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

Messages
8,646
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I had to laugh a little this morning when I saw in the headlines a few of the tabloids criticising the BBC for running with the Whittingdale story, saying wheres the public interest! And yet they give this story plenty of exposure!
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
At least we have a good thread to illustrate how things can end up if you go in woefully prepared, for the "I've just bought a DSLR and I'm about to shoot weddings professionally, can I have some advice" brigade, maybe this should be a sticky?! :)
 
Messages
2,343
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
No
before everyone gets too excited, have you heard both sides of the story. If you believe what written in the press as the truth then you need your brain rewiring.

There is a facebook post from the photographer that tells the other side. Sure, she made a few schoolboy errors (and some really stupid ones ie stealing images etc) but these don't justify the hounding she has received.

Come on guys, everyone has jumped on her (not referring to anyone specific on this forum by the way, I just meant the public / wider world) after reading the 'daily fail' , the comic otherwise known as 'The Sun' and various other internet forums but it seems that the couple in question aren't exactly 'innocent victims'

Havent read the last few posts so maybe someone has already posted the FB link to her defense / statement.

Wil lbe interesting to see how this pans out.
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,903
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
before everyone gets too excited, have you heard both sides of the story. If you believe what written in the press as the truth then you need your brain rewiring.

There is a facebook post from the photographer that tells the other side. Sure, she made a few schoolboy errors (and some really stupid ones ie stealing images etc) but these don't justify the hounding she has received.

Come on guys, everyone has jumped on her (not referring to anyone specific on this forum by the way, I just meant the public / wider world) after reading the 'daily fail' , the comic otherwise known as 'The Sun' and various other internet forums but it seems that the couple in question aren't exactly 'innocent victims'

Havent read the last few posts so maybe someone has already posted the FB link to her defense / statement.

Wil lbe interesting to see how this pans out.
I disagree it's just unfortunate that she wasn't took to court for fraud.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
before everyone gets too excited, have you heard both sides of the story. If you believe what written in the press as the truth then you need your brain rewiring.

There is a facebook post from the photographer that tells the other side. Sure, she made a few schoolboy errors (and some really stupid ones ie stealing images etc) but these don't justify the hounding she has received.

Come on guys, everyone has jumped on her (not referring to anyone specific on this forum by the way, I just meant the public / wider world) after reading the 'daily fail' , the comic otherwise known as 'The Sun' and various other internet forums but it seems that the couple in question aren't exactly 'innocent victims'

Havent read the last few posts so maybe someone has already posted the FB link to her defense / statement.

Wil lbe interesting to see how this pans out.
Interestingly she says this in her post - "There are three sides, their side, my side and the truth." So is she saying what she's posted isn't the truth?!
 
Messages
6,521
Edit My Images
No
Currently in Israel at the moment and only have limited internet access. But I've just read this post from Chloe. I said earlier on here that there were two sides to every story so here's hers:

My name is Chloe Johnston. Over the past 48 hours I have become a victim of defamation from a newlywed couple named Mr Paul Wheatley and Mrs Chareen Wheatley along with a company called Cater News Agency and a journalist called Joshua Saunders. This story has been online in a wide variety of websites along with being printed in a number of tabloid newspapers today - Wednesday 13th April 2016.

Over the past 48 hours I have been contacted by a variety of journalists who were interested in showcasing my side of the story. I’m writing this statement to show my side of the story… The real story. I do not wish to make slanderous claims, as this is what happened to me, all I wish to do is to get my story heard.
All the claims that have been made about me in newspapers such as The Sun, The Mirror, Daily Star (to name a few) have all been a false reflection of the events over the last few months. I have ample evidence to support my truth. Upon request I sent all of this evidence to Joshua Saunders before the story went public – to my horror, Saunders selectively chose statements that I gave him and twisted my story which was then published presenting me in a derogatory manner. This act has humiliated, devastated and shocked me as it is a complete act of defamation.

