Fauxtographers go bankrupt

Fauxtographers go bankrupt

Author
Discussion

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Tuesday 24th April 2012
quotequote all
PH has an amazing reach smile

From what Muska says it seems the couple were not wedding photographers at all. It's an excellent demonstration of the special difficulties and demands of wedding photography, and why it needs to be taken seriously. Being able to take a nice photo of your dog, or a child on a swing, does not mean you can tackle weddings.

As there were no examples of wedding photography on their website, I presume they were booked on promises alone. Perhaps that was the gamble that went wrong. ALWAYS ask to see examples of work, preferably whole weddings, and make sure that the person who took them is the one who will be doing your photography.

Sadly I fear this kind of thing will continue and get worse as customers try to drive prices down and down, moving work from people who can do the job to people who can't. In the last week I've had two enquiries from people who 'only wish to pay' £500. Caveat emptor matey.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 24th April 14:15

Jag-D

19,633 posts

218 months

Tuesday 24th April 2012
quotequote all
At the risk of looking like I'm lambasting other photographers, I dare go as far as saying that if they were the results I had from the day, I would have given a full refund and not even mentioned anything else.

I'm not the best wedding photographer by a bloody long way, but I'm certainly a lot better than that and a ste site cheaper

Gad-Westy

14,521 posts

212 months

Tuesday 24th April 2012
quotequote all
Meh, I've framed worse! smile



Wow! A lot to take in.

I'm not so baffled with the photos, though obviously they are truly terrible. I'm more amazed that a) the 'photographer' thought they were up to the job and b) that when they saw the results, they actually thought that they were okay to pass on.

I think if I'd made a balls up on this scale, my embarrassment would prevent me from submitting the images at all. I'd likely to go into hiding!

It does baffle me that people can be so naive and not grasp how tough a job wedding photography is. Of all the various forms of photography, it has to be one of the worst in terms of potential pitfalls, low light, lightning pace, awkward subjects to expose for, crowds to manage, the list goes on. And of course, you only get one shot at getting all of it right. And yet, time after time it would seem, there are people who think that all they need is the camera they bought from Argos and a bit of blind faith and not only that, but they actually charge big sums for it! The example shots here suggest that the person wasn't just a poor wedding photographer but didn't have first clue about photography full stop.





Jag-D

19,633 posts

218 months

Tuesday 24th April 2012
quotequote all
Gad-Westy said:
Meh, I've framed worse! smile



Wow! A lot to take in.

I'm not so baffled with the photos, though obviously they are truly terrible. I'm more amazed that a) the 'photographer' thought they were up to the job and b) that when they saw the results, they actually thought that they were okay to pass on.

I think if I'd made a balls up on this scale, my embarrassment would prevent me from submitting the images at all. I'd likely to go into hiding!

It does baffle me that people can be so naive and not grasp how tough a job wedding photography is. Of all the various forms of photography, it has to be one of the worst in terms of potential pitfalls, low light, lightning pace, awkward subjects to expose for, crowds to manage, the list goes on. And of course, you only get one shot at getting all of it right. And yet, time after time it would seem, there are people who think that all they need is the camera they bought from Argos and a bit of blind faith and not only that, but they actually charge big sums for it! The example shots here suggest that the person wasn't just a poor wedding photographer but didn't have first clue about photography full stop.
yes

Robbie B

7,715 posts

182 months

Tuesday 24th April 2012
quotequote all
I've turned down quite a few weddings now, despite being fairly confident I could do a good job, I'm not 100% certain and wouldn't want to risk not getting enough shots worth using. The fact that someone like the guy who photographed the wedding in question had the stones to accept the job, charge £750 and then do a job worse than a complete amateur using a compact on auto would do baffles and annoys me.

However tragic this is, I can't deny that the shot of the bride and groom either side of those pillars and path tickles me no end. Overlooking the fact they are both poorly lit, the idea of taking a shot of a bride and groom on their most intimate and meaningful day in such a cold and distant way is either a euphemism for how marriage ends up from a bitter and tortured artist, or more accurately, the snap of a clueless tt.

