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

[rob-nikon]

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.

This is 100% not the clients fault and falls into the category of misrepresentation/fraud.

The wedding photos are not good enough, the photo booth images of her seem to look like she knew how to take an OK image in a controlled setting. If it is a case she has taken images from others and passed them off as her own then yes that's not right and I'm guessing could be dealt with by trading standards. The bit about 'weddings from £125' should start ringing alarm bells even if the images shown are great. Sadly there are lots of photographers around to offer these low cost service as the market demands it.

Frankly she deserved it.

I'm not sure public humiliation in two national newspapers and a likely witch hunt on social media is what she deserved. Yes her product was not up to scratch, a refund and costs for not delivering was needed but I'm not sure this is worthy national news. Sounds like she needs to learn some customer relations training/knowledge along with some more photography learning/training before going further. I'm hoping the next article isnt 'student photographer commits suicide after public witch hunt in press', it sounds severe but it does sadly happen with types of stories, it's amazing the abuse people can suffer on social media when these stories happen.

 

[seriousrikk]

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.

Are you saying this person has been using images that she did not take for advertising?
And on Instagram?

 

[seriousrikk]

Frankly she deserved it.

No-one deserves a name and shame hatchet job by the press.

Why?

Because of the nutjobs who take to social media to stick the boot in that's why.

 

[BlackCloud]

The Daily Mail seem to dig up any old tat to fill column space. They seem to scour social media for 'filler' stories and of course anything that has visuals (photographs and video) seems to be fair game and keep the interest of the reader for a few more seconds. I don't think they have any consideration for the consequences of their actions (so long as it's within legal boundaries), tomorrows another day and move on. Sure some other papers are the same. They also like to put one sided stories where one of the parties isn't at liberty to publicise anything in their defence. They were slagging off the police a day or two back over an investigation. Clearly the police couldn't provide the reasons for their actions disclosing evidence and also whilst they are subject to legal action but you can't let that get in the way of a good one sided story.

 

[broc]

My head is so full of trivial nonsense, every time I learn something new something has to drop out to make room.

My brain is like a wet sponge, as you drip more water on it some water leaks out

 

[big soft moose]

Pictures are pretty crap , but on the other hand they paid a student £500 so they can't expect top end service ... also strikes me a certain ammount of clients from hell here ... ie why go for a walk in the woods if you don't want to , just say " no i don't want to do that because my husband has a bad leg" its not like she had a gun to their head.

Also "she didnt have a camera stand or any wide lenses" sounds like wedding forum inspired nonsense ... I never use a tripod at weddings, and the widest lens i use is generally the 24 end of my 24-70 (or 17 on a 17-50 in crop days) ... who would want their wedding shots taken on a UWA anyway ? !

 

[Phil V]

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.

Where have you seen this Mark? I've had a quick go at a web cache but couldn't get any images up.

 

[DemiLion]

The wedding photos are not good enough, the photo booth images of her seem to look like she knew how to take an OK image in a controlled setting. If it is a case she has taken images from others and passed them off as her own then yes that's not right and I'm guessing could be dealt with by trading standards. The bit about 'weddings from £125' should start ringing alarm bells even if the images shown are great. Sadly there are lots of photographers around to offer these low cost service as the market demands it.

You're looking at the wrong website.

 

[DemiLion]

I'm not sure public humiliation in two national newspapers and a likely witch hunt on social media is what she deserved. Yes her product was not up to scratch, a refund and costs for not delivering was needed but I'm not sure this is worthy national news. Sounds like she needs to learn some customer relations training/knowledge along with some more photography learning/training before going further. I'm hoping the next article isnt 'student photographer commits suicide after public witch hunt in press', it sounds severe but it does sadly happen with types of stories, it's amazing the abuse people can suffer on social media when these stories happen.

No-one deserves a name and shame hatchet job by the press.

The 'lady' in question deserved exactly what has happened to her. I'd love to go into details but I can't

Let's just say the the newspaper articles have treated her with far more consideration than she merits and that her actions following the court case were despicable.

 

[posiview]

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 cleared out her website

 

[big soft moose]

one thing iI noted was "she took to forums to complain when we asked for her money back" ... do we think she is/was a member here ?

*head off to browse last septembers postings*

 

[DemiLion]

No. She posted on The Societies Facebook group.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Her supporters in the West Yorkshire Photographers and Models FB Group are saying that she's 'heartbroken and devastated' by this case. The case had been 'proven' in court but it would be interesting to know her version of events. I don't particularly care for the reporting style of journalism in the tabloids.

 

[big soft moose]

Her supporters in the West Yorkshire Photographers and Models FB Group are saying that she's 'heartbroken and devastated' by this case. The case had been 'proven' in court but it would be interesting to know her version of events. I don't particularly care for the reporting style of journalism in the tabloids.

