Rachel Jay wrote:
Funny, I logged in today to see if anyone here was talking about this.

I first saw it here: http://getoffmyinternets.net/neely-mold … ing-viral/

There''''s a link to the thread specific to the blogger in that article, and it''''s proven to be a very interesting read, indeed. The blogger is apparently doing quite a bit of backpedaling, deleting comments/postings she''''s made, and other stuff.

I saw that thread too.

I think the photographer has grounds for a lawsuit -- not sure if she will sue though, because who wants to hear about a photographer suing their clients?

IMO adding in a basic charge to cover "the cover" might be prudent and then upcharge or add in a subject to change clause -- however Neely Moldovan sounds like she was trying to buy her 15 minutes of fame ( note her bit about reality tv and the like on her "blog."

Also interesting that she ( Moldovan)  got called out for plagiarizing her blog content from another social media company.

I saw the screenshots.

Chicchowmein wrote:
I saw that thread too.

I think the photographer has grounds for a lawsuit -- not sure if she will sue though because who wants to hear about a photographer suing their clients.

IMO adding in a basic charge to cover "the cover" might be prudent and then upcharge or add in a subject to change clause -- however Neely Moldovan sounds like she was trying to buy her 15 minutes of fame ( note her bit about reality tv and the like on her "blog."

Also interesting that she ( Moldovan)  got called out for plagiarizing her blog content from another social media company.

I saw the screenshots.

Yea, I would think the photographer has grounds for a lawsuit as well, but your point about what THAT could do to her dragged through the mud reputation is quite valid.  I imagine she''s speaking with a lawyer about her options.  I certainly would be, if I were her.  I think the worst part about it is this part from the photographer''s open letter: "If this story were truly based how upset and hurt she was, she would not post statements to humiliate me or harm my business. Statements like, “I’m pretty sure her business is ruined,” “I hope this goes viral,” “feeling excited,” and “justice has been served” are not the actions of a concerned and hurt bride; they are actions of an individual trying to take someone down and instigate a lynch mob of negativity across the nation." (The whole commentary from the photographer on the situation is here: http://www.blogpolito.com/?p=5757)

And yea, the screenshots of the plagiarized content... incredible.

ETA: One, yes, modifying her contract to be more clear would be wise. Also, I have no idea why MM keeps adding two apostrophes where I put one... sorry.

Rachel Jay wrote:
Yea, I would think the photographer has grounds for a lawsuit as well, but your point about what THAT could do to her dragged through the mud reputation is quite valid.  I imagine she''''s speaking with a lawyer about her options.  I certainly would be, if I were her.  I think the worst part about it is this part from the photographer''''s open letter: "If this story were truly based how upset and hurt she was, she would not post statements to humiliate me or harm my business. Statements like, “I’m pretty sure her business is ruined,” “I hope this goes viral,” “feeling excited,” and “justice has been served” are not the actions of a concerned and hurt bride; they are actions of an individual trying to take someone down and instigate a lynch mob of negativity across the nation." (The whole commentary from the photographer on the situation is here: http://www.blogpolito.com/?p=5757)

And yea, the screenshots of the plagiarized content... incredible.

ETA: One, yes, modifying her contract to be more clear would be wise. Also, I have no idea why MM keeps adding two apostrophes where I put one... sorry.

I have not seen her original contract but I did read her response about how brides often book out 18 months in advance and covers change and may not be available -- which I know to be true. However, it sounds confusing when the contract says it includes an album with so many pages but the cover is extra. Just seems like it would be wise to add an estimated charge in from the beginning to put towards a cover and then offer cover upgrades at time of album selection.

That said I did see that the photographer was trying to work with the bride and she just went ahead and put the photographer on blast, did not tell the whole story and then yucked about it on social media.

KungPaoChic wrote:
I have not seen her original contract but I did read her response about how brides often book out 18 months in advance and covers change and may not be available -- which I know to be true however, it sounds confusing when the contract says it includes and album with so many pages but the cover is extra.

That said I did see that the photographer was trying to work with the bride and she just went ahead and put the photographer on blast, did not tell the whole story and then yucked about it on social media.

I haven't seen the contract either, but can totally understand the difference in cost between booking time and pricing. Also, if a bride wants to upgrade the type of book or do a custom cover or something, I can definitely see that costing more. In fact, my own wedding album was technically an upgraded album, but because I wanted the insides to be very simple (to look like a traditional album, instead of the album look that was trending when I got married in 2009), the photographer I used opted to waive the upgrade fee because the inside of my album was going to require less work. We negotiated that ahead of time though, and had our contract modified so there wasn't any confusion later.

I realize wedding planning is hectic, but I can't imagine this established photographer wouldn't have been willing to spell things out in writing or work with a bride to make changes to a contract if necessary. And obviously, she was willing to work with this bride... the bride just decided to be a cunt about it. Shame on her for just crapping all over the photographer to any outlet that would listen. And even shittier of the strangers who took it upon themselves to go write false reviews on social media and review sites (some of which you can still find if you Google the photographer).

Rachel Jay wrote:
.

