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

I don't understand why people here are going on about getting a cheap deal means they are going to get stitched.

If I bought a good pair of designer jeans for example I'd expect a lovely pair of jeans that are made correctly.

If I bought a pair of value jeans from Tesco I'd still expect the same. If they were of unsatisfactory quality by means of manufacture Trading standards and trade descriptions act would be brought up in conversation and the supplier of said faulty jeans would need, legally to refund me according to my statutory rights as a consumer.

Same goes for the "cheap" wedding photographer. The bride expected, quite rightly and legally so, to have her contract (verbal or otherwise) fulfilled to her satisfaction.

Keyboard warriors feel free to disagree, as I know you will.
 
Last edited:
GreenNinja67 said:
I don't understand why people here are going on about getting a cheap deal means they are going to get stitched.

If I bought a good pair of designer jeans for example I'd expect a lovely pair of jeans that are made correctly.

If I bought a pair of value jeans from Tesco I'd still expect the same. If they were of unsatisfactory quality by means of manufacture Trading standards and trade descriptions act would be brought up in conversation and the supplier of said faulty jeans would need, legally to refund me according to my statutory rights as a consumer.

Same goes for the "cheap" wedding photographer. The bride expected, quite rightly and legally so, to have her contract (verbal or otherwise) fulfilled to her satisfaction.

Keyboard warriors feel free to disagree, as I know you will.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you've said (apart from the bit about how anyone who disagrees with you is a keyboard warrior). However if you bought a pair of alledgedly designer jeans out of the boot of a car behind the dog and duck in order to get them at a third of the price that you'd pay in a shop, would you be entirely surprised when they turned out to be counterfeit ?

Of course dodgy dave would still be in the wrong for selling you snide goods , but wouldn't you feel a bit daft for being taken in by him ?

I'm not saying that a bride deserves to get ripped off because they can only afford a cheap tog - obviously that tog should still deliver the goods, what i'm saying is that a sensible customer realises that there are a lot of frauds and charlatans out there (not to mention naive togs who think they can when they can't) and does their best not to get ripped rather than believing everything they are told.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
There's certainly no legal culpability for the buyer , but do you really not think that people should do some research before making buying choices ? do you take no care whatsoever not to get ripped off and believe everything you are told by a vendor ?

Certainly in a business environment an employer would expect that his employees would do some research before parting with the companies money, and indeed in that circumstance the customer company can have some liability for the failure of the equipment or service they've procured

For example if I hire a tree surgeon and he f***s the job up and drops a tree on a visitor and kills them , if it then turns out that he has no tree surgery qualifications , then I and my employer are going to be liable for negligence and it won't be a defence to say "oh he said he had them and we believed him" , which is why if i hire a contractor I don't take everything they tell me at face value and want references , and copies of qualifications and insurance certificates and so forth.
Click to expand...
Certainly it makes sense to research/verify, but there is no "requirement" as such... and the results of research presumes a level of knowledge/experience which may or may not be applicable.

Your correlation of liability is somewhat relevant, but not directly correlated. In the case of a photographer, your liability would be based upon your agreement/contract with the venue and with the photographer. And there is no possible clause that would waive the photographer's liability of negligence and place it on you.
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Absolutely Jim.

I had exactly that combo before going FX.

A little thought and a D700 for fill and she'd have been good to go.

Apart from Narrow DOF shots and nice bokeh that is.
Click to expand...
Fact is, gear matters in the sense of "professionalism." It won't matter one iota if the client is happy with the results. And having the best gear won't matter a whole lot if the client is not happy (i.e. all the gear, no knowledge). But having "consumer grade" gear is another point against your "professionalism/service" if the client is not happy.
 
sk66 said:
And there is no possible clause that would waive the photographer's liability of negligence and place it on you.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree - I think we are talking about different things ... I'm not suggesting for a moment that Chloe Johnston didn't have the responsibility to deliver wedding photos of the standard she said she could... she had that responsibility as soon as she took their money, and she either deliberately ripped them off or was basically incompetent (assuming of course that the photos in the DM are representative). Having failed to deliver the service she then has a responsibility to return the fee , and should have done so before this got anywhere near court.

What i'm saying however is that they were a bit daft to hire her in the first place, and could have saved themselves a lot of grief by doing some research, paying more, and hiring someone actually competent, or if they couldn't afford to pay more to concentrate their resources on a shorter period of time...
 
big soft moose said:
I absolutely agree - I think we are talking about different things ... I'm not suggesting for a moment that Chloe Johnston didn't have the responsibility to deliver wedding photos of the standard she said she could... she had that responsibility as soon as she took their money, and she either deliberately ripped them off or was basically incompetent (assuming of course that the photos in the DM are representative). Having failed to deliver the service she then has a responsibility to return the fee , and should have done so before this got anywhere near court.

