wedding tog sued

Quality, he should have paid back all of it and covered the cost of a proffessional to shoot the images retrospectively. That being said the couple getting married should have reviewed shots from weddings he'd done before and it would have been pretty clear that he was useless!

You'll probably find he was the cheapest quote so that's the one they went for!
 
Hairyduck said:
Quality, he should have paid back all of it and covered the cost of a proffessional to shoot the images retrospectively. That being said the couple getting married should have reviewed shots from weddings he'd done before and it would have been pretty clear that he was useless!

You'll probably find he was the cheapest quote so that's the one they went for!
Click to expand...


I agree i would like to see his portfolio.
 
A quick Google of his name says he is a past member of SWPP and BPPA. Some more photos from the wedding are here :)

Some of the video footage here :)

He even put in snaps of a NAKED three-year-old bridesmaid before the ceremony and did not take it off his website when asked to.
Click to expand...
:eek:
 
I agree totally that, if the images are all as bad as the two samples on the site, then he should have not only have paid all of the money back, but covered the cost of a full reshoot by another photographer, of the couples choosing. That's what professional indemnity insurance is for, after all.

The cheapest quote, at £1450? I wouldn't have thought that was likely... In that area, I'm sure there are photographers that would do it for far less

EDIT: Didn't realise there was video included in the price!
 
It says PAST Jo. Not current.

To be honest I think we are going to see more of this happening because of the proliferation of people entering the industry with little or no preparation. I am pleased that the judge said his images were not of a suitable standard and hope that people realise that there IS a standard against which you can be judged in court if necessary.

It IS important to note, however that he was sued for breach of contract though and it is well worth having yours checked by a solicitor.

Hopefully it makes people realise that if you are taking money for your services (and it does not matter how much) then you are entering into a commercial agreement and this is where you can end up if you fail to deliver.
 
He should have made a full refund with out being asked.
If you gave a 5 year old kid an instamatic he could have done as well.

There are technical and visual faults showing a spectacular level of incompetence.
They do not even register on any artistic or compositional level.

This sort of thing does incredible damage to all photographers.

He should have his camera ceremonially inserted in to his nether most and darkest region.
 
It's hard to judge without seeing all of the shots, but I'm sure they were seen in court. The ones in the paper are awful, and the stick is deserved based upon that. Golden rule of wedding photography is, providing you have a lot of strong shots, the customer will never get to see the ones that go wrong. I've always stuck to that principle.
 
AliB said:
It says PAST Jo. Not current.

To be honest I think we are going to see more of this happening because of the proliferation of people entering the industry with little or no preparation. I am pleased that the judge said his images were not of a suitable standard and hope that people realise that there IS a standard against which you can be judged in court if necessary.

It IS important to note, however that he was sued for breach of contract though and it is well worth having yours checked by a solicitor.

Hopefully it makes people realise that if you are taking money for your services (and it does not matter how much) then you are entering into a commercial agreement and this is where you can end up if you fail to deliver.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with the rest, following my previous reply to it :)
 
Do you think the tog got paid by the newspapers for having his pictures posted on there :)

I see his websites gone off the air...
 
crmcatee said:
Do you think the tog got paid by the newspapers for having his pictures posted on there :)

I see his websites gone off the air...
Click to expand...
I wAs wondering that too. if not he'll make a penny or two from during them lol.

tbh I think the judge is wrong for his ruling. they paid the money and he took the photos surely his work would not have got to pot overnight.
 
From the photographers point of view you'd have thought he'd have been better off refunding the entire fee and allowing the B&G to keep all the images to make the best of them. Letting it go as far as court has clearly ruined his reputation (which he fully deserved) so now he'll struggle to get any more work in the future (which is probably for the best).

From the B&Gs point of view I'd be quite disappointed with the outcome in court. Yes they have some of their money back but what they will never have is a good set of photos from their wedding day. The only way they could ever get that is if the photographer was forced to pay the cost of having the wedding again which if he was fully insured he could have done. I very much doubt if he was insured though.
 
blimey.. think even I could do better than that.. I would have been mortified and repaid their money ASAP if i'd taken those photos!
 
I've got mixed feelings about this.

I'm in agreement with the sentiment that he should have been ordered to give a full refund, of that there is no doubt!

This has happened in "my patch" though, he's local to me. So, has he affected the locals' minds in regards to photographers? Will I struggle to get custom when I do open shop because of him? Or, will it help me in a way, in that there's one less competitor to think about? Just my initial thoughts on it.

Regardless of my worries though, I feel for the B&G and their family who have lost forever their chance of a permanent record of their special day. I wonder if he has any remorse?

