ontherocks wrote:
the rain shot isn't so bad aside from the trashcan. maybe they could have chosen a different position or tried to photoshop it out.

for the stairs shot maybe they had too long of a lens strapped on at the time (like a 50 on a crop body). they could have chosen not to deliver that image although it's not the worst i've ever seen.

i can't believe they even delivered the headless shot. we'll do headless shots but with the purpose of highlighting the rings or flowers or something, not just for no particular reason (or because the wrong lens was being used).

but maybe they are true shoot&burners? no editing. here's every single image as shot straight from the camera. did the couple pay for editing?

for me, though, it's hard to judge these cases without seeing all the images. although that headless shot is egregious.

I agree that it's hard to judge without seeing everything.  Those shots were selected to show just how "bad" the photographer was to solidify the bridal couples case in the story.  I'd love to know more about this ... for example; how much did they pay?  What was the agreement for .. as in unedited, all images, or a limited number?  Were there other better shots than what were shown in the story? 

I can recall only three major incidents of unhappy brides wanting to sue me while I was shooting weddings back in the day.  We're talking about the 1980's and 1990's as during those decades, I shot a lot of weddings! 

The first couple did too much cocaine (they had offered me some! LOL) and their faces were tweaking throughout their special day.  I know what "tweaker face" looks like ... and it's pretty funny to some.  When I delivered the album of proofs, that was all they were going to get.  I got my final payment, but as I left, the bride was crying and the groom was laughing.  Not a good sign!  I went straight to the bank and cashed her check.   Sure enough, the bank calls me later and said that she tried to put a stop payment on the check, but after what I had warned them about, they had looked at the pictures.  They sided with me.  The couple soon divorced.

Second incident was my fault in making a promise of getting the images back on a certain date, but missing that date ... thus causing the bride to freak out.  I was short of funds to get the pictures out of the lab until after another pay check arrived.  She filed a small claims suit, but it was settled before we got before a judge because I got the pictures to her.   I didn't hear from her again, nor expected to.  Again, my fault.  I'm not perfect, and on very rare occasion, I've been late. Very rare though!

The third and last time I had an incident was with a bride who after signing my contract, decided that she didn't want me after all.  Mostly it seemed that she found other photographers who were cheaper than me.  This was in the late 1990's, and photographers were getting pretty cut throat with the digital revolution taking place.  I wouldn't let her out of the contract with her request of giving her deposit back.  Only if I'm unable to perform the services would I give the deposit back before the wedding.  So she sends some thugs with baseball bats to mess me up!  We were able to talk before it got to that point, as the men understood that she was manipulative and lying to try to get them to hurt me. 

I shot that wedding and regretted it!  The bride made 25 couples walk up in some kind of difficult march (two steps forward, one step back!!) causing delays while people picked themselves up after getting knocked down by missteps!  The crowd of people she chose to be in the bridal party talked, belched and laughed while the ceremony took place because they did not respect the bride.  Then it came time for the formals.  I couldn't prove it, but she had hired a second shooter behind my back.   I did the best I could in setting up the couple, and then their wedding party of 50 adults and several children!  Because the bride was so bossy and rude, it was difficult to get cooperation from anyone.  The groom was a nice guy with lots of patience, but everyone else seemed to take it out on me that they didn't really want to be there! 

That was my last wedding.  It was a wedding from hell, where I didn't get all the pictures she wanted and ended up reducing my rate for that reason.  I still got more than the deposit, but the reason I had asked for my fee in the first place was I anticipate I'm going to be working for my money.  Isn't that why photographers charge?  Shooting weddings used to be fun for me, but that wedding turned me off to doing anymore for any amount.  I concluded with shooting the few I had scheduled, then closed the book on doing weddings.

MC Photo wrote:
I bet it was a deal where they just shoot and then burn a CD of all of the images and that the pay was so low, the photographer didn't edit out the bad ones.

There are probably 2,000 photos and hundreds of acceptable shots and they were just shocked to see bad ones.

