Wedding Photographer Sued

[table1349]

Sounds like this is a tutorial on how not to be a successful wedding photographer.
'Photographer from Hell' Sued After Wedding Photography Catastrophe - UPDATE | Fstoppers
http://jezebel.com/extremely-self-actualized-wedding-photographer-took-15-1770562619
Amateur photographer 'ruined' couple's wedding with awful pictures and selfies

Mod edit:
Statement by the Groom:
Wedding Photographer Sued

 

[Braineack]

and they think they have a case why?

she was paid to perform a service, she showed up and did it.

The couple did not do their due diligence in hiring a decent photographer.

‘If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn’t. He paid for a student.

this x 1,000,000,000

 

[tirediron]

Mehh... weddings are easy. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[tirediron]

and they think they have a case why?

she was paid to perform a service, she showed up and did it.

The couple did not do their due diligence in hiring a decent photographer.

‘If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn’t. He paid for a student.

this x 1,000,000,000

I don't think we can really make that call... I certainly didn't see anything that indicated what she may have shown (if anything as a portfolio), what promises were made, etc. Looking at all of the reports objectively, I would speculate that the clients quite likely didn't do their due dilligence, but it would also appar that the "photographer" grossly over-promised and under-delivered.

 

[limr]

and they think they have a case why?

she was paid to perform a service, she showed up and did it.

The couple did not do their due diligence in hiring a decent photographer.

‘If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn’t. He paid for a student.

this x 1,000,000,000

Except her ad never mentioned that she was a student, but rather an established photographer.

She eventually showed up but did not do her job. She did not fulfill her end of the contract.

And what was the clients' "due diligence" anyway? They found a photographer they could afford and they saw pictures on her website that they liked well enough, so they hired her. They never said that they expected her pictures to look like the ones taken by the higher-cost photographers. They just expected her pictures to not look like crappy cell phone snaps taken by a drunk uncle. And apparently, she promised a lot more than 15 pictures, but only delivered 15.

 

[robbins.photo]

Mehh... weddings are easy. What could possibly go wrong?

Absolutely nothing, as long as you have the right equipment. You know, an entry level aps-c sensor DSLR with a kit lens and no external flash, with a single battery and memory card. Piece of cake.

 

[Braineack]

she actually describes herself as an aspirational photographer on her website and the FB ad the couple found her through.

he website is atrocious and her body of work sucks--they couple got exactly what they paid for.

This is the text in her Jumbotron when you land on her site:

Photography services by a young aspirational photographer in and around Leeds

and

Chloe told us she was professional and was an up-and-coming photographer trying to make a name for herself. We took her at face value and were too trusting.

I bet the contract didnt mention: lightstands, flashes, overexpose, cut-off dress, access to the photobooth, etc etc etc.

 

[Braineack]

You know, an entry level aps-c sensor DSLR with a kit lens and no external flash, with a single battery and memory card. Piece of cake.

to be fair it was a D7000 with what looks like an 18-105mm DX lens

 

[robbins.photo]

Except her ad never mentioned that she was a student, but rather an established photographer.

She eventually showed up but did not do her job. She did not fulfill her end of the contract.

And what was the clients' "due diligence" anyway? They found a photographer they could afford and they saw pictures on her website that they liked well enough, so they hired her. They never said that they expected her pictures to look like the ones taken by the higher-cost photographers. They just expected her pictures to not look like crappy cell phone snaps taken by a drunk uncle. And apparently, she promised a lot more than 15 pictures, but only delivered 15.

Well didn't read through the whole thing, because it's hard to get off on a good rant when you actually know all the facts. I hate that. Plus it gives Vintagesnaps the opportunity to come in later and point out I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, and lets face it, she lives for that. So who am I to deny her that joy? Lol

Ok, so I guess what stands out to me is that the couple apparently had no contact with the photographer between the time they hired her and when she showed up late for the reception. So I'm just thinking, umm.. that didn't set of an alarm bell of any kind?

 

[robbins.photo]

You know, an entry level aps-c sensor DSLR with a kit lens and no external flash, with a single battery and memory card. Piece of cake.

to be fair it was a D7000 with what looks like an 18-105mm DX lens

Ya, but I don't like being fair.. so just play along.. lol.

 

[limr]

"Aspirational" does not mean "Student who doesn't know what she's doing."

The photos on her website weren't great, but they weren't as bad as the ones of the wedding.

And we can make all the assumptions in the world of what "we bet" was agreed upon, but the fact remains that the judge, who was privy to all the actual facts of the case and, of course, the applicable laws, decided that yes, the fauxtographer was liable. Legally. So yeah, they did have a case.

I'm so tired of people saying that it's the clients' fault for not paying more. If we're going to make assumptions, how about perhaps considering that they couldn't afford to pay more? How about they thought she was good enough for the price? That the photos on the website were maybe not the best ones they saw compared to others, but they were still good enough in their untrained eyes to suggest that she would not show up and be a total hack?

 

[astroNikon]

quote of the day from the photographer .
"If he wanted a professional photographer, wanted lighting, this and that, he should have paid for that but he didn't he paid for a student."

nice

 

[astroNikon]

to be fair it was a D7000 with what looks like an 18-105mm DX lens

Ya, but I don't like being fair.. so just play along.. lol.

Not only was it a D7000, but it looks like she was in Manual Exposure Mode too
She her skill of really screwing things up was top notch !!

 

[tirediron]

Okay... having read the articles and looked at her website, I would say that this young lady is the very definition of "fauxtographer". I agree, her body of work is atroctious. I'm sure if she were to post here for C&C she'd leave in tears very quickly. I do think that quality of image-wise the couple got all that they could reasonably expect and that they should have looked at things more closely. Equally however, it seems to me that as the photographer, she was as grossly unprofessional as she could possibly be, and has no business putting her name out there. She clearly has no concept of what is required to do the job, and being sued into bankruptcy would be the kindest thing that anyone could do; either to her or the wedding photography industry!

 

[ronlane]

<---- is hiding from @tirediron before I get sued into bankruptcy.

(Okay actually, I'm just going to go shoot with a smile on my face knowing that I have MORE of a reason to avoid weddings now.)