wedding tog sued

[matthew_rk]

This is on ITV news in a sec..

 

[willbaroo]

Love the part in the video where the camera falls back on the tripod and the enusing bleep bleeping from the videographer....

PRWilliams you should keep your eyes open for the local meets in the Bath/Somerset area.

 

[razor777]

I loved this comment made by a reader on one of the News web sites:

"People just dive in, thinking a £500 camera with a built-in flash will cut the mustard. Not a chance. I've spent over 4k on gear.."

 

[fracster]

Why is that funny.......:shrug:

 

[DiddyDave]

Why is that funny.......:shrug:

I think he's suggesting there's irony in there as most Pro Wedding togs have spent MUCH more than £4,000 on their gear - so the joke is £4,000 is nowhere near enough

DD

 

[Betty]

"People just dive in, thinking a £500 camera with a built-in flash will cut the mustard. Not a chance. I've spent over 4k on gear.."

Why is that funny.......:shrug:

I think he's suggesting there's irony in there as most Pro Wedding togs have spent MUCH more than £4,000 on their gear - so the joke is £4,000 is nowhere near enough

Or the fact I could spend a fortune on tools and equipment, but thats not going to make me a good plumber

 

[akr]

This is one of the reasons I (in my pre meeting literature) tell people to see at least one entire Wedding set, and a recent one too if poss (and if not poss, then why not ??? )

DD

I think this one of the key points - we saw 2 wedding togs and neither gave us a 'you should check this when you view competitors'. Most people getting married have little or no knowledge photography, less so re wedding photography.

If guidance is given to ignoramus such as myself we are more likely to pick a good tog, beter for everyone! I think this also helps put people understand why to pay £xxx/x so people understand the value of a good pro.

 

[Nikon Dave]

What on earth did he take the pictures on ,,,a 1mp camera phone ?? He could'nt get any worse than that ,all this guy knew was where the shutter button was :shake:

 

[DiddyDave]

I think this one of the key points - we saw 2 wedding togs and neither gave us a 'you should check this when you view competitors'. Most people getting married have little or no knowledge photography, less so re wedding photography.

If guidance is given to ignoramus such as myself we are more likely to pick a good tog, beter for everyone! I think this also helps put people understand why to pay £xxx/x so people understand the value of a good pro.

There are a few points to look out for in checking out Wedding togs - but nothing is as important as their last few Weddings in full

Anyone over the course of 10-20 Weddings can pull off (especially if their PP is any good) enough 'great' images to WOW a potential couple as a client, but if they aren't doing that standard of work at EVERY Wedding then that's cause for concern

Then of course the other point is that Albums etc. cost a small fortune to have prepared, so there is an understandable tendency to not throw any away at £200-£700 a pop

But unless you have already reached your peak of ability and are not trying to improve (unlikely unless close to retirement), then just a few months old they are already 'out-of-date' as your work/experience/art has moved on - mine are so 'not me' anymore that I'm loathed to show anyone them - but then it's rare for anyone to ask to see any pics either - odd eh

I am working on a totally new style of albums & image presentation at the mo - but by mid next year this too will be out-of-date as I move my own goal-posts ever onwards

There is a potential problem there though - if client 'A' books you based on your work at point 'A' but by their Wedding 2 years later you're a different photographer.... potentially an Oops moment ???

DD

 

[haggis]

I think this one of the key points - we saw 2 wedding togs and neither gave us a 'you should check this when you view competitors'. Most people getting married have little or no knowledge photography, less so re wedding photography.

If guidance is given to ignoramus such as myself we are more likely to pick a good tog, beter for everyone! I think this also helps put people understand why to pay £xxx/x so people understand the value of a good pro.

Valid point however you need to be careful that it's not perceived as knocking the competition.

Better to tell them you think the things you show and cover in a meeting are the key points when considering a photographer and let them come to their own conclusions. Hopefully a subliminal approach will work best (IMHO!).

 

[razor777]

Or the fact I could spend a fortune on tools and equipment, but thats not going to make me a good plumber

Bingo.

 

[louise-knight]

I haven't ready through all of this thread, as I've seen enough of it today to be honest..! But maybe the entire news article PLUS any other links to other articles/threads all on this one subject should be placed in a sticky at the top of the *free wedding photography* section.. if that ever came to be.. (I really hope not ...)

