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

jimgallaher said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're having doubts, it's time to opt out this way you'll give them plenty of time to find a photographer. You need to be 100% confident in planning, photography and have the requisite social skills to carry out wedding photography. This case highlighted here should serve as warning to anyone thinking about going into wedding photography. People are very quick to jump all over social media. This young ladies professional career is in tatters.
 
Last edited:
jimgallaher said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do it. You'll have a blast and it'll be a great experience.
But be really, really careful to manage expectations, and put it in writing. If she's considering paying you then she's probably unconsciously thinking that your results will rival that of the pro wedding photographers she's seen.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
You're having doubts, it's time to opt out this way you'll give them plenty of time to find a photographer. You need to be 100% confident in planning, photography and have the requisite social skills to carry out wedding photography. This case highlighted here should serve as warning to anyone thinking about going into wedding photography. People are very quick to jump all over social media. This young ladies professional career is in tatters.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth! I still keep getting asked to do weddings on the strength of my landscapes. No matter how much explaining of the above people still think it's clicking a button on a flashy camera
 
When I was about 14/15 (in the latter '70's) can you believe I photographed a wedding. I was into photography and somehow, crazily my mum worked with a lady who's daughter was getting married. They were pretty poor and somehow I got the job and did it fearlessly without understanding all the implications of how it was such an important day and what could go wrong! You don't at that young age and I got paid some small 'beer' (shandy!) money. Funnily enough I'd had some experience of 'professional ' photography even then by photographing people at dinner /dances and selling prints. So, I did the pictures and gave them the album which was a cheapie job and they were quite happy. They were simply 'record' shots of the day, no photoshop or PP work in those days. All generally well exposed/in focus but nothing special. Would have done them on either a Practica or Chinon, not sure which but I never had any complaints. About 30 years later, now about ten years ago my parents got a knock on their door and it was one of the couple! They were asking to contact me and if I had the negatives for some reprints! Think it was a wedding anniversary or something! I gave them the negatives all protected in plastic sleeves in the attic! :)
 
Winter said:
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:
Click to expand...

I'm a student photographer, shooting part time, and I'm offended / saddened by the likes of these "stereotypical" student photographers who get us bad press. I have shot two weddings so far and charge this sort of price to "get my foot in the door" and gain experience, I made sure I did the very best job I could inb4flames (portfolio/blogs in signature if you're interested). Some of us are actually trying, it's hard enough as it is and "our" reputation only makes it harder :(

Never mind her photographic abilities, what annoyed me most was her attitude, which according to the Dailymail article was nothing but a disgrace - turning up late, not fulfilling her side of the bargain and basically didn't deliver anything. Just not professional at all :mad::mad: If she had tried (seems like she never bothered from what i can see from the article) but the photos were rubbish then that's a different story imo. Maybe all the other shots were crap so she only handed over 15?

Truth be told I'm also a bit jealous she initially got £500... :eek:
 
BlackCloud said:
When I was about 14/15 (in the latter '70's) can you believe I photographed a wedding. I was into photography and somehow, crazily my mum worked with a lady who's daughter was getting married. They were pretty poor and somehow I got the job and did it fearlessly without understanding all the implications of how it was such an important day and what could go wrong! You don't at that young age and I got paid some small 'beer' (shandy!) money. Funnily enough I'd had some experience of 'professional ' photography even then by photographing people at dinner /dances and selling prints. So, I did the pictures and gave them the album which was a cheapie job and they were quite happy. They were simply 'record' shots of the day, no photoshop or PP work in those days. All generally well exposed/in focus but nothing special. Would have done them on either a Practica or Chinon, not sure which but I never had any complaints. About 30 years later, now about ten years ago my parents got a knock on their door and it was one of the couple! They were asking to contact me and if I had the negatives for some reprints! Think it was a wedding anniversary or something! I gave them the negatives all protected in plastic sleeves in the attic! :)
Click to expand...
Kudos to you good sir for keeping hold of the negatives for 30 years! (y)
 
So do we know if she took any of the shots on the swqiz site? at least one has another persons watermark on - did she intend for the 'mobile uploads' section to be her 'inspiration' section but just doesnt know how to label a website?

did she provide the photo booth?
 
Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...


As mentioned before - you are looking at the wrong website.

Her business one has been removed.
 
Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think from what mark was saying there was a more proffesional website which got deleted yesterday morning - but even so i basically agree with you, you want quality, quality costs
 
I think the article is looking is sympathy from the public. But personally I am not feeling sympathetic. Can you really say you are surprised? Can the couple really say they are surprised? The fact we have more photography courses in the uk than employed photographers in the whole of Europe this isn't a surprise. I know a lot of student photographers who couldntspell aperture let alone tell you what it means.

This couple have to take some accountability. Though at the same time they deserved their money back as this girl should not have been charging anything for anything!

It isn't wrong to spend more on a DJ. Photography means different things to different people. To some it is very important and to others music is more important.

This simply comes down to the girl shouldn't have been charging.
 
Pookeyhead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you have no sympathy, not everyone has the either the budget for or the intelligence to choose a decent wedding photographer.
Would you have sympathy if a 90 year old employed an incompetent plumber?
Maybe they have learning difficulties, how can we know their story? At least one person on here has posted that the photos on her website weren't bad and could warrant a price of £750+ if that was what you judged it on.
If you pass yourself off as being able to do a job then you should be able to work to a standard surely or pay the money back? Simple
 
juggler said:
Do it. You'll have a blast and it'll be a great experience.
But be really, really careful to manage expectations, and put it in writing. If she's considering paying you then she's probably unconsciously thinking that your results will rival that of the pro wedding photographers she's seen.
Click to expand...


I did this for my step daughter's wedding last year.
She booked a "pro" for a silly cheap price, he arrived too late to get shots of the bride dressing and missed the groom's arrival. He also took some lovely shots of a bridesmaid's rear end and included them in the submitted photo package.

Luckily my shots DID exceed that of the "pro". By a long way.

To cut a long story short my shots form the majority of the wedding album and my step-daughter successfully sued the "pro" (who used a lovely D810 with a 55-200mm DX lens!!)

Not sure if he's coughed up yet. It maybe bailiff time.
 
Pookeyhead said:
stupid couple who had unrealistic expectations after paying £125 need a wake up call.
Click to expand...

They were charged £500 weren't they? Not sure why you, and others, keep quoting £125.

£500 for a wedding tog with a good portfolio wouldn't set alarm bells ringing... It's cheap but it's not ridiculously cheap, especially for a student wanting to portfolio build.
 
I saw the original post by said 'photographer' on the Societies webpage and along with others strongly suggested she deal with the complaint head on. Instead she did the exact opposite and went into hiding instead.

The couple sued because they were left with no choice after she refused point blank to talk to them and replied with expletives to their text messages.

The fact she was a 'student' only came out after the fact and as you can see from the ad the Mail posted, there was no mention of it. In fact if I recall correctly I think they met her at a wedding fayre. Point is, the couple maintain they did not know she was a 'student'.

In fact I'm sceptical that's even true. A couple of years ago the tog did message me and at the time she was at college doing A level Photography. At the time I even offered her a chance to assist me at a wedding but since she didn't drive, it never happened. I'd have thought she'd have left by the time the wedding took place.

I also remember at first she advertised heavily on the groups as a student but later this was dropped.

To be honest the photographer only has herself to blame. She could have avoided all this by firstly being honest at the time of booking and later simply talking to the customer and address their complaints. Maybe even offering a part refund, if nothing more than as a gesture of goodwill. After all, it can't be that hard to provide £500 worth of photos. But the fact she was rude to them, absolutely refused to accept any responsibility then did everything she could to evade the court summons meant that it just made the customer even more determined to see justice done.