What i'm saying however is that they were a bit daft to hire her in the first place, and could have saved themselves a lot of grief by doing some research, paying more, and hiring someone actually competent, or if they couldn't afford to pay more to concentrate their resources on a shorter period of time...
Click to expand...



Ah Pete, the wonders of hindsight.

Exactly how my daughter feels now.

Is it the norm to demand full upfront payment nowadays? When I last did weddings I took a non refundable deposit to cover my time if the booking was cancelled at the last minute.

But it seems the "tog" my daughter booked and Chloe Johnston each demanded the full value upfront?

If I was a propective customer I would have thought a tog who had only taken a deposit would want to do a good job to ensure they got the remaider of monies owed.
If they've been paid already them some will adopt a lacksadaisical approach to the shoot.
 
full value before the wedding is normal practice (not least because getting paid afterwards can be a real arse) - full value at booking is less normal, I'd generally ask for a 20% deposit at booking and the rest payable about 4-6 weeks before the wedding.

When you think about it venue, florist, cake etc is all paid up front so there's no particular reason for a tog to be different

Of course payment up front whether deposit or full does also open up the chance of the absolute con artist who takes the cash and disapears, but avoiding that again comes down to research and hiring someone with good reputation
 
David
The image on her website not being her own is precicesly the point, did the couple know they were not her own?
Elderley people are regularly in the press as having been scammed because they are vunerable, not the thing same as stupid. This couple may be venerable and even if they are not, even if they are just stupid I prefer to think that nobody deserves to be ripped off.
I did not notice you say that the photographer should pay the money back, if you did great then we do agree on that but Im not sure why you find that confusing as everything I said pointed to that.
 
big soft moose said:
What i'm saying however is that they were a bit daft to hire her in the first place, and could have saved themselves a lot of grief by doing some research, paying more, and hiring someone actually competent, or if they couldn't afford to pay more to concentrate their resources on a shorter period of time...
Click to expand...
When you do your research to the best of your ability/knowledge and find what you believe to be the best deal, do you take it? I do...
 
I'd be interested in how you guys feel about the new trend of handing over a "memory stick". I have a pair of new clients that requested just this, no album etc. They are not even interested in the photos being worked on, they seem to expect them on a stick at the end of the day ! I am visiting them to discuss this in detail and get a few things in writing (if they insist this is what they want) but I must admit, I'm close to turning the job down as my reputation is worth more than a cheap job. I hope this type of expectation and shortcut isn't the future of photography.

Sean
 
I often supply images on a stick, but not unselected and unedited. Shooting to provide good ex-camera jpegs requires different settings and techniques which I'm not good at, and have no interest in becoming good at.
 
Levidog said:
I'd be interested in how you guys feel about the new trend of handing over a "memory stick". I have a pair of new clients that requested just this, no album etc. They are not even interested in the photos being worked on, they seem to expect them on a stick at the end of the day ! I am visiting them to discuss this in detail and get a few things in writing (if they insist this is what they want) but I must admit, I'm close to turning the job down as my reputation is worth more than a cheap job. I hope this type of expectation and shortcut isn't the future of photography.

Sean
Click to expand...
It's not a trend. It's a small market sector; people who think that photographer means 'camera operator'.
Edit to add: Someone will do it, but it's not for me, unless I was handing over files to another photographer I could trust.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
It's not a trend. It's a small market sector; people who think that photographer means 'camera operator'.
Click to expand...

That applies in all situations, how many times have I had people say "That camera takes good pictures" :banghead:
 
sk66 said:
When you do your research to the best of your ability/knowledge and find what you believe to be the best deal, do you take it? I do...
Click to expand...

yes - but the key is that the research is more indepth than 5 minutes with google, its not clear to me that this couple did any research at all

also the 'best' deal for something important isnt necessarily the one with the lowest price - its the one best able to provide the highest quality within budget
 
Steve-T said:
David
The image on her website not being her own is precicesly the point, did the couple know they were not her own?
Elderley people are regularly in the press as having been scammed because they are vunerable, not the thing same as stupid. This couple may be venerable and even if they are not, even if they are just stupid I prefer to think that nobody deserves to be ripped off.
I did not notice you say that the photographer should pay the money back, if you did great then we do agree on that but Im not sure why you find that confusing as everything I said pointed to that.
Click to expand...

