Word of warning for people looking for wedding photographers.

SteveAdti

Pay for a fully accredited and insured Professional.
A little background. I attended my brother in laws wedding a few months back.
I am not a photographer but a keen enthusiast. The wedding was being photographed by a friend of the bride whom takes great pictures!!!!!!!.
I have a 5d mk 2 and alarm bells started ringing when i saw this person taking pictures at a frantic rate with a 30d and using the pop up flash.
Off i go to get my camera and take some pics from the side just in case.

3 weeks after the wedding i get a call asking do i have any pics from the wedding. Last week i got to see some pics that the so called photographer had taken and they were awful. All washed out , not in focus and generally terrible.
Got the bride to get the photos on a drive and have spent the day trying to salvage something.
Anyone looking to get married get a porfolio and check the references.
The best one yet is that this friend charged 700 euro to screw this up

slimboyfat

The bride has only got herself to blame here, shwes the one that choose the tog, maybe think she would like to give her friend some business or looking to save some cash.

Arciphel

Wonder if the bad photographer posted on here the night before the wedding looking to borrow some L glass...

PCPhoto

small piece of advice for your friend:

GET THEE TO A SOLICITOR AND ....SUE !

if your friend made the mistake of hiring someone who was not able to do the job then he/she can partially blame themselves - but can also partially blame the photographer and the best way to make the photographer learn a lesson is to teach them that becoming a professional photographer takes a lot more than just buying a camera and pressing a button.

SteveAdti

PCPhoto wrote: »

small piece of advice for your friend:

GET THEE TO A SOLICITOR AND ....SUE !

if your friend made the mistake of hiring someone who was not able to do the job then he/she can partially blame themselves - but can also partially blame the photographer and the best way to make the photographer learn a lesson is to teach them that becoming a professional photographer takes a lot more than just buying a camera and pressing a button.

You see i agree with you >> however its in question as to wether the person said they were a photographer.
But askin for payments seems to me that they think they are

tororosso

SteveAdti wrote: »

You see i agree with you >> however its in question as to wether the person said they were a photographer.
But askin for payments seems to me that they think they are

Surely to God the Bride would know the level of technique that her friend holds in photography and seen her photographic work before agreeing to this?! :eek::rolleyes:
If she approached a friend and asked them to do a wedding on the cheap then what does she expect?
I believe that many people who do photography as a hobby are capable of very good wedding work but this example backs up those photographers who work on the wedding stuff.

Couldn't agree with the suing angle though

AnCatDubh

SteveAdti wrote: »

A friend of the bride who takes great pictures

is probably a really bad way to pick a photographer for your wedding however

SteveAdti wrote: »

Pay for a fully accredited and insured Professional.

is equally a really bad way to pick a photographer.

Did that and we have all of 1 photograph from the day that is nice. Em... maybe 2 at an extreme push but then i'm getting more critical as the years go by :rolleyes:

Brother in law did that too, and never saw an album. Eventually a few scans of proofs became what is now the only album that he and his wife has.

You don't get to do these days again, so the best advice is don't leave it to chance. Don't just get a friend who is "good at taking photographs". They may do fine but they may not.

But in both instances outlined above, the photographers (2 of em) were accredited members of the appropriate professional association as well as having their insurance (liability) in order. They were the quintessential professionals - had big bloody cameras that whirred and whizzed - except when it came to delivering on the expectations.

There are many amateur photographers who'd put many 'so called' professionals out there to shame. It appears your friend didn't get one of them. There are also some really good professionals who do amazing things with only so much as a disposable camera.

The thing is, at least in my experience, there are a feic load of shabby professionals out there who *think* that being a member of an association, having a 'studio', paying for their work to appear in brides unlimited magazine sorry perhaps that's paying for an advertisement on the same page as the magazine feature, makes them a great photographer and gives them a right to print money.

I think someone who does a really good job at a wedding is worth multiples of thousands of euro for their efforts. Simples.

I also think there are a feic load of sub standard amateurs who'd like to earn multiples of thousands of euro for shooting weddings (hey, i don't blame them, it's an attractive proposition) but in truth they are caught up in a major circle of confusion believing their 'client' are getting a 'great deal' for €700 without having the good self awareness to know that their work doesn't even pass the 'free for experience' mark.

