and please use their services
Have some Wedding Photographers lost the plot
- Thread starter Les McLean
- Start date
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yep - thats another point of contention, she was lead to believe that she'd get several hundred.
My opinion (and not one I've shared with anyone other than here) is that he either royally ballsed up the shoot and has presented the 80 lleast worst , or he wasnt able to shoot for some reason and sent a different tog who was not of the same capability.
Eitherway as far as this threads pupose goes the idea that you can excuse crap work as art is in my opinion loosing the plot.
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
We have all slipped up, had a corrupt card, a light leak, flicked the camera into another mode (or similar) and lost a dozen shots or so, but not spotting an issue like this pronto, is pretty careless
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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.
Yv posting in this very thread yesterday seemed to be of the opinion that it wasnt done (my emboldening)
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.
The tog in question isnt as far as i know a member here, and hasnt posted them for critique.
Anyway regardless of the rules etc I've already clearly said that I will not name the tog, post a link to his site, or post the images - that position isnt going to change.
- Messages
- 41,887
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
To clarify, my clarification (!) post was never intended to suggest that you should post a link to the tog/photos in your 'Emma' situation
- Messages
- 3
- Name
- Isabel
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There is room for everyone, if you are the kind who likes it formal, great. If, on the other hand you are trying to do something different, go for it. Your clients have contracted you after having seen more than one photographer. Just be yourself and let others be.
- Messages
- 890
- Name
- Dilip
- Edit My Images
- No
Reading this thread I am not really surprised. Let me explain.
1. People use terminology to cover their ***e. Documentary, reportage and photojournalism are terms used by charlatans to cover themselves when they don't understand even the basic fundamentals of photography, let alone wedding photography or the terminology they are using.
I have many hilarious discussions with people who like to think they come under one of these terms.
2. There are many 'photographers' who employ people to cover 'their' weddings. One such person boasts of having 15 photographers on his team and on his website he claims to personally cover all the bookings but, he also claims to have covered 450 weddings this year (2012) To end on a lighter note, these people deliver 2500-5000 images per wedding :bonk: Wonder how many are OOF?
Why do people book these type? my guess - if you shoot 2500-5000 images per wedding, sooner or later you are going to get some that are acceptable to put on a website or to create a sample album. Does that equate to delivering a number of quality images for any one wedding?
1. People use terminology to cover their ***e. Documentary, reportage and photojournalism are terms used by charlatans to cover themselves when they don't understand even the basic fundamentals of photography, let alone wedding photography or the terminology they are using.
I have many hilarious discussions with people who like to think they come under one of these terms.
2. There are many 'photographers' who employ people to cover 'their' weddings. One such person boasts of having 15 photographers on his team and on his website he claims to personally cover all the bookings but, he also claims to have covered 450 weddings this year (2012)
To end on a lighter note, these people deliver 2500-5000 images per wedding :bonk: Wonder how many are OOF?Why do people book these type? my guess - if you shoot 2500-5000 images per wedding, sooner or later you are going to get some that are acceptable to put on a website or to create a sample album. Does that equate to delivering a number of quality images for any one wedding?
- Messages
- 41,887
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Reading this thread I am not really surprised. Let me explain.
1. People use terminology to cover their ***e. Documentary, reportage and photojournalism are terms used by charlatans to cover themselves when they don't understand even the basic fundamentals of photography, let alone wedding photography or the terminology they are using.
I have many hilarious discussions with people who like to think they come under one of these terms.
2. There are many 'photographers' who employ people to cover 'their' weddings. One such person boasts of having 15 photographers on his team and on his website he claims to personally cover all the bookings but, he also claims to have covered 450 weddings this year (2012)
Why do people book these type? my guess - if you shoot 2500-5000 images per wedding, sooner or later you are going to get some that are acceptable to put on a website or to create a sample album. Does that equate to delivering a number of quality images for any one wedding?
Bold comments, I'm sure opinion will be varied!
We had a recent family wedding and I was surprised to see that almost all of the family shots were taken 'into the sun' which rendered a very poor image quality IMO - it was difficult in some to see who was in the photo as they were almost bleached out!
