This is why you don't hire an amateur for your wedding

[D-B-J]

Sorry to hear..

Regards,
Jake

 

[Gaerek]

Forgive me if this isn't in the right forum...

I'm not complaining as much as trying to warn people of what can happen.

I got married in 2009 and to make a long story short ended up hiring a weekend warrior photog. (I only saved about $300 over a pro who was in business 30+ years.) I hired him because he worked with my father. He claimed to be a professional and the prints he showed me looked good. He does not have a website or any online portfolio. The proofs of my wedding were in a "proof portfolio" so they were small and looked good. I only had three different prints made up and they all looked professional. When I met with him and signed the contract I told him I wanted a dvd of the photos (for a price that was agreed upon.) After the wedding he was reluctant to sell me the dvd. Well, I finally got it yesterday and know why. According to the exif data he shot with a prosumer grade point-and-shoot camera, a canon S5 IS. He gave me a speech that they are the jpeg files and not raw files because no photog would sell the raw files blah blah blah. I agree with that anyhow.. Well the canon S5 isn't even capable of shooting in raw.. 90% of the pictures have pretty bad lighting / shadows / subjects aren't in focus / etc.

So moral of the story is to find a reputable photographer and don't go off what they tell you or show you. Ask them about their equipment. Ask around and talk to their other clients.

I guess I'm confused about what the problem is. Your biggest complaint is that the photographer didn't use a "professional" camera. I mean, you said that 90% of the shots weren't good, but the shots that were good, were you happy with them? I'm no professional, but I'd say that less than 10% of the shots I take, I'm happy with. I only show the photos I'm happy with (in most cases).

We had a photo album done by our photographer. She took around 700 shots. There's only about 40 shots in the album. I couldn't care less how the other 94.3% of the photographs turned out, as long as the ones in the album, and the ones that I wanted turned out well, and they did.

Would I be weary of someone using a P&S camera at a wedding. Yeah, a bit. But then again, this was your wedding. It seems like hiring this person was an afterthought almost. You did very little actual research besides seeing a few shots they have done (out of potentially 10's of thousands or more). In a lot of cases, I would place blame on the photographer, if important shots didn't turn out, or whatever. But this is a case of choosing a photographer without much thought, and hoping for the best. I'm sorry if I can't be more sympathetic.

And as Bitter said, if 10% turned out, it show you don't need thousands of dollars of kit to shoot a wedding.

 

[mrpink]

I'm not that unhappy with the photos because the select few I wanted turned out good and my album looks decent.

Well, the guy with the point and shoot did a decent job then. We can turn this around to say you don't need high end gear to get decent wedding photos. :mrgreen:

Ask any bride if she would be OK with her wedding photos turning out "decent". I am sure you will get your answer and then some.

Hire a pro. With pro gear.







p!nK

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I'm not that unhappy with the photos because the select few I wanted turned out good and my album looks decent.

Well, the guy with the point and shoot did a decent job then. We can turn this around to say you don't need high end gear to get decent wedding photos. :mrgreen:

Ask any bride if she would be OK with her wedding photos turning out "decent". I am sure you will get your answer and then some.

Hire a pro. With pro gear.







p!nK

ANY bride?
Even the ones that "hire" from craiglist, and this forum (how many examples could we point to :lmao?
In the case given by the OP, they went with the guy(?) charging $300 less. Discount price, decent photos. Win/Win.
Another variable not given is exactly how much they paid. $3000? $750? ?????

 

[rateeg]

can you show us the samples of the photos?

 

[MCPorche]

Some of the best photos that you can get at a wedding is by the folks attending the wedding. Get some nice little disposable pictures - and usually those are the better ones, because there is not a "pose" behind a lot of the photos and people doing what they naturally do.

Funny you should say that...I was just about to post something similar.

When I got married, a friend of my wife was a wedding photographer, and he did our wedding. He did a very good job, and we were happy with the results.

But, the wedding picture I have on my desk at work, and the biggest print we have at our house was one that a friend of mine took with his p/s camera. I took it to WalMart to get a print made of it, and they were reluctant to print it, since I didn't have a signed release from the photographer. It took several phone calls, and a few visits with them to my friend's website to show that it wasn't a professional photo, and that it was ok for me to get a print made of it.