In my humble opinion the marker or standard appropriate to work which you should expect to be charged for compares proportionality to the degree to which the photographer can reasonably expect to reproduce a particular quality with certain consistency. Until a photographer has a consistency of a particular quality to demonstrate, imho they shouldn't charge (btw, I appreciate that isn't necessarily a popular opinion around here ). When someone who calls themselves a photographer demonstrates a recognisable quality with certain consistency, then the client knows what to expect whether they are paying €300 or €3,000 or more.

I'm hoping sometime to see a Humberklog wedding shot on disposable film cameras. Now that will be something

tommyh1977

There is a guy like that in my area, 1,000 notes to give you a CD of your wedding day. Shooting using a Canon 1000D with a cheap Metz flashgun. Best of all is the Fuji Bridge camera on his shoulder as a back up. Now I am fairly comfortable shooting on the fly doing some work for local newspapers etc but there is no way in hell i would take on a wedding, not for another few years till i work my way along my training modules.

EyeBlinks

AnCatDubh wrote: »

You don't get to do these days again,

Well if you're lucky you don't and sometimes if you're lucky you do.;):p:)

gloobag

I know of a fella like this myself. Bought himself a 450D a few years back and a few weeks later had a website up proclaiming to be a pro wedding photographer. All the images on his site were of friends weddings, some of which where it's obvious he wasn't the actual official photographer (I know, because we have some mutual friends). He was charging upwards of €1k and his website was as tacky as fcuk and don't even get me started on the quality of the images themselves.

I've never photographed a wedding, although I'd be very interested in giving it a go. I wouldn't charge for it though. It wouldn't feel right, seeing as I've never done it before. I'd think of it as a portfolio building exercise.

Surely any problems like this could be avoided by just doing a bit of research?

There's no national or international standard for wedding photography. It's not like the hygiene standards your cake-maker will have to adhere to. Let their portfolio; their body of work, speak for themselves (though always ensure that the photos on their site were actually taken by them!).


I wouldn't ever judge a photographer by the gear he's using either (and I certainly wouldn't frown upon someone using a Metz flash! I've used both Canon and Metz flashguns and the Metz are fantastically better, in my opinion. Only let down is the lack of weather sealing).

pullandbang

My nephew bought himself an entry level Nikon, took a few shots of his nieces & nephews, did a six week course, set up a facebook page called XXXXXXXXXphotography and now calls himself a "Professional"

He even PM'd me of fb to see if I could put him in touch with wedding togs so that he could be a second shooter at weddings. He's fooking useless as a tog and I wouldn't recommend him to shoot anything, yet he is trying to sell himself as a "Pro".

Buyer really needs to be careful. Those who proclaim to be pros are not necessarily all they are cut out to be.......................

Hugh_C

Caveat emptor.

Weddings are very tough. Very stressful. Physically exhausting. I don't do em lightly.

Freddie59

I did our son's wedding 12 months ago. Small family affair with 80 guests. As the father of the groom is normally redundant, and they were on a budget, I thought - why not? Canon 40D and Speedlite 580EXII, with a 17-55 f/2.8 lens. Even at that you're pushed. The results were quite pleasant (not like some pros obviously). Would I do it again? I don't think so. One of the most stressful days - ever!

But you cannot tar all amateurs (and all pros) with the same brush. I've seen some truly astonishingly good amateur wedding photos and some truly abysmal pro photos (one individual charging €4K+:rolleyes: locally comes to mind).

But I think the couple have, unfortunately, only themselves to blame. It's one thing doing landscape and some family portrait shots on a casual basis. But a wedding on a timeframe, with lighting changing every few seconds, is a different kettle of fish altogether. It was over from the time he took the first shot using the onboard flash IMHO.

Freddie59

pullandbang wrote: »

My nephew bought himself an entry level Nikon, took a few shots of his nieces & nephews, did a six week course, set up a facebook page called XXXXXXXXXphotography and now calls himself a "Professional"

He even PM'd me of fb to see if I could put him in touch with wedding togs so that he could be a second shooter at weddings. He's fooking useless as a tog and I wouldn't recommend him to shoot anything, yet he is trying to sell himself as a "Pro".

