Couple sue 20 year old photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
I got married there in 1989 and all the photographs we have of the day were from guests using their own cameras. Not a pro camera in sight but no one had a problem with poor light and there were some stunning shots.
Allan
 
I get the feeling The Sun has been a little economic with the truth with this. I'm sure we have all done shoots where some of the shots should be consigned straight in the bin, however i do wonder in this case if the photographer has made a error and supplied the B&G with the entire shoot and they have selected the worst. Part of the story is not necessarily the whole story...
 
Bobmatt said:
I'm sure we have all done shoots where some of the shots should be consigned straight in the bin
Click to expand...

When I was ten, I photographed my aunt's wedding with my first camera - an Agfa Isolette. A week later I presented her with a set of twelve square prints - all with their heads missing.


Steve.
 
Bobmatt said:
I get the feeling The Sun has been a little economic with the truth with this.
Click to expand...

And that is why anyone with any intelligence does not read the tabloids. What is the point is being told biased, half truths and it certainly isn't journalism.

Still, the headline wouldn't have been as good if it read "couple in paying £100 for a wedding photographer and got want they deserved shocker"
 
Steve Smith said:
When I was ten, I photographed my aunt's wedding with my first camera - an Agfa Isolette. A week later I presented her with a set of twelve square prints - all with their heads missing.

Steve.
Click to expand...

Some might say you were just ahead of the times on cropping off heads off the B&G ;-)


I really wonder if the photographer said they were a "pro". More to the point the B&G must have had other quotes and realised £100 (if that it true) was not a realistic price for the service. Finally as there is a good chance that the photographer is unlikely to have a spare few grand, what are they expecting to get back?

I also suspect that there is a great deal more to this storey than reported.
 
DrRusty said:
Some might say you were just ahead of the times on cropping off heads off the B&G
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if it is also the current trend for the photographer to be elsewhere when the cake is cut and miss getting any photographs of it!


Steve.
 
Taking the information that seems to be present in this thread I think the couple are a complete pair of plonkers. The photographer was clearly being somewhat economical with the truth if she was claiming to be capable of the job, but the couple were mindblowingly stupid not to do a little research and ensure the photographer had a portfolio of work that backed up her claims. If the couple did start a hate campaign on Facebook or other social media then frankly I think they deserve to face legal action themselves for harassment.

I hope they're laughed out of court, and I hope the 'photographer' learned a valuable lesson as well.
 
“It’s just awful, she’s robbed us of everything. Nothing is ever going to get our day back,” said Mrs. Crack

Really??? I have hardly looked at most of our wedding photos yet rely on a wonderful thing called 'memory'.
I'm sure the B&G will get more money from selling this so called story to the paper rather than from the court cases against the photographer.
If you've only paid £100 for a wedding photographer then what can you expect? ? Saying that, it does sound like the photographer told a few porkies on the 'professional' status.
 
Mike-a said:
“It’s just awful, she’s robbed us of everything. Nothing is ever going to get our day back,” said Mrs. Crack

Really??? I have hardly looked at most of our wedding photos yet rely on a wonderful thing called 'memory'.
I'm sure the B&G will get more money from selling this so called story to the paper rather than from the court cases against the photographer.
If you've only paid £100 for a wedding photographer then what can you expect? ? Saying that, it does sound like the photographer told a few porkies on the 'professional' status.
Click to expand...
Do you know that the photographer did this?

The photographer may have had her arm bent to take the job, or could have advertised services for £100 stating her experience, we don't know for certain that she was advertising her services. £100 is low even for inexperienced photographers who realise what this entails, so my guess is that there wasn't much 'advertising of professional services' going on.
 
Professional: Person taking part in an activity or occupation for financial compensation or gain.

As soon as she took on the job for money she took the role of being a professional. If she felt she couldn't do the job she shouldn't have taken it on. Naivety on both sides IMO.
We spent way more than £100 on our photographer but also we gave everyone a blank DVD and asked for a copy of their shots. Some were amazing from basic point and shoot cameras.
From the few shots from this couples wedding I have seen, not seen the removed FB pictures, they were terrible.
Lesson learned, move on, don't start a FB witch hunt, don't get low brow tabloids involved.
 
There are lessons to be learned here.

1 : Pay £100 for your wedding photographer, but don't expect Guy Collier quality ;)
2 : Don't read the Scum. Ever.