 

[akr]

Valid point however you need to be careful that it's not perceived as knocking the competition.

Better to tell them you think the things you show and cover in a meeting are the key points when considering a photographer and let them come to their own conclusions. Hopefully a subliminal approach will work best (IMHO!).

absolutely, that is what I meant, was not suggesting a 'look at them they are rubbish approach'

 

[AliB]

I have an article from a bridal magazine from The States where they took a pro wedding photographer and a competent amateur and let them loose at a wedding. The amateur was challenged to shoot the same shots as the pro and was game enough to take on the challenge and have the results examined.

Spxx liked it so much he has permission to reproduce it on his blog
http://simonrevill.com/blog/wedding/seattle-bride-magazine-professional-or-amateur-to-photograph-your-wedding

 

[DiddyDave]

I have an article from a bridal magazine from The States where they took a pro wedding photographer and a competent amateur and let them loose at a wedding. The amateur was challenged to shoot the same shots as the pro and was game enough to take on the challenge and have the results examined.

Spxx liked it so much he has permission to reproduce it on his blog
http://simonrevill.com/blog/wedding/seattle-bride-magazine-professional-or-amateur-to-photograph-your-wedding

Pah - all you need do is look at any of your couple's Facebook pages a few days after their Wedding to know how crap the 'untrained' photographer can be

If you're not a zillion miles better - then hang up the gear

DD

 

[Rikki]

http://www.strathycruise.com/pics/crapwedding.jpg

 

[Rikki]

So would you say generally, anyone charging less than £1500 will provide this quality?

Sorry but I tend to disagree.

Less than £1500 for both photos and video, quite probably yes.

 

[Jayst84]

I have an article from a bridal magazine from The States where they took a pro wedding photographer and a competent amateur and let them loose at a wedding. The amateur was challenged to shoot the same shots as the pro and was game enough to take on the challenge and have the results examined.

Spxx liked it so much he has permission to reproduce it on his blog
http://simonrevill.com/blog/wedding/seattle-bride-magazine-professional-or-amateur-to-photograph-your-wedding

Hmm, I think that her referring to herself as "a pretty good amateur photographer" is more than a bit of a stretch. Good article for the wedding mag to run though.

 

[AliB]

Ahhhhh now you see Jayst84 that was part of the point of the article in the first place. That's often just the kind of relative who gets asked to do a wedding because they are percieved to have the gear and therefore...........all you need.

I thought it was such a good article because her shots are still unusable despite being in the same place at the same time as the pro. It is such a good comparison and hats off to her for allowing the publication. I've provided it to some of the venues I shoot at for their info packs because it's more subjective than anything I could write.

 

[swanseamale47]

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!

Maybe all the cheaper togs were booked up?.
The probem we have is we are only seeing a few of the pics, the rest might have been fine. The couple may have asked for all the images taken, in which case they may be a few "duff" shots on the disk, not everybody edits out the rubbish shots if they are asked for all images.
I have seen worse shots taken by some well know and respected togs, they simply get edited out before the public see them.

 

[swanseamale47]

Just had a thought, I wonder if the shots were taken by the tog himself or did he farm them out to somebody else? I know a guy who does this, he'll let pretty much anybody with a camera shoot weddings for him as long as he gets the money he doesn't care.

 

[Jayst84]

Ahhhhh now you see Jayst84 that was part of the point of the article in the first place. That's often just the kind of relative who gets asked to do a wedding because they are percieved to have the gear and therefore...........all you need.

I thought it was such a good article because her shots are still unusable despite being in the same place at the same time as the pro. It is such a good comparison and hats off to her for allowing the publication. I've provided it to some of the venues I shoot at for their info packs because it's more subjective than anything I could write.

I get that, I was just meaning it's good for them to print and say "look this is what could happen if you don't hire one of us pros" just like you can go show it to potential clients and say the same.

Thing is it depends on the amateur, in just the same way as it depends on the pro should you hire one of them. The best wedding photographer in the world may not actually be working as a professional wedding photographer.

 

[jolsterj]

I have an article from a bridal magazine from The States where they took a pro wedding photographer and a competent amateur and let them loose at a wedding. The amateur was challenged to shoot the same shots as the pro and was game enough to take on the challenge and have the results examined.

