Fauxtographers go bankrupt
Discussion
IanMorewood said:
£750 for wedding photos though is on the cheap side of things or it certainly was last time I looked.
Really does depend. Our wedding photographer cost something north of £3k, and frankly, he was worth every penny. But then I've seen other wedding photographers who cost £500-700 and their results were, erm, mediocre at best, but generally crap.
One was so bad that the bride asked for my photographs of the day, well, it was my wife who actually held up some of the set photos to rearrange the bride's dress so it looked straight rather than a crumpled mess, another photographer was doing one of these shots where the bride and groom go through a flurry of confetti - I suggested to the photographer that he didn't do the shot with a drain cover in front of the happy couple, and so on.
It does seem to be that you get what you pay for.
GFWilliams said:
'selling his kit to give refunds'
Buy what is a kodak instamatic worth these days?I have done a wedding for some friends who didnt have the money for a pro job . The shots were very well recieved and we worked from 7am to 1130pm switching from the formal posed stuff to action shots as the evening went on. we also set up a laptop with a slideshow and a projector in another area that was being used as a chill out zone for young kids etc while the party was in swing that proved really popular too.
I enjoyed it but it was hard work we shot over 2600 images on the day and thankfully they were pleased with the results .
You've got to wonder how they managed to book the client? Did the client ask to look at their portfolio, or ask them any questions at all?
But what I find most shocking is that the photographers took on a job of recording someones most special day when they clearly had no idea what they were doing. It would serve them right if the client sued them for the cost of repeating the day and the cost of travel/accommodation for all the guests so they could get a decent set of photos as you can be pretty sure they didn't have professional indemnity insurance...
At least stories like this in the press should help to support why quality wedding photography is worth paying for.
But what I find most shocking is that the photographers took on a job of recording someones most special day when they clearly had no idea what they were doing. It would serve them right if the client sued them for the cost of repeating the day and the cost of travel/accommodation for all the guests so they could get a decent set of photos as you can be pretty sure they didn't have professional indemnity insurance...
At least stories like this in the press should help to support why quality wedding photography is worth paying for.
MartinP said:
But what I find most shocking is that the photographers took on a job of recording someones most special day when they clearly had no idea what they were doing. It would serve them right if the client sued them for the cost of repeating the day and the cost of travel/accommodation for all the guests so they could get a decent set of photos as you can be pretty sure they didn't have professional indemnity insurance...
You only have to read the number of threads over on Talkphotography along the lines of "I've just started in photography and have got a Canon 1100d and kit lens and have just booked my first wedding, what settings should I use" to see that it is far from uncommon for people to take on more than they are capable of.I was asked to be second photographer at a friend's wedding a couple of weeks back (My girlfriend was the bridesmaid), they'd got a professional for the service itself and up to a mock cutting of the cake but not for the preparation, or the reception. I made sure my kit was up to the job (two 1 series with off camera flash and fast lenses, proper backup procedure in place, colorchecker passport etc) and spent a while practicing to make sure I was ready for the job as it is very different from my usual sort of photography (I don't think 30 seconds at f11 was going to help!). I ran myself ragged for 15 hours making sure I did the best job I could, then editing them and processing them and shortly the B&G will have an album of our shots as an additional wedding present.
To me it was a big deal and one which demanded a lot of effort but it seems a lot of people don't plan that way, think you can turn up with one low end body incapable of high ISO, a kit lens with a slow maximum aperture and pop-up flash and just busk it. Sadly there are loads of "photographers" offering such a service, I see full coverage offered for £250 and the results speak for themselves, basic errors, terrible composition, shocking quality.
Quite agree Mark.
Before I set up my business I made sure my photography was up to standard and then assisted a couple of the best wedding photographers in the UK for a number of weddings to properly learn the ropes and to convince myself I could deliver the goods under pressure on the day before I even dreamed of taking my own bookings.
Before I set up my business I made sure my photography was up to standard and then assisted a couple of the best wedding photographers in the UK for a number of weddings to properly learn the ropes and to convince myself I could deliver the goods under pressure on the day before I even dreamed of taking my own bookings.
mad4amanda said:
I have done a wedding for some friends who didnt have the money for a pro job . The shots were very well recieved and we worked from 7am to 1130pm switching from the formal posed stuff to action shots as the evening went on. we also set up a laptop with a slideshow and a projector in another area that was being used as a chill out zone for young kids etc while the party was in swing that proved really popular too.
I enjoyed it but it was hard work we shot over 2600 images on the day and thankfully they were pleased with the results .
Now do it for people who aren't friends and make a living out of it I enjoyed it but it was hard work we shot over 2600 images on the day and thankfully they were pleased with the results .
How much did you charge for working for 16.5 hours (or 33 hours as I deduce there were two of you) and processing 2,600 RAW images? How long did it take?
In all of these 'crap photos' cases I find myself asking the same question as MartinP:
MartinP said:
You've got to wonder how they managed to book the client? Did the client ask to look at their portfolio, or ask them any questions at all?
Did the photographers show them somebody else's work and pass it off as their own? Sometimes the photographer can't make it for some reason and sends a mate who can't do it.But let's note that we are judging the entire set from five duds. Five from how many? Clearly these five shouldn't have been included but perhaps the rest weren't so laughably bad as to make a story. Maybe the rest were OK but the couple fancied a go at getting their money back and when this didn't happen they went to the press with the five duds? Dunno. But under the 'Kill the tog' headlines there may be another story with another side that we don't know about. Or maybe the whole set was dreadful and worthless, who knows?
