Hi thank you again for responses. Yes she is trading properly and has a website with a portfolio on. Though i must admit very few photos of weddings or anything else. Perhaps she is just building this. This photos are jpegs, shot with a canon eos 5d. Shutter speed 1/128 sec. Exposure time 1/125 sec. This is the info from a picture shot at the same time she took the one's which are burnt. I.ve looked through what we have, its just under 300 of the 600 she took. Half of that 300 are copies of the photos in black and white but identical to the coloured. So we probably have 200 out of 600 that are individual decent shots. Oh dear i fear i May have to request a refund, all my pictures damaged or not and pay to have them sorted. She said a friend/professional looked and said they can't be saved!
and help to keep the site free for all
-
Important: the Server Hamster is in need of a bit of TLC so the site will be off line for a while on Friday morning, the 17th
wedding photography help!!
- Thread starter Falcs
- Start date
- Status
- Messages
- 3,745
- Edit My Images
- Yes
200 shots isn't that bad depending on the quality of those shots, and as long as she has captured all of the important moments it may not be as bad as you fear.
Something that not a lot of wedding togs will tell you, they all have a failure rate. In other words, they may on get 2 out of every 3 shots that are worth keeping. Last 15 hour wedding I did I took over 800 photos throughout the day, they were only given 350 in total as I only give the ones I am really happy with
The question is, had she not of told you that some of them were blown out, would you of been disappointed in the photos you have received so far?
Something that not a lot of wedding togs will tell you, they all have a failure rate. In other words, they may on get 2 out of every 3 shots that are worth keeping. Last 15 hour wedding I did I took over 800 photos throughout the day, they were only given 350 in total as I only give the ones I am really happy with
The question is, had she not of told you that some of them were blown out, would you of been disappointed in the photos you have received so far?
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
Harvey_nikon said:200 shots isn't that bad depending on the quality of those shots, and as long as she has captured all of the important moments it may not be as bad as you fear.
Something that not a lot of wedding togs will tell you, they all have a failure rate. In other words, they may on get 2 out of every 3 shots that are worth keeping. Last 15 hour wedding I did I took over 800 photos throughout the day, they were only given 350 in total as I only give the ones I am really happy with
The question is, had she not of told you that some of them were blown out, would you of been disappointed in the photos you have received so far?
I have to agree with this although my rate tends to be about 1/3 make the final cut. The cost to me per shot is negligible so I'll take important shots 2 or 3 times and only give 1 in the final set.
200 is a good number- how long were they there for?
- Messages
- 1,821
- Name
- Peter
- Edit My Images
- No
Did they shoot on digital? I've not read all the posts (sorry), i did my first wedding on digital last year having be a filmy luddite and checked images whenever I had a quiet moment. Really sad to hear they've not got much in terms of images, personally i'd insist on having raw files or high res jpeg
images to look at as Harvey has previously suggested
images to look at as Harvey has previously suggested
I was guilty of this at a family party, had sat my kit up for a few family portraits and one of my flashes was on an optical trigger. My Aunt took a shot with her camera and my flash blew it out completly. (I did turn it off after)
Having said that, i've never noticed anyone using off cam outside of a photoshoot.
Have a look at the other guests photos, if it was as claimed they should have had the same problem as your photographer.
You need to focus on the photos that you have got, rather than what didn't come out. As has been said above, there will always be some that misfocus/motion blur etc. If you are happy with the final edits, does it matter if there were 5 or 500 that didn't pass quality controll?
asphotographymk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,819
- Edit My Images
- No
200 shots is not bad. Are these 200 shots spread across the day?
Agreed, without seeing the images we are only making assumptions.
It could have been "some bloke from the pub who did it for £50", we simply don`t know. If it was, then what is the point of seeking legal redress? If it was a bonafide wedding photographer, then yes, seek compensation.
I agree with your other points,especially the last one......
Who ever did it they failed to deliver. It does not matter if it was £50 or £5k a contract either in writing or not should be fulfilled.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Was a contract signed/discussed at all though?
- Messages
- 3,652
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It doesn't have to be signed, a verbal contract is still enforcable and as the photographer turned up that means they can't deny at least a verbal contract did take place.