 

[Croissant Seven]

I took it to WalMart to get a print made of it, and they were reluctant to print it, since I didn't have a signed release from the photographer. It took several phone calls, and a few visits with them to my friend's website to show that it wasn't a professional photo, and that it was ok for me to get a print made of it.

One of my proudest moments as a photographer was when I took a portrait that I shot of my friend's daughter into a Wolf Camera to get it printed, and the dude asked me if I was authorized to make prints of the image.

 

[JClishe]

Some of the best photos that you can get at a wedding is by the folks attending the wedding. Get some nice little disposable pictures - and usually those are the better ones, because there is not a "pose" behind a lot of the photos and people doing what they naturally do.

I was at a wedding where every table at the reception hall had a disposable P&S on it, and there was a collection box for the cameras once all the exposures had been taken. I thought it was a great idea.

 

[RockstarPhotography]

I would like to see what the pictures look like too

 

[mrpink]

Well, the guy with the point and shoot did a decent job then. We can turn this around to say you don't need high end gear to get decent wedding photos. :mrgreen:

Ask any bride if she would be OK with her wedding photos turning out "decent". I am sure you will get your answer and then some.

Hire a pro. With pro gear.







p!nK

ANY bride?
Even the ones that "hire" from craiglist, and this forum (how many examples could we point to :lmao?
In the case given by the OP, they went with the guy(?) charging $300 less. Discount price, decent photos. Win/Win.
Another variable not given is exactly how much they paid. $3000? $750? ?????

Yes Bitter. ANY BRIDE. Even the ones that hand their second cousin a disposable to shoot the BIG DAY expect beautiful photos to spring out the the instant printer at the local Wal-Mart.

Discount price, decent photos. Win/Loss. Does the tone of the OP sound happy? No, he is married to an unhappy woman, therefore, he cannot be happy- Marriage law #1.





p!nK

 

[burgo]

Also, did you NOT notice this guy shooting with a point and shoot camera at your wedding?

the first question that entered my mind when reading this. Buyer beware.

 

[mrpink]

Also, did you NOT notice this guy shooting with a point and shoot camera at your wedding?

the first question that entered my mind when reading this. Buyer beware.

What is he supposed to do when the photographer shows up on the day of his wedding with a point and shoot? Fire him and get another one? Reschedule his wedding?





p!nK

 

[e.rose]

Ask any bride if she would be OK with her wedding photos turning out "decent". I am sure you will get your answer and then some.

Hire a pro. With pro gear.







p!nK

ANY bride?
Even the ones that "hire" from craiglist, and this forum (how many examples could we point to :lmao?
In the case given by the OP, they went with the guy(?) charging $300 less. Discount price, decent photos. Win/Win.
Another variable not given is exactly how much they paid. $3000? $750? ?????

Yes Bitter. ANY BRIDE.

No, I'm afraid your mistaken.

Not ANY bride.

The OP... sure.. *he* wasn't happy. But not EVERY bride is looking for vogue quality photos of their wedding.

Some brides get married on a super small budget and just want a record of their day.

I used to be a part of a wedding forum and *as soon* as the girls got their pictures back they would post them with a thread title something to the affect of "GOT OUR PRO PICTURES BACK!!! SO EXCITED!!!"

A good 60% of those "pro" pictures looked like they were taken by someone who maybe had *some* technical skills, but have probably never shot a wedding before. 30% of them looked like they were taken by a point and shoot or a DSLR on auto with a pop up flash.

"Pro" pictures.

But those girls were *thrilled* with their pictures... because not *EVERY* bride cares how their photos turn out.

I happened to be surfing craigslist the other day and I found an ad for a photographer in the area that had me curious for one reason or another. When I clicked her website I saw that one of the wedding albums was of a friend's wedding I was just at, so curious as to how their pictures came out (because I hadn't seen them yet), I went browsing.

ALL of the shots CLEARLY displayed a lack of flash knowledge as well as looked like she had shot them all at ISO230,234,852,305.

Horizons were crooked... there was severe under exposure... where there wasn't severe underexposure, there were severely blown out areas... the PP was horrifying...

NOTHING about that shoot was good.

