Have some Wedding Photographers lost the plot

[chip]

I was photographing a wedding doing my usual mixture of traditional groups and plenty of informal when a couple started to mutter in my ear "I wish we had you at our daughter's wedding. Their photographer was rubbish".

Intrigued, I asked them if they knew who the photographer was and was very surprised when they named a guy that I actually recommend, and I knew he was certainly not 'rubbish'.

I asked them what the problem was and their reply was "he didn't take the family groups like you did". Thinking this might be a generation gap issue, I asked if their daughter & husband were disappointed too? They seemed unsure!

To their credit, they actually contacted me later, said their daughter was delighted, and the photographer covered the wedding exactly as they had asked.

So 'NO', not every wedding should have traditional groups if the client has specified differently.

Having said that, I shoot them on almost all weddings but I don't think ANY family groups appear on my website or blog. They are in my sample albums though.

 

[paul_g]

I HATE traditional group shots. Its my least favourite part of the wedding, I can't stand editting them (blinking should be a capital punishment offence), I know that dispite giving me a long list of groups the B&G will always skim through these images and they'll very, very rarely go in the album.

BUT I still take them every time.

Would I blog them? No. In some ways I desperately cling on to the hope that by not blogging them I'll attract a client who doesn't want to do them!

In all seriousness though they tend to be dull to look at unless you know who's in them and even then until someone dies they tend to get passed over very quickly.

Thats the complete opposite of my experience. I've lost track of how many times couples have emphasised that they like casual shots which I happily shoot but then when the album list comes through its groups, groups & more groups

 

[Radiohead]

Do I enjoy shooting formal groups? No. Do I shoot them, yes. They're not exactly difficult or interesting for anyone involved.

I shoot 40 weddings a year. And I can say with confidence that every one of those 40 couple will say 'we don't want many groups, but our parents will want a few'.

They will also say 'we've been at weddings where it's taken 2 hours for the group photos and they're no fun at all. We want to be with our guests and spend time with them'.

So I normally limit the groups to 8 or less (and most end up with 4-6). That takes around 10-15 minutes, and I'll spend around 20 minutes with the bride and groom. That means they'll get an hour with their guests if they're having a 90 min reception, and 1 1/2 hours if it's a 2 hour one.

My site doesn't show them because a) they're pretty dull and b) I don't want to attract couples who do want loads of groups. People that book me want what I show.

FWIW - I also know of some photographers who sell themselves as pure photojournalist, with no interaction with the day/guests and no groups. It's pretty much nonsense. They still shoot some groups.

 

[NikUzer]

I would also mention that a lot of photographers do 'formal group shots' but won't necessarily include them in blog story boards, remember even a story board in most instances isn't the entire gallery that the couple will see. Personally I sometimes try and include one, but not always, they are rarely 'interesting' to anyone other than those that were there and will do little to promote your 'style' unless you are the sort of photographer that will take the time to do really 'unusual' large group arrangements [as opposed to having some fun with just the bridal party]
Some 'reportage' photographers simply don't do them, that is fine, the couple will be fully aware of that before booking and are booking that photographer for that style - it is their choice.

I have to say I agree with this comment, I think one wedding can involve three styles of photography; traditional wedding shots and formal group portraits, reportage story telling candid shots (which seem very popular) and then those special shots where the couple are posed.

My blog posts don't feature the formal group shots as they tend to be rather boring?

 

[corny]

Hi Les, with you 100%. A colleague showed me her wedding pics. Pics being the operative word. It just looked like the guy had blasted away at 6fps then posted them straight to the website. The poorly composed ones being justified as contemporary! Whilst I am only a friends and family wedding guy, I did have have dear couple approach me who knew of me through a friend and asked almost in embarassment whether I would do their sons blessing with formal pictures as they were struggling to find someone who would do formal group shots! Go figure!

 

[tiler65]

Hi Les, with you 100%. A colleague showed me her wedding pics. Pics being the operative word. It just looked like the guy had blasted away at 6fps then posted them straight to the website. The poorly composed ones being justified as contemporary! Whilst I am only a friends and family wedding guy, I did have have dear couple approach me who knew of me through a friend and asked almost in embarassment whether I would do their sons blessing with formal pictures as they were struggling to find someone who would do formal group shots! Go figure!

Most wedding photographers will do formal shots, they just don't choose to showcase them. The customers needs always come first. If they want to pay for 30 plain group poses for £500, then that is what they will get.