Cherrystone wrote:
I think she's an idiot. 6k wedding, gonna argue about $150- and dance thru the mud instead?
Besides, what album doesn't have a cover?

I read some back and forth emails that seemed to indicate the photographer was trying to work with the bride but she went ahead to the media anyways ( and was less than truthful).

I agree it seems like $150 is small potatoes but I don't think the blogger is on the up and up.

Wanna be reality tv star.

Chicchowmein wrote:

I read some back and forth emails that seemed to indicate the photographer was trying to work with the bride but she went ahead to the media anyways ( and was less than truthful).

I agree it seems like $150 is small potatoes but I don't think the blogger is on the up and up.

Wanna be reality tv star.

/thread

martin b wrote:
I have some sympathy with both.  I can't imagine $6000 and you will charge extra for the cover.  When my brother got married last year the photographer did the same thing to him.  The contract was so confusing that my brother thought $4000 was for everything.  He even typed it out.  But when he tried to get the photographer to sign that everything was included the photographer started a song and dance about everything that was also optional.  My brother only had a sour taste in his mouth after dealing with all the nit picking extras that made the cost of photography go to almost $7000. 

This photographer now says she will work with the couple but I am sure she didn't have that attitude through the first round either.  $6000 and you will fight for the $150 cover?

Does seem rather petty to me . . .

IMO not including a certain amount to put towards a cover is a mistake -- but I have had clients agree to one thing and then want something else that was more expensive or that was not an option at all. Again if I were the photographer I would allot a certain amount towards a basic cover and then make upgrades optional.

Of course it wasn't 6k either.

Cherrystone wrote:

I lurk every so often.

Cherrystone wrote:
I think she's an idiot. 6k wedding, gonna argue about $150- and dance thru the mud instead?
Besides, what album doesn't have a cover?

The issue isn't that an album doesn't come with a cover as everyone has repeated a hundred times.  The issue is that the bride wanted a custom cover rather than a standard cover but only refers to it as just "the cover"  This is misleading.

Next it's pretty telling that @Neelykins with over 10K of followers has been locked down so that only followers can see the page now.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
Next it's pretty telling that @Neelykins with over 10K of followers has been locked down so that only followers can see the page now.

What account? I just checked her Instagram and Twitter and I can still see those.

Rachel Jay wrote:

What account? I just checked her Instagram and Twitter and I can still see those.

Her Twitter is set to private -- you have to be approved now. Not sure about her instagram.

Chicchowmein wrote:
Her Twitter is set to private -- you have to be approved now. Not sure about her instagram.

Ah, I think I already follow her on Twitter and I'm probably logged in, so that could be why I don't see anything amiss.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
The issue isn't that an album doesn't come with a cover as everyone has repeated a hundred times.  The issue is that the bride wanted a custom cover rather than a standard cover but only refers to it as just "the cover"  This is misleading.

Next it's pretty telling that @Neelykins with over 10K of followers has been locked down so that only followers can see the page now.

I could be wrong but I did not read the photographer's explanation as saying any cover was included. I read her explanation to say that because brides book so far in advance they do not guarantee availability of cover so cover is an a la carte charge that is decided upon upon selection -- but I could be mistaken.

I did find the photographer's explanation to be a very classy way to handle the matter and can't really say the same for the bride blogger.

http://www.diyphotography.net/wordpress … letter.jpg

Explains the cover policy ( which is not included in the package).

John Horwitz wrote:
Polito is a PIG! 6K for a wedding and she wants to charge 150 for front and back cover - and you wonder why people hate photographers? Adding insult she is going to 'archive' the photographs and then charge 250 to unarchive them...she is indeed a thief.

They paid up front and should get their photos - jesusrollerskatingchristmas - what a prick!

Charging an archive retrieval fee is pretty standard for a lot of photographers especially if they shoot large volumes of work. Sometimes people take months or even years to make their selections. How long is the photographer supposed to keep the job current.

If the contract clearly states the cover is extra and the bride and groom signed off on it then even if I think it is a foolish policy I don't think that makes her a thief.

Not turning over the high res photos until the album is finished doesn't sound objectionable to me -- the bride clearly had low res images because she posted them all over the place.

Rachel Jay wrote:
...ETA: One, yes, modifying her contract to be more clear would be wise. Also, I have no idea why MM keeps adding two apostrophes where I put one... sorry.

Well, since you don't get when you type scary anymore, they have to do something to keep up the mayhem.

Rachel Jay wrote:
Looks like the news station that originally reported the story has posted an update: http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/Ph … 32021.html

She's hired an attorney.  So has the blogger.

Scary cat being gone makes me sad Does :mroof: still work?

Edit: Guess not. Boooooo.

did they change it to

DougBPhoto wrote:
did they change it to ?

!!!

Rachel Jay wrote:

!!!

back to

TheNormGallerys wrote:
wedding photographer is WRONG, if it isn't listed in the contact you can't be changing for it!

wedding photographer's version is quite different from bride and media claims.

http://www.blogpolito.com/?p=5757

as they say, lies can get half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on.

TheNormGallerys wrote:
wedding photographer is WRONG, if it isn't listed in the contact you can't be changing for it!

