Have you ever been sued?

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Im not arguing for either one, actually. I am just saying that there are far too many people out there that search out the lowest price they can find, then complain because they didnt get a top quality product.

Well, given the hoardes of Facebook fauxtographers out there $1,300 isn't necessarily chump change to charge for a wedding. My photographer was our states Bridal Magazine photographer of the year for 2 out of the last 5 years and charged $1,000 for 3 hours of his time. Sure he had plans that ranged from $1k - $5k, we chose the least expensive since we weren't the ones paying for it (photographers fee was a wedding gift from parents).

If your argument is that this lady sought out a cheap photographer and got what she paid for, I don't think that's a strong case here. I think the client saw work she liked, hired this photographer, and was blindsided by her glaring lack of professionalism and preparedness.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

If the preview photos that the buyer saw were of the same or similar quality to the ones that were delivered by the photographer. Then yes its the buyers responsibility because of all the photographers out there they chose that one based upon that portfolio. The level of quality that they expect to get should be the same level of quality presented in the portfolio.
.

I think you are taking my rhetorical question out of context, given your point is more or less verbatim of what I said:

This has never been about the client expecting too much. It's been about the photographer delivering too little. Where does your expectation originate from? How does a client form expectations? From the images they are shown by the photographer. They expect at least that level of quality. It was never about being shown X images and expecting Y images, where Y > X.

There is little more to it than that, there is no overarching reflationary body for professional photographers to apply to for the title; there is no mentioned group or body or association that the professional in the video claims to be a member of (and thus expected to perform to that bodies set standards).

Still, not an acceptable excuse for being unprepared.

 

[cgipson1]

People get what they pay for. Many people go to the Walmart "Portrait Study", get their FREE 8X10 and 10 wallets for 19.95 and are happy as can be.... Those photogs use Rebels (at best) and have had 1 week of training. Everyone is so hung up on Pro this, Pro that and Pro the other.

The "Wal-mart" type studios are prefabbed.... they are designed by a professional and locked down. The "photographers" that work there can seldom move or change anything.. they are merely pushing the shutter button. And most of those studios DON'T use Rebels.. and they do have decent studio flashes and modifiers. So they do usually turn out decent quality "soul-less, art-less" work en masse... and the prices are so low, because of two things. #1 The studio is a draw to get customers in the door.. who will shop while waiting for the studio, or the pictures.. it isn't really supposed to make a profit. #2.. sheer quantity of customers allows the studios to at least break even.. even make a profit.

So what's your point.. other than PROs are PROs.. and most wannabe's arent?

 

[Christie Photo]

When you're the hired photographer, and you'll be shooting at a dimly lit church that doesn't allow flash, you need...

... a tripod.

 

[cgipson1]

When you're the hired photographer, and you'll be shooting at a dimly lit church that doesn't allow flash, you need...

... a tripod.

That works.. as long as everybody holds really still! Any movement... no good!

If you are only taking pictures of the religious statues and icons.. tripod is great though!

 

[Christie Photo]

Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images?

Ahhh... this is helping me see what's going on... maybe.

Are you taking about technical matters like focus and exposure? I'm trying to imagine the sever limitations of Rebel camera. I'm thinking we're talking about the size and sharpness of the image.

-Pete

 

[cgipson1]

Why would a PRO limit themselves to crap equipment that is going to severely limit what they can do to capture the best images?

Ahhh... this is helping me see what's going on... maybe.

Are you taking about technical matters like focus and exposure? I'm trying to imagine the sever limitations of Rebel camera. I'm thinking we're talking about the size and sharpness of the image.

-Pete

Well.. if you are shooting with ambient light in a dark church.. and your body turns images to fuzz above ISO 1600.... it might be difficult to overcome that without getting a better body (especially if you have F4 max kit lens on that body), yes??

 

[12sndsgood]

We dont know the light in the church. Neither did the judge. We don't know the quality of the pictures versus the quality of what was promised. Neither did the judge. No one here knows how well the rebel could handle in the church. Its not about the equipment. It's about what was promised versus what was delivered.

 

[cgipson1]

It is also about stupidity, and a unprepared amateur.. who was not able to deliver what she promised! Why are you fighting that idea so hard! lol!

 

[KmH]

I wanna hear about more law suits.

Licensing an image for a LOGO.

Photo Attorney

 

[tirediron]

When you're the hired photographer, and you'll be shooting at a dimly lit church that doesn't allow flash, you need...

... a tripod.

If those are allowed.

 

[12sndsgood]

I'm not working right now. Gotta fill my time somehow

 

[Christie Photo]

Well.. if you are shooting with ambient light in a dark church.. and your body turns images to fuzz above ISO 1600.... it might be difficult to overcome that without getting a better body (especially if you have F4 max kit lens on that body), yes??

Maybe I'm too old. The vast majority of my wedding shooting was done on roll film. FFL lenses... no zooms.

Many, if not most, churches are relatively dark, appointed with stained glass windows. I came to expect that.

Whether flash photography was allowed or not, my practice was to never use strobes after the wedding party processed up the isle; nor did I approach the sanctuary. I shot from the back of the church or the loft using the longest lens I had... 180mm/f3.8

I eventually began to carry a roll or two of ISO 400, but typically did these shots on ISO 160, and 80 for the earlier ones. Shooting at 1/4 sec did require some anticipation, waiting for a moment when the action paused. I worked from a tripod and used a cable release with the mirror up.

So I find working with a modern Rebel outfitted with a zoom lens to be adequate... even novel. It allows working at a much quicker shutter... maybe even 1/15 sec.

I would pose a couple of the shots after the ceremony so I could work in closer... unity candle, first kiss, that sort of stuff.

So again, maybe it's my perspective of what I want to shoot at a wedding. The shots done during the actual ceremony are just a small segment of all the work done during the course of the day. The vast majority of the images will not created in the church during the ceremony.

-Pete

 

[Christie Photo]

I wanna hear about more law suits.

Yes! Especially first-hand experiences.

-Pete

 

[HughGuessWho]

I am 100% certain I saw them using a Canon Rebel XTI with a cheap $5.00 Opteka Softbox diffuser that was drooping like a wet rag, last Christmas taking their Santa’s lap pictures. I was embarrassed for them. The point being, they were taking pictures for paying customers with JUNK equipment.

$1000 for 3 hours? Ok. But I have been an assistant for MANY weddings and have NEVER been in and out of a wedding gig in 3 hours. I have spent 3 hours before the wedding even started.

“PROs are PROs.. and most wannabe's arent”… neither all of the “noobs”, “fauxtographers”, “Facebook Pro’s” and all of the other colorful and condescending names that are so popular these days. But that has nothing to do with it, really. Hell, the case in question really isn’t really about photography at all. It’s about Right and Wrong, Moral and Immoral, Good and Evil. The world is full of unscrupulous people whether they are “professional” business people or some hack selling $200 Rolodex’s on the Broadway. We have to be responsible enough to know who we are dealing with.

Bottom line is, I am in no way defending this “photographer”, from what I see she was amateur at best. But, this was this ladies wedding day. The most important day in most women’s lives… a day that cannot repeat. How much effort did she put into selecting her photographer? Before I purchased my first $600 wide angle lens, I read tons of reviews, visited the camera shop numerous times and chatted with several experienced photographers for weeks before I made the purchase. Did this lady even ask for any references from the photographer that was going to archive the most important day of her life? Even if this photographer was an absolute crook, sometimes we have to accept some of the responsibility for allowing ourselves from being crooked.

I’m done. Over n Out