 

[CaptainPenguin]

Hi Les, with you 100%. A colleague showed me her wedding pics. Pics being the operative word. It just looked like the guy had blasted away at 6fps then posted them straight to the website. The poorly composed ones being justified as contemporary! Whilst I am only a friends and family wedding guy, I did have have dear couple approach me who knew of me through a friend and asked almost in embarassment whether I would do their sons blessing with formal pictures as they were struggling to find someone who would do formal group shots! Go figure!

Totally with you on this the other thing is that where groups are done they are often thrown together as if the photographer couldn't care,the art of organising and posing a large group of people appears to have gone in the rush to reportage

 

[Phil V]

Totally with you on this the other thing is that where groups are done they are often thrown together as if the photographer couldn't care,the art of organising and posing a large group of people appears to have gone in the rush to reportage

And every wedding photographer that's replied to this thread is the exception to the rule.

 

[CaptainPenguin]

And every wedding photographer that's replied to this thread is the exception to the rule.

I can only go on what i have seen and when my daughter was dragging around wedding fairs I was amazed at either the lack of quality of group shots and even photographers saying they would not do them because there was no demand.I agree though that all should not be tarred with the same brush but a well balanced and posed group is a rarity today

 

[Phil V]

I can only go on what i have seen and when my daughter was dragging around wedding fairs I was amazed at either the lack of quality of group shots and even photographers saying they would not do them because there was no demand.I agree though that all should not be tarred with the same brush but a well balanced and posed group is a rarity today

And the same complaint Hugh mentioned about photographers taking hours over group shots are still heard regularly too.

So your version of reality has most photographers not bothering to do them and my version has most photographers doing too many, taking too long.

I'm sure the truth is out there but I'm also certain that this thread won't find it.

 

[spacester]

Looking at the photos in the OP link, this is one customer who wouldn't touch this tog with a barge pole. Some of the photos were really quite good, but too many were half an ear, or half obscured by out of focus posts etc. Yes, they were visually effective, some might argue technically or artistically great, but they were not what I would want from wedding photos. Where is the granny in her new hat? Where is the shot of all the brides mades?

Maybe other customers like is sort of thing, but for me the balance was too far towards the artistic side of photography and not close enough to documenting this great and wonderful day. There needs to be a mix of traditional group shots and artistic shots. Is this tog shooting himself in the foot by being so one sided in his portfolio? Could it be that this is what was ordered, and supplied, and if a customer wanted something more traditional they would get it?

 

[Radiohead]

Right - before this goes any further.

Ross did not ask for his site to be linked to, nor is this a critique forum. The ONLY thing that matters is that his clients like what he does. Look at the testimonials on his site and you'll see that is very obviously the case. No, in fact they don't like it. They love it.

No photographer in the world will appeal to everyone looking for one. That's the first thing to learn when you start.

But people having a free critique of a very successful, very good, photographer without giving him the courtesy of a response. That stinks.

 

[paul_g]

Right - before this goes any further.

Ross did not ask for his site to be linked to, nor is this a critique forum. The ONLY thing that matters is that his clients like what he does. Look at the testimonials on his site and you'll see that is very obviously the case. No, in fact they don't like it. They love it.

No photographer in the world will appeal to everyone looking for one. That's the first thing to learn when you start.

But people having a free critique of a very successful, very good, photographer without giving him the courtesy of a response. That stinks.

Totally agree, completely out of order.
I shoot weddings very differently to Ross but admire his work & its obvious he has worked very hard to develop his style, market that & book clients who want that look to their wedding photography.

 

[Phil V]

Right - before this goes any further.

Ross did not ask for his site to be linked to, nor is this a critique forum. The ONLY thing that matters is that his clients like what he does. Look at the testimonials on his site and you'll see that is very obviously the case. No, in fact they don't like it. They love it.

No photographer in the world will appeal to everyone looking for one. That's the first thing to learn when you start.

But people having a free critique of a very successful, very good, photographer without giving him the courtesy of a response. That stinks.

 

[big soft moose]

. The poorly composed ones being justified as contemporary! !

thats the bottom line on a lot of supposed 'edgy' photography

it doesnt apply to ross , or many like him who are excellent photographers who have chosen to shoot in a contemporary way, however there are also a lot of chuckleheads who think they can excuse poor technique by saying its contemporary , when in fact its just crap

just like there are those who think they can excuse blown whites and buggered up exposures by claiming its high key.

the difference between the camps is that the decent photographers could do a good job of a different style if they wanted to, where as the walts and bodgers can't produce a decent photo because they don't really understand their cameras or their craft

 

[Richard King]

Right - before this goes any further.