Spxx liked it so much he has permission to reproduce it on his blog
http://simonrevill.com/blog/wedding/seattle-bride-magazine-professional-or-amateur-to-photograph-your-wedding

OK Just read this and to me it is just an article that is biased toward 'booking a pro'


I bet if a 'pro' [well regarded one] and many togs on here [not pros] went head to head they would get similar results.

 

[Quaker]

Do none of you think you may be getting drawn into the media hype?

Yes the photos displayed are crap but do you honestly believe the media will display the best of the bunch or the worst?

It never fails to amaze me how people get drawn in to whats printed in the press.

Those wedding togs amongst you, how would you react if the press got hold of the photo's you ditched and portrayed them as the best of the bunch?

Dear me, some of you are so gullible.

 

[dseered]

Do none of you think you may be getting drawn into the media hype?

Yes the photos displayed are crap but do you honestly believe the media will display the best of the bunch or the worst?

It never fails to amaze me how people get drawn in to whats printed in the press.

Those wedding togs amongst you, how would you react if the press got hold of the photo's you ditched and portrayed them as the best of the bunch?

Dear me, some of you are so gullible.

I would clap my hands with the impending large payment coming my way !

 

[swanseamale47]

I have an article from a bridal magazine from The States where they took a pro wedding photographer and a competent amateur and let them loose at a wedding. The amateur was challenged to shoot the same shots as the pro and was game enough to take on the challenge and have the results examined.

Spxx liked it so much he has permission to reproduce it on his blog
http://simonrevill.com/blog/wedding/seattle-bride-magazine-professional-or-amateur-to-photograph-your-wedding

I'm not sure what this proves, the amateurs shots are processed differently which spoils the comparrison slightly, also we don't know how competent he really is, the blured shot in the house suggests not very, as does the blown out dress in the window shot, I know a few amateurs who could have done a lot better than that (and plenty who could have done worse) I'd like to have seen a lot more of the photos to get a better idea of his skill level.

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm not sure what this proves, the amateurs shots are processed differently which spoils the comparrison slightly, also we don't know how competent he really is, the blured shot in the house suggests not very, as does the blown out dress in the window shot, I know a few amateurs who could have done a lot better than that (and plenty who could have done worse) I'd like to have seen a lot more of the photos to get a better idea of his skill level.

you can pick alot of faults in the article if you want to, and it probably won't stand up to someone who knows what they are talking about picking it to bits, but it does show how one photographer is able to use his experience and make the best of a moment based on that experience far more then someone with limited experience can.

Hugh

 

[LJR]

The judge did exactly the right thing. It would damage Wedding Photographers' businesses and reputations more if this kind of crap photography went unchecked.

From the couple's perspective the alarm bells should have rang when they learned he, just one man, would do the video AND the photography at the wedding when both are full time roles.

 

[AliB]

Which is exactly the point Hugh. It's in a bridal magazine, not a photography one

Anyway, I think it's always useful to be able to illustrate the difference between a well intentioned family member and a pro who has the right equipment to hand. If anyone finds it useful then all well and good.

 

[LJR]

Which is exactly the point Hugh. It's in a bridal magazine, not a photography one

Anyway, I think it's always useful to be able to illustrate the difference between a well intentioned family member and a pro who has the right equipment to hand. If anyone finds it useful then all well and good.

I think it's more a reflection of using an inexperienced photographer over one who's being doing it for years. Whether they are professional or not represents nothing of course. Some of these so-called professionals who bought their dSLR last year will never produce photos as good as some very experienced amateurs.

In that respect the article is useful. In other words - get an experienced photographer to shoot your wedding.

 

[Rikki]

If the photos were entered into public record as evidence in a case the surely there is the legal ability to use them for editorial comment as the papers have done?

And to comment on what someone said about the papers getting a hold of the shots you didnt want seen - shouldnt have sent them out in the first place then ?

 

[photon]

If the photos were entered into public record as evidence in a case the surely there is the legal ability to use them for editorial comment as the papers have done?

Not for your advert in #96, without a licence, I would've thought.

 

[fracster]

I think he's suggesting there's irony in there as most Pro Wedding togs have spent MUCH more than £4,000 on their gear - so the joke is £4,000 is nowhere near enough

DD

Agreed Dave, but £4,000 OF KIT,IF SPENT WISELY ON THE SECONDHAND MARKET, CAN BUY ENOUGH QUALITY GEAR TO PRODUCE excellent results.