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OK, so imagine this scenario. Not applicable to this lady, but I know and most other wedding photographers know this happens.
Couple on budget get prices for wedding pics, decide they can get it cheaper.
They then decide that big Frank down the boozer has a camera and decide to ask him.
He says, yep, £150 cash all in. No PI,no PL, no tax declaration and no talent.
Couple are chuffed at saving some brass.
Now big Frank kinda makes a balls of it and they end up with no pictures.
Do you honestly think that pursuing big Frank for compensation is going to have a worthwhile outcome?
In the case outlined in this thread, as the photographer has website and has taken money off the OP, not too mention BSing about the piccies.Then I would hope the OP does follow the advice outlined by others and gets some sort of compo. Saying that, nobody on here has seen the photos and there are 200 useable ones, depends on the quality of those that are OK ish.
Couple on budget get prices for wedding pics, decide they can get it cheaper.
They then decide that big Frank down the boozer has a camera and decide to ask him.
He says, yep, £150 cash all in. No PI,no PL, no tax declaration and no talent.
Couple are chuffed at saving some brass.
Now big Frank kinda makes a balls of it and they end up with no pictures.
Do you honestly think that pursuing big Frank for compensation is going to have a worthwhile outcome?
In the case outlined in this thread, as the photographer has website and has taken money off the OP, not too mention BSing about the piccies.Then I would hope the OP does follow the advice outlined by others and gets some sort of compo. Saying that, nobody on here has seen the photos and there are 200 useable ones, depends on the quality of those that are OK ish.
asphotographymk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,819
- Edit My Images
- No
Yes, you have a contract with them they have failed to deliver. A verbal contract is just as legaly binding as a written one. Yes the terms of that agreement are a little harder to prove but not in the case of wedding photography, This is easy to show the terms include getting wedding photos . Taking them to court would be a very simple small claims process. You could then claim for the money you payed, interest at 8% and you could also claim damages for having to reshoot.
This is when this becomes less simple. 200 photos from a wedding is not bad, its not great either but i think that would fall into a reasonable bracket.
It would then depend if the lost images came from various parts of the day or (and i would put my money on this being the case) a whole section of the wedding was missing.
Maybe the Op could tell us which it is. Do you have photos from the whole day or is there large timeframes with no images?
Also are you hapy with the images you do have?
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You could take him to court Andy, agree, one could also win the claim, but big Frank would probably be skint cos he has spent all his wonga down the boozer.So you get 2p per calender month off him.....
Agree also, 200 pics is the ball park figure I aim for TBH.
Agree also, 200 pics is the ball park figure I aim for TBH.
asphotographymk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,819
- Edit My Images
- No
You could take him to court Andy, agree, one could also win the claim, but big Frank would probably be skint cos he has spent all his wonga down the boozer.So you get 2p per calender month off him.....
Agree also, 200 pics is the ball park figure I aim for TBH.
I won a court case from somone who claimed they had no money. Thankfully they had a car, tv, computer or what ever else may have been taken when i sent the bailiffs in. Getting money from an individual or sole trader is easy when you win a case. Its getting it from a company that is hard.
Hi in response to a couple of questions, the photos fancied are mainly from one point in the day. Unfortunately they are the formal ones of family, bride + bridesmaids, groom and family, bride and groom with close friends. The one's you imagine keeping out on display that no one else got decent pics of as they were at an angle or distance. :-( No contract was signed just how long she'd stay and what she'd shoot was verbally agreed. She did stay about 12 hours. Live and learn i guess!
asphotographymk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,819
- Edit My Images
- No
Verbally agreed is fine. THis is then a verbal contract. This is just as legal as a written one. The hard part is proving the terms but a dont think it would be hard that for 12 hours of photography you would get some usable formal shots. I would speak to the photographer about some type of compensation. By this i do not mean necessarily a refund . I would speak to them again about the reason they are giving to you as it sounds to me like a blag becasue of some other fault. Maybe ask to see the damaged images and speak to some one in the know ( you can ask us) what the problem is?
I know its not the same but would it be possible to go back to the venue and reshoot these. I know its not the same but its a way for the photographer to get it sorted.
Last edited:
chris321
I like the ginger one
- Messages
- 3,517
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'm no legal expert, or a wedding photographer, but wouldn't this be very tricky if it went to court?
