my first wedding: horror story

[Threesia]

I read this entire thread and was hoping to see the pictures. Then I noticed that the last time the OP posted in this thread was October 2008. Looks like it's gonna be a very long wait.

 

[Sachphotography]

The thing to remember is that people get what they pay for. If they want a $300 guy who has never done a wedding then that is what they are going to get..... agree though. It is irresponsible.............

Some people need to realise that photographs simply are not that important to everyone. And even if they are they may not be that bothered about the quality.

I've been to more than one wedding where the only photographs that were taken were snaps (not by me) and the B&G were not in the slightest concerned. So long as they got a few 6x4's they were happy.

It may seem like sacrilege to people here but that's what they wanted.

Eh... Tis true...Tis true.... I saw a wedding once were they B&G passed out a ton of disposable cameras and that is how they wanted the wedding shot. HEHE Who says you need expensive fancy camera gear!!! I shot my first wedding with a $3 disposable camera!! LOL

 

[Clawed]

All this jazz about deserving a pro photographer for their wedding is bunk. If the couple decided to save money, and trust their friends (whose work I presume they saw beforehand) then they get what they deserve, good or bad. They DECIDED to hire their friends. THEY made the decision, as responsible adults.

I shot two weddings for my friends, both with excellent results. (not mediocre) I'm not a pro, and my back-up camera was a point & shoot in both cases. In both cases, I told them I would do my best, and having seen my work, that was good enough for them. They saved hundreds or thousands of dollars. I shot their weddings as a wedding gift. It was a win-win situation.

That is a bummer that the memory card was lost or stolen.

I agree that putting your gear someplace inaccessible to the general public is the preferred route. Having a locking case, someone could just walk off with it. But of course you know this now.

In my opinion, memory card are so small, yet so important, that they should be kept on one's person.

Well, I hope everything came out all right for you.

It is no wonder there are no pix posted. Jerry would probably rip into them and call them all mediocre in his condescending manner.

Do not think I could have possibly said it better myself, I agree with everything you said here. That saves me from having to type more that what I am right now :thumbup:

 

[kundalini]

There are too many words to read the entire thread, so I'll tell my little story.

First wedding I hired a pro to shoot the day. Best I can remember, there were some good shots. I don't have a single image of that day.

Second wedding, got married at the magistrats court and bought a slew of disposables for the guest at the reception of the pub I managed and have loads of fond memories.... and photos. Nothing pro at all, but it was a helluva day.



hehehe, just read Sach's reply.

 

[JerryPH]

Well.. they say 3rd time's the charm... lol !!

Again, apples and oranges. If the B&G could not care less about the shots, then why even have a photographer there in the first place... but if they are asking someone INEPT at photography much less wedding photography, to do it, becuase they don't have the money, but "if they did" would hire Jesh De Rox and pay double his fee... THESE are the people I am targeting. Matter of fact, 99% of the time the B&G that want a photographer would LOVE to have a good one, and get someone else becuase they THINK he is good, and ego being what it is, the person doing it, does it... regardless of if he is bad... or terrible... lol. All this just to save money becuase they think all cameras and photographers are equal... thats not the case, and these are the people that suffer the most.

I've seen the tears, heard the sobbing... it wasn't pretty. Maybe because of these things, I feel so strongly about " do it once, do it right, or don't bother doing it!".

 

[Moglex]

Well.. they say 3rd time's the charm... lol !!

Again, apples and oranges. If the B&G could not care less about the shots, then why even have a photographer there in the first place... but if they are asking someone INEPT at photography much less wedding photography, to do it, becuase they don't have the money, but "if they did" would hire Jesh De Rox and pay double his fee... THESE are the people I am targeting. Matter of fact, 99% of the time the B&G that want a photographer would LOVE to have a good one, and get someone else becuase they THINK he is good, and ego being what it is, the person doing it, does it... regardless of if he is bad... or terrible... lol. All this just to save money becuase they think all cameras and photographers are equal... thats not the case, and these are the people that suffer the most.

I've seen the tears, heard the sobbing... it wasn't pretty. Maybe because of these things, I feel so strongly about " do it once, do it right, or don't bother doing it!".

You still don't seem to be able to get your head around the idea that some people just don't care about the quality. The sort of people who are happy with a few 6x4's stuck in a cheap album.

Yes, they would like some pictures but the don't really care whether they were taken by Lord Lichfield or AuntyAda on her box brownie.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I guess it is a matter of perspective too.

Assuming Jerry is a pro wedding photographer, we have to remember that he mostly only sees the people who ARE serious about their wedding photography, and who CAN afford to hire a pro.

Those of us who have shot friends' weddings have maybe seen both sides.

My own wedding was a civil ceremony. The boneheads wouldn't let my camera up in time for the vows, but my mother in law had smuggled in her CDR Mavica and took a few shots. Technically, they are not the greatest, but their main function is to bring that moment back to our minds.

After all that, the thing my wife regrets is not having a "proper church wedding," not the lack of top quality pictures. We were broke at the time, and a church wedding was not in the cards, nor was a proper photographer.

It takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

 

[kundalini]

Well.. they say 3rd time's the charm... lol !!

Unlikely, but by happenstance it occurs, I'll give you a shout.

 

[JerryPH]

Well.. they say 3rd time's the charm... lol !!