I felt REALLY bad for my friend, so I went stalking my friend's Facebook page to search out any horrified complaints about her wedding pictures, only to find out she was happy with them.

She was a bride on a budget who planned her wedding in literally a month and a half. They had a beautiful, but simple wedding, and hired a photographer shooting with a Canon XSi (I snuck a look at the body as I walked by her on my way out ) and a HORRIBLE eye for photography... but she was happy, because all she wanted was a record of the day.

Then it occurred to me that this photographer's work was consistent across the board (looking at the other galleries), and while *I* would have been DEVASTATED by those photos, there's no way my friend couldn't have known what she was getting prior to hiring her because her gallery clearly displays her (lack of) skill.

So I'm jumping on the boat of people that say, while the OP was clearly upset by what happened, not *every* bride cares about the pictures as long as they're clear enough to tell what's going on, so you can't make that generalization.

Blasphemous, I know ... but it's true.

 

[mrpink]

ANY bride?
Even the ones that "hire" from craiglist, and this forum (how many examples could we point to :lmao?
In the case given by the OP, they went with the guy(?) charging $300 less. Discount price, decent photos. Win/Win.
Another variable not given is exactly how much they paid. $3000? $750? ?????

Yes Bitter. ANY BRIDE.

No, I'm afraid your mistaken.

Not ANY bride.

The OP... sure.. *he* wasn't happy. But not EVERY bride is looking for vogue quality photos of their wedding.

Some brides get married on a super small budget and just want a record of their day.

I used to be a part of a wedding forum and *as soon* as the girls got their pictures back they would post them with a thread title something to the affect of "GOT OUR PRO PICTURES BACK!!! SO EXCITED!!!"

A good 60% of those "pro" pictures looked like they were taken by someone who maybe had *some* technical skills, but have probably never shot a wedding before. 30% of them looked like they were taken by a point and shoot or a DSLR on auto with a pop up flash.

"Pro" pictures.

But those girls were *thrilled* with their pictures... because not *EVERY* bride cares how their photos turn out.

I happened to be surfing craigslist the other day and I found an ad for a photographer in the area that had me curious for one reason or another. When I clicked her website I saw that one of the wedding albums was of a friend's wedding I was just at, so curious as to how their pictures came out (because I hadn't seen them yet), I went browsing.

ALL of the shots CLEARLY displayed a lack of flash knowledge as well as looked like she had shot them all at ISO230,234,852,305.

Horizons were crooked... there was severe under exposure... where there wasn't severe underexposure, there were severely blown out areas... the PP was horrifying...

NOTHING about that shoot was good.

I felt REALLY bad for my friend, so I went stalking my friend's Facebook page to search out any horrified complaints about her wedding pictures, only to find out she was happy with them.

She was a bride on a budget who planned her wedding in literally a month and a half. They had a beautiful, but simple wedding, and hired a photographer shooting with a Canon XSi (I snuck a look at the body as I walked by her on my way out ) and a HORRIBLE eye for photography... but she was happy, because all she wanted was a record of the day.

Then it occurred to me that this photographer's work was consistent across the board (looking at the other galleries), and while *I* would have been DEVASTATED by those photos, there's no way my friend couldn't have known what she was getting prior to hiring her because her gallery clearly displays her (lack of) skill.

So I'm jumping on the boat of people that say, while the OP was clearly upset by what happened, not *every* bride cares about the pictures as long as they're clear enough to tell what's going on, so you can't make that generalization.

Blasphemous, I know ... but it's true.

ugh, I stopped reading after the second "paragraph". Can't we get this forum fixed?








p!nK

 

[burgo]

Also, did you NOT notice this guy shooting with a point and shoot camera at your wedding?

the first question that entered my mind when reading this. Buyer beware.

What is he supposed to do when the photographer shows up on the day of his wedding with a point and shoot? Fire him and get another one? Reschedule his wedding?





p!nK

The OP stated he didn't know it was a P&S camera until he seen the metadata of the images on the DVD. So it is a valid question.

As for what he "should" have done if he had of recognised he was using inferior equipment is a completely different thing which I never made any comment on in my post. It amazes me on this forum how people try to interpret a post instead of taking it for it's literal meaning. too many trollers on this forum