There's more to the story that's not been mentioned in the press but I won't comment on that either.
 
juggler said:
Do it. You'll have a blast and it'll be a great experience.
But be really, really careful to manage expectations, and put it in writing. If she's considering paying you then she's probably unconsciously thinking that your results will rival that of the pro wedding photographers she's seen.
Click to expand...
I've told her several times that I'm not a professional and she can't have expectations of that standard. I believe she just wants something to look back to. I've been taking photos for over 40 years so I do know my way around a camera, so the technical aspect shouldn't be an issue, plus Lightroom can sometimes help make a semblance of a silk purse out a sows ear.My main fear/concern is I have no experience of posing people into what is generally accepted to be a "good wedding picture" But I have noticed, particularly on this forum, there is a trend toward more casual/candid wedding photography. Back in ancient times when I was married it was all very staged and wooden. I think people from that generation do have certain expectations as to how a wedding album should look.
 
It's a pity we don't know the full story going on here, as personally I'm confused to if she hadn't communicated with them for a while until late the night before the wedding why they hadnt replaced her. But either way the fact her messing around in the photo booth produced better shots than her own says it all, I would of expected better quality from a novice amature let alone someone who classed themselves professional enough for website and charging.
 
Broric said:
They were charged £500 weren't they? Not sure why you, and others, keep quoting £125.

£500 for a wedding tog with a good portfolio wouldn't set alarm bells ringing... It's cheap but it's not ridiculously cheap, especially for a student wanting to portfolio build.
Click to expand...

Her website says packages starting at £125 (or did before it got taken down)

£500 for a basic package for a starting wedding tog wouldnt ring alarm bells, but her basic package is £125, £500 for a full days coverage from prep to the end of the reception and a photobooth (possibly) is ludicrously cheap.

I also notiiced while poking about on the net that shes offering a two hour childs photoshoot with digital images included for £35 - which is insanely cheap , she'd make more working in tesco
 
Steve-T said:
Not sure why you have no sympathy, not everyone has the either the budget for or the intelligence to choose a decent wedding photographer.
Would you have sympathy if a 90 year old employed an incompetent plumber?
Maybe they have learning difficulties, how can we know their story? At least one person on here has posted that the photos on her website weren't bad and could warrant a price of £750+ if that was what you judged it on.
If you pass yourself off as being able to do a job then you should be able to work to a standard surely or pay the money back? Simple
Click to expand...

I think it's been said on this thread that the photos were taken straight from instagram and not her own. Having said that, how are the customers to know that, so I agree it's not their fault.
 
I don't care how cheap you are, if you take on the commitment you must provide a suitable product.
At the lowest standard of "quality" one should at least expect what anyone could achieve with a P&S set to auto; those images don't even meet that level. And, while I'm not a fan of the huge deliveries often made these days, only 15 images?
 
big soft moose said:
Her website says packages starting at £125 (or did before it got taken down)

£500 for a basic package for a starting wedding tog wouldnt ring alarm bells, but her basic package is £125, £500 for a full days coverage from prep to the end of the reception and a photobooth (possibly) is ludicrously cheap.

I also notiiced while poking about on the net that shes offering a two hour childs photoshoot with digital images included for £35 - which is insanely cheap , she'd make more working in tesco
Click to expand...

The photobooth had nothing to do with her did it? In the story the couple complain that they never gave her permission to use it.
 
sk66 said:
....only 15 images?
Click to expand...

The couple received a lot more than 15 images in total. The headline is a bit misleading. They only received 15 images of the reception. Not that I'm saying that's OK. Far from it. But that part did get lost in translation by our American cousins who have reported it as only 15 images.

The couple got 276 images in total and as per their package were supposed to get between 250-700 photos. So whilst technically she delivered in terms of numbers, the couple complained many of the photos were just the colour ones in B&W and some had her watermark on.
 