If the B&G could not care less about the shots, then why even have a photographer there in the first place...

You still don't seem to be able to get your head around the idea that some people just don't care about the quality. The sort of people who are happy with a few 6x4's stuck in a cheap album.

Yes, they would like some pictures but the don't really care whether they were taken by Lord Lichfield or AuntyAda on her box brownie.

You do not seem to grasp that they tell a family member that they may not care, but in their heart of hearts, they are truly sorry they asked and would give almost anything to have had the foresight to get someone else... once cousin Jimmy and his dSLR gives them 700 blurred unrecognizable shots. Think that would not happen? Re-read this thread... it just did.

If they *really* did not care, they would not do it in the first place.

 

[Moglex]

You do not seem to grasp that they tell a family member that they may not care, but in their heart of hearts, they are truly sorry they asked and would give almost anything to have had the foresight to get someone else... once cousin Jimmy and his dSLR gives them 700 blurred unrecognizable shots. Think that would not happen? Re-read this thread... it just did.

If they *really* did not care, they would not do it in the first place.

Ahh, right.

So this is a case where anyone who says something that disagrees with your view simply does not know what they actually think. But you do.

Just to let you know, you really believe Sony make the finest cameras and lenses. The fact that you might believe you think that Canon or Nikon do is just an illusion. In your heart of hearts you desperately wish you were shooting on a Sony P&S. :lmao:

 

[Clawed]

Well.. they say 3rd time's the charm... lol !!

If the B&G could not care less about the shots, then why even have a photographer there in the first place...

You still don't seem to be able to get your head around the idea that some people just don't care about the quality. The sort of people who are happy with a few 6x4's stuck in a cheap album.

Yes, they would like some pictures but the don't really care whether they were taken by Lord Lichfield or AuntyAda on her box brownie.

You do not seem to grasp that they tell a family member that they may not care, but in their heart of hearts, they are truly sorry they asked and would give almost anything to have had the foresight to get someone else... once cousin Jimmy and his dSLR gives them 700 blurred unrecognizable shots. Think that would not happen? Re-read this thread... it just did.

If they *really* did not care, they would not do it in the first place.

Well, if the B&G are not honest with themselves, that is their problem. Might sound harsh, but if they 'in their heart of hearts' want mind-blowing wedding photos, they should take a bit more time making a careful selection. It's one thing if a photographer misrepresents themselves. It's quite another when they choose a photog just to save a few bucks or give a friend a chance.

Also, I know you have said that you have seen the tears and heard the sobbing. Was this a wedding you shot, or did you happen to be there when the bride was presented the photos? What was not delivered that should have been?

 

[Andrew Boyd]

So you've learned a big, big lesson: don't take on another one of these until you're better equipped and a LOT more experienced. Photography can have a lot of the "hard knocks" school in it.
Andrew Boyd
TheDiscerningPhotographer.com

 

[JerryPH]

Well, if the B&G are not honest with themselves, that is their problem.

No quite. If the photographer is honest about his or her skills, he will refuse and possibly help find someone who is.

Also, I know you have said that you have seen the tears and heard the sobbing. Was this a wedding you shot, or did you happen to be there when the bride was presented the photos? What was not delivered that should have been?

LOL... I have brains enough and a small enough ego to know when I could and could not shoot a wedding... it was not me, but I have seen my cousin, best friend's wife and my own first wedding... freaking disasters all thanks to the blatant incompetence of the photographers. To see that person sobbing and wracked ... indescribable.

Now, according to my mentor, I am ready to be a full 2nd shooter, since he has been looking at all my work, selling it and now offered me the position (I accepted, conditionally, based on a coming conversation).

Personally, I feel a few more weddings practicing is what I will do, but it is nice to have someone tell you "Time to move up, you're ready to do it now!"

Edit:
I'm in a private wedding photography forum, and closely reading the horror story of a really good pro who did EVERYTHING to please the Ms. BrideZilla... it is still going to go to court, and OMG, the world of pain that this guy is going through... I think that in the future, I'll be adding one more recommendation to the "must have" list... you must be a member of PPA. Because he is, they are providing him with a lawyer and everything... and all he pays is $200. The lawyers are specialists in this field and hopefully they totally railroad the situation and set things good.

 

[UUilliam]

Sounds harsh jerry, keep us updated!!

In relation to this thread.

I personally would rather my wedding photos being ruined for free other than paying £800 for a pro photographer and them be ruined...
My aunts, brother in law got married recently and the photographer was this guy, Melrose Photography, the photo's are rubbish, over exposed, no composition and seem random...

here's their gallery, Wedding of Ross & Mandy
I argued with my aunt that maybe he just threw up every image he shot onto the site so people can decide to buy them or not.. but out of all the images there is possibly 10 - 20 decent ones... thats bad for a guy with "14 years experience"

 

[K_Pugh]

^ Yeah for his years experience it does look like he's still got a lot to learn. Looks to me he's not in full control of his flash, overpowering a lot of the time. Faces look pale to the extent they're actually white in some photos. Some of the post processing effects are overused and look a little dated. As you say though there are a good few images which are good in there, so not a complete disaster.

Going by his website it looks as if he's not too clued up on computers and design so I reckon he's still learning a lot about post processing digital files.

No idea who he is but I recognised the name somehow.. sure enough he's in glasgow, not far away, probably seen him searching Google or something.