Is there such a thing as bad wedding photography

[crmcatee]

I'ld say that this comes pretty close..

Some samples

And the video's on this one

Love the video complete with unedited speech when the camera goes for the roof. Complete with spelling mistake right at the end.

[GetCarter]

wow

[jon-]

I'd say that's awful. Really really bad.

The last wedding I went to I took a 400d and a 50mm 1.8, plus a good flash. I gave the camera to a friends 5 year old daughter for her to take some shots and these came out way better than that, even if there was a large amount of photos of ankles and tables

A 5 year old can literally do better.

[Simpo Two]

Why did the couple book him? Presumably they must have been shown something that was worth £1450?

[Pixel-Snapper]

Read about this in the Metro on the train this morning was amazed by the (lacking) quality of the images they had forked out nearly 1500 quid for.

They didnt even get all the money back did they?

Something like £500 in compo...

[Simpo Two]

Bear in mind that we don't know all the details of the case; the judge did.

Ah, this is probably the reason: 'But on the day a different team turned up at her home in Wakefield, West Yorks.'

I think he sent two rank amateurs.

Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 6th October 13:07

[_dobbo_]

Bride in white - check.
Horse and carriage - check.
Bride swearing like a trooper - check.

Lovely. Crap photos would be the least of my worries...

[GetCarter]

Just made the BBC TV news.

[Simpo Two]

I can only assume that the media coverage is a thinly veiled attempt at vengeance by the couple because they didn't get all their money back. Talking of driving horses and carriages through things, who owns the copyright I wonder?



And where's Max Clifford?!

[neilr]

Whilst it would appear in this case that sueing the photographer was entirley justified, the high profile nature of this will doubtless cause problems for wedding photographers everywhere now. I can see photographers being sued even when their work was up to scratch, I don't envy them. Especially those who shoot in a reportage style, as by its very nature shots arent always totally level etc and theres a lot of idiots out there. Hope I'm wrong but I bet the number of brides sueing photographers increases as a result of this.

[jon-]

neilr said:

Whilst it would appear in this case that sueing the photographer was entirley justified, the high profile nature of this will doubtless cause problems for wedding photographers everywhere now. I can see photographers being sued even when their work was up to scratch, I don't envy them. Especially those who shoot in a reportage style, as by its very nature shots arent always totally level etc and theres a lot of idiots out there. Hope I'm wrong but I bet the number of brides sueing photographers increases as a result of this.

From the few wedding tog's I've had experience with, or heard stories about it seems very few have moved with the times. I understand charging insane rates in the days of films where you had to spend serious time in the lightroom but not so much any more.

It's a traditionally very high margin industry that's starting to have the margins eroded by the digital age. Hopefully it will separate the real pro's from the people with cameras who think a grand seems like easy money for a few hours work, like this fool.

I'll certainly be spending a lot of time on selecting the person to shoot my wedding.

[bramley]

jon- said:

I understand charging insane rates in the days of films where you had to spend serious time in the lightroom but not so much any more.

Eh? Do not under estimate the time it takes to process 1000+ wedding pictures!

As for high margin have you any idea of the cost of all the kit, the insurance, the time spent dealing with enquiries, meetings clients, travelling, checking out venues, marketing, admin/accounts, shooting the wedding, processing the pictures, sorting out prints/albums etc?

Implying it's great money for a few hours work on a Saturday is a million miles from the truth!

[jon-]

bramley said:

jon- said:

I understand charging insane rates in the days of films where you had to spend serious time in the lightroom but not so much any more.

Eh? Do not under estimate the time it takes to process 1000+ wedding pictures!

As for high margin have you any idea of the cost of all the kit, the insurance, the time spent dealing with enquiries, meetings clients, travelling, checking out venues, marketing, admin/accounts, shooting the wedding, processing the pictures, sorting out prints/albums etc?

Implying it's great money for a few hours work on a Saturday is a million miles from the truth!

No, you're right, my rant got a little ahead of itself. The GOOD wedding togs. rightly charge £1000+ for their time, it's the not so good ones that annoy me. Some interesting comments on the beeb under the article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8292164.stm

Edited by jon- on Wednesday 7th October 15:31

[neilr]

Don't get me wrong, like you I hope it will seperate the real pros from the glut of chancers who have picked up digital cameras and think "I know, I'll be a wedding photographer, my friends and family all say my pics of the last wedding I went to are professional quality..."

I can however forsee a glut of morons trying to sure competant wedding photographer because they either want money back (because they're cheap) or because they think they know better.

Personally I think decent pros who charge 1.5-2k plus are worth their rate if their work stands up to it. We live in a society that seems more than ever refusing to accept that decent quality costs money, and costs that money for a reason. The digital revolution has been the best thing and the worst thing for photography at the same time.

[Andy M]

These days I see more chaff than wheat when it comes to wedding photography; to the ratio of about 5:1.

Instead of focussing on the rubbish, here's some exceptional stuff I came across last night:









http://www.josevillaphoto.com

[Pixel-Snapper]

Thumb through the endless photographers posting in the wedding section of POTN for examples of high grade work.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.p...

Some of the Togs on there are unreal in my eyes....

[esselte]

bramley said:

[
As for high margin have you any idea of the cost of all the kit, the insurance, the time spent dealing with enquiries, meetings clients, travelling, checking out venues, marketing, admin/accounts, shooting the wedding, processing the pictures, sorting out prints/albums etc?

Implying it's great money for a few hours work on a Saturday is a million miles from the truth!

I know there's a bit of work but a local photographer will already have done jobs at most of the local venues so will know what he's going to do...he'll do the same pictures for different couples over and over again....

[_dobbo_]

Andy M said:

Their heads are cut off. Burn sue him!

[GetCarter]

Re 'few hours on a Saturday"

Someone asked me how long it took to compose a particular piece of music last week.

I told him the truth.

30 years.

Edited by GetCarter on Wednesday 7th October 16:18

[bramley]

esselte said:

bramley said:

[
As for high margin have you any idea of the cost of all the kit, the insurance, the time spent dealing with enquiries, meetings clients, travelling, checking out venues, marketing, admin/accounts, shooting the wedding, processing the pictures, sorting out prints/albums etc?

Implying it's great money for a few hours work on a Saturday is a million miles from the truth!

I know there's a bit of work but a local photographer will already have done jobs at most of the local venues so will know what he's going to do...he'll do the same pictures for different couples over and over again....

True, familiarity with venues does develop which creates a sense of security, and takes some pressure off. I have a few standard poses up my sleeve, but they're a last resort tbh, I prefer to work with the venue/couple/weather on the day and see what happens - but I take your point.