Ross did not ask for his site to be linked to, nor is this a critique forum. The ONLY thing that matters is that his clients like what he does. Look at the testimonials on his site and you'll see that is very obviously the case. No, in fact they don't like it. They love it.

No photographer in the world will appeal to everyone looking for one. That's the first thing to learn when you start.

But people having a free critique of a very successful, very good, photographer without giving him the courtesy of a response. That stinks.

I couldn't agree more

How would Ross feel if one of his customers stumbled into this thread

 

[Richard King]

Looking at the photos in the OP link, this is one customer who wouldn't touch this tog with a barge pole. Some of the photos were really quite good, but too many were half an ear, or half obscured by out of focus posts etc. Yes, they were visually effective, some might argue technically or artistically great, but they were not what I would want from wedding photos. Where is the granny in her new hat? Where is the shot of all the brides mades?

Maybe other customers like is sort of thing, but for me the balance was too far towards the artistic side of photography and not close enough to documenting this great and wonderful day. There needs to be a mix of traditional group shots and artistic shots. Is this tog shooting himself in the foot by being so one sided in his portfolio? Could it be that this is what was ordered, and supplied, and if a customer wanted something more traditional they would get it?

They sure as hell do, and if the brides I speak to are representative in any way, they are relieved to find a photographer that isn't formal, doesn't want to take the day over, touch them or their guests.

Additionally, many are looking for a photographer that dresses smart, and respects the day, realising that the day is about the B&G, the guests, and not the photographer.

The last bride who I spoke to said that "too many photographers want to take over, are demanding and were scruffy and a bit creepy"

The history of wedding photography isn't great (go read up on the origins and early years). TBH, photographers like Ross, are a breath of fresh air, and if anyone has lost the plot, it is the photographers that have remained beating the same old dreary drum for too many decades

Photographers don't have a great reputation, and I find many brides are wary, which is hardly surprising especially when you think that you are letting this stranger loose with you and your family, sharing intimate moments all the way from dressing up through to the end of the night on the day you spent forever planning. I have booked plenty of weddings because "I don't shoot nude and rude" and that "I do work with my wife as a couple"

 

[big soft moose]

having read back through the whole thread ross isnt being critiqued , he's only mentioned in passing as an example in one post which also specifically says hes very good- its hardly like having his pictures torn apart

I'm all for not hitting people who can't hit back , but we also need to keep a sense of proportion about whether this is actually happening as this thread appeasrs to be about the genre of contempory wedding photography not about ross in isolation

 

[DemiLion]

...the art of organising and posing a large group of people appears to have gone in the rush to reportage

The great irony of that comment is that posing up is an essential part of a photojournalist's job!!

 

[gramps]

I don't think it's getting at Ross either, it's raising a reasonable question borne out of seeing a change in the nature of wedding photography from some togs.
There will always be folk who want a 'traditional' style photo-shoot for distribution amongst the family etc but others will want 'out of the box' to mark there occasion as being different, much like they will choose a less than conventional venue for the ceremony.
Liking what is 'new' doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't like it doesn't have a valid opinion.

 

[Radiohead]

Nope. This thread needed no link to any photographer to be effective. It has one, and we now have comments like:

'Have to say I almost completely agree with this. Whilst I like to see a personality to the pictures, some pics seem to be an odd angle of a doorway or a heavily processed picture of half of someone's ear.'

'Looking at the photos in the OP link, this is one customer who wouldn't touch this tog with a barge pole.'

Entirely unnecessary and entirely predictable from the moment that Les decided to pick out one photographer, and one wedding.

I'll say it again. What you, or anyone, thinks is irrelevant unless they're the paying client. I'm not sure why people struggle to understand that people will book precisely because of the way Ross shoots, not despite it.

 

[big soft moose]

Just report it and ask the mods to remove the link then - though given that yv's already posted in this thread its possible that they arent bothered

 

[Les McLean]

Nope. This thread needed no link to any photographer to be effective. It has one, and we now have comments like:

'Have to say I almost completely agree with this. Whilst I like to see a personality to the pictures, some pics seem to be an odd angle of a doorway or a heavily processed picture of half of someone's ear.'

'Looking at the photos in the OP link, this is one customer who wouldn't touch this tog with a barge pole.'

Entirely unnecessary and entirely predictable from the moment that Les decided to pick out one photographer, and one wedding.