I'm pretty sure you can state that there are a-la-carte items (like additional prints, for example, additional albums, or upgrades to standard albums) that are additional cost to be determined at the time of purchase. It would make sense to word it that way instead of being specific about costs, should something change. If the album cover was an a-la-carte item, and the contract noted that such items were available for purchase on top of the event coverage, then it's on the bride/groom for not understanding their contract, and possibly on the photographer for not making sure the bride/groom understand their contract.

While I can't recall what the details of our wedding photography contract were, we were able to negotiate some things with the photographer, remove things from our package, and otherwise work with them to make sure we got the coverage that suited our wedding. All of the modifications we made were noted in our contract, which also included a-la-carte options like extra prints, additional albums, smaller albums, etc. and it was clear that certain items were "at additional cost" to us, with a price list/order form to be presented at the time of order. I imagine if I were to call up the photographer now and ask for an additional 8x10" print of one of my wedding pics, the price would be different than it was in 2009, when I got married. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to honor 2009 pricing, even if it were stated in the contract.

Rachel Jay wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can state that there are a-la-carte items (like additional prints, for example, additional albums, or upgrades to standard albums) that are additional cost to be determined at the time of purchase. It would make sense to word it that way instead of being specific about costs, should something change. If the album cover was an a-la-carte item, and the contract noted that such items were available for purchase on top of the event coverage, then it's on the bride/groom for not understanding their contract, and possibly on the photographer for not making sure the bride/groom understand their contract.

While I can't recall what the details of our wedding photography contract were, we were able to negotiate some things with the photographer, remove things from our package, and otherwise work with them to make sure we got the coverage that suited our wedding. All of the modifications we made were noted in our contract, which also included a-la-carte options like extra prints, additional albums, smaller albums, etc. and it was clear that certain items were "at additional cost" to us, with a price list/order form to be presented at the time of order. I imagine if I were to call up the photographer now and ask for an additional 8x10" print of one of my wedding pics, the price would be different than it was in 2009, when I got married. And I certainly wouldn't expect them to honor 2009 pricing, even if it were stated in the contract.

My gut is that the bride (like many attorneys) felt she had the power to get her way.

Rather than trying to make a genuine effort to work things out between her and the photographer, she wanted to use her tools of social media and use the media to manipulate the situation to get her way.

From the photographer's open letter, (and the comments above in this thread about plagiarism and possible unauthorized use of copyrighted materials) it sounds like a very impatient and ego driven bride who did not care who she hurt, so long as she got what she felt she deserved.

DougBPhoto wrote:
From the photographer's open letter, (and the comments above in this thread about plagiarism and possible unauthorized use of copyrighted materials) it sounds like a very impatient and ego driven bride who did not care who she hurt, so long as she got what she felt she deserved.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

mophotoart wrote:
why we keep it simple now...we show up, take the pics, make them work, give them to you..end of story...wish we could get 6000...happy with 1000

A quality album can cost 2k at cost -- if you want to  just shoot and burn maybe 1K -- but no album.

6K is not too shabby for a wedding photographer but there is a lot of work involved with weddings . . .

Mother-in-laws. Bridezillas.

Rachel Jay wrote:
I think you hit the nail on the head.

even a broken clock can be right twice a day

Cherrystone wrote:
I think she's an idiot. 6k wedding, gonna argue about $150- and dance thru the mud instead?
Besides, what album doesn't have a cover?

Kinda my thoughts.

But more going on than I care to read.

Somebody got the cliffs/coles notes version?

Chicchowmein wrote:
Charging an archive retrieval fee is pretty standard for a lot of photographers ...

Archive = burn to disk - unarchive = put back on the computer. Charging 250 to do this is douchebaggery of the highest magnitude!

Rachel Jay wrote:
What account? I just checked her Instagram and Twitter and I can still see those.

Yesterday @Neelykins at Twitter was blocked to everyone except non followers.  Not people are being selectively blocked including your's truly.

Seems the best way to deal with anyone that does not support her is to block them.  Perhaps she needs TV special on the subject.

Star wrote:
the contract should have plainly stated that there was an additional charge at the time of ordering for the cover.  Personally I think any album should include a basic cover. I doubt those change drastically enough to make that not doable. I'll be honest, i don't like the idea of these new charges being given after a contract has been signed, especially as it was not worded in a way as to alert the bride of the additional cover charge.

I agree.  Even if you sell upgraded album covers, there should be a cover that is included in the base price.  It doesn't have to be a good cover.  You can get one a Michael's for like $10.  Then if someone wants a $150 cover, they can get it as an upgrade.

That said, it looks like the photographer here bent over backward to make the bride happy, but the bride went ahead with a retaliation plan anyway.  Sad.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:
Yesterday @Neelykins at Twitter was blocked to everyone except non followers.  Not people are being selectively blocked including your's truly.

Seems the best way to deal with anyone that does not support her is to block them.  Perhaps she needs TV special on the subject.

I'm still a follower :shrug: Maybe anyone who's obviously a photographer she's blocking. Who knows. Apparently her and her husband have hired a lawyer, and my guess is that's his/her number one damage control strategy... prevent anyone who might be on the photographer's side from seeing what Neely has to say.