Buyer really needs to be careful. Those who proclaim to be pros are not necessarily all they are cut out to be.......................

indeed. At the very least they should ask for samples and maybe contact couples whom the 'pro' has worked for.

tommyh1977

Deleted User wrote: »

I wouldn't ever judge a photographer by the gear he's using either (and I certainly wouldn't frown upon someone using a Metz flash! I've used both Canon and Metz flashguns and the Metz are fantastically better, in my opinion. Only let down is the lack of weather sealing).

I know Metz are quality flashguns, the one i'm talking about is the really small one, prob a guide no. 24 or thereabouts. I've seen the same one in Amsterdam Schipol Airport Travel Shop for 29.00 euro, plus a 1000D with a kit 18-55 lens and charging 1,000 euro for a cd of images. First wedding is worth more than his tota kit!!

PCPhoto

tommyh1977 wrote: »

I know Metz are quality flashguns, the one i'm talking about is the really small one, prob a guide no. 24 or thereabouts. I've seen the same one in Amsterdam Schipol Airport Travel Shop for 29.00 euro, plus a 1000D with a kit 18-55 lens and charging 1,000 euro for a cd of images. First wedding is worth more than his tota kit!!

just means if he has any more weddings - its all profit.

I suppose its like everything else - you can buy all the tools of the trade and spend thousands or you can buy the basics and do the job - if the customer complains offer a refund.

as for the OP - my reason for suggesting suing is simple - if this person is not upto a standard then he/she should not be working as a professional ...if he/she is charging money for covering a wedding they should provide a high standard of work. Its time the public point out the "rogue" photographers...by hitting them financially.

I have done weddings for friends and would have no problem doing wedding photography - but I hate the organising people and setting up shots part.

wedding photography is a hard discipline to master, there is a high level of post processing required.... knowledge of printing is also a strong part of it....as well as learning how to pose people and set up shots and be creative.

I would suggest that the organisations giving these people accreditation need to look again at their members list and review standards as its their organisation who will be blamed.

magicbastarder

SteveAdti wrote: »

You see i agree with you >> however its in question as to wether the person said they were a photographer.
But askin for payments seems to me that they think they are

doesn't matter what they say they are; the fact that they were charging for their services is a direct implication that they would produce work of a chargeable standard.

Buceph

PCPhoto wrote: »

as for the OP - my reason for suggesting suing is simple - if this person is not upto a standard then he/she should not be working as a professional ...if he/she is charging money for covering a wedding they should provide a high standard of work. Its time the public point out the "rogue" photographers...by hitting them financially.

In fairness, a lot of these amatuers being friend's of the bride's could just have easily been pulled into do it. There's been tonnes of threads on here where people have asked "How do I turn down my friends' invites to shoot their wedding/children/cat without offending them?" In a lot of these cases it could be a case where the tog repeatedly refused to do the wedding, telling the bride over and over he wasn't good enough, but the bride twisted his arm. In that case it's certainly not the togs fault. And you can't sue a friend when they're doing you a favour. When they start charging money though they have to be able to provide (and I mean personal rate money, not the cost of a pint and sambo, and getting a few prints done up.) In that case absolutely refuse to pay, or demand the money back or even sue them. They're a pro, sure. They'll have professional liability insurance. :pac:



And I can definitely sympathise with the pro-togs. I've been interested in taking pictures for yonks, and just started on a course a few weeks ago. I'm using it to give me some drive to get out and take the shnappies and to be able to get regular feedback on it. The first week of the course the instructor went around and asked people their level of experience and what they hoped to get out of the course. I'd say half of them said they wanted to "go pro" by the end of the course. And this is a fupping beginners course, that starts with the very basics and gives a "FETAC" accreditation at the end. The accreditation, to my mind, certifies that you can hold a camera without putting your thumb in front of the lens and not much else. But these people were talking like it would make up for years of experience. And none of them spotted the irony where the instructor laid out his accreditation and experience, umpteen years as an amatuer before even considering going pro, and they were all going to usurp him at the end of five months. I was literally facepalming as this was going on.

