Shooting my first wedding - Help

[fiveoboy01]

If he is doing it for free there wont be any kind of contract involved. How would they have any kind of case if they tried to sue him? He doesn't have to shoot their wedding for them if he does not want to. If they are not paying him anything and are unhappy what are they going to sue him for, to get their $0 back?

If I am the bride and I'm pissed because my photographer took ****ty pictures, I am going to sue because my once-in-a-lifetime moment that should have been captured correctly was not because even though my photographer said he could do it, couldn't, and he's going to pay for lying to me. She can sue for all sorts of things, pain and suffering, loss of the photo album that she should have had, etc.... It's pretty simple.

Whether or not there is a contract, and whether or not the photographer is getting paid is irrelevant. If the photographer says they can satisfy the bride's wishes, and doesn't, the photographer could get sued, and could very well lose.

Besides the point, the OP doesn't have the experience here, and doesn't have the equipment. I would never shoot a wedding without at least two bodies(one zoom and one wide angle), and that right there means he shouldn't be doing it. Weddings are nothing to **** around with, if you can't do them properly, don't do them at all.

 

[Darkhunter139]

How could they lose if there is no contract?!?!? He doesn't even have to be there technically. There would be nothing to prove he guaranteed good pictures. That would be like trying to sue some random person and your wedding walking around with a camera practically.

 

[fiveoboy01]

How could they lose if there is no contract?!?!? He doesn't even have to be there technically.

facepalm

 

[Darkhunter139]

If she paid nothing for the service, has no proof he guaranteed anything and tried to sue him there is no way she would win. Its not pain and suffering to lose you're wedding pictures because you were not smart enough to hire a professional photographer.

 

[fiveoboy01]

You're 100% right.

 

[GeneralBenson]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting a wedding on a "crop-body Canon". I know 2 men (actually my father and a friend's father) that have shot 20-30 weddings a piece (my dad's well over 50) on Canon's 40D/50D line. They both have a good selection of glass, but the point of discussion here is that both of those cameras are cropped frame.

I'd definitely agree on as wide a zoom-lens as you can get, especially with a crop body (my father uses a 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron as his base lens with another quick lens and an 18-200 f/3.5 for his zoom), but the full-frame is not a requirement.

I think Derrel's point was that a 50mm on a crop body is a pretty tight lens and wouldn't be the best thing to have as your primary lens. 50/1.4 is a great wedding lens, even on a crop body, but very often you need something much wider.

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

How could they lose if there is no contract?!?!? He doesn't even have to be there technically.

Verbal. If he doesn't show up, they could certainly sue.

Who me? How would it even be a case if someone tried to sue their brother who took pictures at their wedding FOR FREE?

Free doesn't matter. He is entering into a verbal contract to do something. I agree that a contract be made explaining expectations and limitations, and being free from "damages".

If I washed your car for free, and scratched it because I got gravel in the sponge, are you able to sue me, or can you not because it was a "free" carwash?

Regardless of the cost, he is providing a service, and if he fails to deliver...hilarity will ensue!

 

[Olympus E300]

If I am the bride and I'm pissed because my photographer took ****ty pictures, I am going to sue because my once-in-a-lifetime moment that should have been captured correctly was not because even though my photographer said he could do it, couldn't, and he's going to pay for lying to me. She can sue for all sorts of things, pain and suffering, loss of the photo album that she should have had, etc.... It's pretty simple.

Whether or not there is a contract, and whether or not the photographer is getting paid is irrelevant. If the photographer says they can satisfy the bride's wishes, and doesn't, the photographer could get sued, and could very well lose.

Besides the point, the OP doesn't have the experience here, and doesn't have the equipment. I would never shoot a wedding without at least two bodies(one zoom and one wide angle), and that right there means he shouldn't be doing it. Weddings are nothing to **** around with, if you can't do them properly, don't do them at all.

First off...I tend to lean towards Darkhunter's position on this one. I know that I'm a nobody but here's my take on some of your comments...