The couple concerned are i think 45 and 38 - hardly too elederly to notice that the work on her website had watermarks from various other photographers

No one is saying they deserved to be ripped off or that she shouldnt pay the money back - but it is hard to have much sympathy for people who didnt do even basic research into what they were buying
 
Last edited:
Levidog said:
I'd be interested in how you guys feel about the new trend of handing over a "memory stick". I have a pair of new clients that requested just this, no album etc. They are not even interested in the photos being worked on, they seem to expect them on a stick at the end of the day ! I am visiting them to discuss this in detail and get a few things in writing (if they insist this is what they want) but I must admit, I'm close to turning the job down as my reputation is worth more than a cheap job. I hope this type of expectation and shortcut isn't the future of photography.

Sean
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with handing over editted imjages digitially - a lot of clients want to put them on facebook or in E farmes etc rather than having prints and albums

handing over unedditted images though is just dumb - thats how you wind up in the DM because even the best of us has duffers that shouldnt go anywhere near the client, not to mention that even good shots need some pp to bring the best out of them
 
Levidog said:
I'd be interested in how you guys feel about the new trend of handing over a "memory stick". I have a pair of new clients that requested just this, no album etc. They are not even interested in the photos being worked on, they seem to expect them on a stick at the end of the day ! I am visiting them to discuss this in detail and get a few things in writing (if they insist this is what they want) but I must admit, I'm close to turning the job down as my reputation is worth more than a cheap job. I hope this type of expectation and shortcut isn't the future of photography.

Sean
Click to expand...
This case (and others similar) should provide a very strong reason as to why you should not hand over "all images." Or, really, any images you are not 100% happy with. It would not take much to pull out a "representative sample" of images from the worst of the bunch and use that as "evidence."

I've not run into it myself, but I've heard of "clients" who intentionally complain and find fault as part of a "cost savings plan."
 
big soft moose said:
The couple concerned are i think 45 and 38 - hardly too elederly to notice that the work on her website had watermarks from various other photographers

No one is saying they deserved to be ripped off or that she shouldnt pay the money back - but it is hard to have much sympathy for people who didnt do even basic research into what they were buying
Click to expand...

The elderley example was an analogy.
 
Steve-T said:
The elderley example was an analogy.
Click to expand...

not really you said 'may be they are venerable' (which means old) ... although I've just realised it was probably supposed to say 'vulnerable'

Eitherway its clearly an irrelevance as if they were in a vulnerable group don't you think the media might have homed in on "photographer rips off vulnerable couple".
 
big soft moose said:
not really you said 'may be they are venerable' (which means old) ... although I've just realised it was probably supposed to say 'vulnerable'

Eitherway its clearly an irrelevance as if they were in a vulnerable group don't you think the media might have homed in on "photographer rips off vulnerable couple".
Click to expand...

It is an irrelevance, as is harping on about the couple not doing enough research. You have no idea how much research they did. They may well have spent hours researching and finally settled on Chloe after believing her pitch. To say they were partly responsible because they miss the watermarks of another photographer is ludicrous. They were the victims, not Chloe. End of.
 
WingTsun said:
It is an irrelevance, as is harping on about the couple not doing enough research. You have no idea how much research they did. They may well have spent hours researching and finally settled on Chloe after believing her pitch. To say they were partly responsible because they miss the watermarks of another photographer is ludicrous. They were the victims, not Chloe. End of.
Click to expand...

I'd go back and read what i said again if i were you - this must be the eighth time I've said that i'm not repeat not saying that chloe was a victim - assuming the mail account is accurate and representative (which with the mail can be quite a big assumption ;) ) then she clearly didnt provide value for money and should think her self lucky to have got away with just repaying the fee. As I said above I can't decide whether shes a deliberate con artist, or a silly naive little girl who's handled this really badly

my point - as I've also explained a number of times, is that I can't feel too sorry for the couple who took the decision to only pay £500 for the shots of their big day whilst also spending money on a photobooth , chocolate fountain and other fripperies, then compounded that error by using that £500 to hire a bottom end tog who promised far more than she could deliver instead of using it for fewer hours of better quality coverage , and then further compounded by seemingly not doing any due dilligence to check out the bonafides of said tog

Whilst you are right that i don't absolutely know what research they did, it is a fair assumption that they didnt google chloes name (which is a pretty basic precaution) because if they had done they'd have found the various examples of utterly appalling photography that others have found since. (unless of course they did find them but booked her anyway - in which case i have even less sympathy) '