Scuse capslock..

 

[Foggy]

Agreed Dave, but £4,000 OF KIT,IF SPENT WISELY ON THE SECONDHAND MARKET, CAN BUY ENOUGH QUALITY GEAR TO PRODUCE excellent results.

Scuse capslock..

To be fair, the full comment on the BBC is:

"I've spent over 4k on gear, and need more lenses and light tools, six months of deep research and practice, 12 years using Photoshop professionally as a graphic artist. I'm still nervous about every shoot."

They have pointed out they have spent £4k and they still need to spend more. They do, however, seem to suggest that 6 months practice is fine though.

 

[pete.rush]

This story is just the tip of an iceburg. Digital photography has made photography easy to do (due to technology) and open to the masses.

Unfortunately, there are many so called photographers out there that get told their work is good by friends and family (who probably aren't the best judges, or get an image bought/used by a local rag because right place right time, but technically the image isn't good), they get asked to take a few pictures at a friends wedding or 2, or an event etc and then suddenly they call themselves a wedding photographer or sports photographer etc, create a website and ply there trade on the WWW and unfortunately get into situations like this, but perhaps not plastered across the national press.

Personally wedding photography is probably one of the hardest disciplines to do well. I take my hat off to the people that do it, its alot of hard work.

This story is just point in case of someone out of their depth from judge limited evidence of his work.

Ok the customers aspiration of the final product can defer considerably, but from the limited number of images and his website front page, it looked like a basic lack of understanding of composition.

Peter (Average amature)

 

[TG.]

Do none of you think you may be getting drawn into the media hype?

Yes the photos displayed are crap but do you honestly believe the media will display the best of the bunch or the worst?

It never fails to amaze me how people get drawn in to whats printed in the press.

Those wedding togs amongst you, how would you react if the press got hold of the photo's you ditched and portrayed them as the best of the bunch?

Dear me, some of you are so gullible.

Probably one of the most sensible posts so far, the media will always make the worst of any given situation, it's the way they sell papers unfortunately

 

[Rikki]

Not for your advert in #96, without a licence, I would've thought.

LOL thats not an advert, thats satire. The bottom bit *** is part of an ad I've run locally.

 

[Radiohead]

They're dreadful, but I've seen many this bad before now.

 

[leeroy]

Well said RadioHead (above) and media hype or not, the fact of the matter is that the guy was actually stupid enough to show these awful images to the client in the first place (clueless)!

This is a classic example of an amateur/weekend warrior thinking they can handle one of the most demanding areas of professional photography. I spotted two images that he's obviously emulated from other togs and made them look really bad. This is why pro's or competent wedding togs get so annoyed with newbie's who think that just because they've taken a handful of good pictures at Uncle Nobbies wedding last summer they can cut a full wedding. Unfortunately there's too many of these talentless idiots around and this story is a great example to show any newbie's wishing to take on this stressful, demanding and high drama of a wedding that it's not as easy as it seems!

Anyone can buy what they think is a decent camera and equipment, anyone can setup a decent looking website and anyone can copy another togs poses/pics but when it comes to the crunch, not everyone has the skill and know-how to pull off a succesfull/acceptable wedding shoot.

I bet this guy was one of them people that would come on this forum asking…I'm doing a wedding this weekend, what lenses can you recommend, what do you think of these wedding pics, do you think I should do this? To the people who ask these questions, if you don't already know this information or lack the self belief in yourself, should you really be shooting somebody's big day?...Simple answer, No and this story is what could happen if you try!

I can see one good thing coming out of this story - Be warned that the media hype this story has generated will certainly have members of the public looking a lot closer at these weekend wedding wannabes and will hopefully cut down the crap that we've come to see and unfortunately accept.

One final note - I think its common knowledge that this particular guy was a member of the SWPP which raises questions that just because you’re a member (not a qualified member) of a respectable organisation doesn't mean your work is of acceptable standard.

 

[wootton-snapper]

From look at the images, the overall quality and lightening, I would say a bridge camera on the cheap end?

If it is a DSLR, then it was Auto mode (although AUTO should produce better than the photos shown). What a failure.

I know they were poor photo's but I missed the Lightning in any of them?
The video camera incident reminded me of a local photographer - sort of thing he'd do!!