Edit: It's justification for me taking my time before setting up shop too, and for spending so long asking questions and doing research. I'm glad I didn't just rush in. I'll take the plunge eventually but not before I'm sure I can do it properly and professionally.
 
I feel really sorry for the couple, those pictures really give real wedding photographers a bad name.

I have to question how he managed to join all these associations when clearly he didnt attempt to do any post processing on the photos.
 
on another note if I was him i'd be sueing the papers for use of my images :)
 
quote : The cheapest quote, at £1450?.:lol:

I assume this was the price for the video and the photographs which would make it a dirt cheapo package. Did the couple want a BBC production with David Bailey shots for this price.
They should of done their homework and lets hope this company has not ruined it for any other couple.
 
Sniffing1987 said:
on another note if I was him i'd be sueing the papers for use of my images :)
Click to expand...

? Wouldn't it be the case that its in the publics interest though?

I would have been embarrassed to take these. even more so handing them over.
 
if you're a local togger to the B&G...contact them and give them a photoshoot....can't buy that sort of publicity :)
then get 1 or 2 of the shots into the local paper
although I wouldn't recommend forking out for the horse and carriage again :p
 
He shot the video and photos as per the article, hence it was probably the cheapest quote :rules:

retired said:
quote : The cheapest quote, at £1450?.:lol:

I assume this was the price for the video and the photographs which would make it a dirt cheapo package. Did the couple want a BBC production with David Bailey shots for this price.
They should of done their homework and lets hope this company has not ruined it for any other couple.
Click to expand...
 
DizMatt said:
if you're a local togger to the B&G...contact them and give them a photoshoot....can't buy that sort of publicity :)
then get 1 or 2 of the shots into the local paper
although I wouldn't recommend forking out for the horse and carriage again :p
Click to expand...

The thought had crossed my mind, but I'm not in business yet and although I know I can produce professional results I wouldn't presume to think I was anywhere near ready yet. If something went wrong can you imagine the further trauma and hurt felt by them? It wouldn't be fair. No, I need more practice yet. Good opportunity for others maybe?
 
This is interesting as some friends of ours are highly disappointed with thier photos of thier wedding and rightly so, i think i could have done better and i'm rubbish. They are deciding what to do about it and this article might help.

Does the togs insurance really cover the cost of a full reshoot? Our friends guests came fromas far afield as South Africa, surely travel costs, suit hire, etc etc would not be covered.

I agree with AliB, there are a lot of people starting up this kind of venture who have bought a DSLR and think they are Lord Litchfield. We didnt pay £1000's for our wedding togs but compared to this guy and our friends wedding (who paid far more than we did) our shots and the service we recieved were outstanding. Its all about doing your homework but even that doesnt stop the wanna-be's as its easy enough to put together a decent looking web site from borrowed shots and albums.
 
Yes, insurance CAN cover a full reshoot but it is really there to cover disasters such as cards/cameras being stolen etc. That's why I said in my reply to note that he was sued for breach of contract. Being "not very happy" with the results may not constitute a breach of contract which is where the lovely phrase of "Caveat Emptor" comes in.....let the buyer beware.
 
mumrar said:
Golden rule of wedding photography is, providing you have a lot of strong shots, the customer will never get to see the ones that go wrong. I've always stuck to that principle.
Click to expand...
Would be even more worrying if he followed your rule and they were the good shots.
 
Fortunately they did got 22 "acceptable" (like to see those ;) ) I suppose that's why the penalty was not higher.

The ones displayed on the news are really poor work. I can see myself doing some of those shots (bad settings on the camera, whatever), but certainly I'd check them at the time, and not give those to the bride.

Do wedding togs get asked for ALL their images, even the ones that were completely off?
 
I imagine it would be a big pressure to capture someone's big day. You only get one shot at it, you can't go back and redo it plus there is so much expectation for the photographer to capture everything the bride wants.

No wonder people spend so much money on professional photographers!
 
good on the B+G I say.

A lot of people seemed to be happy with their wedding pictures even if they are of a poor standard. A mate of mine got married a few weeks ago, they had another friend (part time pro) shoot the ceremony on the Friday (I wasn't there) and I did the hog roast/reception on Saturday. I'm still very much a wedding noob but am happy that what I produced is of a reasonable standard. Now the pics from the Friday imho are just snapshots that anyone could have taken, all dumped online - good and bad, no processing, at least 60% are either out of focus/eyes shut/dodgy backgrounds etc etc. And guess what - the Bride and groom love them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top