One of the claims mentioned in these press reports is how I was apparently “45 minutes late”. If I was 45 minutes late I wouldn’t have captured the bride getting ready. I also wouldn’t have captured the beginning of the wedding ceremony. I have written evidence of this along with the wedding photographs captured.
In addition to this claim the article shows photographs of me in their photobooth. However, the couple encouraged me to go into this photobooth as a memoir of their day and they wanted me to put these photos and a comment in their guestbook! I would NEVER have gone into the photobooth if they hadn’t encouraged me to.
Paul and Chareen received 276 photos, not the 15 they are claiming! As far as I was aware, they were over the moon with the photographs as you can see from the bride’s screenshot *see attached screenshot from the bride after seeing her preview shots*.
There is no evidence to support any of their claims in any of the articles that I have seen. I personally have over 150 screenshots of evidence that I am happy to showcase if necessary. This includes text messages, Facebook messages and video evidence. With this case Mr Wheatley did take me to court, and yes he did win but he only won through default. He won as sadly the County Court didn’t receive my mediation papers. I did send them out but of course post gets lost every day. I paid what was owed and assumed this would be a nasty chapter of my life that would be closed but, was I wrong indeed…

Mr Wheatley has harassed me, slandered me online and on some occasions waited outside my property (this has been going on since December 2015). I have contacted West Yorkshire Police in relation to Mr Wheatley for fear of my safety on various occasions, sadly as all this slander has been committed online there’s not much they can do due to laws surrounding Facebook.
There is a lot of information about Mr Paul Wheatley that hasn’t been made public to the press. On Wednesday 6th April 2016 I attended a court hearing at Leeds County Court where I successfully won a case against Mr Wheatley, this was a case involving fraud that he tried to commit in relation to his case against me, but he was caught before he could do so. This is currently being processed through Leeds County Court, and I am happy to make this a public matter once I have documentation from Leeds County Court.

I can’t put into words the hell I’ve been living over the past 48 hours… I’m here today to make a stand against cyber-bulling and to support anyone that has been in a similar situation. What has happened to me has ruined my life, business and mental wellbeing. Luckily I have incredibly understanding employers who are supporting me through this terrible experience. If this happened to another person, they may not have been as lucky with their employers.

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers, there’s three sides to every story their side, my side and the truth. I’m not here to create a story of my own I am here to show evidence and reveal the truth.

If you’ve ever been affected by cyber-bullying you’re not alone, sadly this is something that happens every day in this world but you are stronger than you think. Stay strong, stay positive, and seek legal advice as I have done.
If any journalists would like to get in contact with me to see my evidence and hear the true story, please feel free to do so.

For anyone reading this please share this, the amount of coverage an incorrect story has received is unfair.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
Currently in Israel at the moment and only have limited internet access. But I've just read this post from Chloe. I said earlier on here that there were two sides to every story so here's hers:

My name is Chloe Johnston. Over the past 48 hours I have become a victim of defamation from a newlywed couple named Mr Paul Wheatley and Mrs Chareen Wheatley along with a company called Cater News Agency and a journalist called Joshua Saunders. This story has been online in a wide variety of websites along with being printed in a number of tabloid newspapers today - Wednesday 13th April 2016.

Over the past 48 hours I have been contacted by a variety of journalists who were interested in showcasing my side of the story. I’m writing this statement to show my side of the story… The real story. I do not wish to make slanderous claims, as this is what happened to me, all I wish to do is to get my story heard.
All the claims that have been made about me in newspapers such as The Sun, The Mirror, Daily Star (to name a few) have all been a false reflection of the events over the last few months. I have ample evidence to support my truth. Upon request I sent all of this evidence to Joshua Saunders before the story went public – to my horror, Saunders selectively chose statements that I gave him and twisted my story which was then published presenting me in a derogatory manner. This act has humiliated, devastated and shocked me as it is a complete act of defamation.

One of the claims mentioned in these press reports is how I was apparently “45 minutes late”. If I was 45 minutes late I wouldn’t have captured the bride getting ready. I also wouldn’t have captured the beginning of the wedding ceremony. I have written evidence of this along with the wedding photographs captured.
In addition to this claim the article shows photographs of me in their photobooth. However, the couple encouraged me to go into this photobooth as a memoir of their day and they wanted me to put these photos and a comment in their guestbook! I would NEVER have gone into the photobooth if they hadn’t encouraged me to.
Paul and Chareen received 276 photos, not the 15 they are claiming! As far as I was aware, they were over the moon with the photographs as you can see from the bride’s screenshot *see attached screenshot from the bride after seeing her preview shots*.
There is no evidence to support any of their claims in any of the articles that I have seen. I personally have over 150 screenshots of evidence that I am happy to showcase if necessary. This includes text messages, Facebook messages and video evidence. With this case Mr Wheatley did take me to court, and yes he did win but he only won through default. He won as sadly the County Court didn’t receive my mediation papers. I did send them out but of course post gets lost every day. I paid what was owed and assumed this would be a nasty chapter of my life that would be closed but, was I wrong indeed…

