wedding photography help!!

[boyfalldown]

Hi all. So shock horror she's deleted the damaged images despite me requesting them twice. I've feel i have a decent selection of pics but none of the formal one's with parents bridesmaids groomsmen etc. The key one's i feel. What would you guys suggest my move is? We paid 450, is a refund out the question? Or partial? I'm just shocked and upset she has none of that period!

If you've asked explicity, twice, for the poor shots, and she has deleted them anyway, that's as near as you're likely to get to an admission of guilt.

The tog has essentially destroyed the evidence that would have exonerated them. Would have been easy for any professional to determine a cause (or rather, likely cause) of the problems in any given image with a couple of seconds to examine the files.

The fact that she has deleted the images only makes your case stronger. There is not much you can do to get your image back which is of course the worst thing.

so as a working photographer you give free access to everything you take, even when requested?. Really?

There are doubtless some problems with the images, and I agree if there are large portions of the day missing then there clearly is a problem. It would be nice to see the set presented, and, depending on coverage, 200 is by no means a bad set, and for the OP I'm not suggest there isn't a problem, but deleting rejects is very standard.

People are very quick to judge what is essentially a standard working practice (delete or reject anything your unhappy with) and I'm not sure how someone following standard working practice strengthens a case in anyway.

 

[Harvey_nikon]

thats very quick to judge :shake: of course the first time you don't meet a brides expectations, for whatever reason, you'll offer her the same advice?

If someone was unhappy with my service I would expect a bad review, however, I don't intend for any bride to be unhappy with the outcome of my photos. IF for any reason something bad happened, I would go out of my way to make up for it. Giving someone no formal shots is not acceptable.

but the only way you're going to 'give a kick in the nuts' is to name, so the implication is pretty clear

Actually, as I NEVER stated they should include the togs name, my point was more aimed at posting about the perils of no contracts and checking out a togs history first. The perils of choosing a bad photographer.

 

[boyfalldown]

If someone was unhappy with my service I would expect a bad review, however, I don't intend for any bride to be unhappy with the outcome of my photos. IF for any reason something bad happened, I would go out of my way to make up for it. Giving someone no formal shots is not acceptable.

Actually, as I NEVER stated they should include the togs name, my point was more aimed at posting about the perils of no contracts and checking out a togs history first. The perils of choosing a bad photographer.

Fair enough but at somepoint rightly or wrongly you'll fail to meet the expectations of a bride, regardless of intention or indeed how good your work is.

Edit it not necessarily about how good or bad your work, or intention is but more about her and her expectations.

 

[big soft moose]

it not necessarily about how good or bad your work, or intention is but more about her and her expectations.

true - but the key to that is the pre shoot meeting both in terms of managing her expectations and making sure you understand and meet them

 

[asphotographymk]

thats very quick to judge :shake: of course the first time you don't meet a brides expectations, for whatever reason, you'll offer her the same advice?

If the time comes when i fail to meet the brides expectations i will do everything in my power to fix the problem. The photographer in question is clearly making no attempt to do this.

so as a working photographer you give free access to everything you take, even when requested?. Really?

.

If there is an ongoing dispute with regards to a set of images then i would nto be deleting the rejects and destroying the evidence. Only an idiot or someone who is trying to cover something up would do such a thing.

Everyone has agreed that 200 is a pretty reasonable amount of images. Much less than i would expect from a final edit but i think ok non the less. The problem is that a large section of the day is missing and there are no formals, this clearly means they have failed to deliver.

I do not believe that a ccj is the first point of call but it is an option if the photographer fails to solve the problem with some sort of compensation.

It also highlights the apparent issues with booking a "cheap" photographer ( and no i am not saying that more expensive photographers are bullet proof i am saying that there is normally a reason for such a low price, in this case it looks like that is incompetence.)

 

[boyfalldown]

true - but the key to that is the pre shoot meeting both in terms of managing her expectations and making sure you understand and meet them

No matter what they may be? Or indeed as when they differ between before hand and on the day. OT I had a bride ask me to shoot illegally earlier this year. Should i just of met that expectation? Manage and understand I agree with, make sure they're realistic sure, just meet them without question - certainly not always.

 

[Catdaddy]

I've read through all of these, and whether it's for £450 or £1500, you'd expect some level of competency from the phoographer. You mentioned an exposure time of 1/125, and that it's the main family-group/bridesmaids shots that have been ruined... (Forgive me if I've missed something here...)

Would these have been the ones straight after the ceremony? And was the photographer taking shots from inside the church or registry office? That would raise a couple of questions...

If the photos were completely ruined by other people using their own flashes, then surely that would only be because they were shooting in the direction of the photographer. And yet it was the group shots that were ruined. Were the other guests in the line of sight at either side or behind the groups while the official photos were being taken? Doesn't really say a lot about the composition of the shots, does it?

And secondly, if they WERE straight after the ceremony, and outdoors... what's the betting she forgot to reset the ISO?

And in any case, why didn't the photographer check the images on screen after taking them? Was she shooting film or something?

Like I say, forgive me if I've missed anything...

 

[boyfalldown]

If the time comes when i fail to meet the brides expectations i will do everything in my power to fix the problem. The photographer in question is clearly making no attempt to do this.

yes- I agree with this, but to think it will never happen to a working photographer is unrealistic. Its how you deal that matters

If there is an ongoing dispute with regards to a set of images then i would nto be deleting the rejects and destroying the evidence. Only an idiot or someone who is trying to cover something up would do such a thing.

Everyone has agreed that 200 is a pretty reasonable amount of images. Much less than i would expect from a final edit but i think ok non the less. The problem is that a large section of the day is missing and there are no formals, this clearly means they have failed to deliver.

I would agree with this, but it does assume a knowledge of that photographers workflow that neither of us have. Do they cull and delete before anything else? If asked I always tell me clients there are no further images, don't you?

That was my original question, do you let people see your rejected images?

We only have one side of the story and I'd love to have the photographers, although the flash burning is a very weak excuse.

I do not believe that a ccj is the first point of call but it is an option if the photographer fails to solve the problem with some sort of compensation.

the trouble is although it is an option, the photographer has every right to defend themselves and of course, having heard only one side of things they may well do.It that case just getting a CCj is far from certain

It also highlights the apparent issues with booking a "cheap" photographer ( and no i am not saying that more expensive photographers are bullet proof i am saying that there is normally a reason for such a low price, in this case it looks like that is incompetence.)

I did say this back on the first page - but I'd love to hear the other photographer's side of things before judging them

 

[Harvey_nikon]

If there is an ongoing dispute with regards to a set of images then i would nto be deleting the rejects and destroying the evidence. Only an idiot or someone who is trying to cover something up would do such a thing.

Thing is you have no idea when these images were deleted, I personally have deleted any duff ones within a day of the wedding. This would be before I was aware on any dispute.

It also highlights the apparent issues with booking a "cheap" photographer ( and no i am not saying that more expensive photographers are bullet proof i am saying that there is normally a reason for such a low price, in this case it looks like that is incompetence.)

Guess that means there must be something wrong with me? price is NO reflection on quality of work. At best you can use it as a basic guide but there is nothing stopping someone downloading kick ass wedding photos, putting them on a site and charging £2000 a wedding.

This is my first year charging, price is going up for next year with a finalised product list for none wedding work and I still need to complete my wedding list and decide on packages etc. Just because I don't charge a huge amount doesn't mean that I don't deliver and I don't put 100% in to my work.

 

[asphotographymk]

And secondly, if they WERE straight after the ceremony, and outdoors... what's the betting she forgot to reset the ISO?

And in any case, why didn't the photographer check the images on screen after taking them? Was she shooting film or something?

Like I say, forgive me if I've missed anything...

No i dont think you have missed anything. Either way what ever caused the issue it is the photographers job to to work in the environment they are faced with. If the guests flash are effecting the image it is the photogrpahers job to correct this problem and is not the guests problem.

No matter what they may be? Or indeed as when they differ between before hand and on the day. OT I had a bride ask me to shoot illegally earlier this year. Should i just of met that expectation? Manage and understand I agree with, make sure they're realistic sure, just meet them without question - certainly not always.

I dont think anyone has said you should meet customers expectations without question, but with proper communication before the day these would not have been her expectations. Its about communication before the day., This is also a very different situation to that of the op.

Thing is you have no idea when these images were deleted, I personally have deleted any duff ones within a day of the wedding. This would be before I was aware on any dispute.

From what the OP has said it sounds like the photographer has deleted these image after the dispute has been raised. Myself i keep all my raw files on backup but thats just me.


Guess that means there must be something wrong with me? price is NO reflection on quality of work. At best you can use it as a basic guide but there is nothing stopping someone downloading kick ass wedding photos, putting them on a site and charging £2000 a wedding.

This is my first year charging, price is going up for next year with a finalised product list for none wedding work and I still need to complete my wedding list and decide on packages etc. Just because I don't charge a huge amount doesn't mean that I don't deliver and I don't put 100% in to my work.

There is almost always a reason for a photographer to be "cheap" , inexperience can be one of them and can on some occasions cause problems. As i said before, this is not saying that by booking a 2k package you are bullet proof or that every cheap photographer is going to be bad it is simply to highlight the risks involved.

 

[swanseamale47]

If the time comes when i fail to meet the brides expectations i will do everything in my power to fix the problem. The photographer in question is clearly making no attempt to do this.



If there is an ongoing dispute with regards to a set of images then i would nto be deleting the rejects and destroying the evidence. Only an idiot or someone who is trying to cover something up would do such a thing.

Everyone has agreed that 200 is a pretty reasonable amount of images. Much less than i would expect from a final edit but i think ok non the less. The problem is that a large section of the day is missing and there are no formals, this clearly means they have failed to deliver.

I do not believe that a ccj is the first point of call but it is an option if the photographer fails to solve the problem with some sort of compensation.

It also highlights the apparent issues with booking a "cheap" photographer ( and no i am not saying that more expensive photographers are bullet proof i am saying that there is normally a reason for such a low price, in this case it looks like that is incompetence.)

It's worth remembering we are only hearing one side of the story, we don't know exactly what the photographer has or hasn't done, and we haven't seen any of the pictures.
Personally I'd like to hear both sides before judging either party.

 

[asphotographymk]

It's worth remembering we are only hearing one side of the story, we don't know exactly what the photographer has or hasn't done, and we haven't seen any of the pictures.
Personally I'd like to hear both sides before judging either party.

We have not seen the pictures becasue they dont exist. How can there be any other side to the story? The photographer is responsible for producing the images they did not deliver. Simple really. What we also know is that the photographer has not given a reshoot, has not given any compensation and has not offered and honest reason for the "loss" of images.

 

[Tokkelossi]

no no no no no no very stupid excuse grrrrrr

This is so dumb that if it was shot digital, ask for the files. They may be able to be saved .... not by them though.

kill them

I do not condone killing people

kill them

 

[Falcs]

thank you all for your help. To answer a couple of questions, the pics were done after the ceremony. The ceremony was in a hotel- the pics after were in the gardens. The backdrop was plants bushes etc so no one was behind or next to us when the pics were taken. I've written and accepted that we have an acccase!le amount/variation of pics but very unhappy the section of formal one's are gone. She's asked me if i took wedding insurance to check with them if i can claim compensation or refund for damaged images. Should this not be her insurance that deals with it? And with no evidence of damaged pics i think it'd be hard to get them to take it seriously! She's asking the pro's who looked at the damaged one,s if they still have copies. I'd rather not put the togs details on here so i don't ruin any chances of challenging her, also don't want a slander case!

 

[boyfalldown]

We have not seen the pictures becasue they dont exist. How can there be any other side to the story? The photographer is responsible for producing the images they did not deliver. Simple really. What we also know is that the photographer has not given a reshoot, has not given any compensation and has not offered and honest reason for the "loss" of images.

So cause the photographer won't allow access to her rejected images ( like the rest of us) & cause they haven't commented on here one side of the story is enough for you to judge then?

Not knowing who the photographer wAs, not having seen the set and having one persons opinion and not knowing exactly what was delivered or agreed seems to be enough to offer all that

There is always 2 sides to a story- it'd be clever to hear both before deciding

 

[asphotographymk]

So cause the photographer won't allow access to her rejected images ( like the rest of us) & cause they haven't commented on here one side of the story is enough for you to judge then?

Not knowing who the photographer wAs, not having seen the set and having one persons opinion and not knowing exactly what was delivered or agreed seems to be enough to offer all that

There is always 2 sides to a story- it'd be clever to hear both before deciding

I have never said anyone should see the rejected images i am saying the images have not been delivered. How ever you look at it the photographer has failed to deliver. What ever the other side is does not change that fact.

And as for what was agreed, its a fair assumption that it was agreed some formal images would be provided. If not why did they shoot them in the first place? This is all part of a verbal contract that from the information provided would be a pretty clear case of failing to deliver the product as sold.

No formal images provided is clearly not delivering the service that is sold. THe photographer can have any side they wont unless they pull the images out the back side the fact still stands.

 

[asphotographymk]

thank you all for your help. To answer a couple of questions, the pics were done after the ceremony. The ceremony was in a hotel- the pics after were in the gardens. The backdrop was plants bushes etc so no one was behind or next to us when the pics were taken. I've written and accepted that we have an acccase!le amount/variation of pics but very unhappy the section of formal one's are gone. She's asked me if i took wedding insurance to check with them if i can claim compensation or refund for damaged images. Should this not be her insurance that deals with it? And with no evidence of damaged pics i think it'd be hard to get them to take it seriously! She's asking the pro's who looked at the damaged one,s if they still have copies. I'd rather not put the togs details on here so i don't ruin any chances of challenging her, also don't want a slander case!

Yes you should have had you own wedding insurance... every couple should. Does this change the fact that they have failed to deliver... No it does not. IF she has or has not got insurance is not your problem really if any compensation is awarded you should get it out of her pocket or that of her insurance. I actually think even if you had insurance they would be looking to recover it from her.

Has the photographer offered any way in which to resolve the problem?

I would agree that naming the photographer may not be the best action right now. Saying that so long as everything you say is true and in good faith which i belive you have acted then there is no case for defamation.

 

[boyfalldown]

I have never said anyone should see the rejected images i am saying the images have not been delivered. How ever you look at it the photographer has failed to deliver. What ever the other side is does not change that fact.

No formal images provided is clearly not delivering the service that is sold. THe photographer can have any side they wont unless they pull the images out the back side the fact still stands.

Yawn...... Neither you or I know exactly what was delivered and other the some bull reason about flashes, why they didn't. Like I said taking time to understand the issues from both sides is always good. Just cause you can't see the opposite view point doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[asphotographymk]

Yawn...... Neither you or I know exactly what was delivered and other the some bull reason about flashes, why they didn't. Like I said taking time to understand the issues from both sides is always good. Just cause you can't see the opposite view point doesn't mean there isn't one.

We know that the formal images have not been delivered. I dont really understand what is unclear about that or what other side to that there could be. What ever the reason the other side could give does not change that fact.
Even if they have a genuine reason for not delivering the images does not change the fact that they failed to deliver.

 

[swanseamale47]

We have not seen the pictures becasue they dont exist. How can there be any other side to the story? The photographer is responsible for producing the images they did not deliver. Simple really. What we also know is that the photographer has not given a reshoot, has not given any compensation and has not offered and honest reason for the "loss" of images.

We don't KNOW for certain what images the OP has recieved or what level of coverage was argreed before or after the wedding.
As for a reshoot, again we don't know whether the photographer is satisfied they have provided a suitable set of pictures or not, nor have we seen any of the images the op has recieved.
We really need to hear the other side of the story.

 

[boyfalldown]

We know that the formal images have not been delivered. I dont really understand what is unclear about that or what other side to that there could be. What ever the reason the other side could give does not change that fact.
Even if they have a genuine reason for not delivering the images does not change the fact that they failed to deliver.

Nothing is unclear that they haven't delivered all the formals expected. But there could be a heap of reasons why,and you or I don't know whats been delivered

The tog ****ed up
They were never asked for any
Some were delivered but some weren't asked for or discussed
Everyone went to the bar, wouldn't take part despite the b and g, photographer and usher's best efforts
Etc etc

At the moment there is clearly another side to the story and judging before hearing that could end up with egg on your face. It would be good to hear that side before jumping to conclusions. It's a fairly easy concept

Btw the list of reasons are purely my examples of things she may say

 

[asphotographymk]

We don't KNOW for certain what images the OP has recieved or what level of coverage was argreed before or after the wedding.
As for a reshoot, again we don't know whether the photographer is satisfied they have provided a suitable set of pictures or not, nor have we seen any of the images the op has recieved.
We really need to hear the other side of the story.

We do know that. We know that a days wedding photography coverage was agreed hence the 12 hours coverage (great the photographer delivered that)

AS no contract was signed its then down to what can be seen as "reasonable"

We also know that formal shots had been taken so it is a reasonable assumption that out of the formal shots taken some would be delivered. Again it would have been reasonable to except a small number of these images to not be delivered due to human error but in this case all formals have not been delivered.

200 images while low to my standards could be classed as reasonable.

We are yet to find out what compensation has been offered so can not comment on that.

Nothing is unclear that they haven't delivered all the formals expected. But there could be a heap of reasons why,and you or I don't know whats been delivered

The tog ****ed up
They were never asked for any
Some were delivered but some weren't asked for or discussed
Everyone went to the bar, wouldn't take part despite the b and g, photographer and usher's best efforts
Etc etc

At the moment there is clearly another side to the story and judging before hearing that could end up with egg on your face. It would be good to hear that side before jumping to conclusions. It's a fairly easy concept

Btw the list of reasons are purely my examples of things she may say

What ever the reason for the loss of the images it is the photographers job to deliver them. Yes rounding people up is an example and when they want to get to the bar is hard work somtimes but its the photographers job to get it done.

In this case (unless the OP is lieing which i dont belive they are) the shots had been taken, they spent the time shooting them so its clear it was agreed and discussed.

Yes i am sure the photographer has a reason, but a reason does not change the fact the images have not been delivered. The reason given is clearly bull.

 

[boyfalldown]

We do know that. We know that a days wedding photography coverage was agreed hence the 12 hours coverage (great the photographer delivered that)

AS no contract was signed its then down to what can be seen as "reasonable"

We also know that formal shots had been taken so it is a reasonable assumption that out of the formal shots taken some would be delivered. Again it would have been reasonable to except a small number of these images to not be delivered due to human error but in this case all formals have not been delivered.

200 images while low to my standards could be classed as reasonable.

We are yet to find out what compensation has been offered so can not comment on that.

What ever the reason for the loss of the images it is the photographers job to deliver them. Yes rounding people up is an example and when they want to get to the bar is hard work somtimes but its the photographers job to get it done.

In this case (unless the OP is lieing which i dont belive they are) the shots had been taken, they spent the time shooting them so its clear it was agreed and discussed.

Yes i am sure the photographer has a reason, but a reason does not change the fact the images have not been delivered. The reason given is clearly bull.

Clearly it is. And yes, having a good reason may well explain why images werent delivered

The point though that both I and Wayne are making is without knowing both sides you cannot judge and suggest a good way forward

I happen to think the photographer probably messed up and should rectify but would like to know that from the other side before jumping to that conclusion. Jumping in half cock while not on possession of all that facts ( and we're not) is never a good thing. That's not difficult to understand

 

[asphotographymk]

Clearly it is. And yes, having a good reason may well explain why images werent delivered

The point though that both I and Wayne are making is without knowing both sides you cannot judge and suggest a good way forward

I happen to think the photographer probably messed up and should rectify but would like to know that from the other side before jumping to that conclusion. Jumping in half cock while not on possession of all that facts ( and we're not) is never a good thing. That's not difficult to understand

My point is that what ever the reason or excuse is does not change the fact that they have not been delivered. The photographers job is to deliver the images the reason why they have not been is irrelevant to the op. Even with a totally valid reason for not providing them the outcome is still the same and that is that the photographer needs to resolve the problem.

 

[boyfalldown]

My point is that what ever the reason or excuse is does not change the fact that they have not been delivered. The photographers job is to deliver the images the reason why they have not been is irrelevant to the op. Even with a totally valid reason for not providing them the outcome is still the same and that is that the photographer needs to resolve the problem.

The reason is not irrelevant at all, and until you know if there is a reason and what it maybe you can't say that it is. There are many reasons outside of the photographers control and as a result it may well be unreasonable to except the photographer to go back now. But more then anything else my point still is why do you find it too much to listen to both sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion and why is that too much

 

[asphotographymk]

The reason is not irrelevant at all, and until you know if there is a reason and what it maybe you can't say that it is. There are many reasons outside of the photographers control and as a result it may well be unreasonable to except the photographer to go back now. But more then anything else my point still is why do you find it too much to listen to both sides of an argument before reaching a conclusion and why is that too much

The reason is irrelevant because no matter what reason the photographer may have it is there responsibility. The only person who controls the result of the images is the photographer. Failing to deliver is failing to eliver what ever the reason why.

Not only is it clearly the photographer legal responsibility to deliver the images it is also very unprofessional to pass the blame for there failure to work with the environment they have been placed in.

Even if the clearly Bull reason the photographer has given is true and it was due to the guests flashes then it would have been the photographers job to take control of that situation or adapt is photography style/ settings to fix this problem.

 

[boyfalldown]

The reason is irrelevant because no matter what reason the photographer may have it is there responsibility. The only person who controls the result of the images is the photographer. Failing to deliver is failing to eliver what ever the reason why.

Not only is it clearly the photographer legal responsibility to deliver the images it is also very unprofessional to pass the blame for there failure to work with the environment they have been placed in.

Even if the clearly Bull reason the photographer has given is true and it was due to the guests flashes then it would have been the photographers job to take control of that situation or adapt is photography style/ settings to fix this problem.

So every reason a photographer may have for not delivering an image is likely to be their fault then or for them to rectify then? I agree in this case it's likely down to them but you or I can't Know that unless we hear their side of the story.

 

[asphotographymk]

So every reason a photographer may have for not delivering an image is likely to be their fault then or for them to rectify then? I agree in this case it's likely down to them but you or I can't Know that unless we hear their side of the story.

Not always there fault but there responsibility yes. Thats life when you provide a professional service.

 

[Blythman]

This is getting silly. The OP has set out the circumstances. Advice is given in respect of those same circumstances. If the circumstances were actually significantly different to those outlined, then obviously the advice is null and void.

How do you know there was even a wedding? And a photographer? By taking the OP at face value.

 

[asphotographymk]

This is getting silly. The OP has set out the circumstances. Advice is given in respect of those same circumstances. If the circumstances were actually significantly different to those outlined, then obviously the advice is null and void.

How do you know there was even a wedding? And a photographer? By taking the OP at face value.

Yep i agree. We have to assume that the OP is being honest with us and giving us the correct information.

 

[boyfalldown]

Not always there fault but there responsibility yes. Thats life when you provide a professional service.

I know you don't think that - in every circumstance?

This is getting silly. The OP has set out the circumstances. Advice is given in respect of those same circumstances. If the circumstances were actually significantly different to those outlined, then obviously the advice is null and void.

How do you know there was even a wedding? And a photographer? By taking the OP at face value.

and some of us are simply pointing out that listening or knowing both sides is the way forward. Not really silly

 

[Blythman]

and some of us are simply pointing out that listening or knowing both sides is the way forward. Not really silly

Yeah - more regularly than Moby Dick has been on the telly at xmas

 

[boyfalldown]

Yeah - more regularly than Moby Dick has been on the telly at xmas

Yawn.......don't let understanding get in the way of a good slagfest eh?

 

[asphotographymk]

I know you don't think that - in every circumstance?

Yes i certainly do. As a business owner you must take responsibility of what you do or do not deliver. For example i recently hired a freelancer to cover a shoot for me and the images were not up to standard, did i say "not my fault" or did i take responsibility for the problem and fix it.. Of course it was the second. If you run your business with a "its not my fault" attitude your reputation will rapidly go down hill.

Besides as a photographer if you are faced with difficult situations you work with them and use your skills to deliver the goods. This is especially important for wedding photography and always the responsibility of the photographer.

This is all totally irreverent as in the case of the OP it is clear the images have not been delivered due to fault of the photographer. Blaming the flash of the guests is fine but it is the photogrpahers place to then change there settings for this.

 

[boyfalldown]

Yes i certainly do. As a business owner you must take responsibility of what you do or do not deliver. For example i recently hired a freelancer to cover a shoot for me and the images were not up to standard, did i say "not my fault" or did i take responsibility for the problem and fix it.. Of course it was the second.

Besides as a photographer if you are faced with difficult situations you work with them and use your skills to deliver the goods. This is especially important for wedding photography and always the responsibility of the photographer.

This is all totally irreverent as in the case of the OP it is clear the images have not been delivered due to fault of the photographer. Blaming the flash of the guests is fine but it is the photogrpahers place to then change there settings for this.

It is completely ot I agree but I certainly won't be going back after I was asked to shoot illegally and didn't deliver those images. I'm sure that as someone who shoots weddings you have or have heard lots of stories of bad guest behaviour stopping shots. There does come a point where as a small business owner you have to know where to draw the line and realise it's a two way relationship with your clients.

Of course you need to resolve the freelancers issues but you also need to know where to draw the line

 

[asphotographymk]

It is completely ot I agree but I certainly won't be going back after I was asked to shoot illegally and didn't deliver those images. I'm sure that as someone who shoots weddings you have or have heard lots of stories of bad guest behaviour stopping shots. There does come a point where as a small business owner you have to know where to draw the line and realise it's a two way relationship with your clients.

Of course you need to resolve the freelancers issues but you also need to know where to draw the line

I dont really see your point. When you were asked to shoot illegally you didnt take the job that is different to taking on a contract and failing to deliver. If you did then that was bad practice and you should not have agreed to shoot in the first place.

The line is drawn before the shoot not after. This is by agreeing or disagreeing to take the shoot or not.

As a photographer and a business owner the only person responsible for delivering the goods is you. Saying its not my fault simply does not cut it.

I have experienced some of the most obstructive guests around but it was still my job to turn that around. As i said losing one or 2 shots could be seen as reasonable but we are not talking about that here we are talking about one or to shots we are talking about an entire section of the day.

 

[boyfalldown]

I dont really see your point. When you were asked to shoot illegally you didnt take the job that is different to taking on a contract and failing to deliver. If you did then that was bad practice and you should not have agreed to shoot in the first place.