Coupled with half-people and cut-off random bits of masonry I really wasn't very impressed ... but the style seems to be popular with some for whatever reason
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
Bold comments, I'm sure opinion will be varied!
We had a recent family wedding and I was surprised to see that almost all of the family shots were taken 'into the sun' which rendered a very poor image quality IMO - it was difficult in some to see who was in the photo as they were almost bleached out!
Coupled with half-people and cut-off random bits of masonry I really wasn't very impressed ... but the style seems to be popular with some for whatever reason
Again; there's some half truths mixed with some conjecture here.
Shooting into the sun, unlike in the old days, if we're stuck having to shoot in sunlight - the sunlight isn't required to create an acceptable exposure. And people look much nicer when they're not squinting into the sun.
If all the group photo's were bleached out - they should have been returned - modern lenses can happily cope with shooting into the sun and produce contrasty results. We might choose to introduce lens flare for that trendy look for a few shot - but I wouldn't expect to fill an album with them or shoot all the family pictures like that.
Half people cut off - When shooting people it's good to show most if not all the person, standard photographic principles still hold - but we'll often shoot detail shots that may include part of a person, that wouldn't really count as 'people cut off' a photo of ties and pocket hankies isn't the same as a phot of people with ties and pocket hankies. People draw our attention so it's useful to not allow that to happen.
As fashion in wedding photography goes, I much prefer the current fashions to the 90's spot colour, the 80's cheesy posing, 70's couple in the brandy glass etc.
- Messages
- 41,887
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry but as the only one of us that has seen the photos in question I think I should be able to speak without being accused of "half truths" and "conjecture"!
Artistic lens flare is fine but there is a vast difference between a bit of artistic lens flare and a series of washed out photos, which these were - up to the one who paid the bill to accept or dispute them. In this instance there was no need to shoot into the sun, this was a clear choice although the opportunity was there to use very good light without anyone having to squint.
Photographing part of a person in order to display something specific is fine, I did myself to photograph the exchange of rings and to display the back of the dress etc, but when you get someone sliced horizontally down the middle I struggle to see anything artistic or positive.
I have seen many wedding series displayed on here and I am not against the 'new' style in principle but whilst a few are really good, e.g. Aleksandras Babi, some just appear to be a demonstration of a struggle to make a statement.
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I think we might have crossed wires a little. the end of your original statement made it sound like a general point, rather than the one specific wedding.
I said it before - we get to see many photographers trying their hand, and it might appear that wedding photography generally is going down the pan, but I 'm fairly certain that what you described from the family wedding isn't a 'style that appears to be popular' it's poorly executed technique.
Whether you're aiming for traditional or groovy - underpinning the results there has to be technical precision. 'Modern' isn't a crutch to be used for poor exposure and composition. There's definitely some interesting composition going on nowadays, but the same rules apply that always did.
However a shot of some crumbly masonry - if it's not saying something about the day, was it just shot to be used as a page background in the album (I shoot a lot of flowers, textures and landscapes at a wedding for this purpose (on their own they don't really mean a lot - but as a background with photo's overlaid they're great). But for proofing purposes, they take as much space as the one off picture of Auntie Flo wearing a top hat.
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
Why thank you so much. Chuck us all in the same boat and get a tar brush out.
The bottom line is matey, that besides personally actually shooting in this style (well) it additionally is what (my) customers search for. You can be as purist as you like, but without customers, you are not a sucsessful wedding photographer
And in the same boat that you threw us in, there are some very competent hard working skilled photographers2. There are many 'photographers' who employ people to cover 'their' weddings. One such person boasts of having 15 photographers on his team and on his website he claims to personally cover all the bookings but, he also claims to have covered 450 weddings this year (2012)
Why do some people buy freezer food and ready meals, and others cook from scratch.
Wedding photography is both a business, and a craft. MacDonalds are in the same business as the little Spanish restaurant round the corner, they are also in the same business as the top flight Michelin star restaurants. MacDonalds are not going out of business, neither are the guys at the top, it is the small quality acts in the middle, who are to precious to understand that you need to compromise either one way or the other
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
Bold comments, I'm sure opinion will be varied!
We had a recent family wedding and I was surprised to see that almost all of the family shots were taken 'into the sun' which rendered a very poor image quality IMO - it was difficult in some to see who was in the photo as they were almost bleached out!
Coupled with half-people and cut-off random bits of masonry I really wasn't very impressed ... but the style seems to be popular with some for whatever reason
you have to look at what is best on the day at the time of the day. I prefer in the shade and with a couple of well placed reflectors myself, but sometimes, you just have to make a choice - squinty eyes, or shoot into the sun. We wernt there, so we cant really comment on what was the best to do
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
Why are people so precious about this.. lets look back into history
Pre WW2 wedding photographt was an extension of studio work, and really was “studio on location”, even candid shots were posed, and you were lucky to get a couple of shots
wedding photography started good and proper in the 50’s. The photographers were either military trained photographers or amateurs, working on spec, turning upat a wedding (not asked for) and shooting a short roll off on the hope they would make a sale
This forced the studio bound photographers out of the studios, but they simply did what they did in the studio, on location, which wasn’t practical
Meanwhile, JFK’s wedding photographs started a bit of a revoloution stateside for less formal photography that never really caught on here for a few years
It wasn’t until the 70’s when the “traditional formal” studio poses gave way to a more candid style, and that was only a slight change. Again the arguments then were between the MF boys shooting a roll of 12, and the 35mm boys shooting a roll of 36
The issue being that on a roll of 12, the photographer shot 11 in the day time, and came back and shot 1 in the evening, and often sold prints on the same day. Because they were limited to 12, the MF boys shot traditional shots, wheras the 35mm boys could get a few real candids in threw.
In the old days there was
- no choice for the B&G
- and a one hat fits all approach
As processing 35mm became relatively cheaper, and as photography (and society) as a whole became less formal, more and more reportage style photography begun to be shot
With the advent of Digital, and the exposure of the public to the internet, and massive amounts of imagery as a whole, the demands from Brides and Grooms have recently changed.
- they want and expect more
- they openly reject formal old fashioned imagery
So to be brutally honest – wedding photography through the years has on and off been dominated by chancers and stick in the mud types. Partly due the the times, and the gear and the demands of the public
What makes me laugh are the people who pine after the “good old days” like they were anything special. They were not special at all particularly, and in the main, creatively stifled
Pre WW2 wedding photographt was an extension of studio work, and really was “studio on location”, even candid shots were posed, and you were lucky to get a couple of shots
wedding photography started good and proper in the 50’s. The photographers were either military trained photographers or amateurs, working on spec, turning upat a wedding (not asked for) and shooting a short roll off on the hope they would make a sale
This forced the studio bound photographers out of the studios, but they simply did what they did in the studio, on location, which wasn’t practical
Meanwhile, JFK’s wedding photographs started a bit of a revoloution stateside for less formal photography that never really caught on here for a few years
It wasn’t until the 70’s when the “traditional formal” studio poses gave way to a more candid style, and that was only a slight change. Again the arguments then were between the MF boys shooting a roll of 12, and the 35mm boys shooting a roll of 36
The issue being that on a roll of 12, the photographer shot 11 in the day time, and came back and shot 1 in the evening, and often sold prints on the same day. Because they were limited to 12, the MF boys shot traditional shots, wheras the 35mm boys could get a few real candids in threw.
In the old days there was
- no choice for the B&G
- and a one hat fits all approach
As processing 35mm became relatively cheaper, and as photography (and society) as a whole became less formal, more and more reportage style photography begun to be shot
With the advent of Digital, and the exposure of the public to the internet, and massive amounts of imagery as a whole, the demands from Brides and Grooms have recently changed.
- they want and expect more
- they openly reject formal old fashioned imagery
So to be brutally honest – wedding photography through the years has on and off been dominated by chancers and stick in the mud types. Partly due the the times, and the gear and the demands of the public
What makes me laugh are the people who pine after the “good old days” like they were anything special. They were not special at all particularly, and in the main, creatively stifled
- Messages
- 41,887
- Name
- 'Gramps'
- Edit My Images
- No
All points taken ... without posting a link to the pics, (which I wouldn't do), there's not a lot more I can say other than the wife and I were very disappointed but we aren't paying the bill.
- Messages
- 890
- Name
- Dilip
- Edit My Images
- No
So, IF I am throwing you into that boat it means that you don't understand the fundamentals of photography, is that so? Also, if you read my post, you'd see that I am talking about people who have no interest in photography - it is but a way to make a quick buck.
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm assuming you didn't want to join,just to alienate pretty some of the most experienced, technically capable photographers on the forum and also to royally **** off some of the people you could probably learn an awful lot about running a successful photography business. So considering that maybe thinking before you type would be good :shrug:
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You are either spoiling for a fight, or your English is so bad you should type more carefully to avoid being misconstrued - here you said:
If you meant some people, you should have said some people, what you said looks like everyone that uses those terms (presumably including yourself). Richard, and a lot of others would have taken offence because we use those terms - if you didn't mean to alienate us all, you really should have chosen your words more carefully.
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
Business 101
I bet the photography system that snaps you as you fly past on the on the roller-coaster at Alton towers at makes 10 more money a year then you do from photography
There is art, there is photography, and there is business. Think of this like a vebn diagram - it inst required that you sit in the middle in the part where everything overlaps, to have a good honest business
This is about supply and demand - look at this thread here
http://www.youandyourwedding.co.uk/forum/general-chat/wedding-photography-special-offer/378537.html
When you look at the pricing and look at the market, most of us wil run a mile, but, have you booked 3 weddings today?
Whilst this wont sit well with a lot of us, you will see that sometimes the other approach is the winner
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
She's not some new fly by night either, been going a few years.and her usual prices are about average for round here.
- Messages
- 3,661
- Name
- Richard King
- Edit My Images
- No
I know
Scary **** inst it
Scary **** inst it
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Just to update on my freind emma - they have now come to a settlement with their tog where basically he is refunding all but £250 of the fee. Under threat of court and a side by side comparrison between the quality of the shots on his website and those she received, he has admitted , all be it 'without predjudice' , that he didnt actually take the shots received at all - he sent a less experienced photographer to do the work because he was 'unavailable' :bang:
He could have saved himself a lot of hassle by making that settlement in the first place instead of trying to convince her that the crap was 'artistic'
He could have saved himself a lot of hassle by making that settlement in the first place instead of trying to convince her that the crap was 'artistic'
Radiohead
Mine sucks
- Messages
- 3,756
- Name
- Guy
- Edit My Images
- No
Silly boy - he's done well to keep £250 there.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
yeah I would have wanted a full refund or sued his arse - but emma just wanted a quick resolution. Apparently the £250 is what he paid the person who actually took the shots :shake: so he hasnt actually made any money on this job
I'm going to do a few 'traditional' shots of her and partner so that they've got something to put on the wall.
I'm going to do a few 'traditional' shots of her and partner so that they've got something to put on the wall.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
It's good the photographer came clean, but the replacement ought to have been more than happy to refund his fee IMO. Although I appreciate legally the contract wasn't between him and the B&G - he ought to have a contract with the hired photographer - and that ought to include non-performance.
Hope for their sake you get some fab stuff for them (I'm sure you'll be on top of your game for it).
- Messages
- 890
- Name
- Dilip
- Edit My Images
- No
is it time to all play nice now?
I'm always trying to play nice, it's just the missing words when I'm typing seem to give another meaning. really. I couldn't believe the heat I was getting until some missing words were pointed out.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
reminds me of the time that my then boss started a letter
" Dear Mr Brown , it is entirely true to say we do not care about your problems ..."
That cause no end of mayhem including letters to the papers and MPs and a disciplinary for the guy concerned
which was a shame really as he'd meant to write
"Dear Mr Brown, it is entirely untrue to say we do not care about your problems..."
:bang:
- Messages
- 3,748
- Name
- urrrm.... Matt
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I hope things work out for your friend Emma.
just reading this thread out of interest and nosiness
can she claim through her wedding insurance to either booked a studio and a professional or have someone else do the shots again
for example, same location, hair make-up etc
I have a photographer booked for early november.
His cheapest package! digital only, 4 hours of work, single photographer, £800 quid.
We're on a budget but I've seen some really awful working and heavily booked weddings photographers.
Some things about their showcase albums really annoyed me.
some of it was overly artistic, people out of focus, a casual shot of the bridesmaids with huge shadows across their faces because he didn't use fill-flash.
really basic (or pretentious) things I didn't want to put up with.
There were cheaper people but I picked my chosen photographer as I really like his output that I've seen.
However, in his contract is a clause that says he can send someone else (illness etc) and I'd be very disappointed if that was the case and someone shot up my nose for the day for £250 as happened with Emma!
just reading this thread out of interest and nosiness
can she claim through her wedding insurance to either booked a studio and a professional or have someone else do the shots again
for example, same location, hair make-up etc
I have a photographer booked for early november.
His cheapest package! digital only, 4 hours of work, single photographer, £800 quid.
We're on a budget but I've seen some really awful working and heavily booked weddings photographers.
Some things about their showcase albums really annoyed me.
some of it was overly artistic, people out of focus, a casual shot of the bridesmaids with huge shadows across their faces because he didn't use fill-flash.
really basic (or pretentious) things I didn't want to put up with.
There were cheaper people but I picked my chosen photographer as I really like his output that I've seen.
However, in his contract is a clause that says he can send someone else (illness etc) and I'd be very disappointed if that was the case and someone shot up my nose for the day for £250 as happened with Emma!
- Messages
- 25,321
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
You need to trust him and ask under what circumstances he'd send an alternative.
Even ask if it's ever happened and how often.
If he didn't have that clause how would you get wedding photos if he took seriously ill close to the day?
But you don't want him replaced just because he's double booked. :THINKING:
We have the clause but it's a last resort.
Even ask if it's ever happened and how often.
If he didn't have that clause how would you get wedding photos if he took seriously ill close to the day?
But you don't want him replaced just because he's double booked. :THINKING:
We have the clause but it's a last resort.
- Messages
- 1,821
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
I think you're generalising far too much with this statement.
There are genuine photographers out there who record weddings in such a beautiful way & photograph the day as it happens with bold shots of great artistic value that the B&G will treasure for the rest of their marriage. As they care and have pride in what they produce.
It's people out there who try to copy this style poorly that machine gun in the hope of getting some pictures with little or no emotion attached to them that are purely after money and nothing else that I'm hoping it's aimed at?
There are genuine photographers out there who record weddings in such a beautiful way & photograph the day as it happens with bold shots of great artistic value that the B&G will treasure for the rest of their marriage. As they care and have pride in what they produce.
It's people out there who try to copy this style poorly that machine gun in the hope of getting some pictures with little or no emotion attached to them that are purely after money and nothing else that I'm hoping it's aimed at?
- Messages
- 890
- Name
- Dilip
- Edit My Images
- No
You are right - that is precisely who that is aimed at. I must be very bad at explaining myself :shake:
- Messages
- 5,275
- Name
- Ryan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The one thing confusing me on this sorry tale - did Emma and hubby not realise on the day that the guy with the camera was not the guy they booked? It seems to have come to light afterwards that the guy they 'booked' didn't turn up.
All of which suggests they never met him before the big day. Which (if so) I find really bizarre.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think they probably realised he'd sent someone - what they didn't realise was that he'd sent someone with neglible experience who he'd paid next to sweet FA who was going to make a cock of the pictures
After all any of us might ask a fellow pro to step in if were incapacitated , but most of us would send someone capable of delivering the service paid for.
After all any of us might ask a fellow pro to step in if were incapacitated , but most of us would send someone capable of delivering the service paid for.