I don't know if the photographer is to blame in any way for any of this. She may have just said she'd do it as a favour for a friend. She may not have pitched herself as a professional, who knows?
However, let's not turn this into a witch hunt against another photographer.

This is proof that it pays to hire a seasoned wedding professional if you can afford to, and of course if you want that standard of quality.
 
I suspect that the FB page had something to do with the sun doing the story in the first place, it seems that this had already created quite a lot of interest which tells the sun that people are also likely to be interested in this story in their crappy paper.

I also agree being a very amateur photographer myself that both the photographer and the B&G both made mistakes and the blame should shared equally.
 
Marcel said:
There are lessons to be learned here.

1 : Pay £100 for your wedding photographer, but don't expect Guy Collier quality ;)
2 : Don't read the Scum. Ever.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just a Sun newspaper story......

I find it strange that you are able to 'tarnish' a newspaper yet asking not to 'witch hunt' a photographer, all within the same post - maybe a tad hypocritical.
 
tiler65 said:
I find it strange that you are able to 'tarnish' a newspaper yet asking not to 'witch hunt' a photographer, all within the same post - maybe a tad hypocritical.
Click to expand...

This is The Sun we're talking about, it's hardly the epitome of balanced and honest reporting. Gutter press like The Sun deserves everything that gets thrown at it.
 
Judging by the images posted, I don't think the photos were actually taken with an SLR (can't see the other images as the FB has been removed) Look at the grain to some of the photos, it just doesn't add up. To be honest, I don't believe this article is true, it's not the first time that the tabloids have made a false story to fill a page etc.....
 
Popcorn smillie still required:)
 
The Sun will of course have picked the worst shots, oh and its not a newspaper, its a tabloid.

The photos show that the "photographer" wasn't in control at all, but for all we know the couple may have gone into it completely disorganised and she might not have had any idea where they would be or when. Thus ending up in the wrong positions every time.
 
I seriously think these were taken on a point and shoot, the photos look like they're from different cameras. If the couple are happy enough to 'redo' the complete venue for the sake of photos then it's clear that it's a farce!

I feel sorry for the other togs on gumtree charging £100, they'll never get a booking now!
 
Steve Smith said:
Regardless of what they paid. I'm sure what they got was not what they were expecting to get.

If something is offered for a price, it should be 'fit for function' regardless of the asking price.



£100.


Steve.
Click to expand...

With respect they must take a large share of the blame for not hiring a professional, the fit for function part I suspect doesn't really apply as the photographers already told them he/she has never done a wedding before.
After all would you hire a bloke whos never cooked before you make your anniversary lunch? I wouldn't.
 
Mike-a said:
Really??? I have hardly looked at most of our wedding photos yet rely on a wonderful thing called 'memory'.
Click to expand...

Me too. I think too much emphasis is put on wedding photography - especially by wedding photographers!

If you read posts on some other forums (Photo.Net mainly) you would think that weddings were staged specifically as a photo shoot and the getting married bit was just an additional feature.


Steve.
 
Meh! Looks to me like they got pretty much what they paid for.
 
Steve Smith said:
They did hire a professional. Someone who charged for the service. She might not have been a very good professional though.


Steve.
Click to expand...

My neighbour once gave me a fiver for cutting her lawn, does that make me a professional gardener?

I understand the sentiment, but there's a huge difference between one paid job and calling yourself a professional.

Of course if the girl was advertising her services, and has taken on other paid work - that's a different vessel for the poaching of sea creatures.
 
Phil V said:
My neighbour once gave me a fiver for cutting her lawn, does that make me a professional gardener?
Click to expand...

Yes... for twenty minutes!

As far as I am concerned, if someone advertises a service and is then paid by someone else in return for providing that service, that makes them professional regardless of the quality of that service.

And I don't understand why photographers use the term professional so much. You don't hear people describing themselves as professional plumbers, professional hairdressers, professional shopkeepers, etc. They are just plumbers, hairdressers and shopkeepers.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Mike-a said:
Saying that, it does sound like the photographer told a few porkies on the 'professional' status.
Click to expand...

Nope, the photographer was honest. From what I remember reading, even the witchhunt group admitted that she'd told the B&G that she'd recently graduated from college. Showed them her college portfolio (no weddings), said she'd do it for £100 cos she's no experience and wanted to build up her portfolio.