I keep seeing people misunderstand the article, which is understandable since it's very long, DM style, and who has time to read these days? :rolleyes:
So here are a few general facts you might have missed:

1. The student photographer only disappeared and became uncontactable after being paid £500 in full. That is presumably why the couple didn't try to hire another photographer. They'd already spent their budget.
2. The photo booth wasn't operated by the student photographer. It was hired by the couple from another vendor.
3. The better quality of the photo booth photos is NOT her work. It's just the standard lighting of photo booths.
4. The couple paid £500, not £125. (£125 is just the price advertised by the student photographer as her starting package price.)
5. The couple sued the student photographer mainly because when they complained about the photos to her, she went online and said horrible things about them in forums.
 
Winter said:
I keep seeing people misunderstand the article, which is understandable since it's very long, DM style, and who has time to read these days? :rolleyes:
So here are a few general facts you might have missed:

1. The student photographer only disappeared and became uncontactable after being paid £500 in full. That is presumably why the couple didn't try to hire another photographer. They'd already spent their budget.
2. The photo booth wasn't operated by the student photographer. It was hired by the couple from another vendor.
3. The better quality of the photo booth photos is NOT her work. It's just the standard lighting of photo booths.
4. The couple paid £500, not £125. (£125 is just the price advertised by the student photographer as her starting package price.)
5. The couple sued the student photographer mainly because when they complained about the photos to her, she went online and said horrible things about them in forums.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

I'm guessing most people will have stopped reading by point 3 though :p
 
Winter said:
I keep seeing people misunderstand the article, which is understandable since it's very long, DM style, and who has time to read these days? :rolleyes:
So here are a few general facts you might have missed:

1. The student photographer only disappeared and became uncontactable after being paid £500 in full. That is presumably why the couple didn't try to hire another photographer. They'd already spent their budget.
2. The photo booth wasn't operated by the student photographer. It was hired by the couple from another vendor.
3. The better quality of the photo booth photos is NOT her work. It's just the standard lighting of photo booths.
4. The couple paid £500, not £125. (£125 is just the price advertised by the student photographer as her starting package price.)
5. The couple sued the student photographer mainly because when they complained about the photos to her, she went online and said horrible things about them in forums.
Click to expand...

1. so why didnt they chase it up sooner ... would you leave it until the day before your wedding after paying someone £500 ?
2. If they could afford a photo booth as well they would have been better served by putting that money on hiring a better photographer

5. Not really , they sued via money claim so it can only have been for the return of the £500 - not for defamation etc

I'm not saying the student is blameless at best shes been naive and silly, at worst shes committed fraud and misrepresntation, but the couple need to bear some cuplability to for being so tight that they only paid £500 for prep to end of evening to a student ... if their photos are so low priority for them they can hardly be surprised when the quality is equally low.

as Pooks said if you pay peanuts you get a monkey
 
big soft moose said:
the couple need to bear some cuplability to for being so tight that they only paid £500 for prep to end of evening to a student
Click to expand...

Well presumably they were happy with the quality of her portfolio. The suggestion is that what they received doesn't match that quality at all so I don't see how in any way they are "culpable". At worst, they didn't know what the market rate was for a wedding tog but they found one they could afford with a portfolio they were happy with.

There's obviously more to the story, with them not hearing from her until the night before, etc but I find it hard to see how they're to blame with the facts we have.
 
Absolutely agree with Broric.
Similar to my step daughter's situation. They didn't know how much was enough to pay for a good tog either.

Not everyone's a top money commanding photographer.
 
Broric said:
so I don't see how in any way they are "culpable". .
Click to expand...

May be because they paid an absolute pittance for their photography ? but then wasted more money on a photo booth etc instead of payying a pro a decent ammount

Its a bit like buying a second hand kia instead of a new mercedes then throwing your toys on the floor because its a nasty tinny metal box which isnt fun to drive and breaks down a lot ... you get what you pay for and if you want quality you need to pay for it
 
big soft moose said:
May be because they paid an absolute pittance for their photography ? but then wasted more money on a photo booth etc instead of payying a pro a decent ammount

Its a bit like buying a second hand kia instead of a new mercedes then throwing your toys on the floor because its a nasty tinny metal box which isnt fun to drive and breaks down a lot ... you get what you pay for and if you want quality you need to pay for it
Click to expand...