Yes they were the victims - I'm not disputing that , but they seem to have been pretty stupid victims which is why i have little sympathy for them (lessened still further by their taking/selling their story to the daily mail). If you take silly risks, sometimes they blow up in your face "end of"
 
big soft moose said:
I'd go back and read what i said again if i were you - this must be the eighth time I've said that i'm not repeat not saying that chloe was a victim - assuming the mail account is accurate and representative (which with the mail can be quite a big assumption ;) ) then she clearly didnt provide value for money and should think her self lucky to have got away with just repaying the fee. As I said above I can't decide whether shes a deliberate con artist, or a silly naive little girl who's handled this really badly

my point - as I've also explained a number of times, is that I can't feel too sorry for the couple who took the decision to only pay £500 for the shots of their big day whilst also spending money on a photobooth , chocolate fountain and other fripperies, then compounded that error by using that £500 to hire a bottom end tog who promised far more than she could deliver instead of using it for fewer hours of better quality coverage , and then further compounded by seemingly not doing any due dilligence to check out the bonafides of said tog

Whilst you are right that i don't absolutely know what research they did, it is a fair assumption that they didnt google chloes name (which is a pretty basic precaution) because if they had done they'd have found the various examples of utterly appalling photography that others have found since. (unless of course they did find them but booked her anyway - in which case i have even less sympathy) '

Yes they were the victims - I'm not disputing that , but they seem to have been pretty stupid victims which is why i have little sympathy for them (lessened still further by their taking/selling their story to the daily mail). If you take silly risks, sometimes they blow up in your face "end of"
Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. ;)
 
big soft moose said:
not really you said 'may be they are venerable' (which means old) ... although I've just realised it was probably supposed to say 'vulnerable'

Eitherway its clearly an irrelevance as if they were in a vulnerable group don't you think the media might have homed in on "photographer rips off vulnerable couple".
Click to expand...
Well now you point it out, I said vunerable the first time and venerable the second, it was a typo.
Anyway, I only have one real point and that is that in my opinion theydo not deserve what they got no matter how stupid or vunerable, or perhaps just plain lazy or tight fisted or anything else and that I think they do deserve some sympathy which was why I made my post when David said he had no sympathy.
You have your opinion and I have mine and i don't feel like arguing about it :)
 
FYI, venerable doesn't necessarily mean old.
 
She means me Steve ... and yes I know it means respected or honoured on account of age, wisdom or character , and that in the catholic church it can also be a title applied to a dead person who is almost but not quite a saint.(my father was a teacher of English) However in the context of what Steve wrote, had it not been a typo (which we've already agreed it was) it could be read as a refference to age (rather than wisdom or character).

Seriously, some people could argue in an empty room
 
Last edited:
The problem with this story is...it's clickbaity b*****ks from the Daily Mail.

There's demonstrably another side to the story, with pictures. The couple in question (or the paper, who knows) also seem to have used other guest's social media photos from the event and claimed that the photographer produced them to make the article look more newsworthy.

http://www.pretty52.com/news/commun...-called-her-a-photographer-from-hell-20160414

Also, Paul Wheatley, the groom in the story, has a history of creating news "stories" like this...
 
This is the problem with trial by media , no one who wasnt there knows the truth of the matter - however that article is based nearly entirely on what Ms Johnston claims with only limited proof (where for example is the proof that Mr Wheatley has form for making up storys like this one ? )

EOTD the main questions for me are

a) if Ms Johnston's account is demonstrably correct why did she lose in court when they sued her for return of fee ?

b) If Ms Johnston's account is demonstrably correct why has she not sued them and the DM for libel ? (there could be quite substantial damages from the DM group and other media for the reputational harm she has suffered if its provably false)

c) Why did Ms Johnston have other photographers images on her website if her intention wasn't to mislead about her skill and experience level ? - per the photostealers link

I'd also add that the pictures contained in that link are better than what the DM used but they still arent very good (though they are more in keeping with what you'd expect based on what she was charging)
 
Last edited:
landwomble said:
The problem with this story is...it's clickbaity b*****ks from the Daily Mail.

There's demonstrably another side to the story, with pictures. The couple in question (or the paper, who knows) also seem to have used other guest's social media photos from the event and claimed that the photographer produced them to make the article look more newsworthy.

http://www.pretty52.com/news/commun...-called-her-a-photographer-from-hell-20160414

Also, Paul Wheatley, the groom in the story, has a history of creating news "stories" like this...
Click to expand...
Interesting, though I couldn't find reference to other guests presumably camera photos being used as evidence of Chloe's poor pictures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top