Mr Wheatley has harassed me, slandered me online and on some occasions waited outside my property (this has been going on since December 2015). I have contacted West Yorkshire Police in relation to Mr Wheatley for fear of my safety on various occasions, sadly as all this slander has been committed online there’s not much they can do due to laws surrounding Facebook.
There is a lot of information about Mr Paul Wheatley that hasn’t been made public to the press. On Wednesday 6th April 2016 I attended a court hearing at Leeds County Court where I successfully won a case against Mr Wheatley, this was a case involving fraud that he tried to commit in relation to his case against me, but he was caught before he could do so. This is currently being processed through Leeds County Court, and I am happy to make this a public matter once I have documentation from Leeds County Court.

I can’t put into words the hell I’ve been living over the past 48 hours… I’m here today to make a stand against cyber-bulling and to support anyone that has been in a similar situation. What has happened to me has ruined my life, business and mental wellbeing. Luckily I have incredibly understanding employers who are supporting me through this terrible experience. If this happened to another person, they may not have been as lucky with their employers.

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers, there’s three sides to every story their side, my side and the truth. I’m not here to create a story of my own I am here to show evidence and reveal the truth.

If you’ve ever been affected by cyber-bullying you’re not alone, sadly this is something that happens every day in this world but you are stronger than you think. Stay strong, stay positive, and seek legal advice as I have done.
If any journalists would like to get in contact with me to see my evidence and hear the true story, please feel free to do so.

For anyone reading this please share this, the amount of coverage an incorrect story has received is unfair.
The link containing this has already been posted a few times, but see my post above, she seems to have unwittingly admitted to not telling he whole story ;)
 
Messages
2,903
Name
Tommy
Edit My Images
No
The groom has made a a "Facebook Statement" as well.