Tigger

SteveAdti wrote: »

The best one yet is that this friend charged 700 euro to screw this up

€700 for a friend to learn to do a wedding
seems a tad excessive

PCPhoto

Buceph wrote: »

In fairness, a lot of these amatuers being friend's of the bride's could just have easily been pulled into do it. There's been tonnes of threads on here where people have asked "How do I turn down my friends' invites to shoot their wedding/children/cat without offending them?" In a lot of these cases it could be a case where the tog repeatedly refused to do the wedding, telling the bride over and over he wasn't good enough, but the bride twisted his arm. In that case it's certainly not the togs fault. And you can't sue a friend when they're doing you a favour. When they start charging money though they have to be able to provide (and I mean personal rate money, not the cost of a pint and sambo, and getting a few prints done up.) In that case absolutely refuse to pay, or demand the money back or even sue them. They're a pro, sure. They'll have professional liability insurance. :pac:

And I can definitely sympathise with the pro-togs. I've been interested in taking pictures for yonks, and just started on a course a few weeks ago. I'm using it to give me some drive to get out and take the shnappies and to be able to get regular feedback on it. The first week of the course the instructor went around and asked people their level of experience and what they hoped to get out of the course. I'd say half of them said they wanted to "go pro" by the end of the course. And this is a fupping beginners course, that starts with the very basics and gives a "FETAC" accreditation at the end. The accreditation, to my mind, certifies that you can hold a camera without putting your thumb in front of the lens and not much else. But these people were talking like it would make up for years of experience. And none of them spotted the irony where the instructor laid out his accreditation and experience, umpteen years as an amatuer before even considering going pro, and they were all going to usurp him at the end of five months. I was literally facepalming as this was going on.

Firstly - yes you can sue a friend if they are doing you a favour ...its bad form and you will probably loose a friend but..if they cant do the job they know it beforehand...if they mess it up, they need to take responsibility.....in this case the OP said the person charged €700.

Simple way to refuse a friend is to suggest someone else do it, I refused 5 weddings earlier this year - some friends...some friends of friends...I refused my own sister two years ago, on each occasion I suggested a number of photographers and arranged at least €1K discount from each photographer.

Well done to you for having the understanding that learning photography takes time rather than buying equipment and a photo course.

Fionn

unfortunately more and more people with some redundency money left are buying a few bits of kit and caling themselves wedding photographers! (its digital how hard can it be??)

seen it myself recently, local guy (wasn't a wedding luckily enough) experienced corrupted card had no replacement and missed the shots!!! :rolleyes:

sign of the times i guess - expect to hear more horror stories

Bens

The amount of people I know who have set bought themselves nice kit and set up a website as professional wedding photographers is unreal.
Personally I would only hire a photographer if they have a long established shop and reputation.
Its just not worth the risk for your wedding.
I know one girl who did her first "professional" wedding about 3 weeks ago and came to me with the memory card with 800px photos on it, asking me if I could "blow them up" without them being distorted.
I laughed at her and said I hoped she was ready to get sued.
Im sure the happy couple are still thinking they are going to get photos.

pixbyjohn

I am amazed that none of the posters here have ever seen any good results of wedding photography except from the "real pros". All the examples seem to be of disasters.

Bens

Ive seen some good photos by amateurs. But when its your wedding, you shouldnt take the risk. Go for a good professional.

magicbastarder

pixbyjohn wrote: »

I am amazed that none of the posters here have ever seen any good results of wedding photography except from the "real pros". All the examples seem to be of disasters.

hardly surprising, given the nature of the thread. i've done two weddings, but in both cases the job was my wedding present to the couple.

the focus of this thread is that of amateurs charging near-professional prices for their services.

Borderfox

It really is buyer beware, just finishing two back to back weddings in rainy weather. For one I organised an indoor group shot for 200 people, lots of thinking on the feet for pictures and changing locations from outdoor to indoor. Had one of my (2)580ex2 flashes went on the blink but had a spare 430ex to continue on. I love shooting Weddings though, wouldnt change jobs for the world

mehfesto

Bens wrote: »

Ive seen some good photos by amateurs. But when its your wedding, you shouldnt take the risk. Go for a good professional.

Not everyone can afford the professional.
Hence the market for amateurs

PCPhoto

mehfesto wrote: »

Not everyone can afford the professional.
Hence the market for amateurs

but the problem is finding a good amateur when anyone with a digital SLR thinks and calls themselves a professional.

