Couple's big day is ‘ruined’ by an amateur photographer

To be fair the woods idea was a good one, but she hadn't spoken with the clients to work out the groom couldn't walk down to the woods, but could dance ok? Most images shown (probably the worse) need lighting
 
She didn't ruin the day
But it sounds better than "my wedding pictures are crap ya' honour"
(How much compensation can I get?)
Especially if you can manage a single tear :D
 
Seems like people are happy to spend more on wedding cake than photographers.

Or to spend ridiculous sums of money on a wedding in general.
It's all about the wedding these days rather than the marriage; which is daft when a very large number of them will end in divorce in rather short order.
 
Last edited:
Obviously thought Nikon's superior quality would make up for her incompetence:p

Or a highly talented photographer, let down by tat.

Double :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
I was once asked how much I would charge to do someone's wedding, just said £10,000, because I knew they wouldn't pay.
Reply was they had someone else quoting £500 and thought I would do it for less :banghead:
I'm not a wedding photographer, I'm not even a people photographer !!!
In the end they found someone to do it for £200, never saw the pictures, not interested
Oh and what would I have said if they agreed to £10,000, well I'm sure someone on here would have done it for me (y)
 
Or to spend ridiculous sums of money on a wedding in general.
It's all about the wedding these days rather than the marriage; which is daft when a very large number if them will end in divorce in rather short order.


I wish I could remember (many things but in particular [at the moment!]) where I saw an article about the inverse proportionality of wedding cost to marriage duration.
 
Maybe she was there for the full hour and £125 was just for the 15 minute ceremony.
 
I wish I could remember (many things but in particular [at the moment!]) where I saw an article about the inverse proportionality of wedding cost to marriage duration.

Yes, I've seen that somewhere.

My memory's as good as yours.
 
I really do have a hole in my head - what's your excuse?! :p
 
Or to spend ridiculous sums of money on a wedding in general.
It's all about the wedding these days rather than the marriage; which is daft when a very large number if them will end in divorce in rather short order.
Very daft also when you consider house prices blowing all that money that could be a deposit on a house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
I wish I could remember (many things but in particular [at the moment!]) where I saw an article about the inverse proportionality of wedding cost to marriage duration.
Yeah I saw that too
 
My head is so full of trivial nonsense, every time I learn something new something has to drop out to make room.

:)

Comes in handy for pub quizzes though. :)
 
I had a look at the photographer's web page, some interesting shots in her gallery to say the least.
Between mainly wedding shots there's a bit of glamour modelling thrown in!
It has to be said, it's generally decent photography, she may just have had an off day!
 
I used to win a lot of pub quizzes, until they became googling exercises. I didn't see the point of that.

There's a pub in these parts that makes folks surrender their phone if they enter the quiz. :LOL:
 
I know a couple who paid £400 for a student photographer to shoot their wedding. They weren't too happy with the shots but the quality was still miles better than this one. :eek:
 
It's all about the wedding these days rather than the marriage; which is daft when a very large number if them will end in divorce in rather short order.
Not for every couple! :D
 
unfortunately a lot of people seem to be swayed on price not quality these days ....... like anything in life you pay for what you get in 90% of the time
 
I had a look at the photographer's web page, some interesting shots in her gallery to say the least.
Between mainly wedding shots there's a bit of glamour modelling thrown in!
It has to be said, it's generally decent photography, she may just have had an off day!
Looks like she's put her website and Facebook on lock down which I don't blame her for.

The photos are not brillant but they were not paying top wedding photographer money. I just don't get the going with a budget inexperienced photographer yet expecting the best quality. It's also a typical Daily Mail article too, they got their refund yet just want to ruin her before she's even started off.

I do wonder if they had any licence to release the photos to the paper, I wonder if there is a copyright issue there.
 
Her website was pulled this morning. The images on that wouldn't be sniffed at if she'd been charging £750-800 or so. For £500 you'd think that you'd found a bargain.

The Mail's article has actually been incredibly reserved and there's been a lot more going on behind the scenes.

This is 100% not the clients fault and falls into the category of misrepresentation/fraud.
 
Papers don't give a..... It's a story, it pulls people in to look, so long as there's some truth in it... She might have done some decent stuff but she couldn't produce on the day which is what anyone offering professional services is paid to do. Thing is even website shots, competition entries whatever, you often don't know what's behind the images...are they nicked, were they taken on a wedding photography or studio photography course where some pro has set up the shot etc. Think it said the couple paid £500 which is a fair whack and in current times not everyone has £2k to spend.
 
Back
Top