https://www.facebook.com/pwheatley2/posts/1168301633210628

A Statement by Paul & Chareen Wheatley regarding the claims by by Chloe Johnston. Dated 14th April 2016.
Our original Court Claim is added at the end of this statement, so readers can see exactly what our complaints were.
We refute allegations made by Chloe Johnston photography in relation to recent media coverage and will address the points she has raised in her online statement. Chloe arrived late for the wedding booking which the wedding venue can confirm, along with a text message from Chloe apologising for her lateness. We have not alleged that she was late for the wedding ceremony, we have stated that she arrived after the agreed arrival time, which was 11am. The reason we expected her at 11am was that she had failed to respond to ALL our attempts to contact her over the previous month so we had missed the client meeting and any planning phone calls we should have had. She was supposed to arrive early so we could go through the plans with her. Chloe has never apologised for the stress she caused us when she ignored all our attempts to contact her.
A bride takes two hours plus to prepare for the Wedding so Chloe did capture some getting ready shots and that has never been disputed.
Our main issues surrounded the very poor quality of our group shots and missing coverage. Although Chloe's pre-wedding behaviour deprived us of any opportunity to plan them, we took a list of our required photos to the wedding and gave them to her. We only have a handful of the formal group photos we requested. Some of these are in odd locations like the car park, with cars in the background.
During the booking process, Chloe indicated she wanted to go into the woods near the hotel to do the “couple portraits”, but we warned her the groom is disabled and might not be able to walk that far. On the wedding day, Chloe tried again to get us to go to the woods. The groom explained again that he couldn't walk there and expected to continue the portraits at the hotel. To our surprise, Chloe then persuaded the bride and matron of honour to go to the woods instead. The groom was left alone at the hotel for around 45 minutes. We feel that the trip to the woods cost us coverage we wanted and caused bad feelings. Chloe should have been gathering the coverage we wanted not using our wedding as her portfolio shoot.
Our photobooth supplier was Mipod Events and it's easy to see that the photobooth images (of Chloe) are of a higher quality than those supplied by Chloe as our “professional wedding photographer.” We never gave permission for Chloe to use the photo booth or sign the guest book.
We received around 276 photographs on a USB from Chloe, however some are duplicates, eg black & white versions. If those images had been quality ones and we had been supplied with the group photos we requested there would probably never have been a court case. We gave the news agency access to the full set of images and a representative selection was chosen for the articles.
In Chloe's statement to the court she claimed that we had been very happy with our images, yet our original statement to court shows this to be untrue. We waited 9 weeks for our images and during that time we were sent a small preview set, which we were happy with. You can see my wife's response to those in Chloe's statement. However, for Chloe to mislead readers by claiming this reaction was to the full set is unacceptable. The first time we saw the full set was 8.30pm on 22nd November. We made our complaint about quality and missing coverage on 25th Nov.
A slightly confusing aspect of some of the media reports surrounds “fifteen photos.” The fifteen photos are in relation to coverage of the evening reception, not the full day. As Chloe was not responsible for running the photobooth we feel that 15 photos is very low for evening event coverage. Despite that, it was not a major issue in the court claim as you will see.
Chloe has also alleged that she had a second case against us for fraud. This is completely untrue, which we will explain in a moment. After our initial complaint Chloe blamed us for all the things we were complaining about and described us as unreasonable. We were unable to get her to take any responsibility for her failings, so realised we either had to shut up or take her to court. We then realised that we couldn't proceed with a court claim because Chloe had not supplied her address or a contract. We texted Chloe to ask for her address and she replied “F*** off” so we had to try and figure out where to serve the court documents. We found out her address but she denied that she lived there, so we drove there to see if there were residential properties on the street. (Google showed it as industrial units so we were confused.) Chloe phoned the police and claimed we were stalking her. She also denied that she lived there, so the stalking claims didn't quite make sense.
We then obtained an address for her father, following a public appeal for information. When we submitted the court claim, we used both addresses at which Chloe might reside, because she wouldn't tell us the truth. So we submitted the same claim against both addresses. The court hearing on 6th April was simply a formality to get the claim against her father's address removed because the claim had been dealt with at the industrial park address.
On the day of our original hearing, Chloe did not attend the court. She claims that she lost because her documents were lost but this was not the case. She had submitted her written defence prior to the hearing and we were sent a copy of it as is standard practice in such cases. The judge had all the information he needed to reach a decision.
An aspect of our claim was misrepresentation because Chloe had advertised as an experienced wedding photographer capable of producing “stunning romantic photographs.” It was only when we complained that she changed her story and blamed us for booking a “student photographer.” We based our decision to book Chloe on her professional website atwww.cjohnstonphotography.co.uk (now taken down) her Facebook page (also down) her advertising in Facebook groups and her verbal representation. We truly believed that she was an experienced wedding photographer because she consistently claimed to be one. Yet on the day of our wedding she attended with a cheap consumer DSLR and cheap lens. Her work falls below the quality of the work of the photobooth supplier.
After the judgement Chloe initially refused to pay. Then she sent two men to my front door to bully & intimidate me into accepting part payment. When I asked them to leave my property they refused. The police were subsequently called, during this time these men could see I had a ten month old baby in my arms. The remainder of the debt was recovered via bailiffs as Chloe refused to pay and only did so to avoid a further CCJ. I had to pay additional costs to get the bailiffs to recover monies owed.
To gain sympathy with readers Chloe has claimed that she fears for her life and has seen us waiting outside her property. She failed to disclose that she lives next to the Royal Mail delivery office for Bramley! This is where residents have to go to collect any parcels that arrive when they are out. We have had to collect two parcels from there this year, which hardly constitutes harassment!
Chloe claims to be against cyber bullying, yet she posted unkind and defamatory remarks about us online after we complained to her. This happened before we ever mentioned the dispute publically. All of this situation is Chloe's own doing. All we did was complain about our missing group photos and her taking the bride and matron of honour to the forest for a photoshoot while the groom was made to wait at the hotel. We never demanded a full refund. We simply tried to discuss our complaints with her but she would not accept any responsibility for the problems. So we went to court to ask a judge to determine how much we were owed and we were awarded a full refund and costs.
As a business she should listen to her customers. We know of two other couples unhappy with her work on their wedding day. We have been abused, called vile and references were made which disgusted me. Sadly court was the only option. We are shocked that Chloe has made an untrue statement online yesterday which seeks to absolve her of any blame for her own poor service. Chloe's website claimed that “each and every wedding is treated with individuality, care and love.” We have been treated terribly by Chloe Johnston.