Buceph

PCPhoto wrote: »

Firstly - yes you can sue a friend if they are doing you a favour ...its bad form and you will probably loose a friend but..if they cant do the job they know it beforehand...if they mess it up, they need to take responsibility.....in this case the OP said the person charged €700.

No. You are wrong (to use that bold language you are so accustmed to.) If there was no intent to form a contract, no matter the job that was done, then there was no contract. If someone didn't offer themselves as a professional, then they should not be considered a professional. I made that point explicitly clear by saying if they charged like a professional, then they are held to that standard, or at least should be.

Well done to you for having the understanding that learning photography takes time rather than buying equipment and a photo course.

I have been looking at photographs at an artistic level for years. On and off to be honest. But i have been looking.

Are you saying there's something wrong with that? Or do you have a passive aggresive problem with unfulfilled dreams?

jpb1974

I don't even see the point of the 'bad amatuer wedding photographer' debate anymore. This is a classic example of a photography forum Groundhog debate... age old, pops up once a month, same arguements every time... and what changes... well... very little.

It's up to the couple to do their homework in advance - seek out referals, check the photographer's reputation, check out the their wedding portfolio (as opposed to their fantasic landscape photos), check their insurance, agree deliverables upfront and sign a contract in advance. If a couple doesn't want to go to this level of effort then they must accept that they are rolling the dice... it's really that simple.

AnCatDubh

Buceph wrote: »

If there was no intent to form a contract, no matter the job that was done, then there was no contract.

Just for my own info, I could be very mistaken but was under the impression for contract in a sense of a legal type of discussion required:

a) offer ("can you do my wedding photos", Yes I can for €700),
b) acceptance ("that's great - lets have you do them so and gee for just €700, how lucky I am to have a friend like you", "Agreed") and
c) consideration ("here's the €700 we agreed", "here's your photos")

The view of a court on all of the above is an entirely different matter however if something along those lines happened and if that is still the basis of a legal recognition, then from what the OP has said, there looks like a contract in place.

btw - I don't personally believe that a court action is the route for them to take. Just curious around the whole contract thing as I understood that you can enter into a contract (legally sound) very easily almost without knowing that you are in it.

Freddie59

Bens wrote: »

Ive seen some good photos by amateurs. But when its your wedding, you shouldnt take the risk. Go for a good professional.

Not necessarily.

Some people nowadays are on a very tight budget and cannot afford the "professional".

PCPhoto

jpb1974 wrote: »

I don't even see the point of the 'bad amatuer wedding photographer' debate anymore. This is a classic example of a photography forum Groundhog debate... age old, pops up once a month, same arguements every time... and what changes... well... very little.

It's up to the couple to do their homework in advance - seek out referals, check the photographer's reputation, check out the their wedding portfolio (as opposed to their fantasic landscape photos), check their insurance, agree deliverables upfront and sign a contract in advance. If a couple doesn't want to go to this level of effort then they must accept that they are rolling the dice... it's really that simple.

While I do agree with most of your comment ...it works both ways.

someone who is a landscape photographer should be honest and say I dont do weddings, I have no experience of wedding photography, I don't know what to do and refuse.

the problem is greed... and a lack of understanding of what's required - and if they are professional landscape photographers they know its difficult to master so wedding photography must also be equally as difficult.... loads of people with DSLRs think its easy to take a photo and claim to be professional.

How can a bride/groom to-be find out if someone is a good wedding photographer? ....if a "photographer" sets up a website with images they find/steal online (it does happen) - the couple have no way of finding out if the photographer has taken the images or stolen them ... they see loads of pretty wedding images on a website and think the images are good.

Couples preparing to get married are often stressed by the amount of stuff they need to book - taking time to meet with a photographer is usually down on their list - I think its one of the most important parts as its one of the few things that you keep onto after the wedding.... most decent wedding photographers get work from recommendations - so if anyone out there is looking for a wedding photographer - ask your friends, work colleagues neighbours if they had a decent wedding photographer and make a short list from that.... meet with the photographers and see if you get along with him/her.... discuss what the budget is and what pics you would like (photo style, album, prints etc)

unfortunately certain associations seem to have very low criteria to become a member and don't seem to have any review systems - once you are a member ...thats it - you are part of the association.

jpb1974

To be honest I'm not sure what extra you're saying here that hasn't all been said a million times before.