The headless shot might have been for custom WB off of the dress.

It's quite possible!  There are two sides to the story.  Most wedding photographers have good intentions and want to do a good job.  Some photographers do screw up, and sometimes screw ups are the fault of another person.  My post just before yours reflects that. 

I'm old school.  I shot weddings on film, and if the couple requested, I would scan a CD from the images for them to use online.  My cost of doing business continued to go up while more "photographers" were popping up with digital cameras on Craigslist willing to shoot at cut throat prices.  I even met one really great hobbyist photographer who shot weddings for FREE and he enjoyed doing it all for fun!  I can't compete with that.  I have standards that I maintain to this day regarding shooting weddings which is why I would not lower my prices to be competitive. 

Also, I must admit, I lost the ambition and passion for shooting weddings.  It was no longer fun.   I have not had a terrible experience with shooting models in the three decades that I've been doing photography.  I also enjoy shooting at concerts, and working with talented people in the entertainment field.  It's fun, and pays the bills!

Tomi Hawk wrote:
Research, research, and then research somemore ..
naaahh! That's too easy .. let's just go with the cheapest .. ya!
That'll work!

Haha, so true.

T A R I K wrote:
It was probably a TFP shoot with all the images on a DVD in exchange for the promise of paid referrals from friends and family.

The photographer [a F] apparently held themselves out to the a "pro". What we have here is a potential misrepresentation of fact. If that is the case, and can be shown to be the fact, then it is an actionable claim in British law as against the photographer.

Merely claiming to be a "pro" does not make it so. On MM, and elsewhere, there is enough evidence of that proposition!

Studio36

Ed Woodson Photography wrote:
Client....   How much to shoot my Wedding?

Pro......     $3500

Client....    We can get it for $1500

Pro....        Let me know how that works out for you.


(3 months later)

Pro.....   So, how did your Wedding Photos turn out.

Client....    We're sueing the Photographer.

Pro....    Well, best of luck to you.

in this case it was 100 pounds not 1500 dollars

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
according to another report on the same story, the photographer is Louise Garrett.  According to the various blogs over there, she is a 20 year old photographer who had never shot a wedding.  they paid £100.  doesnt appear to be on MM and (allegedly) she hid her online presence after they launched this hate campaign.  interesting reading.

That sounds about right. I'm not sure how the photographer managed to ruined their day... the recording of their day for sure. But if people didn't have fun that's on them. If they really went for the lowest bider (£100) then they got what they paid for. In this day and age, chances are some of their friends attending took pictures they can later on share with friends and family. In the end, this is a pretty ridiculous story.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
£100.

That's how the couple valued their wedding memories.

Did you see the bride? Most likely, she's not a big fan of photos... OK...or mirrors. I'm guessing she might think they make her look fat.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

in this case it was 100 pounds not 1500 dollars

What? So, now they sue by weight ......... hmmmm

Will Snizek wrote:
I don't know the entire story or if the guy had a fake portfolio or something, but I wouldn't say they were duped by a professional photographer.  There's no way those photos came from a pro.  If he had a fake port showing off great photos that weren't his, then by all means they should sue him.  If they just cheaped out and hired some random dude who had a camera, I wouldn't feel much sympathy for them.

"dude" is a 20 year old 'she' and they paid 100 quid. dunno how random she is. she took down her FB after they sued and put up a FB page about her and shopped their story around to all the UK press.

Chuckarelei wrote:
On this, the photographer and the couple got exactly what they deserve.

Yep!

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
in this case it was 100 pounds not 1500 dollars

True.  Just making a point, however.

And, this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lz-07D5KoE

MC Photo wrote:
The headless shot might have been for custom WB off of the dress.

Judging from the quality of the shots they did show, I seriously doubt this photographer uses custom WB

Ed Woodson Photography wrote:

True.  Just making a point, however.

And, this....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lz-07D5KoE

I love this video!  Thanks!