The OP paid a photographer to take photos of the wedding, the photographer supplies 200 shots. O.K, so some aren't there, and you might not be happy with a lot of them, but unless there was something in the contract (difficult when there wasn't one), while you may be unhappy is there really a case for a refund, or compensation?
I have absolutely no knowledge of this at all, just thinking aloud here!
The OP paid a photographer to take photos of the wedding, the photographer supplies 200 shots. O.K, so some aren't there, and you might not be happy with a lot of them, but unless there was something in the contract (difficult when there wasn't one), while you may be unhappy is there really a case for a refund, or compensation?
I have absolutely no knowledge of this at all, just thinking aloud here!
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The principal cause of burning out the whites is over exposure - usually as a result of the togs own flash being set too high, though you can also do it just by ballsing up the exposure settings on the camera - you wont however burn half your pics as a result of other peoples flashes.
I also have to wonder why a proffesional wasn't shooting raw - if she had the pics would be a lot more recoverable , but once the whites are gone in a jpeg then theres no getting them back
The lack of a written contract notwithstanding I'd suggest you have a case for compensation here - as when you hire a pro it is a 'reasonable expectation' that the service provided is of a profesional quality - burning out half the shots and making weak excuses doesnt fit that definition. ( a case would be a lot simpler if she has admitted burning out half the shots in writing - because thats a clear admission of fault)
If she has proffesional indeminity insurance I would suspect that the insurer would settle rather than risk a court case - and settlement could be quite generous - up to the cost of restaging the shots. However that said I suspect that someone at the bottom end of the scale may well not have indeminity insurance and that being the case though you could still win in court - that could be expensive and prolonged - and she isnt likely to settle out of court for very much - mainly because she probably can't
The first port of call should definitely be to write back rejecting her excuses and expressing displeasure at the service provided , and inviting her to discuss how she is going to make up for it ... then see what happens next.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 3,745
- Edit My Images
- Yes
as I have said, if the tog you had would be willing you can send me the cd of burnt images and I can have a quick look over them for you
asphotographymk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,819
- Edit My Images
- No
This depends on what images are missing. With ALL formal shots missing it would not be that complicated.
I haven't yet told her that I've been seeking advice (you guys) on the situation as I'm concerned she may get nervous and 'lose' the damaged pics before i get them. She's said she'll give me everything she has this weekend so i may get someone's details to forward them to to look at. I'm hoping when i see them it won't be as dramatic as she says. She keeps saying its the peoples fault who were taking pictures and if they had stopped it wouldn't have happened. I'm starting to worry she doesn't have insurance if the pics are unprofessional her business sense maybe the same! She did offer to re shoot but that would mean hiring suits again, flowers etc and making my bridesmaid, my sister 8 months pregnant again to make it realistic!
- Messages
- 3,652
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Even if she has no insurance that just means she has to pay out of her own pocket so no insurance = her problem not yours. (see post #55) Of course this could take time and hassel but if it's as appears from your info you sould win in the end and she will have to pay your legal expences and other costs. Best of luck and keep us informed and we'll try to help where we can (and I'm nosy as well).
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
On the small claims track it would be normal for each side to bear their own costs, with the exception of course fees. Just so the legal fees don't grow out of all disproportion to the debt
- Messages
- 3,652
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That makes sense but I thought small claims are for fixed amounts only and not compensation claims. Not an expert on this, just my dodgy understanding.
Just had a quick look around the web and looks like I'm wrong on this and talking through my **** again. :shake:
Last edited:
I have followed this thread and I am a little concerned that the original poster is being given possibly bad advice. To recommend that the photographer should pay for the re-shooting of photographs from the wedding day, either by insurance or out of their own pocket, when there has been no written contract would be very hard to prove in court.
The way the events have occured are as follows:
-The OP has requested a set of wedding photos from a photographer
-The photographer attended the wedding
-The photographer has issued 300 photos of said wedding (200 originals and 100 duplicates / edits)
Without a contract (or at least written confirmation) of the types and numbers of shots it would be almost impossible to prove that the photographer has not provided what the OP requested.
