Nervous as heck...

[CMfromIL]

@Kerbouchard,

I think given the circumstances the pictures turned out as well as they could have, better infact that I was expecting based on the info. No one died, you don't have to put these in your portfolio for future client viewings (unless you have a 'what not to do' folder), and in hindsight your favor probably means far more to the bride than it will ever mean to you.

I liked the ring picture the best. Very elegant.

 

[camz]

Believe me, you guys aren't the only ones who wish it would have went different.

When I first agreed to the wedding, I sat down with her, gave her a list of what we need to do, explained what kind of room is ideal for getting ready, explained how I would like time to take formals of her and her bridesmaids before the wedding, explained the time we needed.

We also agreed to meet up at the restaurant to take engagement sort of photos and to scope out the site. She canceled the first meeting, rescheduled. Canceled the second, and then said we would just have to do it on her wedding day. We were supposed to do the formals right after the ceremony. I had everything set up and she then said she wanted to eat dinner first.

As I said earlier in the thread, I asked if we could move tables, the answer was no. I asked if we could go outside, the answer was no. I asked the DJ to move, the answer was no. I repeatedly asked people to pay attention and look at me...we saw how that turned out.

This isn't a cop out. Heck, I agree with the criticisms. I feel the same way. The unusual angles mentioned are a matter of what was behind them. The tight crops are also a result of the surroundings. The flashed look is a result of not wanting to balance flash with ambient. My choices were deliberate, even if it was choosing the lesser of two evils. Doesn't make the critiques any less right, just that I personally think the alternatives would have been worse.

As far as taking control of the situation, I will fully admit that I did not. It wasn't for a lack of trying, though.

I do appreciate all the input, though. Like I said, I'm not happy with the way any of it went.

Tough sistuation Kerb. I guess it would be different if they paid you full price. If they've invested a few thousand towards your services they probably would start to pay attention to your lead.

I don't see it as a cop out, I think every wedding photographers has been in your shoes. I guess the lesson learned here is a matter of service value which they didn't. Cancellations, "No's", etc etc by the bride and other parties. It's weird how that works, the more they pay the more they listen. The less they pay, the less they listen.

When I was at $900-1200 doing like 30-40 weddings a year, man bridezilla galore,drama queens, tardiness, unorganized venues etc etc. All the issues and all the problems. My prices were super cheap for our area. Trust me I know the feeling.

Edit: I want to emphasize that it's not a demographics factor but a value of service(how much they've invested).

Brush it off...lesson learned.

 

[Josh220]

If I may, can I ask that you show us examples of other weddings you have shot that aren't "low budget" and uncooperative? I am curious about the quality of your work in an ideal wedding to see if your assessment has validity?

 

[Derrel]

"Flash dominant"? What??? Of course they're flash dominant...look at that BLACK ceiling, and the TINY LIGHTS...the place was a black hole....there's no ambient light even worth shooting for...solution? Shoot all-flash,. Flash as Main Light. Shoot "flash" "Flash". Full-flash. Slow-synch flash. Rear-curtain synch flash. TTL flash. e-TTL Flash. FLash. Flash. FLASH!

This was a simple wedding in a dark, low-budget location. They got sharp, clear, well-focused pictures. FAR, far better than what friends would have done with camera phones or P&S cameras. They payed $200, which they could barely afford. THey got a hell of a deal. The bride looked pretty. The groom looked good. The girls in the wedding party looked pretty. They will look at the pics a lot in the next few months, and then, less and less and less as the years go by. This wasn't a "rich Daddy and Mommy, Bride's Magazine" wedding on any count--dress, cake, location, planning, logistics, tables ,food/catering, wedding party, friends, family. I think the bride and groom got a good value, some good pics, and a fair and accurate representation of the wedding that THEY ACTUALLY WANTED, and which they actually HELD.

I by the way, gave you an internet high-five above in Bazooka's post...I think a lot of people are confusing this kind of a wedding with the storybook weddings we see on TV.