Indeed - I'm curious as to what inside knowledge Mark has that makes him so certain that the tog is in the wrong, as the mail article certainly leaves room for reasonable doubt, for example after booking she "disapeaered for months and only confirmed she was shooting the wedding the week before " Orly ? so why didnt they follow up and/or book someone else instead ? she "forced the bride to go for muddy walk without the groom" - why didnt the bride just say no ? "she didnt have any lighting equipment" and ? most togs wouldnt appart from a flash gun, who wants a load of light stands getting in the guests way and or getting knocked over... and so on

 

[big soft moose]

weird thing though - google is finding three different websites for Chloe Johnston photography , one chloe jonston, one cjonston, and one based on the sqwiz web platform - all of which seem to be for the same girl (the squiz one is still up , the other two are blank) ... not to be confused with chloejohnston.com who appears to be a completely different photographer based in New York

 

[viv1969]

The 'lady' in question deserved exactly what has happened to her. I'd love to go into details but I can't

Let's just say the the newspaper articles have treated her with far more consideration than she merits and that her actions following the court case were despicable.

Any particular reason?

 

[DemiLion]

[QUOTE="big soft moose, post: 7363730, member: 39650"} "she didnt have any lighting equipment" and ? most togs wouldnt appart from a flash gun, who wants a load of light stands getting in the guests way and or getting knocked over[/QUOTE]

I think you might have lost touch with wedding photography.

Having lighting kit is more and more the norm now.

 

[DemiLion]

Any particular reason?

Confidentiality for one.

 

[Major Eazy]

I wouldn't want to be operated on by a first year medical student, beats me how on Earth would a couple chose to hire a photography student instead of a well trained photographer.

 

[big soft moose]

I wouldn't want to be operated on by a first year medical student, beats me how on Earth would a couple chose to hire a photography student instead of a well trained photographer.

cost innit - a well trained photographer won't do coverage to the end of the evening and a photo booth for £500.... I'd say i'm pretty cheap but i'd charge half as much again just for arival of the bride to first dance

 

[Jayst84]

Pictures are pretty crap , but on the other hand they paid a student £500 so they can't expect top end service ... also strikes me a certain ammount of clients from hell here ... ie why go for a walk in the woods if you don't want to , just say " no i don't want to do that because my husband has a bad leg" its not like she had a gun to their head.

Also "she didnt have a camera stand or any wide lenses" sounds like wedding forum inspired nonsense ... I never use a tripod at weddings, and the widest lens i use is generally the 24 end of my 24-70 (or 17 on a 17-50 in crop days) ... who would want their wedding shots taken on a UWA anyway ? !

Looking forward to getting my own spread in the DM when they get wind of me shooting with no 'camera stand', nothing to bounce the light off, and a 35mm.

I wouldn't want to be operated on by a first year medical student, beats me how on Earth would a couple chose to hire a photography student instead of a well trained photographer.

Ha, yeah cos they're comparable things.

 

[Major Eazy]

cost innit - a well trained photographer won't do coverage to the end of the evening and a photo booth for £500.... I'd say i'm pretty cheap but i'd charge half as much again just for arival of the bride to first dance

Well, you do have a point, but then again, you do not have to have a well trained photographer all day. Anyone could have hired a trained photographer for the main wedding photos, then let family and friends take photos of the evening do.

 

[BunnyPics]

Oh god I'd be so upset by those awfulest photos... but then it's Daily Mail... so they probably put the worst of the worst out on their website. I don't want to boast, but I did better with my D5100 and without charging the person a penny and they were both so happy with their photos she wouldn't shut up about it for months.

 

[andyscott]

I have no sympathy whatsoever, its tough.

Suck it up and move on, if it so important to you stump up the cash.

 

[big soft moose]

. I don't want to boast, but I did better with my D5100 and without charging the person a penny and they were both so happy with their photos she wouldn't shut up about it for months.

I could do better with a camera phone , while blind drunk .... which is probably the point - okay they only paid 500 which was stupid and they bear some culpability for being skinflints, but the service theyve recieved doesnt appear to even be worth £500 , which is probably why a court found in their favour

although that said the mail will of course only have shown the worst shots

 

[Major Eazy]

Oh god I'd be so upset by those awfulest photos... but then it's Daily Mail... so they probably put the worst of the worst out on their website. I don't want to boast, but I did better with my D5100 and without charging the person a penny and they were both so happy with their photos she wouldn't shut up about it for months.

I would be fuming at the fact that she's 45 minutes late (could have been too late to take the photos of the moment when a couple put the rings on) and the fact the she spent a bit of a time doing selfies when she's supposed to be doing a job.

This in addition to the fact that I agree with you, I would be upset by awful photos too.