I'll say it again. What you, or anyone, thinks is irrelevant unless they're the paying client. I'm not sure why people struggle to understand that people will book precisely because of the way Ross shoots, not despite it.

I was extremely careful how I worded the original post, and it is obvious that I wasn't criticising Ross at all, far from it ,I mentioned how good his work is.

And it isn't entirely predictable that Ross's work would be shot down, except for possibly one post (out of 63), it hasn't, the majority of posts have been relevant, considered and well thought out, and kept well within the context of the original question. I for one have learnt a lot from this thread, changed my perceptions considerably.

 

[Yv]

Just report it and ask the mods to remove the link then - though given that yv's already posted in this thread its possible that they arent bothered

Not exactly, but nearly.... Les refers to it as a 'post' and indeed the link IS posted here as a critique thread [I am guessing that exact thread/post IS the reason for Les starting this thread], ergo, I would personally say it is ok-ish, though in hindsight, perhaps change the original link to the thread here rather than the actual blog post is a preferable idea. If Ross wasn't a member and hadn't posted that exact post with those images in a critique section, then it would be very different indeed. If Ross would rather the link wasn't there, he is welcome to ask for its removal.

 

[big soft moose]

fairy snuff - i did say 'possible rather than certain'

back on topic Ross isnt an example of this but some wedding photographers have definitely lost the plot - my freind emma has just got her shots back, and they suck like a ten dollar whore. She did say she wanted reportage style , which is what this guy said he did , but reportage style does not mean out of focus, badly exposed crap, most of which have been taken from an exceptionally low angle thus making most of the girls look fat, and giving a less than flattering up the nose angle on many of the men

And thats not just my opinion as a photographer - she is in floods of tears about it and her husband is torn between punching the guys lights out, and taking legal action (this guy wasnt cheap either - they paid over 1500 notes)

The tog is claiming that "thats what artistic shots look like " - but one look at for example Ross' website is sufficient to show that thats couldnt be more *******s if it was wraped in a soft leather sack and hung between the hind legs of a bull.

An unfortunate side result of this is that they are also pe'd at me , for refusing to shoot the wedding - I turned them down because i don't do arty or reportage - however had known that their chosen tog was going to go for a kill bill package (ie one where the shoot is carnage and a very unhappy bride is left seeking revenge) I might have been prepared to try.

I'll offer to shoot a restage or a trash the dress once they've calmed down and stopped crying and swearing

I'm not going to post a link, post any of the pics, or name the tog concerned (as far as I know hes not a member here) so don't ask

 

[Richard King]

f
The tog is claiming that "thats what artistic shots look like " - but one look at for example Ross' website is sufficient to show that thats couldnt be more *******s if it was wraped in a soft leather sack and hung between the hind legs of a bull.

You are what you are, and the couple obviously thought that the photographer in question was what they were looking for

Forgetting the whole artistic debate... has the photographer delivered a set of images that is representative to his/her websites images?

 

[Richard King]

An unfortunate side result of this is that they are also pe'd at me , for refusing to shoot the wedding - I turned them down because i don't do arty or reportage - however had known that their chosen tog was going to go for a kill bill package (ie one where the shoot is carnage and a very unhappy bride is left seeking revenge) I might have been prepared to try.

If you dont do weddings, and you have no wish to, you made the right choice. I have ****ed off many potential customers because I dont do "nude/rude/bodiour" I do what I want to do well, and my customers respect me for it. If the bride is ****ed at you, then she needs a reality check

 

[Les McLean]

I'm pleased the thread is back on track

And my apologies, as YV pointed out, I should have provided the link from the critique thread rather than Ross's blog (which was the link from within the critique thread I looked at) :bonk::bonk:

 

[big soft moose]

You are what you are, and the couple obviously thought that the photographer in question was what they were looking for

Forgetting the whole artistic debate... has the photographer delivered a set of images that is representative to his/her websites images?

Not in the slightest - I've seen his website and i've seen the delivered images and they are totally different in both quality and style - job for tommorow is to run some of the shots off his website through tineye and/or google image search because they are so different I have a suspicion that the shots on the website could be lifted.