How can a bride/groom to-be find out if someone is a good wedding photographer?

As already stated -

It's up to the couple to do their homework in advance - seek out referals, check the photographer's reputation, check out the their wedding portfolio (as opposed to their fantasic landscape photos), check their insurance, agree deliverables upfront and sign a contract in advance. If a couple doesn't want to go to this level of effort then they must accept that they are rolling the dice... it's really that simple.

This stands... I don't see how the existance of cowboys changes this in the slightest.

What I'd really love to know is for every nixer wedding that's done how many positive stories has there been in comaparison to the nightmares stories?

tommyh1977

jpb1974 wrote: »

I don't even see the point of the 'bad amatuer wedding photographer' debate anymore. This is a classic example of a photography forum Groundhog debate... age old, pops up once a month, same arguements every time... and what changes... well... very little.

It's up to the couple to do their homework in advance - seek out referals, check the photographer's reputation, check out the their wedding portfolio (as opposed to their fantasic landscape photos), check their insurance, agree deliverables upfront and sign a contract in advance. If a couple doesn't want to go to this level of effort then they must accept that they are rolling the dice... it's really that simple.

+1

PCPhoto

Buceph wrote: »

No. You are wrong (to use that bold language you are so accustmed to.) If there was no intent to form a contract, no matter the job that was done, then there was no contract. If someone didn't offer themselves as a professional, then they should not be considered a professional. I made that point explicitly clear by saying if they charged like a professional, then they are held to that standard, or at least should be.



I have been looking at photographs at an artistic level for years. On and off to be honest. But i have been looking.

Are you saying there's something wrong with that? Or do you have a passive aggresive problem with unfulfilled dreams?

I don't understand what your last sentence is supposed to mean - can you explain it please ? Just to clarify incase you misunderstood my comment - I was complimenting you on your understanding (unlike the other people studying the course with you)

I think the other part of your comment has been addressed ....intent to form a contract etc

I work full-time as a photojournalist 6 or 7 days a week... and have been doing it for years, On a weekly basis I'm photographing and meeting celebrities, get access to almost any gig, sports event that I want to, capturing the latest news hours and sometimes days ahead of when the general public hear about it.... at the moment I'm waiting for Cliff Richard to arrive - he's due to be here soon (where I am - in Dublin) - you may or may not hear about it in the papers.

Tomorrow I'm photographing Rihanna on stage at the O2 - have been told she might be going shopping on Grafton Street today or tomorrow (so depending on if I get a call I may cancel meeting Cliff and go and photo Rihanna) ....and covering the Four Courts - in the coming weeks I will be covering the Election candidates and various news items which appear - I'm considering also going to some of the upcoming Rugby games (Leinster, Munster etc), coverage of the final few games of the Airtricity League as well as schoolboy level games, will more than likely be covering the return of the Irish team after their exploits in the Rugby World Cup.
Last week I photographed the American Attorney General as well as a number of court cases - today I had to choose between meeting up with Cliff Richard or travelling to Galway to photograph a murder accused.

I'm more than willing to let someone tag along if/when its suitable (I have brought some other Boards members to local, National and International events).... you are more than welcome to tag along sometime, sometimes its boring - sometimes its exciting.

PCPhoto

jpb1974 wrote: »

To be honest I'm not sure what extra you're saying here that hasn't all been said a million times before.



As already stated -



This stands... I don't see how the existance of cowboys changes this in the slightest.

What I'd really love to know is for every nixer wedding that's done how many positive stories has there been in comaparison to the nightmares stories?

you've taken part of my comment and not the other part .... any reason why ?

my point was that you cannot blame the couple saying they didnt do their research in advance so they hired someone cheap and get what they paid for...the issue is two-fold.

Yes - a couple looking for a wedding photographer should do proper research into who they would like to take photos of their wedding.

BUT .... ALL photographers who cover weddings should understand that if they do not do the job properly they are liable to be sued, couples should punish those who do mess up their special day by suing them - this will help get rid of the cowboys....wedding photography is not an easy thing to do just because someone can take a nice photo does not mean they can cover a wedding.

for the last number of months I have been learning how to do landscape photography because my girlfriend said she would like some landscape pics for the house - its tiresome, getting up at 4/5am to get into position at a location only for the sun to disappoint or to discover someone parked a car in the wrong place the night before, learning what filters to use, which exposures... how to post process, the difference of using different lenses for the same landscape.....investing in equipment. Landscape photography is difficult - you cant just point the camera and capture a great sunrise/sunset.

jpb1974

you've taken part of my comment and not the other part .... any reason why ?