Paul & Chareen Wheatley
14th April 2016

Below is our original statement submitted via the Small Claims Court website

Our claim against Chloe Johnston-Winterburn trading as Chloe Johnson Photography (CJP) revolves around the following issues:

Misrepresentation - We can prove that Chloe advertised extensively in Facebook wedding groups claiming to be a "reliable, experienced, creative, trustworthy female wedding photographer" who could "create stunning romantic photographs of the bride & groom" and “gorgeous wedding memories.”
We were urged to "allow C Johnson Photography to capture your day how you would like it to be captured" because “I base my packages around you… to ensure all your needs are met.” On her website we were reassured by phrases such as “Each and every wedding is treated with individuality, care and love. I work alongside you both to ensure we can create stunning and never ageing photographs. To ensure I capture all your minor details of your day I'm always there in the lead up to the wedding to help out where I can.”

We booked CJP on the basis of her online claims and paid £500 for 8 hours wedding photography booked for 13th September 2015. We believed that Chloe was a professional wedding photographer. We checked her website and Facebook page. We have now discovered that Chloe did not even bring any professional photographic equipment to our wedding. She came with a cheap consumer grade camera, a Nikon D7000 and cheap 18-105mm zoom lens. We don’t think she had a proper flash and do not remember one being used.

The lead up to the wedding was very stressful as after we paid the final balance in early August we found we were unable to contact Chloe again.

We posted on her Facebook page, emailed and phoned her but she was gone, we got no response. Chloe had asked us to make the payments via Paypal but use “friends and family” option which took away our chance to claim anything back from Paypal. We hadn’t realised Chloe was cheating us out of our paypal protection, she said she was just avoiding fees. In a panic we even arranged an emergency replacement for her by phoning a guest to ask them to step in as wedding photographer. Finally, at 11pm on 12th September, the night before the wedding, Chloe responded by text informing us that she would be attending.

The agreed start time was 11am but CJP did not arrive until around 12.15.

Due to Chloe not responding to any attempts to contact her before the wedding we were unable to have the pre-wedding meeting and discussions that we expected. Despite this, we were organised and supplied Chloe with a comprehensive written list of group photos and desired shots when she arrived at the venue. We have only received a portion of those. Several of the formal group photos are missing. The important "main group" of all guests together is of little use as it has been taken from too low an angle so that many people's faces can't be seen. This is due to the photographer's neglect in not finding a good place to take the photo. The venue provides two other good locations for the group photo which would have enabled all guests to be seen. We have obtained examples of these after searching online.

CJP failed to take into account the groom's disability when providing the wedding photography service. The extended time taken to arrange the main group on grass meant that the groom was in severe pain and this is evident by his expression on the few groups that were taken afterwards. Prior to moving onto the grassed area, Chloe was informed that the groom could only stand on hard ground comfortably.

The situation worsened when Chloe insisted she wanted to take us into the nearby forest to do the "stunning romantic photographs of the bride and groom" we had anticipated. The groom explained that due to his serious knee injury there was no way he could walk into the forest. Instead of taking more portraits at the hotel, Chloe persuaded the bride to go to the forest without the groom. She took the chief bridesmaid instead, while the groom was left for approx 45 minutes waiting at the hotel. He felt he could not go to the room to rest because he didn’t know when his wife would return, so he waited in the bar.
This experience had a negative impact on the groom’s enjoyment of the day and means that there are fewer nice couple photos than we expected. After delivery, we complained about the shortage of nice couple photos and Chloe blamed us for not spending enough time doing them!

Chloe has been trying to discredit us online and to the Police by stating that Mrs Chareen Wheatley said how happy she was with the photos and it's just Mr Paul Wheatley who later objected to the quality & service supplied. However, this is untrue. As the photos took so long to be delivered we kept contacting her asking for updates re progress and she sent over a couple of small selections which amounted to less than 10 photos in total. It is this small preview set that we liked and were happy with. We finally received the full set of images on a USB drive at 8.30pm on 22nd November, 9 weeks after the wedding. Our initial complaint was made on 25th November. There was no point after delivery of the images that we said we were satisfied with them.

Our package included an engagement shoot which we swapped for a Christening shoot for our baby. We have not received the images from this shoot at all.

Chloe claims that she has “fulfilled the contract” despite having never issued a contract. After our complaint, Chloe stated that her clients should expect 250-700 images from a full day wedding. We only have 276 and some of these are duplicates or watermarked web versions. We do not have 250 quality images of our wedding.

Initially we asked to discuss the matter and find some resolution due to the various issues we had:
Missing images
poor quality of images
failure to take into account the groom’s disability on the day
excessive delay in delivering the images
misrepresentation of her skills and experience
her bad attitude to our complaint

Chloe accused us of trying to grab money back from our wedding suppliers by faking complaints and refused to discuss our complaints or requests for a refund. She insists there is nothing wrong with her service or the product supplied.