The couple had a £500 budget and opted to take her up on the offer of £100.

If you value your photographer, surely some alarm bells should have rang when considering hiring someone with no experience, no relevant portfolio and only 20 years old!

I don't think the photos were actually taken with an SLR
Click to expand...
The photos were apparently taken with a Nikon D5100 with kit lens (so the FB group said the EXIF information showed).

Apparently the 'photographer' forgot to change her ISO settings when they came out. She shot the entire outdoor couple portrait session at F22 & ISO6400!

I've seen the entire set of photos and undoubtedly they are awful. But then in my opinion, the couple share most of the responsibility for the choice. It was obvious that they were taking a big risk. I think they did get £100 worth of service.

But ultimately any court case will boil down to what was agreed. My understanding was that she'd agreed to photograph certain groups and that was not done. The 'quality' of the photographs are subjective but for £100 I think she delivered the right value.

The couple can chuck the £400 they saved from not hiring a real pro towards the reshoot.

And this should be a salutary lesson to anyone thinking about shooting a few weddings about the potential risks and why you need insurance.
 
Last edited:
Whatever, this should be good for the industry. Real wedding photographers should 'just happen' to have a copy of this hanging around when prospects come calling...
:p
 
Steve Smith said:
Shows the value of a college education!!

Steve.
Click to expand...

I think 'professional' or not, it shows that shooting under the kind of pressure you find at weddings isn't the same as 'getting some nice shots' at your mates do.

It's also why most of the pro's here would have advised her not to charge (the question is often asked and the answer from Pro's is almost in unison).

BTW, when we give that advice - we're accused of trying to defend the industry from people who might just find that it's money for old rope:cuckoo: - rather than trying to set customer expectations and defend the ranks of 'professionals' from including any GWC who fancies £100 for an afternoons work.
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes... for twenty minutes!


And I don't understand why photographers use the term professional so much. You don't hear people describing themselves as professional plumbers, professional hairdressers, professional shopkeepers, etc. They are just plumbers, hairdressers and shopkeepers.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Tell that to a tradesman who has had to fix someone DIY or DIY of a friend of friend.
Or to a mechanic who services a car and just thinks what the f... when they look at something which has been repaired by someone who thinks they are a mechanic because they have a tool box and a double garage.
 
Any pro worth their salt either a: wouldn't shoot that badly or b: let shots that bad see the light of day. Cull.

So without investigating it properly, I'd say it was a wannabe/conwoman and they "got what they paid for."
 
Phil V said:
My neighbour once gave me a fiver for cutting her lawn, does that make me a professional gardener?

I understand the sentiment, but there's a huge difference between one paid job and calling yourself a professional.

Of course if the girl was advertising her services, and has taken on other paid work - that's a different vessel for the poaching of sea creatures.
Click to expand...

I'd say so, advertise that you will cut peoples lawns for a fiver and ill bet you get plenty of business. :p
 
The point I was trying to make is that the word professional should not be used as an adjective to mean good.

There are plenty of professionals in all manner of trades who are not very good but still manage to earn a living from it.

It's a bit like the arguments which crop up when a new piece of conceptual
/modern art makes the news and people proclaim that it is not art forgetting the fact that it could just be very bad art.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
The point I was trying to make is that the word professional should not be used as an adjective to mean good.

There are plenty of professionals in all manner of trades who are not very good but still manage to earn a living from it.

It's a bit like the arguments which crop up when a new piece of conceptual
/modern art makes the news and people proclaim that it is not art forgetting the fact that it could just be very bad art.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I share that view entirely, I'm all for the distinction between;
Professional = doing something for money, and
professional = displaying professionalism.

However, on the 'doing something for money - there's got to be an element of something more than a one-off occurrence. The lass has shot one wedding for money, that doesn't make her a professional wedding photographer.
 
Phil V said:
The lass has shot one wedding for money, that doesn't make her a professional wedding photographer.
Click to expand...

Not yet. But theoretically (but probably not practically) she could carry on doing sub-standard work for sub-standard pay and be considered a professional.


Steve.
 
Without trying to sound judgemental, I think if you pay the rock bottom price for a service you deserve what she got. I don't think the young lady was out to con anyone. She said she'd never photographed a wedding previously.

What chance did she have of getting x, y and z photographs when she couldn't remember to change ISO or shutter speeds moving from one environment to another.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top