 

[Robin Usagani]

It is a hard venue, I give you that. The walls are bright colored, the ceiling is black. But I still think there are ways to have shot these much better given the circumstances. Even the getting ready shot is lacking. You need to tell a story. I use this photo as an example. The bounced flash is horrible. I am guessing you used some kind of stoffen or fong dong. You are not really showing the person on the back fixing her hair. It just look like she is smiling and has a weird hairdo. You need to go wide with a better angle. Show what the girl on the back is doing. Not every picture you need to see the bride's face. I am telling you, the stuff you did on this wedding, you do it on your other weddings too. I have said it before that you (or cindy) shoot too many from standing elevation. Be more creative with your angles. You also need to mix your flash better with ambient OR not use it at all in some cases. To me the dress shot is horrible. It would have looked better if you had blown out the window and either not use flash or use flash just a tiny bit.

I thought it is a little ironic you said "What should I do? Just let her get a $200 craigslist photographer who just bought a camera? ". When I see this, I see a $200 CL photographer work, and not someone who has shot 50 weddings. I have seen many weddings where the ceremony took place in someone's living room and the photographer manage to make it look wonderful.

 

[e.rose]

"Flash dominant"? What??? Of course they're flash dominant...look at that BLACK ceiling, and the TINY LIGHTS...the place was a black hole....there's no ambient light even worth shooting for...solution? Shoot all-flash,. Flash as Main Light. Shoot "flash" "Flash". Full-flash. Slow-synch flash. Rear-curtain synch flash. TTL flash. e-TTL Flash. FLash. Flash. FLASH!

This was a simple wedding in a dark, low-budget location. They got sharp, clear, well-focused pictures. FAR, far better than what friends would have done with camera phones or P&S cameras. They payed $200, which they could barely afford. THey got a hell of a deal. The bride looked pretty. The groom looked good. The girls in the wedding party looked pretty. They will look at the pics a lot in the next few months, and then, less and less and less as the years go by. This wasn't a "rich Daddy and Mommy, Bride's Magazine" wedding on any count--dress,cake,location,planning,logistics,tables,food/catering,family. I think the bride and groom got a good value, some good pics, and a fair and accurate representation of the wedding that THEY ACTUALLY WANTED, and which they actually HELD.

I by the way, gave you the internet high-five above...I think a lot of people are con fusing this kind of a wedding with the storybook weddings we see on TV.

Honestly... I agree.

Quite frankly calling it a "ghetto wedding" is bull****.

Not everyone is rich enough to throw a TLC style wedding.

Why everyone thinks that weddings have to be stylized to a tee and totally glamorized is beyond me.

I hate weddings.

They're so materialistic.

People lose sight of the fact that weddings are about two people getting *married*... about a (hopefully) life-long commitment two people are about to make to each other... not about who can outdo the Joneses.

This couple did what they could, on the budget that they could as far as the ceremony and decor was concerned. Would it make wedding of the year? Probably not. But who CARES?

I hate to say it... and as much as *I* valued the photography at my wedding... and while there are many people that *do*... some people just don't *care* what it looks like as long as there is a record of the day.

Clearly they didn't care what was in the background seeing as Kerb tried to offer them options and they didnt' take any of them.

Coming from a C&C standpoint... sure... there's a lot that needs to be fixed, but I really see no point in criticizing that which he couldn't control.

I agree with Derrel here, honestly.

The bride didn't pay him anything (as far as I read), and it was a gift to the bride, so there was no loss on her end. Only gain.

Had she paid $3,000 for his services... yeah, there might be cause for concern... but that wasn't the case.

I'm sure the couple was happy with what they got, considering their alternative option was no photographer at all. So good job doing the best you could have done with the situation.

And those of you calling it a "ghetto wedding"... shame on you for judging those who can't afford to (or just don't see the point in) spending THOUSANDS of dollars on a 4 hour party.

 

[Josh220]

There's a difference between not caring and blatantly ignoring/blowing off your photographer.

Within the definition of ghetto lies, "low-class, cheap, or inferior." It was not meant in an offensive manner, but a statement of fact. Interpret it as you see fit, but the accuracy is more than substantial.

P.S. I have been gone for over a year and your first post directed at me is to say my comment is bullish*t? You got mean!

 

[fsquare]

The same people who complain about not having the money for a "TLC" type of wedding are those same people who spend $7 on a pack of smokes and $20 on a case of beer daily. Some people find value in having a more posh wedding. There is nothing wrong with doing it either way. The reason they paid the OP nothing or $200 is not because they couldn't afford it, it's because they didn't VALUE it. Where there's a will there is a way. I'm not rich but when I look back at my own wedding i'm glad i spent a few more bucks to do it the way I thought right. Call me materialistic all you want I guess but some of us only get that chance once in a lifetime.