We were sent screen shots by a local amateur photographer friend who saw her being disrespectful about us in a Facebook group.

After this we realised that we needed to take action via Small Claims court but when we went online to commence the claim we did not have an address for Chloe. That’s when we realised we should have been given a contract and proper trading address details for her. We texted Chloe to ask for her address but she refused to provide it. We believe there has been a breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in that CJP did not issue proper documentation, did not display any address anywhere online and refused to give us an address when it was requested.

We searched online but could find no address anywhere so turned to Facebook for help as we are not very internet savvy. A photographer in the Midlands discovered CJP’s domain was registered to 1 Waterloo Way LS13 2EF but he warned us that on Google maps there did not seem to be any residential properties there. We drove to that address to see if we could spot a car we might recognise but it looked like industrial units and a pet shop.
We were left to plead for help on the Leedsface Facebook group as a last resort. When we did that we were contacted by another of Chloe’s clients who explained they had to involve Trading Standards before managing to obtain their wedding photos.
As a result of our appeal for information Chloe called the Police and said we were harassing her. The Police have been phoning and coming to our house due to Chloe lying to them about our dispute.

As CJP refuse to deal with our complaint and have made insulting comments about us online we would like to bring the matter before the court to determine what compensation and refund we are due.
 
Last edited:
Messages
6,521
Edit My Images
No
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.
You also said "frankly she deserved it" !

Following the latest public disclosures from Chloe, do you have anything else to add from your overarching knowledge of this case ?
 
Messages
3,824
Name
Terry
Edit My Images
Yes
There are only 3 people who know the truth and none of them are here.

Amazing resemblance to my daughter's experience though. Wonder if these togs are related?
 
Last edited:

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
You also said "frankly she deserved it" !

Following the latest public disclosures from Chloe, do you have anything else to add from your overarching knowledge of this case ?
She's not really disclosed much more, and certainly still seems to be economical with anything factual.

The grooms statement does seem to contain more pertinent facts (albeit written no doubt via their solicitor, it seems very eloquent).
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,343
Name
Greg
Edit My Images
No
I have read enough now. Time to move on me thinks and get on with life. Im sure this will run on but I have some paint to watch dry ;).

On a serious note, this could be made into a sticky for anyone looking to shoot their first wedding and 'what not to do'!!

Really drives home the importance of getting it right and being professional from the start.

Her No1 mistake was not joining this forum and asking what to do. The advice that this forum has provided to me over the years, as well as others, is invaluable.
 
Messages
1,130
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
As already said, there are usually three truths and never believe a newspaper story.

Having said that, a judge has awarded all of the money back, her website (allegedly) shows other togs work and then there's the photos that have been published. No contract, no address, gift payment for "pro" work and other (alleged) complaints. Doesn't paint a pretty picture does it.

On the plus side, reading this thread prompted me to subtly call my bro this morning regarding his upcoming wedding. When originally planning his wedding he asked if I'd take photos of the day. As I'm no wedding photographer I advised him to hire a pro, which he did. I decided to check out the hired togs work this morning and I'm pleased to say it looks pretty good :)
 

big soft moose

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
Messages
24,048
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
If Ms Johnston really can prove that she's been "slandered" (techincally if its in writing its Libel but lets not quibble) then she should sue the journalist and couple involved . Since truth is an absolute defence to a charge of slander/libel this would establish the true situation once and for all.

I suspect however that there will be brief display of chest beating on both sides then the whole thing will disapear into the ether

End of the day the lessons here are

a) for photographers - do what you say you'll do, don't advertise services you can't provide, and use a contract so expectation are clear on all sides at the start (oh and charge a reasonable ammount £500 for prep to end of evening is bonkers)

b) for couples - shop arround, check out your togs bonafides, and if the price seems too good to be true, it is - and if you do decide to choose a tog that charges £500 for all day don't be surprised when they arent very experienced (also if your tog asks you to go into the woods for a photoshoot and you don't want to go, refuse)
 
Last edited:
Messages
8,646
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
The link containing this has already been posted a few times, but see my post above, she seems to have unwittingly admitted to not telling he whole story ;)
Perhaps she should have used the whole quote

'There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each differently.'

