Great wedding photos, unhappy clients?

[farmerj]

nobody has noticed that the first picture was taken on 12/29 2006. And the rest were taken on 1/21 2007.

I couldn't understand why there was a Christmas tree in the first picture at this time of year. The brides hair was totally different.


It would be interesting to see if kinoflo is anyway related to alice photo. BOTH are new members over the weekend. And Alice Photo is by no means a noob to photography if she is really who she says she is.

If that is REALLY Christopher Hartt. Damn, he was having a REALLY bad day.
Wedding Photography by Christopher Hartt / Plano (Dallas) TX Photographer / Gallery Quality Images
Christopher Hartt / harttphoto.com

I realize there is more than one Christopher Hartt, but this weekend I receive an email from "alice Photo" claiming she was a noob photographer. It even linked back to a website here in the forum. She ain't no noob. Exhibits & Events 

And then this shows up......

 

[epp_b]

nobody has noticed that the first picture was taken on 12/29 2006. And the rest were taken on 1/21 2007.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's time for this...

 

[dxqcanada]

I'm assuming your using your pop up camera flash for these?

The Canon EOS-1D Mark II N does not have a built-in flash.

 

[bdavis]

How do we know these were shot with a 1D Mark II? If the person really had that and a speedlight you would think they would know how to use both of them effectively.

To me this looks like a person with an entry level/enthusiast camera shot these and used the pop up flash. They dont look like a professional with a 1D Mark II.

Weddings are a hard thing to learn and you only get 1 chance. Maybe you need to find a friend and be a second shooter so the pressure is off you.

 

[farmerj]

How do we know these were shot with a 1D Mark II?

IF you look at the EXIF info, it says it was shot with a 1D. Looking at the pictures.....

Nothing adds up. The flash, the photos, the photographer, even the WB is cool in #4.

 

[bdavis]

Ahhhn a mystery indeed.

 

[B Kennedy]

^^ exif data says 1d mark 2 n...can't vouch for the pro though

 

[farmerj]

nobody has noticed that the first picture was taken on 12/29 2006. And the rest were taken on 1/21 2007.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's time for this...

No mystery at all.

 

[epp_b]

How do we know these were shot with a 1D Mark II? If the person really had that and a speedlight you would think they would know how to use both of them effectively.

You'd also think that someone with an $8000 camera body would know how to use it as well.

It's entirely possible (and probable) that the EXIF data is fake.

 

[B Kennedy]

How do we know these were shot with a 1D Mark II? If the person really had that and a speedlight you would think they would know how to use both of them effectively.

You'd also think that someone with an $8000 camera body would know how to use it as well.

It's entirely possible (and probable) that the EXIF data is fake.

Very true, and if it were to probably be fake, they are obviously trying to make it seem as if they were some pro with serious equipment, which is all starting to make some sense.

 

[bigtwinky]

Funny how we are still Sherlock Holmesing this one

 

[dxqcanada]

Hey, photo-pros. I've got a problem. The wedding went great, but the clients aren't happy with the pictures, at all. I'm sure you've dealt with that kind of client who just doesn't realize what they're looking at. *I* was told the pictures were awesome.

Facts:

Introduces themselves as a Professional Photographer.

They have encountered a Client that is not happy with the images taken.

Assumes they are dealing with Clients that have no concept of what a good picture it.

They believe the images are good, and that other Professional Photographers will feel the same.

States, others have told them that the photographic images taken are good.

Shows sample pictures to prove to the Forum that they are good.

 

[msf]

Sorry, but these look like some quick, thoughtless snaps that were taken by some guest using a compact camera. There's really nothing to them ... horrible lighting, ugly skin tones, no likable compositions, no feeling. I can understand why they are unhappy and I hope that you are not being paid for these photos.

Direct flash is always the wrong way to use a flash indoors. It makes people look sweaty and gross and it creates nasty, sharp shadows that are basically impossible to get rid of.

Don't be too discouraged. Clearly, you are just beginning. Everyone's first few thousand shots look like crap (mine included).

What would be good to know is: how did it go about that you were the photographer for the wedding? Is it family? A friend? A friend of a friend? Somebody who thought, "ooh, look, there's someone with one of those newfangled big cameras with the big circle thing on the front", and asked you to do it?

Wedding photography is not something you can tread lightly into on the first day you buy an SLR. Heck, I don't think I ever want to do wedding photography.

How would you suggest to improve this? You cant always bounce a flash off of a ceiling, sometimes the ceiling is just to high. How far to the side should the flash be to get away from the direct flash look? With a stroboframe, the flash isnt to far off center, but is it enough? And how do you get away from the harsh shadows that off camera flashes usually produce? When the camera is straight above the camera, the shadow is usually hidden behind the subject, but if its off to the side by a couple feet, then you can normally see a pretty good harsh shadow behind the subject, even if the background is far away. And you cant always get the flash far enough to the side so that the shadow will appear out of frame.

I suppose you can have dedicated flashes set up down the isle and other spots you plan to photograph, but I like the freedom of being able to move around with off camera flashes.

I think the above picturse can be helped alot by adjusting the color balance in photoshop. : ) and some photoshop work.

 

[bigtwinky]

Hey, photo-pros. I've got a problem. The wedding went great, but the clients aren't happy with the pictures, at all. I'm sure you've dealt with that kind of client who just doesn't realize what they're looking at. *I* was told the pictures were awesome.

Facts:

Introduces themselves as a Professional Photographer.

They have encountered a Client that is not happy with the images taken.

Assumes they are dealing with Clients that have no concept of what a good picture it.

They believe the images are good, and that other Professional Photographers will feel the same.

States, others have told them that the photographic images taken are good.

Shows sample pictures to prove to the Forum that they are good.

Not sure you can call all of that FACTs. The only fact in there is that the OP posted the information. Who knows, they could be their own pictures, taken by their brother in law with his Canon SD750, and he is trying to make him look bad / play a prank and totally made up a story and changed the EXIF.

Just because someone say's it doesn't make it a fact.

 

[johnbergsing]

If any of this is real, after the brutal beating he/she just took I doubt the OP will ever return here. Sometimes tact is more important than truth. There were ways to encourage the OP and guide him/her but that's blown now.