If you dont do weddings, and you have no wish to, you made the right choice. I have ****ed off many potential customers because I dont do "nude/rude/bodiour" I do what I want to do well, and my customers respect me for it. If the bride is ****ed at you, then she needs a reality check

Thing is I do do weddings - I just don't do edgy reportage - they wanted someone basically like ross, which is what this guy pupported to be. To be honest I think they arent really p'd at me - they are just hideousy disapointed in the crap that they've been delivered and I'm a handy target. - emma and I go all the way back to primary school, so in a couple of days i'll point out that maybe describing me as "worse than judas iscariot" was may be a little harsh, she'll be mortified , and i'll get some beer/cake for free. -at that point i'll offer to do a couple shot/ trash the dress etc with them as a belated wedding present and we'll all be mates again.

 

[Radiohead]

I was extremely careful how I worded the original post, and it is obvious that I wasn't criticising Ross at all, far from it ,I mentioned how good his work is.

And it isn't entirely predictable that Ross's work would be shot down, except for possibly one post (out of 63), it hasn't, the majority of posts have been relevant, considered and well thought out, and kept well within the context of the original question. I for one have learnt a lot from this thread, changed my perceptions considerably.

Fair enough. I don't agree and think that including any link is going to ask for comments regardless.

But anyway, it's back on track and the thread is obviously a useful one.

big soft moose - sounds like a nightmare!

 

[tiler65]

big soft moose - sounds like a nightmare!

Quite!

Well if you think that some wedding togs have lost the plot.....look at this from possibly (considered) the worlds best wedding photographer.........

http://www.yervantphotography.com/?attachment_id=4163


It is amazing how subjective it all is, how boring would weddings be it it were just portraits square on to the camera. Long live innovation and style I say.

 

[big soft moose]

Long live innovation and style I say.

Innovation and style are fine so long as its well done - those yervant pics are fantastic.

however its not fine to take a load of badly composed / exposed crap and then claim its artistic so thats the clients problem.

As i said before i would suspect that the top end togs who chose to shoot in an artistic style could also get great traditional shots if they chose to do so.

The ones i'm saying have lost the plot are those who only generate crap pictures because they don't know their cameras and for whom 'artistic' is just an excuse.

for example with the ones emma has recieved , theres nothing inherently wrong with shooting from a low angle to be different, nor is there anything wrongwith putting the bride oof in order to focus the attention on the groom, or a child or whatever. Nor is there anything wrong with slight over exposure per se if its used intelligently.

However there is a lot wrong with a low angled shot which is about 3 stops over exposed with the happy couple oof but the top of a tree in the background mostly sharp (clearly having been the focal point).

I supose you could just about make an artistic case for it as pure art (the unsual focal point making a statement about materialistic societies juxtaposition with the natural world or some such) but as edgy wedding photography , if it was deliberate as the tog seems to claim then thats a loss of plot

 

[tiler65]

for example with the ones emma has recieved , theres nothing inherently wrong with shooting from a low angle to be different, nor is there anything wrongwith putting the bride oof in order to focus the attention on the groom, or a child or whatever. Nor is there anything wrong with slight over exposure per se if its used intelligently.

But we only have your word that these shots are not the best. It is extremely subjective as you well know.

ps......I thought I was on your ignore list? (or does that not count in someone else's thread)

 

[big soft moose]

Well yes, but it would be a clear breach of forum rules to show them, so you'll have to live with just my word

anyway regardless of what I think, Emma, the client is deeply unhappy and will be seeing a solicitor as soon as it can be arranged to demand a full refund on threat of suit - so we may shortly be seing whether a court agrees with my assessment (although i suspect the tog concerned might settle rather than risk the negative publicity)

while things are subjective to an extent - out of focus and badly exposed are quite easy to establish factually - in fact the tog doesnt dispute these , he's claiming that she asked for edgy shots and edgy shots are always like that ... which is clearly not so. It is also clear that the shots supplied are wildly different to the shots on his website - and that judgement will form the basis of any suit, ie that the client was misled about what service she would recieve (On my advice she has taken screen prints of every page)

(incidentally you can select to view a post from someone who's on ignore - enabling people to chose to see whats being said in threads when everyone is calm and reasonable, but ignore people with whom they don't get on in the heat of an argument )

 

[tiler65]

Well yes, but it would be a clear breach of forum rules to show them, so you'll have to live with just my word

anyway regardless of what I think, Emma, the client is deeply unhappy and will be seeing a solicitor as soon as it can be arranged to demand a full refund on threat of suit - so we may shortly be seing whether a court agrees with my assessment (although i suspect the tog concerned might settle rather than risk the negative publicity)

while things are subjective to an extent - out of focus and badly exposed are quite easy to establish factually - in fact the tog doesnt dispute these , he's claiming that she asked for edgy shots and edgy shots are always like that ... which is clearly not so. It is also clear that the shots supplied are wildly different to the shots on his website - and that judgement will form the basis of any suit, ie that the client was misled about what service she would recieve (On my advice she has taken screen prints of every page)

(incidentally you can select to view a post from someone who's on ignore - enabling people to chose to see whats being said in threads when everyone is calm and reasonable, but ignore people with whom they don't get on in the heat of an argument )

Is there a rule against a link?

ps.....you obviously didn't get my quote.