 
Messages
16,268
Name
Hugh
Edit My Images
No
Maybe there's a case for wedding photographers requiring a license of some sort, gained by proof of basic competence? Not sure how that would work or how it would be implemented but..
TBH I think that wouldn't fly at all. How would you enforce if nothing else
 
Messages
29,646
Name
Bat-Frog
Edit My Images
No
Maybe there's a case for wedding photographers requiring a license of some sort, gained by proof of basic competence? Not sure how that would work or how it would be implemented but..
So by that thinking, everyone who offers a service of any kind should be licensed?
On the scale of the impact one someone's life if it goes wrong, I'd think some poorly executed wedding photographs are incredibly low on the list.
 

big soft moose

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
Messages
24,048
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
TBH I think that wouldn't fly at all. How would you enforce if nothing else
that

in theory you could make a case for acreddited membership of an organisation being the way forward - like Corgi/Gas safe etc, but the issue is there are a confusing (for non photographers especially) number of organisations RPS/SWPP/BIPP/MPA/Fearless etc plus theres no way of easily enforcing the numpties who use the logo when they are only a basic member, or arent a member at all.

Plus you'll have people who go the 'Revell' route , or just make any old b*****ks up ... if I claimed to be an FBSM how would a client know that i'd made it up ?

Remember that tit a few years ago who had " I am a valued member of TP and POTN " in his about me text :LOL:
 
Messages
29,646
Name
Bat-Frog
Edit My Images
No
Corgi / Gas Safe accreditation makes sense. If they screw it up....someone could die.
If a photographer screws up, it's some drama queen tears. Nothing more.
Sense of proportion folks :LOL:
 
Messages
11,767
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
You also said "frankly she deserved it" !

Following the latest public disclosures from Chloe, do you have anything else to add from your overarching knowledge of this case ?

Since the full story is basically now out, no I don't. The couple's statement pretty much covers it, including attempting to get the police to arrest the groom for harassment and sending two local muscle boys to physically threaten him.

It's not far off the full story but yes, I absolutely believe that she has deserved everything.


Or did you gloss over the Bride and Groom's statement it a fit of glee?
 
Messages
6,775
Name
Steven
Edit My Images
Yes
before everyone gets too excited, have you heard both sides of the story.
Not really, but a court did and we know what they decided...
While I'm sure the images used/shown are some of the worst, the remaining images obviously were not sufficient for them to be considered outliers/outtakes (that shouldn't have been given to the clients).
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't get it. You hire a STUDENT with zero experience to photograph your wedding and pay her a modest fee.

What were they expecting?
She didn't advertise herself as that, and put photos on her page she didn't even take.

If you read it all its obvious the issues she created.
 
Messages
1,934
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
I actually couldn't give a rats arse about her s***e wedding photos, neither should the public at large.

People put themselves under a huge amount of stress and pain because of one day. It isn't that big, its not a whole marriage, its a couple of promises in front of something most don't really believe in. Followed up by paying over the odds for substandard food for people you hardly know, and wouldn't dream of paying for their dinner any other time.
 

odd jim

Flimsiest Lambresta
Messages
9,323
Name
Jim
Edit My Images
Yes
I actually couldn't give a rats arse about her s***e wedding photos, neither should the public at large.

People put themselves under a huge amount of stress and pain because of one day. It isn't that big, its not a whole marriage, its a couple of promises in front of something most don't really believe in. Followed up by paying over the odds for substandard food for people you hardly know, and wouldn't dream of paying for their dinner any other time.
I think of them as pre divorce parties, lol!!*

* except when I'm photographing one!
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
THIRTYFIVEMILL
Messages
2,844
Name
Dunc
Edit My Images
Yes
Corgi / Gas Safe accreditation makes sense. If they screw it up....someone could die.
If a photographer screws up, it's some drama queen tears. Nothing more.
Sense of proportion folks :LOL:
Listen, putting accreditation into place would be difficult and I'm not saying it should be done, even if there might be a case for it. However, I don't think your comment: "If a photographer screws up, it's some drama queen tears. Nothing more." is in any way appropriate and by all accounts that sounds like the same kind of attitude that Chloe endorsed.
 
Messages
29,646
Name
Bat-Frog
Edit My Images
No
Listen, putting accreditation into place would be difficult and I'm not saying it should be done, even if there might be a case for it. However, I don't think your comment: "If a photographer screws up, it's some drama queen tears. Nothing more." is in any way appropriate and by all accounts that sounds like the same kind of attitude that Chloe endorsed.
In what way is it not appropriate?
My comment is factually accurate.
Surely you're not suggesting that a person's life or safety may hang in the balance if a wedding photography delivers substandard service, are you?
 

big soft moose

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
Messages
24,048
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
There's a lot of "buyer beware" and "they should have known better" types of comments in this thread. That is not the nature of business/contracts, it's the exact opposite.
Really ?