 

[big soft moose]

Looking forward to getting my own spread in the DM when they get wind of me shooting with no 'camera stand', nothing to bounce the light off, and a 35mm.

yeah but your pictures are decent

its like the old maxim of the royal navy in the 1800s , you can do whatever you like so long as you suceed, however god help you if you do something out of the ordinary and fail

 

[paulc]

I wonder if Caters news agency have paid the unhappy couple for the wedding images because they have their watermark on the images, the Bride and Groom may have profited from the girls photos even after getting a refund from her and surely if she had truly ruined their big day she would have had to pay compensation of some sort and not just refund the cost plus £35 court costs.

 

[wave01]

I have said this before it amazes me the amount of money spent on a wedding and the one thing people want cheap is the photography. It is the only record of the day.

 

[Jayst84]

I have said this before it amazes me the amount of money spent on a wedding and the one thing people want cheap is the photography. It is the only record of the day.

Mmm, and the venue is the only venue of the day, the food is the only food of the day, the dress is the only dress of the day... different people have different priorities, and different standards for varying things.

 

[big soft moose]

I wonder if Caters news agency have paid the unhappy couple for the wedding images because they have their watermark on the images, the Bride and Groom may have profited from the girls photos even after getting a refund from her and surely if she had truly ruined their big day she would have had to pay compensation of some sort and not just refund the cost plus £35 court costs.

maybe the girl concerned should sue carters for copyright infringement

 

[chris malcolm]

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.

Aha! So that's where I went wrong! My first marriage was very cheap, and fell apart after two years.

 

[boyfalldown]

surely if she had truly ruined their big day she would have had to pay compensation of some sort and not just refund the cost plus £35 court costs.

If the courts ordered figure is accurate it's £500 + cost. No compensation

 

[Pookeyhead]

All you had to do was look at her website and gallery... and the liberal use of horrible cursive font (if you have anything blocking scripts from running, it defaults to comic sans, making her look even more retarded).... to realise what you were buying.

Her gallery has images on it she didn't even take (straight off Pinterest)... she's not even bothered to remove the watermark from one of them. She should have been stung a for a whole lot more.. dumb cow, and the stupid couple who had unrealistic expectations after paying £125 need a wake up call.. which they got.

You pay peanuts.. you get a monkey.

No sympathy.

 

[jimgallaher]

Coincidentally a friend from workwhio is getting married next month was telling me she doesn't want the full blown wedding photography thing. She's trying to keep costs down and asked a few photographers could they do maybe half an hour and take some shots of the bride and groom and guests Apparently no one was interested. She has asked me to do them, I'm not sure if I want to or not. I'm a keen amateur, not a professional. My fear is they may not be any good, or what she's expecting. She said she would pay me, but I've insisted I don't want paid if I do it.
I'm really not sure what to do.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I'm really not sure what to do.

If they're not paying you... nothing to worry about. Are you confident you can take sharp, clear, well exposed images in a variety of conditions? Can you use flash creatively without resorting to using it directly? Got a variety of focal lengths at your disposal and a camera that can perform reasonably well in low light in case it's dark?

If so... go for it. Just make sure they realise you're not a professional, and can not guarantee anything.

 

[Steve Smith]

Or to spend ridiculous sums of money on a wedding in general.

Indeed. The best wedding I have ever been to didn't cost the couple anything. Everyone provided something. Food, flowers, music, etc. I did the photography.

Also, I don't consider wedding photographs to be as important as most wedding photographers do!


Steve.

 

[Graham W]

maybe the girl concerned should sue carters for copyright infringement

That's the one bit I don't get. How have Carters got the copyright to the pics if the photographer didn't re-assign it?
I doubt that she passed the copyright to the B&G for them to...er...re-re-assign it.

 

[jimgallaher]

If they're not paying you... nothing to worry about. Are you confident you can take sharp, clear, well exposed images in a variety of conditions? Can you use flash creatively without resorting to using it directly? Got a variety of focal lengths at your disposal and a camera that can perform reasonably well in low light in case it's dark?

If so... go for it. Just make sure they realise you're not a professional, and can not guarantee anything.

Yeah I can take decent photos, it's the artistic angle, posing etc which would concern me, I've never done anything like this before, travel photography, street, family, grandkids etc are what I like to take photos of. I've gone totally mirrorless and to be honest I'm missing more shots than I ever did with my Canon 5D2 and 5D3, but as they are only for my pleasure it's not a problem. I've had the X Pro2 for a couple of months now, but I'm still learning how to use it.

 

[boyfalldown]

Yeah I can take decent photos, it's the artistic angle, posing etc which would concern me, I've never done anything like this before, travel photography, street, family, grandkids etc are what I like to take photos of. I've gone totally mirrorless and to be honest I'm missing more shots than I ever did with my Canon 5D2 and 5D3, but as they are only for my pleasure it's not a problem. I've had the X Pro2 for a couple of months now, but I'm still learning how to use it.

If its going to concern you/stress you out why do it? you can say No. If however you'll enjoy it, can be honest about what she'll expect and she can respect that then go for it.

Mirrorless can work well for weddings