Simpo Two said:
But let's note that we are judging the entire set from five duds. Five from how many? Clearly these five shouldn't have been included but perhaps the rest weren't so laughably bad as to make a story. Maybe the rest were OK but the couple fancied a go at getting their money back and when this didn't happen they went to the press with the five duds? Dunno. But under the 'Kill the tog' headlines there may be another story with another side that we don't know about. Or maybe the whole set was dreadful and worthless, who knows?
You're not suggesting the Daily Outrage has made more of a story than there actually is?Tell me its not true
There are a few more photos on the Telegraph's website:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/h...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/h...
Daily Telegraph said:
Wedding photographer Ian McCloskey said the firm had gone bust and he and fiancee Nikki had been forced to sell their cameras to pay off a string of disgruntled customers. He admitted the pictures of Tom and Anneka's wedding were "pretty awful".
I work with Tom (the groom in the link). He originally asked me to photograph his wedding but I was already booked. He mentioned he'd found another he was happy with and I heard no more about it till he asked my opinion on some problems with the pictures.
Having seen the 'whole set' first hand they are all as terrible as the pictures you see. In some cases even worse. Blurry, out of focus, not using spot metering when needed so subjects in doorways blacked out, strange shots like a bra on the floor in a hall way. Notable mentions go to group shots which never featured the grooms parents at all, despite being supplied with a list, what I imagine was a smear over the lens from a finger as over half of a series of group shot frames were blurry over half the image. There were 3 DVD's of images, not named/numbered in any order, looking like they were taken straight form the camera apart from a couple of absolutely hideous edits with the saturation turned up so far they gave me a headache! They were all blank faced in a plastic sleeve.
I then delved into the exif data and found they were using a Pentax K-x with some huge ranged zoom lens and a Nikon D5000 with kit lens, 10mm fisheye (or possibly sigma 10-20, but all taken at widest setting) and 70-300mm. None of this is obviously professional grade equipment, and for me personally I know it would not give me the low light ability that I need for certain parts of the day, never mind the image quality I think someone paying a professional should have. I saw no evidence of flash used, I presumed because they never owned one, but reading the Telegraph article it mentioned one of the photographers complained they were epileptic.. Dubious with DJ lights still active but who am I to judge. Not one image would I have classed as returnable. Not one.
I decided to find out a little more about the photographers now. Looking at their website (not sure if it's still live) they had some ok portfolio shots. I questioned if these were setup with models or bought from a stock photography site. Digging a little more I found they also ran a blog. Which featured nothing apart from holiday snaps and pictures of toy figures in various poses... Finding the girls twitter account (named after the photography company) she exhibited more than a little of 'the mental'.
I wrote Tom quite a lengthy email with my findings and thoughts on certain problems and concluded they were without doubt the worst wedding photographs I had ever seen. Guest photography with a point and shoot would have been leagues ahead. I'm glad he's pressed ahead with this as they had agreed a full refund with him (even though that can never replace the pictures from their special day) and promptly went bust after giving him only a few hundred.
To those who say he got £750 worth and should have paid more. I think this company misrepresented itself from it's website and promises to the couple. Perhaps this talk of regulation for wedding photographers would not be a bad thing as with the rise and availability of digital equipment makes some people thing they can literally just point and shoot and charge hundreds of pounds for it.
Having seen the 'whole set' first hand they are all as terrible as the pictures you see. In some cases even worse. Blurry, out of focus, not using spot metering when needed so subjects in doorways blacked out, strange shots like a bra on the floor in a hall way. Notable mentions go to group shots which never featured the grooms parents at all, despite being supplied with a list, what I imagine was a smear over the lens from a finger as over half of a series of group shot frames were blurry over half the image. There were 3 DVD's of images, not named/numbered in any order, looking like they were taken straight form the camera apart from a couple of absolutely hideous edits with the saturation turned up so far they gave me a headache! They were all blank faced in a plastic sleeve.
I then delved into the exif data and found they were using a Pentax K-x with some huge ranged zoom lens and a Nikon D5000 with kit lens, 10mm fisheye (or possibly sigma 10-20, but all taken at widest setting) and 70-300mm. None of this is obviously professional grade equipment, and for me personally I know it would not give me the low light ability that I need for certain parts of the day, never mind the image quality I think someone paying a professional should have. I saw no evidence of flash used, I presumed because they never owned one, but reading the Telegraph article it mentioned one of the photographers complained they were epileptic.. Dubious with DJ lights still active but who am I to judge. Not one image would I have classed as returnable. Not one.
I decided to find out a little more about the photographers now. Looking at their website (not sure if it's still live) they had some ok portfolio shots. I questioned if these were setup with models or bought from a stock photography site. Digging a little more I found they also ran a blog. Which featured nothing apart from holiday snaps and pictures of toy figures in various poses... Finding the girls twitter account (named after the photography company) she exhibited more than a little of 'the mental'.
I wrote Tom quite a lengthy email with my findings and thoughts on certain problems and concluded they were without doubt the worst wedding photographs I had ever seen. Guest photography with a point and shoot would have been leagues ahead. I'm glad he's pressed ahead with this as they had agreed a full refund with him (even though that can never replace the pictures from their special day) and promptly went bust after giving him only a few hundred.
To those who say he got £750 worth and should have paid more. I think this company misrepresented itself from it's website and promises to the couple. Perhaps this talk of regulation for wedding photographers would not be a bad thing as with the rise and availability of digital equipment makes some people thing they can literally just point and shoot and charge hundreds of pounds for it.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff