims court.  Your assistant will have to demonstrate that her images are markedly different than those she was shown.
> 
> No real 'pro' would blame the venue; as Gary points out, any pro worth his salt will have done a venue recce ahead of time, talked to the Rector/Officiant about dos and don'ts and asked for tips.  Any chance we could get a link to the photographer's website?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
> I don't do Facebook, maybe y'all can see
Click to expand...

That's not a website, it's a facebook page and if that's all the photographer has, I wouldn't have even considered them in the first place!


----------



## bribrius

we all have to start somewhere. When you first start, you aren't that good. Your rates you charge will probably expound upon that aspect.


----------



## calamityjane

bribrius said:


> we all have to start somewhere. When you first start, you aren't that good. Your rates you charge will probably expound upon that aspect.


When you first start, you learn, you assist someone who can actually do the job, try stuff out in a safe (for the client and your reputation) environment. You do not learn to run before you can walk, at the client's expense. Mind you, we still haven't seen the actual results, even if we can have a good guess from the 'best' shots on her fb page.


----------



## dennybeall

Money or no money - years in the job or not ?? An old friend who was a management speaker used to say "There is a big difference between someone with 20 years experience and someone with 1 years experience - 20 times." Joe Powell, Sr.
All goes to say that photography skill is individual.


----------



## wezza13

Just looked at that "Photographers" facebook page that was linked. Looked through, literally, the first 10(?) images and saw this :

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...40190_527822344047566_77957241771817995_o.jpg

Wow and this is on her business page.

I personally would've focused on the B&G and not the background.....

And the face of the bride in this one, wow just wow!

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...266_516351671861300_5225869818242697202_o.jpg


----------



## JacaRanda

wezza13 said:


> Just looked at that "Photographers" facebook page that was linked. Looked through, literally, the first 10(?) images and saw this :
> 
> https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.ne...40190_527822344047566_77957241771817995_o.jpg
> 
> Wow and this is on her business page.
> 
> I personally would've focused on the B&G and not the background.....



But was the client happy?  Kinda joking, kinda not.


----------



## Stradawhovious

wezza13 said:


> I personally would've focused on the B&G and not the background.....



I don't know... the cabinetry is pretty stellar.


----------



## Derrel

After seeing this thread come up, I revisited the Facebook page. Occasional flashes of creativity, and some semi-good work, but also a lot of shots that show unstudied, untutored, self-educated learning leading to serious problems WRT really basic posing rules and concepts. There are books that deal specifically with HOW to pose people, and it seems that this photographer has not read any of them.

Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt

One thing I notice though is her tendency toward awkward framing, awkward composing on, mostly, her horizontals. The single biggest way I can spot a self-taught, un-mentored shooter: frequently allowing way too much top space above the head in a wide-framed or horizontal shot, meaning allowing the person to ride low in the frame, which looks unstudied, and also even worse, often cuts a person off at an awkward part of the body. In effect, shooting a head and shoulders shot...with the head and shoulders comprising 15% of the entire frame, the background 85% of the frame.
Winner of MISS EDGERTON photogenic... - Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt | Facebook
Winner of Miss Edgerton, described as "absolutely stunning". Yes, a gorgeous girl.

She does better in-studio than she does on-location. The severely back-focused wedding shot of the B&G...ugggh. Cannot believe that image is allowed to see the light of day on her FB page.

Here's a "tall" that has the same problem, too much top space, and a bad, awkward lop-off at the bottom.
Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt... - Studio 34 Photography by Chrissie Batt | Facebook  (called an *incomplete pose*...not knowing how to FRAME the pose!)

This basically comes down to not understanding how to properly POSE a person and his or her body. This is the kind of stuff that is covered in dozens of books on how to pose people for portraiture. When the eyes are placed wayyyyy below the mid-height of the frame, on a landscape-framed portrait, and Dutch tilt is used to give "dynamism"...I can tell that a photographer who does those types of things really would benefit from some professional training and some assistance in improving her weakest areas.