 

[e.rose]

You got mean!

I've been.

Defining the definition of "ghetto" as "low-class, cheap, and inferior" isn't any better than just flat out calling it ghetto.

Clearly they're not of the upper class... so I'll give you that.

Clearly they're not of wealth, so they didn't spend much, so their wedding was cheap... I'll give you that too...

However, INFERIOR... compared to what? OTHER peoples' weddings? Why should there be a comparison? This is what they wanted, what they felt was right for them. Why should it be considered inferior to other's weddings? Because they didn't have an ice sculpture? :greenpbl:

Calling other people's weddings things like "tacky", "ghetto", "ugly", etc... has been something that has irritated me since I joined a wedding forum back when I first got engaged.

I've never liked the idea of girls (or guys) sitting around bitching about how appalled they were that so-and-so's linens weren't ironed... or that they didn't have an open bar... or that they did a... what is it called... money dance?

Or that they had their wedding in a fire hall or an Elks Lodge some how made it trashy.

Like I said, the majority of weddings center around materialistic shiz, and I hate that... because, in my humble opinion, that's not at all what it should be about.

I mean if you've got the money to go nuts... but all means go nuts, but not everyone does.

It's just a pet peeve.

I still love you though, don't worry. :hug::

 

[rub]

I dont care if they didnt pay for the services, got married in front of a blue tarp, arent wanting to be blogged about and submitted to magazines. Its not about how much you spend, but about sharing your life with the one you love. Maybe if I had seen some candids of laughter and tears and emotion, it would have changed my view of the images. I guess it just looks like a job with no emotion involved. And maybe there wasnt due to the fact that the clients seemed to not care about the photography at all. I have no issue with the wedding, I just wish there was more FEELING in the images.

Kerb I am sorry they didnt appreciate you or your direction - unfortunately it really shows in the work. And yes, it will be a big lesson learned on booking based on the client/photographer relationship, rather than the bank account or dayplanner.

I do look forward to seeing your next solo wedding though.

 

[Josh220]

An ice sculpture sure would have "class-ied" up their wedding...

 

[e.rose]

There is nothing wrong with doing it either way.

THAT. is exactly my point. :sillysmi:

It's just that people who choose NOT to spend a lot, get crap for it.

That irritates me.

Like I said to Josh, if you have the money, go for it, but there's no reason you should be beat down because you don't.

I didn't have a "TLC" style wedding either.

I chose not to.

I also chose to cut areas of my budget to be able to *afford* our photographer... and like you, I'm glad I did, however, not everyone *does* value that... which I did mention... which was clearly the case with this couple... which I also mentioned... the fact that they just wanted the day *recorded*... which brings me back to the reason I said that Kerb did the best he could with it given the circumstances.

Now we're just going in circles.

::spins around wildly with arms spread wide:: :lmao:

 

[e.rose]

I dont care if they didnt pay for the services, got married in front of a blue tarp, arent wanting to be blogged about and submitted to magazines. Its not about how much you spend, but about sharing your life with the one you love. Maybe if I had seen some candids of laughter and tears and emotion, it would have changed my view of the images. I guess it just looks like a job with no emotion involved. And maybe there wasnt due to the fact that the clients seemed to not care about the photography at all. I have no issue with the wedding, I just wish there was more FEELING in the images.

THAT... I totally agree with.

You're comment wasn't what I was referring to when I was talking about how the wedding looked. But this statement I agree with. That he COULD have done better with... capturing the emotion of the day.

100% agree. :thumbup:

EDIT: Fixed typo. "your comment was" was supposed to say "your comment WASN'T.

 

[e.rose]

An ice sculpture sure would have "class-ied" up their wedding...

 

[Josh220]

It's just that people who choose NOT to spend a lot, get crap for it.

That irritates me.

Like I said to Josh, if you have the money, go for it, but there's no reason you should be beat down because you don't.

I didn't have a "TLC" style wedding either.

I chose not to.

I never meant that there is anything wrong with those who don't value the pictures from their wedding, or just don't want to spend a fortune on that aspect. What I meant, in regards to this wedding specifically, is that just because you don't want to spend a lot doesn't mean you have to blatantly disregard the photographer that you did hire. These people were uncooperative and made it difficult.

That being said, there is a massive market for people re-creating their wedding to get proper pictures... Regrets, anyone?