Also - they are selling all their equipment to pay refunds? All their equipment? I can't see evidence of a flash or anything more than an entry level DSLR on AV at too low an ISO.

Criminal.

mad4amanda

2,410 posts

163 months

Tuesday 24th April 2012
quotequote all
Simpo Two said:
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 smile

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?
There is no way I would want to do it for a living, too stressfull and yes we did get some duds but deleted those!
I had had my camera a Nikon D80 for a couple of years and had a sb600 flash and a few lenses and lots of cards I had taken a short course a year before to get to know the camera.
I spent a week of evenings processing and working on the images but i enjoyed that as it was new to me , I didnt do any printing as I didnt think my printer was good enough, but just gave the images to our friends on dvd they have since had them printed off and made an album.
Needless to say I have a lot of respect for pro snappers , my nephew had a brilliant guy at his wedding (Alfie and Trish?) we had some fun and even got some pics of him!

Otispunkmeyer

12,557 posts

154 months

Tuesday 24th April 2012
quotequote all
markmullen said:
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.
Wow,

Just wow at the first bit. I've been doing (decidedly average I must say) photography since 2007 and have worked my way up slowly to a nice little kit. It's no where near flexible enough or high quality enough to cover a wedding (despite the cost!!) and I wouldn't be so sure of my own skills to capture something like that properly either!!

Can't believe people buy a entry level prosumer DLSR then think they can rock up to a wedding and do it right.

rxtx

Original Poster:

6,016 posts

209 months

Tuesday 24th April 2012
quotequote all
Otispunkmeyer said:
Can't believe people buy a entry level prosumer DLSR then think they can rock up to a wedding and do it right.
You may have missed this,

http://youarenotaphotographer.com/

I read about one girl on there once whose USP was, she was so cheap for weddings because she didn't have loads of expensive camera equipment, she used her phone.

Otispunkmeyer

12,557 posts

154 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
[redacted]

K12beano

20,854 posts

274 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
I have nothing but respect for anyone brave enough to get into Wedding Photography.

First time I got married I was lucky, in that although it was only a "bloke at work who did photography in his spare time" I got about a dozen or so prints which would stand the test of time - he knew how to handle a Hassie and had a personality and a wife to handle the art direction.

Second time I had a short list of one, through the obvious advantage that by these days you actually have Internet and can easily see the style. (Happens to be a PHer too!)

I have no idea how you start - seems all very chicken and egg - but personally I've only been around weddings for the candids when there have been professionals who (appear to) know what they are doing. On the surface the Professional doesn't have technical problems, will have plans so that every shot the customer wants is covered and behind the scenes has back up and insurance. Caveat emptor: if people don't want to pay the price then they should shut up about how they took the risk and did it on the cheap when it all goes wrong!

Gad-Westy

14,521 posts

212 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
K12beano said:
I have nothing but respect for anyone brave enough to get into Wedding Photography.

First time I got married I was lucky, in that although it was only a "bloke at work who did photography in his spare time" I got about a dozen or so prints which would stand the test of time - he knew how to handle a Hassie and had a personality and a wife to handle the art direction.

Second time I had a short list of one, through the obvious advantage that by these days you actually have Internet and can easily see the style. (Happens to be a PHer too!)

I have no idea how you start - seems all very chicken and egg - but personally I've only been around weddings for the candids when there have been professionals who (appear to) know what they are doing. On the surface the Professional doesn't have technical problems, will have plans so that every shot the customer wants is covered and behind the scenes has back up and insurance. Caveat emptor: if people don't want to pay the price then they should shut up about how they took the risk and did it on the cheap when it all goes wrong!
Starting must be a little tough, or maybe that should read 'starting the right way must be tough'. I guess some people will shoot a freebie for a mate and get the hang of things and go from there. Some pros will let people follow them or even second shoot unpaid but a lot seem to shy away from this for the obvious reason that they'd effectively be passing their wisdom onto a future competitor. No incentive. So if it were me, I'd probably take a look at one of the many courses that are run with staged weddings. If nothing else, it might put you off for life!