The line is drawn before the shoot not after. This is by agreeing or disagreeing to take the shoot or not.

no you really don't get it do you? I was asked to shot illegally with no prior mention of it at a wedding. The whys and wherefores aren't really relevant but it put them and not me in breach of contract, there was no way I was going to shoot at the location requested and risk both my reputation and a big fine.I'm not going back for those photos I didn't deliver either

Not sure how taking the wedding was bad practice though :shrug:

As a photographer and a business owner the only person responsible for delivering the goods is you. Saying its not my fault simply does not cut it.

I have experienced some of the most obstructive guests around but it was still my job to turn that around. As i said losing one or 2 shots could be seen as reasonable but we are not talking about that here we are talking about one or to shots we are talking about an entire section of the day.

Yes - simply saying its not my fault doesn't,but there are lots of reasons why there might well be a reason, why something with the other parties control has stopped you getting a shot. Would you really go back for them then?

 

[asphotographymk]

no you really don't get it do you? I was asked to shot illegally with no prior mention of it at a wedding. The whys and wherefores aren't really relevant but it put them and not me in breach of contract, there was no way I was going to shoot at the location requested and risk both my reputation and a big fine.I'm not going back for those photos I didn't deliver either

Not sure how taking the wedding was bad practice though :shrug:



Yes - simply saying its not my fault doesn't,but there are lots of reasons why there might well be a reason, why something with the other parties control has stopped you getting a shot. Would you really go back for them then?

Ok now your just being ridiculous. Being asked to do something illegal clearly wasnt either part of your contract or something reasonably expected from you so you did not fail to deliver what was agreed did you? If you new that it was going to be illegal and that you would refuse to deliver after agreeing to it then that would have been bad practice. As you have said you did not know this before hand.

This all has no relevance to the situation of the OP.

Again if one shot is missed due to something out of the photographers control then that could be seen as reasonable, for example maybe one member of the party out right refused to be in a photograph of course that would be totally out of the control and the image would not have been taken. But we are not talking about a situation when the image was not taken we are talking about a situation when the image was taken and then lost, deleted or messed up. Very very different.

If the whole party is causing the photographer a problem then part of the photogrpahers job is to take control of that situation. This is an extreme situation and you could talk about worst case extreme with everything but again that is just being silly.

 

[boyfalldown]

Ok now your just being ridiculous. Being asked to do something illegal clearly wasnt either part of your contract or something reasonably expected from you so you did not fail to deliver what was agreed did you? If you new that it was going to be illegal and that you would refuse to deliver after agreeing to it then that would have been bad practice. As you have said you did not know this before hand.

I did point out it was OT and it was you who said that

Yes i certainly do. As a business owner you must take responsibility of what you do or do not deliver.

in every circumstance, remember. Backtracking now?

 

[swanseamale47]

We do know that. We know that a days wedding photography coverage was agreed hence the 12 hours coverage (great the photographer delivered that)

AS no contract was signed its then down to what can be seen as "reasonable"

We also know that formal shots had been taken so it is a reasonable assumption that out of the formal shots taken some would be delivered. Again it would have been reasonable to except a small number of these images to not be delivered due to human error but in this case all formals have not been delivered.

200 images while low to my standards could be classed as reasonable.

We are yet to find out what compensation has been offered so can not comment on that.



What ever the reason for the loss of the images it is the photographers job to deliver them. Yes rounding people up is an example and when they want to get to the bar is hard work somtimes but its the photographers job to get it done.

In this case (unless the OP is lieing which i dont belive they are) the shots had been taken, they spent the time shooting them so its clear it was agreed and discussed.

Yes i am sure the photographer has a reason, but a reason does not change the fact the images have not been delivered. The reason given is clearly bull.

We don''t know whether this photographer does "formal" style shots, not all do, we don't know what style the OP asked for or was shown as a preview album. What you call a formal may be different to another photographers idea of formal, theres just too many varaibles.

I'm afraid we'll have to argree to disagree on this.
You have made up your mind the photographer is guilty as charged, I'm waiting to hear his side and see the evidence before I make up my mind.
Innocent untill proved guilty I think it's called.