So when you hire a contractor you havent used before you don't check refferences, qualifications, certificates, insurance etc.. you just take them at their word ? ! , or when you buy a new product you don't check it out, do your research, compare prices with competing offers ? you just believe whatever the seller tells you... really ??? in that case let me tell you about these magic beans I have for sale....

I'm not defending anyone who misrepresents themselves or their product, but there is some onus on the buyer to think about what they are buying , who from, and why the price seems so good .
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
THIRTYFIVEMILL
Messages
2,844
Name
Dunc
Edit My Images
Yes
I actually couldn't give a rats arse about her s***e wedding photos, neither should the public at large.

People put themselves under a huge amount of stress and pain because of one day. It isn't that big, its not a whole marriage, its a couple of promises in front of something most don't really believe in. Followed up by paying over the odds for substandard food for people you hardly know, and wouldn't dream of paying for their dinner any other time.
Then we simply have to hope you don't do wedding photography, I guess.

1. It isn't that big

2. its not a whole marriage

3. its a couple of promises in front of something most don't really believe in.

4. Followed up by paying over the odds for substandard food for people you hardly know

Those are 4 statements you've posted as fact. Here a couple more for you:

1. Actually, to many it is. It may not be to you but your opinion is not everyone's reality.

2. So what? It's the first day and something many choose to celebrate and each chooses how they do so.

3. Not to me and many others it's not. Again, your opinion does not constitute fact and is not reality.

4. The food at my wedding was exquisite and I'd have happily paid more for it.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
THIRTYFIVEMILL
Messages
2,844
Name
Dunc
Edit My Images
Yes
In what way is it not appropriate?
My comment is factually accurate.
Surely you're not suggesting that a person's life or safety may hang in the balance if a wedding photography delivers substandard service, are you?
No, but I am saying you're potentially ruining a "part" of what to many is the most important day of their life. I deal with people's finances. I have to be accredited and licensed. If I screw up someone's finances no-one dies, either.
 

big soft moose

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
Messages
24,048
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
Listen, putting accreditation into place would be difficult and I'm not saying it should be done, even if there might be a case for it. However, I don't think your comment: "If a photographer screws up, it's some drama queen tears. Nothing more." is in any way appropriate and by all accounts that sounds like the same kind of attitude that Chloe endorsed.
describing it as "just some drama queen tears" is a bit insensitive and underplays the disapointment that an unhappy client might feel - but at the same time Ruth has a point that if a photographer screws up the consequences are not as a severe as when a gas fitter/electrician etc screws up , which is why regulation of the trade isnt likely
 

big soft moose

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
Messages
24,048
Name
Pete
Edit My Images
Yes
No, but I am saying you're potentially ruining a "part" of what to many is the most important day of their life. I deal with people's finances. I have to be accredited and licensed. If I screw up someone's finances no-one dies, either.
but screwing up someones finances is again much worse than screwing up their photos

mind you I used to be a tree surgeon and if we'd screwed that up the consequences could have been fatal , but it was still pretty much unregulated (our insurance required certain qualifications, but your average cow boy gets round that by not having insurance either)

It wasnt however uncommon to meet clients who'd hired a bloke called bob they met in a pub to do their tree surgery - paid him upfront, and then been really surprised when he buggered off as soon as the job went wrong ... we generally met them round about the time that "bob" had managed to hang a tree up over their house, car, greenhouse etc and they needed us to unf*** his f*** ups which generally wound up costing twice as much as if they'd just hired us to do the job properly in the first place
 
Last edited:
Messages
29,646
Name
Bat-Frog
Edit My Images
No
No, but I am saying you're potentially ruining a "part" of what to many is the most important day of their life. I deal with people's finances. I have to be accredited and licensed. If I screw up someone's finances no-one dies, either.
No, but they could lose their home, wind up on the streets. Their children could suffer long term effects as a consequence of your poor performance.
A wedding picture is still just a picture. A tiny facet of an otherwise (hopefully) wonderful (if ridiculously overpriced) occasion.
Absolutely nothing important rests on it.
The mere fact that people would class the day as "ruined" because of it, in my opinion, calls into question their priorities in general.
 
Top