----------



## otherprof

jcdeboever said:


> I thought to post this in here so I could get it out of my system. Yesterday, I was going over my call reports with my sales assistant who recently got married. She showed me her wedding pictures that cost her $1500.00. Oh my Lord! These were so bad.... it took me a great deal of restraint not to say a word. FINALLY, the words came out of her mouth at her displeasure with them. The professional photographer blamed the poor church lighting, now correct me if I am wrong but if your a pro, is it not your job to overcome this? 14 in the wedding party and she brought in two speedlight w/umbrella's? Really? You could clearly see in the photo's the people on the ends were dark, and the shadows... oh my. All the faces in the photo sittings were blown out and WB was way off. I felt bad for her and I did not say to much. She signed a contract and I told her she should go and take her to small claims court and should win easily. I wish I could show you some of the pics, just awful. People like this need to be stopped.


I think her first priority is probably to salvage some good shots of her wedding, and getting some money back would be secondary but desirable. Perhaps she can parlay the threat of suing into the release of the photos to her ownership, with some money back, if possible. Then I'm sure some Photoshop magicians could come up with some shots she could treasure as memories of her wedding rather than memories of being taken by an incompetent photographer.


----------



## gsgary

jcdeboever said:


> I thought to post this in here so I could get it out of my system. Yesterday, I was going over my call reports with my sales assistant who recently got married. She showed me her wedding pictures that cost her $1500.00. Oh my Lord! These were so bad.... it took me a great deal of restraint not to say a word. FINALLY, the words came out of her mouth at her displeasure with them. The professional photographer blamed the poor church lighting, now correct me if I am wrong but if your a pro, is it not your job to overcome this? 14 in the wedding party and she brought in two speedlight w/umbrella's? Really? You could clearly see in the photo's the people on the ends were dark, and the shadows... oh my. All the faces in the photo sittings were blown out and WB was way off. I felt bad for her and I did not say to much. She signed a contract and I told her she should go and take her to small claims court and should win easily. I wish I could show you some of the pics, just awful. People like this need to be stopped.


They are probably members on here

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## jcdeboever

gsgary said:


> jcdeboever said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought to post this in here so I could get it out of my system. Yesterday, I was going over my call reports with my sales assistant who recently got married. She showed me her wedding pictures that cost her $1500.00. Oh my Lord! These were so bad.... it took me a great deal of restraint not to say a word. FINALLY, the words came out of her mouth at her displeasure with them. The professional photographer blamed the poor church lighting, now correct me if I am wrong but if your a pro, is it not your job to overcome this? 14 in the wedding party and she brought in two speedlight w/umbrella's? Really? You could clearly see in the photo's the people on the ends were dark, and the shadows... oh my. All the faces in the photo sittings were blown out and WB was way off. I felt bad for her and I did not say to much. She signed a contract and I told her she should go and take her to small claims court and should win easily. I wish I could show you some of the pics, just awful. People like this need to be stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> They are probably members on here
> 
> Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Right, surprised they haven't went off without on me




Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## imagemaker46

It's not like I haven't said this before. The world has become a deep pool of fast buck amateurs calling themselves professionals. Business card, free web site, and learn the basics on the fly instead of working it the other way around.  It's not going to to get better and more people are going to end up burned and heart broken because they bought into a "professional" without the skills to do the job.  I'm sorry your friend got taken on a day when it should have resulted in good memories.   I have to believe that there are more wedding photographers now than ever. People are willing to pay big dollars and the "pro scammers" are just sitting back waiting.


----------



## ruggedshutter

I did a little searching on Ohio's SOS website and found her business.

http://www5.sos.state.oh.us/ords/f?p=100:7:0::NO:7:P7_CHARTER_NUM:2379560

it seems that she's at least registered and an LLC.  Not that helps the OP or her friend.  Not sure that we can really say much more since she isn't really looking to remedy the situation.  I can't access the FB page from work so I have to view it on my cell phone.  I can see the framing issues and lighting problems that Darrel mentioned.  She definitely needs to second shoot for a while before taking on another wedding as a lead photographer and have her own work critiqued.


----------



## Overread

How's about instead of focusing all our efforts and critique upon the photos of people who won't ever been on-site to see them we instead focus on those of our community who are here and who are posting photos and who are eager to learn and improve


----------

