Unhappy with wedding photos... help!

[Frequency]

You won't hear from OP anymore, probably

Edit: All those 76 inputs have turned baseless once the link was taken back; this is the worst thing that can happen to a discussion thread

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

You don't have Google?

 

[Frequency]

How can I reach there

 

[MTVision]

How can I reach there

The photographers website link is still posted. Page 2 maybe...

I only saw a few of the OP's wedding photos on that site though.

 

[Frequency]

Actually i wanted to see the images that were much discussed here....

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

How can I reach there

Go too Yahoo.com, and type in Google. It should give you a link.













Just teasing.

 

[Tee]

Actually i wanted to see the images that were much discussed here....

http://www.brendasison.com/ first preview set on homepage: Amanda and Keith.

 

[EGutierrez91]

......... Do you go to a restaurant and order food and if it tastes horrendous you suck it up and pay your bill anyway? No way, you say it tastes like crap and you ask for it to be taken back .........

Poor analogy. You can tell if you don't like a meal on your first bite. You don't wait until you get your hat & coat on the way out to complain.

The OP, however, did not have the ability to 'taste' her $1300 meal.

You get a taste as soon as you visit the photographers site. That's sort of a sneak preview. The OPs pictures were on par with the other pictures on the site.

The OP, however, did not have the ability to 'taste' her $1300 meal.

Are you kidding?
The photographer, Brenda Sison had oodles of images in her web portfolio. Brenda's work is consistant. Even down to the "cheesy" poses. How the OP thought she was going to get anything different is mind boggling. This thread is idiotic at best.

This isn't a case of seeing awesome work, and recieving garbage. At all.

The OP's proof gallery is now password protected, and the OP removed the link to the site.

Exactly. The photography work on her site is consistent with the photos of the OPs wedding.

It is still up to the OP to make the phone call and get it sorted out with the photographer.

 

[Frequency]

How can I reach there

Go too Yahoo.com, and type in Google. It should give you a link.

You meant a tease...and i am torn apart but cemented back by Tee (below)

Regards

 

[Frequency]

Thank you Tee

 

[Frequency]

There are five images there of Amanda &Keith.... they are fine to my sensibility....

 

[thereyougo!]

I understand the frustrations of the OP, but I have to wonder whether the photos were the only thing to go wrong at the wedding. I got married nearly 10 years ago, and our wedding photos were taken by the most expensive photographer within our budget. From a technical point of view looking at the photos since the wedding took place they are fine, but not great. They cost about £600 so about $850, so probably around $1300 in today's money. What we did do as bride and groom though is sit down with the photographer and agree very carefully what we wanted him to do. It's a contract, and contracts are for two parties. If only one takes part in the engagement of the gig by giving no clear guidance then sone can expect less than stellar results are more likely. Some of the sets on the website look a bit odd to me. Jessica's wedding photos have a lot of cut limbs and I'm not sure that a photograph of a dress on a hanger is really part of a wedding album.
Our photographer believed that imagewise less is more. There is nothing drastically wrong with the images there, they are all pretty well exposed but crops could be better. No real imagination, but that could be about the pricepoint it is at. There are nearly 700 images in the Jessica and Ken gallery. I'd say that was 3 x too many - at least. The problem is that in the digital age some think that there should be more images to choose from.

WRONG WRONG WRONG

Did I say wrong? Photography hasn't changed simply because the media has changed. The photographer has spread herself too thin, thinking that more images = better value. Wrong again! Quality is everything. That's what gets you a premium over other photographers, not how many images you can shoot and put up for sale. Seems the OP was seduced by the perceived extra value and didn't see the real value of quality control. Sometimes, less really IS more.

In our wedding we had 3 photographers round and interviewed them all seperately. The one we picked ended up being the most expensive and gave the fewest images to choose from. The other two kept telling us how many images we'd get to choose from and reluctant to show the work. The one we hired showed us his work first, before telling us details. He is unlikely to be hired to shoot a royal wedding but his standard was higher than the others.

 

[manaheim]

There is a real expectation by the customers these days that more pictures is better. I noticed some of that happening on this set. Five pictures of the same thing with slight variances where one (selected by the photographer) would have been better.

 

[thereyougo!]

There is a real expectation by the customers these days that more pictures is better. I noticed some of that happening on this set. Five pictures of the same thing with slight variances where one (selected by the photographer) would have been better.

Exactly. It's the debate between MORE choice and BETTER choice. They sound similar, but are VERY​ different. The pathway to more choice is littered with poor choice of mediocrity.

 

[fokker]

From what little I can see on her website the photos are fine, good even. OP you got your money's worth. If you wish to hire a professional editor to improve them you are going to be spending a significant amount of money for marginal gain, you would have been better off hiring a more expensive photographer in the first place (not to imply that more money defintely gets you better pictures, but generally speaking you get what you pay for - as in this case.)