 

[Richard King]

Well yes, but it would be a clear breach of forum rules to show them, so you'll have to live with just my word

anyway regardless of what I think, Emma, the client is deeply unhappy and will be seeing a solicitor as soon as it can be arranged to demand a full refund on threat of suit - so we may shortly be seing whether a court agrees with my assessment (although i suspect the tog concerned might settle rather than risk the negative publicity)

Advice...

You are digging yourself into a crap hole here. You are not impartial, and if the photographer has a contract like mine, the bride will not get anywhere, and you will end up in a really bad position.

She needs independent advice re. the photographs (and that is not you), from say BIPP or the MPA. additionally, I assume that the photographer in question has similar work on his website

This is not a black and white issue. It is subjective, and also events on the day will have some bearing on things

- was the photographer given time to work?
- were the B&G cooperative?
- were the guests cooperative?
- was the venue and church cooperative?
- were there any other mitigating factors?

I recall a wedding (early on) where I barely got a smile from the B&G, they were miserable all day long. The guests were rude and hard work, and the venue over prescriptive. The B&G apologised to me in the end, because they knew I had worked extra hard to get a great set of shot out of the bag. The brides mother however was taking the venue, the cake-maker, the videographer to court for under delivering. I recall having to pop the brides mother firmly in her place early on in the day...

 

[big soft moose]

Richard, I know you mean well but seriously...

I won't end up in any position because ive not named the photographer or given any link to his work , or definitively named the bride , the venue , or the date of the event - and i'm not giving any formal advice or being involved in the case in anyway. (when I said "my assessment " I meant on here - Emma already hated the shots before she showed them to me, and her main pupose in asking me over was to yell at me about being 'king judas iscariot, and this wouldnt have happened if you'd done the work like we asked etc" )

I would suspect that the significant difference between you and this twit is that the shots on your website are representative of your style, and you are capable of getting shots in focus. ( I also suspect from your integrity on here that if you cocked up you wouldnt hide behind excuses) - i mean litterally out of 80 shots presented maybe 6 or 7 are acceptably in focus, he's also got harsh unflattering lighting (on camera flash would be my bet), red eye, things growing out of peoples heads - its a real car crash, and in no way 'art' IMO

my only involvement (which has only been as a freind)- other than getting yelled at for about 20 minuites has been to suggest they get screenshots of the website, and that they might like to do a tineye search as if the website shots turn out to be lifted it would dramatically strengthen their position.

My feeling is that all thats going to happen here is that he'll get a solicitors letter and settle - if it does wind up in court she'll then need to go the route of expert witnesses etc and the main thrust of any case would be that the work on his website is not representative of the work they recieved. Which ought to be fairly easy to prove in side by side comparrison (though again here they'll need and will get expert legal and photographic advice)

 

[big soft moose]

Is there a rule against a link?

In short yes - naming someone who isnt here to answer back is not on (would you be happy if it was your work under discussion)

but that aside as per my reply to richard I have no intention of getting in the middle of a legal case by definitively naming another togs work as unacceptable and potentially winding up in a libel case if a court didnt agree

 

[tiler65]

In short yes - naming someone who isnt here to answer back is not on (would you be happy if it was your work under discussion)

but that aside as per my reply to richard I have no intention of getting in the middle of a legal case by definitively naming another togs work as unacceptable and potentially winding up in a libel case if a court didnt agree

but is it against the rules?.....it may not be ideal but we post links to sites all the time and they are not removed.

As for my own stuff.....yeah, that is why I put it online so it can be looked at and discussed. It is like publishing a book - can you stop folk/critiquers from making a comment?

 

[gramps]

Photo Sharing & Critique

Images displayed in the Photo sharing and Critique forums must belong to the poster or be posted with the copyright holder’s permission.

It's the posting of other people's images without their consent that is against the rules, I don't think posting links contravenes ... in fact I am sure that I have seen mods remove such images and replace them with links.