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
This is why I will never, ever, photograph a wedding, despite being asked to by friends.

As said above, I too have nothing but respect for anyone skilled enough and brave enough to shoot weddings.

I would rather cause offence (and have done) by refusing to shoot friends weddings than spend a day running around crapping myself over what I was doing, then handing over photos that I would be convinced weren't good enough.

How these sort of people can claim they are a photographer and charge money for it is absolutely beyond me.

Incredible.

I hope plenty more of them get put out of business for ruining many a 'big day'.


GetCarter

29,358 posts

278 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
I've shot two weddings for friends, but only on the understanding that it would only be 'reportage'... fly on the wall stuff, not formal 'Proper' wedding photos. Both couples still speak to me, so the results couldn't have been 'that' bad!

ETA lots of this sorta stuff:







Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 25th April 10:57

anonymous-user

53 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
GetCarter said:
I've shot two weddings for friends, but only on the understanding that it would only be 'reportage'... fly on the wall stuff, not formal 'Proper' wedding photos. Both couples still speak to me, so the results couldn't have been 'that' bad!
That's definitely the right way to approach it if asked.

I got asked to "do the wedding photos as our main photographer because we can't afford £1500 for a pro and I'm sure you will be just as good".

I told them in no uncertain terms that I wouldn't be as good!

K12beano

20,854 posts

274 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
NinjaPower said:
I got asked to "do the wedding photos as our main photographer because we can't afford £1500 for a pro and I'm sure you will be just as good".

I told them in no uncertain terms that I wouldn't be as good!
....and offered to do it for "only £1500, but you don't have to add VAT".... while checking out insurance costs et cetera.... I trust!!!!

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Wednesday 25th April 2012
quotequote all
I think you'd be fine Steve, all you need to do is add the formal stuff (which I think is easier anyway). There's usually plenty of time to get it right - I take several of each group for example, not just to bracket exposure but to increases the chances of everybody looking presentable)

The shot/s I find the most demanding are the walking down/up the aisle - usually poor lighting, rapidly changing range for flash and focus, no chance to do it twice. I adjust EV on the fly for this and RAW does the rest.

Technically the worst problem I've had was a faulty flash lead, which towards the end of one wedding was failing to trigger the flash - but it was the evening by then so I was able to mount the flash directly. It was the one piece of kit I hadn't got a spare of - but bought a new SC-29 the next day.

carphotographer

500 posts

194 months

Monday 14th May 2012
quotequote all
..... Only just picked up this thread.

The pictures are shockingly bad and I feel sorry for the couple who paid a pro to shoot their wedding but a couple of things which I might have missed in the thread.
Didn't the couple meet the photographer before handing over the money ? I always suggest to clients they should meet me before committing. It gives me the opportunity to show them my work, talk about my experience, find out what they really want from their photographer. How did the photographer get images to put on his website if his work is so bad.

Jon


honest_delboy

1,498 posts

199 months

Friday 18th May 2012
quotequote all
Oh dear, my wedding photos (mexico $1200) have come back and i'm not impressed, they are nowhere near as bad as these but still overexposed, some out of focus, odd colour saturation/hue making me look jaundiced. I have the original DVD so play with so at least i can grab some untouched ones and tweak them a little.

I had a suspicion the photos all these companies in mexico are from stock sites as their facebook profile had some dodgy pics on. Ho hum, never mind, bit expensive to fly everyone out there again to reshoot.

Simpo Two

85,148 posts

264 months

Friday 18th May 2012
quotequote all
honest_delboy said:
Oh dear, my wedding photos (mexico $1200) have come back and i'm not impressed, they are nowhere near as bad as these but still overexposed, some out of focus, odd colour saturation/hue making me look jaundiced. I have the original DVD so play with so at least i can grab some untouched ones and tweak them a little.
If you have the RAWs then you can certainly sort out the white balance/colours and perhaps recover the exposures too - but out of focus will always be so (unless it's a tiny amount in which case you can help it in PS).

Sorting out colour and exposure in JPG could be tricky if not impossible.