Get off your high horse before someone knocks you off.

The responsibility is 100% with the photographer and NOT her clients.

At £500 you should be expecting technical competence at the very least.
 
big soft moose said:
May be because they paid an absolute pittance for their photography ? but then wasted more money on a photo booth etc instead of payying a pro a decent ammount

Its a bit like buying a second hand kia instead of a new mercedes then throwing your toys on the floor because its a nasty tinny metal box which isnt fun to drive and breaks down a lot ... you get what you pay for and if you want quality you need to pay for it
Click to expand...

It really isn't.

If you want a silly car analogy, it's like going to a dealer, looking through a brochure (portfolio), finding one that meets all your specs, asking them how much it is and then paying what they asked. Then when it's delivered, an old banger turns up.

Unless you know the market well, £500 isn't "alarm bell" cheap, especially if you've seen a good portfolio, etc.
 
The end result is she gets a bad reputation, very publicly thanks to the court. She'll probably give up. Hopefully.

One of my co photographers got done years ago for cocking up a wedding. Which made the local papers. He was a bit of a cowboy. So probably through sloppiness. I was pleased to see his attitude finally caught up with him.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
May be because they paid an absolute pittance for their photography ? but then wasted more money on a photo booth etc instead of payying a pro a decent ammount

Its a bit like buying a second hand kia instead of a new mercedes then throwing your toys on the floor because its a nasty tinny metal box which isnt fun to drive and breaks down a lot ... you get what you pay for and if you want quality you need to pay for it
Click to expand...


Normally I'd agree. However I think @DemiLion has been remarkably restrained in not mentioning this young lady's behaviour. I think complete con job and she deserves everything she gets.

I realise Mark won't post it, but this says it all about her behaviour

http://stopstealingphotos.com/johnston-photography-leeds-uk/

It's unfair and disingenuous to blame the couple in anyway this time.
 
boyfalldown said:
Normally I'd agree. However I think @DemiLion has been remarkably restrained in not mentioning this young lady's behaviour. I think complete con job and she deserves everything she gets.

I realise Mark won't post it, but this says it all about her behaviour

http://stopstealingphotos.com/johnston-photography-leeds-uk/

It's unfair and disingenuous to blame the couple in anyway this time.
Click to expand...

Thankyou, I think that is what many of us struggling with the lack of details needed to see.
That is one site that I trust as a source!
 
big soft moose said:
May be because they paid an absolute pittance for their photography ? but then wasted more money on a photo booth etc instead of payying a pro a decent ammount

Its a bit like buying a second hand kia instead of a new mercedes then throwing your toys on the floor because its a nasty tinny metal box which isnt fun to drive and breaks down a lot ... you get what you pay for and if you want quality you need to pay for it
Click to expand...

I had a Kia and loved it... shame we wrote it off and now have a Suzuki... which I do not love ;-)
 
GreenNinja67 said:
I did this for my step daughter's wedding last year.
She booked a "pro" for a silly cheap price, he arrived too late to get shots of the bride dressing and missed the groom's arrival. He also took some lovely shots of a bridesmaid's rear end and included them in the submitted photo package.

Luckily my shots DID exceed that of the "pro". By a long way.

To cut a long story short my shots form the majority of the wedding album and my step-daughter successfully sued the "pro" (who used a lovely D810 with a 55-200mm DX lens!!)

Not sure if he's coughed up yet. It maybe bailiff time.
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to know though, was your daughter expecting the photographer to be there longer in the morning? Was she expecting him at all in the morning? I can't say I have photographed every groom arriving, because some sneak in the back... never had a complaint though. Never shot a bridesmaids's rear before, but heck, there is a first time for everything :) It would be interesting to know what your daughter's thoughts were about the photography before you saw the photographs? Good to see you save the day though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top