(1) "...my photographer said he could do it..."
I'm fairly certain that you are putting words into the OP's mouth here. In my mind, its pretty simple really - Don't say that! Simply state that you will do your best and should there be any doubts, hire a professional.

(2) "She can sue for all sorts of things, pain and suffering..."
I'm not sure where the pain and suffering theory comes from. Why? I assume you are implying because she didn't obtain grade A photographs at the end of the day? There will still be a product, however, the quality of that product may not meet the expectations...Nobody was given a personal guarantee of the quality of the final product...Read #1 again.

(3) "...She can sue for all sorts of things, ...loss of the photo album that she should have had..."
You can't sue for the loss of something you never had. Technically, this would fall under the "pain and suffering" tab. Read #2 again.

(4) "...whether or not the photographer is getting paid is irrelevant..."
Incorrect. The following was told to me by a lawyer years ago - In order for a contract to be valid (verbal or written), a monetary sum must flow from one side of the contract to the other. For example : if you ride share with somebody to work and get into an accident - you can't sue your driver unless you have compensated him/her for the service or have agreed to compensate him/her in advance? The total sum of money that exchanges hands is irrelevant. It can be as little as a single dollar.

(5) "...If the photographer says they can satisfy the bride's wishes, and doesn't, the photographer could get sued..."
Again, I believe that you are assuming that the OP is offering some form of guarantee. Personally, I would never make such a statement. In fact, I would highly recommend that the OP states something to the following : "I will do my best". Again, this is the same as the first statement that I commented on. Read #1 again.

Free doesn't matter. He is entering into a verbal contract to do something. I agree that a contract be made explaining expectations and limitations, and being free from "damages".

If I washed your car for free, and scratched it because I got gravel in the sponge, are you able to sue me, or can you not because it was a "free" carwash?

Regardless of the cost, he is providing a service, and if he fails to deliver...hilarity will ensue!

(6) "...If I washed your car for free, and scratched it because I got gravel in the sponge, are you able to sue me, or can you not because it was a "free" carwash?..."
Tricky one...None-the-less, there is physical damage done to personal property. Whether or not you were washing the car or just walking by and bumbed it with a shopping cart, there is valid cause for a lawsuit. The theoretical contract is irrelevant - damage has been done to personal property, hence a lawsuit for "damages".


The law is a funny thing and relies much on langauge and wording. Having said all of this, you yankees sue eachother (civil suits) over the most radiculous stuff. I admit, I know very little when it comes to US law and above is my interpretation of Canadian law. With that said - I don't know where the original poster is from...

These are just my views and oppinions. I'm entitled to them just like everyone else. Perhaps we should simply agree to disagree.

My advice to the OP is simply this : Speak to a lawyer and find out EXACTLY where you stand. Furthermore, the smart money would be on making a contract which completely relinquishes you of ALL and ANY "potential" damages. Oh...And take LOTS of pictures!! You can always exclude pictures from the album - you can't fabricate photos after the fact.

Cheers!
- Dan

 

[fiveoboy01]

There are no rules when it comes to lawsuits.

Even if it didn't go that far, it's family and if the bride gets pissed, it could strain the relationship and maybe the OP doesn't care about that, but I would.

I'd politely decline the "offer" to shoot the wedding for a relative.

 

[iolair]

I may be doing a wedding shoot for a friend next year, so I've been doing plenty of reading on the subject - here are some articles I've found helpful.

How to shoot a wedding - Lesson 1
READ THIS PAGE FIRST!

Wedding Photography Tips (for photographers) --- Information About How To Photograph a Wedding for Beginners

Wedding Photography Survival Tips: The Preparation

50 ‘Must Have’ Wedding Photography Shots

Photographing a Friend's or Relative's Wedding

Wedding Photography – 21 Tips for for Amateur Wedding Photographers

Wedding Photography 101 - Tutorials

Wedding photography 101 :: Photocritic photography blog


The most recurring bits of advice seem to be:

1) Say No.