Because I haven't all day to be groundhogging it on this thread... with all the usual patronising stuff.

my point was that you cannot blame the couple saying they didnt do their research in advance so they hired someone cheap and get what they paid for...the issue is two-fold.

If they don't do their homework properly in advance then the answer is 'Yes, you can'.

BUT .... ALL photographers who cover weddings should understand that if they do not do the job properly they are liable to be sued, couples should punish those who do mess up their special day by suing them - this will help get rid of the cowboys....wedding photography is not an easy thing to do just because someone can take a nice photo does not mean they can cover a wedding.

Honestly.. we don't have to keep stating the obvious here.

Landscape photography is difficult - you cant just point the camera and capture a great sunrise/sunset.

Who are you trying to school here?

Buceph

PCPhoto wrote: »

I don't understand what your last sentence is supposed to mean - can you explain it please ? Just to clarify incase you misunderstood my comment - I was complimenting you on your understanding (unlike the other people studying the course with you)

I think the other part of your comment has been addressed ....intent to form a contract etc

I work full-time as a photojournalist 6 or 7 days a week... and have been doing it for years, On a weekly basis I'm photographing and meeting celebrities, get access to almost any gig, sports event that I want to, capturing the latest news hours and sometimes days ahead of when the general public hear about it.... at the moment I'm waiting for Cliff Richard to arrive - he's due to be here soon (where I am - in Dublin) - you may or may not hear about it in the papers.

Tomorrow I'm photographing Rihanna on stage at the O2 - have been told she might be going shopping on Grafton Street today or tomorrow (so depending on if I get a call I may cancel meeting Cliff and go and photo Rihanna) ....and covering the Four Courts - in the coming weeks I will be covering the Election candidates and various news items which appear - I'm considering also going to some of the upcoming Rugby games (Leinster, Munster etc), coverage of the final few games of the Airtricity League as well as schoolboy level games, will more than likely be covering the return of the Irish team after their exploits in the Rugby World Cup.
Last week I photographed the American Attorney General as well as a number of court cases - today I had to choose between meeting up with Cliff Richard or travelling to Galway to photograph a murder accused.

I'm more than willing to let someone tag along if/when its suitable (I have brought some other Boards members to local, National and International events).... you are more than welcome to tag along sometime, sometimes its boring - sometimes its exciting.

Sorry about then. Mea culpa. I got it wrong. (Bad night/not feeling well.) I apologise.

My point was just that if someone is just doing something for a friend then they can't really be blamed. We've had tonnes of occasions here where someone has asked "how do I turn down my friends?" Like AnCatDubh points out (and I wasn't arguing that there wasn't a contract in this case) it's partly the money that's being charged that makes this a real contract. €700 is enough that you would consider the person to be good enough to charge that amount of money. If they're only charging enough to cover (reasonable costs) or a few pints and dinner, then you're not really expecting to be entered into a contract with a professional.

Really, all I'm saying is if you're asking a friend, you can't expect the friend to do a professional job unless they are a professional anyway. If you ask a friend and the friend does it as a favour, all you can expect is that the friend does their best and you have to be happy with that no matter the outcome. I'm not so much talking about this specific case, but this idea in general of asking a friend with a fancy camera to do your wedding/kids/cat.

smash

My sister in law hired a videographer/photographer for her wedding. He was shooting video with one hand and trying to take photos with the other. Every now and then he put down the video camera and took some stills though :rolleyes:

Worse was when she got the results on DVD... I watched 5 mins and was shocked. His camera was recording straight to tape and then transferred to DVD. It was like an 80's wedding video! Apart from that, the photos were crap.

Does anyone know a videographer that still records on tape? Surely it should all be digital at this stage. Especially if you're going to transfer to DVD.

Borderfox

There are still a lot of videographers that use tape, some also use memory card and tape for backup.

smash

Borderfox wrote: »

There are still a lot of videographers that use tape, some also use memory card and tape for backup.