2) If you say yes, be clear about what they can expect from you as a non wedding-professional.

3) Go in with a list of shots you're aiming to get.

4) Go to the rehearsal, shoot in the venue in advance so you know which settings will work before the day.

5 - and the most repeated piece of advice of all) Have spare of everything. Spare camera body. Spare lenses. Spare batteries. More spare batteries. Spare memory cards. Spare photographer. etc etc.
Consider getting one (or more) of the many books on wedding photography too...

6) Don't let the used memory cards out of your sight until you've backed up.

 

[Olympus E300]

There are no rules when it comes to lawsuits.

Even if it didn't go that far, it's family and if the bride gets pissed, it could strain the relationship and maybe the OP doesn't care about that, but I would.

I'd politely decline the "offer" to shoot the wedding for a relative.

Ummm....I'm not sure I completely agree. The entire basis of a lawsuit hinges on law ("rules"). More specifically, the breaking of a rule or rules. In this case, the breach of a theoretical contract (which I don't believe even exists in this case). Without laws ("rules") there would be no lawsuits. Having said that, the best protection, I would think, would be a contract which protects you regardless of the outcome.

If in doubt, speak with a lawyer! Advice offered in this thread will be nothing more than hearsay or speculation...

 

[Jeffro]

Where have I seen this all before!???? oh yeah in the other 20 threads like this. hehehehe


I like the way I did it. My friend asked me to shoot there wedding 3 months ago and I said no. So he went out and hired some one! Then I was going to the wedding anyway and I said Hey man I think I will bring my camera and goof off a little. Would you mine! He said fine have fun. After the wedding I brought them about 10 really cool shots that they loved and come to find out there "PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER" Sucked and did not do half the stuff they said they would and I turned into a hero for having some great shots. Now we have gone through the other 300 shots I took and they found a few more! So I am happy to be the good guy and I had no responcablity if all my stuff sucked~

I think it was a great learning experience!

After all that I am still scared of Weddings!!! LOL

 

[iolair]

I read one story online where the guy got a call FORTY MINUTES before the wedding saying "Hey, mate, we kind of forgot to hire a photographer - you've got a good camera haven't you?".

 

[Olympus E300]

My story : Even though I was strictly a guest, I arrived at my sister-in-laws wedding with my camera in tow. My photography was very much in its infancy and my equipment was nothing more than a single Olympus E-300 and a 14-45mm lens. No tripod, no extra lenses and no flash. Naturally, being a fairly outgoing fella, I started snapping shots throughout the wedding with the bride & grooms blessing. It didn't take long to realize that the photographer they had hired wasn't going to be able to capture the day as expected. She had a simple point and shoot, pocket camera and by the second hour was alrady sending guests out to buy her more batteries. After realizing this, I ramped up the number of pictures I was talking and my approach. I was not very well prepared for the event physically or mentally. Realizing this, I thought that the only way I might be able to salvage the day was to snap alot of pictures and sort through them in the end. So I took over 900 pictures throughtout the day. I had to do a fair bit of post production on the better ones and spent countless hours fixing this and fixing that. In the end, they got a decent photo album and it cost them nothing.

In this story, the original photography (if you can call her that) was not prepared for the challenge and completely dropped the ball. By being semi-prepared to offer support, I was able to capture the most important moments of the day. It cost the bride and groom nothing, I was free from any responsibiliy and we all still talk to eachother....LoL.

Again...My advice, speak with them and let them know that you may not be prepared for such a shoot, speak with a lawyer just to get some real legal advice and then take TONS of photos!! Surfing around the web and finding interesting wedding pictures and bringing samples of stuff that you like with you for reference is not a bad idea either I don't think. In the heat of the moment, one might get nervous and suffer "photographer's block" and be unable to envision pleasing or different compositions.

Jusy my $0.02.

 

[Nikkor]

Oh man, get ready for reply-overload.

Rule #1 - Bring backup everything
Rule #2- Do WHATEVER the bride tells you to do.

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned (especially a bridezilla)