I'm actually pretty shocked by that given the quality it produces, and the money they charge.

Borderfox

smash wrote: »

I'm actually pretty shocked by that given the quality it produces, and the money they charge.

Depends on the gear, the ones with memory cards use it only as a backup sort of belt and braces approach.

magicbastarder

depends on how good the video camera is; he doesn't sound like the kind of guy who would have invested a lot of money in it.

Antomus Prime

This thread was a very interesting read for me! I'm an amateur in the very early stages of what will hopefully turn into a career some day. I'm not gonna jack in the job and start advertising as a pro just cause i've taken some great shots over the last few years... cause there's been a lot of terrible ones too!!! lol

I'm doing my first wedding in november and I'm not charging anything for it. Because as much as it's for the bride and groom its also for me. I want to know if I'm good enough to charge for photography. If this one is a success then I'll do a few more freebies and if I have a consistent level of success then I'll work out pricing plans. It is something that I've always wanted to do and hopefully it works out and both myself and the soon to be newlyweds will be happy with what I produce.....

swingking

I'm getting married in a year and half and I'm looking for a photographer. The problem I see is that the market is oversaturated.

It can be very confusing to find someone who has the experience is not just an average joe soap with a nice kit.

Corkbah

swingking wrote: »

I'm getting married in a year and half and I'm looking for a photographer. The problem I see is that the market is oversaturated.

It can be very confusing to find someone who has the experience is not just an average joe soap with a nice kit.

one of the main problems for couples is they don't know what they want - they want a photographer...yes...but what style ? reportage, classic etc - yes the market is oversaturated but its full of people who can and cant do the job - your problem is that you have to choose someone from the many out there.
I would suggest you ask your friends if they would recommend their wedding photographer - make a list and meet and chat with each of the photographers on your list.

its important that the photographer and the couple get along - you need to have a laugh when doing the shoot because it makes the images better.

Antomus Prime wrote: »

This thread was a very interesting read for me! I'm an amateur in the very early stages of what will hopefully turn into a career some day. I'm not gonna jack in the job and start advertising as a pro just cause i've taken some great shots over the last few years... cause there's been a lot of terrible ones too!!! lol

I'm doing my first wedding in november and I'm not charging anything for it. Because as much as it's for the bride and groom its also for me. I want to know if I'm good enough to charge for photography. If this one is a success then I'll do a few more freebies and if I have a consistent level of success then I'll work out pricing plans. It is something that I've always wanted to do and hopefully it works out and both myself and the soon to be newlyweds will be happy with what I produce.....

Be very careful - make a list of images - sit down with the couple and decide what pics you want - visualise each pic - location etc all in advance it will make it easier on the day.

make sure you get insurance....oh and good luck !

gbee

Freddie59 wrote: »

I did our son's wedding 12 months ago. .

You're not short much there at all, in fact your personal relationship with your 'clients' shows in your photos.

You could start chargin €700 a wedding in the morning ...

Antomus Prime

Corkbah wrote: »

Be very careful - make a list of images - sit down with the couple and decide what pics you want - visualise each pic - location etc all in advance it will make it easier on the day.

make sure you get insurance....oh and good luck !

I do intend to do alot of research and planning. I'm going to the Hotel where its taking place this weekend to have a look around and I have told the couple that I want to meet them beforehand so they can tell me what theyre looking for. But you idea of making a list of images is something i might not have though of. I'll be sure to do so now!!

And if no money is being exchanged is there any need for insurance? What advantage would there be of having it, and what exactly does it cover? As I said, complete amateur!!

And thank you

gbee

Can I see some samples?

Canon and flash are mince, even moreso if the gear ever got damp.

As standard the camera 'tries' to flash for the focus distance ~ as you say they are out of focus so overexposure WILL follow by design ~ it's a stupid system, but anyway that's one reason for the blown out flash.

Secondly the built in is prone to overdo at the best of times, one needs to minus it heavily.

And I suppose he shot in jpeg too to cement the mistakes and equipment errors. {?}

On top of that we have the machine operator [the photographer] who may very well have taken fantastic landscapes and available light portraits but had perhaps never explored his machine and only became aware of something wrong on the day of the wedding and then just totally freaked out not knowing what was going wrong.

Been there, but I always had a backup and shot on two or three cameras.