Another difficult item to discuss is the quality of the photography as this is subjective. If the images look bland, but are composed OK and exposed OK there will be difficulty proving the photographer has not supplied what was requested. If, like you have stated, a large proportion are blown then that may be a different scenario.
Falcs, I appreciate that you are dissapointed with the images but you may be better off having the images professionally retouched rather than persuing the re-shooting of the wedding
Good luck!
The way the events have occured are as follows:
-The OP has requested a set of wedding photos from a photographer
-The photographer attended the wedding
-The photographer has issued 300 photos of said wedding (200 originals and 100 duplicates / edits)
Without a contract (or at least written confirmation) of the types and numbers of shots it would be almost impossible to prove that the photographer has not provided what the OP requested.
Another difficult item to discuss is the quality of the photography as this is subjective. If the images look bland, but are composed OK and exposed OK there will be difficulty proving the photographer has not supplied what was requested. If, like you have stated, a large proportion are blown then that may be a different scenario.
Falcs, I appreciate that you are dissapointed with the images but you may be better off having the images professionally retouched rather than persuing the re-shooting of the wedding
Good luck!
without a contract i think your a tad b*ggered.....
I did a wedding last week - im NOT pro (it was a favour to a friend). Next time i will be doing a contract saying "if any pics are lost etc i will not be held responsible"... did your tog say anything like that??
feel really bad for you..... wedding pics cannot be done again without the same sense of feeling for that one day.
I did a wedding last week - im NOT pro (it was a favour to a friend). Next time i will be doing a contract saying "if any pics are lost etc i will not be held responsible"... did your tog say anything like that??
feel really bad for you..... wedding pics cannot be done again without the same sense of feeling for that one day.
asphotographymk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,819
- Edit My Images
- No
That is not really true. A contract is great for laying out the terms the photographer sets. I would say the client is in a stronger position without a contract becasue most photographers contracts are written in a way that protects them.
The way it would be looked at would be if the photographer has delivered what can reasonably be expected by the client. If one or 2 images are missing and most of the day has been covered without problems then the court would most likely go in favor of the photographer. If however large sections of the day has been "lost" due to the photographers lack of skill or negligence (which this sound like to me) then i think most judges would agree that to be below reasonable expectations.
Even if it did say this in the contract it would be impossible to enforce. If the photographer fails to deliver then it wont mean jack.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
she can say that til she's blue in the face but it wont make it any truer, if the whites are burned out its because she screwed up the exposures one way or another.
As noted you can still sue her even if she dosnt have insurance - it just means she's less likely to settle for a large sum out of court.
also with regard to the reshoot route - if this does go to court i'd be inclined to ask for the costs of reshooting with a competent photographer ,rather than her reshooting it as it sounds as though she could easily make a balls of the reshoot as well.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
spot on- contract terms have to be reasonable or they get overturned in court
the only possible exception would be if the agreement made it explicitly clear that they were a muppet and might make a hash of it and this was reflected in the fee - but no one in their right mind would sign a contract that says
"by signing this contract you acknowledge you understand that walter mitty photography have no experience of covering weddings or indeed of any other kind of photography and may well make a hash of covering your big day, and that there is no expectation that they will actually provide shots that are well exposed, foccussed, and composed - you acknowledge that you clearly recognise this and agree that your payment of £5.38 in copper coins, 3 bottle tops and a date with the bridesmaid reflects their level of (in)competence"
asphotographymk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,819
- Edit My Images
- No
Ha ha someone would still book them
And the cost of suit hire and expenses.
DorsetDude
Spud
- Messages
- 7,018
- Name
- Keith
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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!
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I'd definitely go for a refund - if this winds up in court she's now weakened her case considerably as she's taken it from "whether the shots are good enough/not her fault that they arent" - to "there are no shots of period x - this is not reasonable coverage of the day"
also if she's deleted shots after you explictly asked to see them - that isnt indicative of dealing in good faith
being a nasty suspicious cynic I would suspect that she's deleted the shots in question because the exif would clearly show that she screwed up - and IMO its likely that that would be the courts interpretation of events also.
so your next move is a stiffly worded letter demanding a refund, and indicating that you are considering going to SCC if its not forthcoming in a reasonable period
and looking on the brightside the formal shots of B&G with close family are the easiest to restage, and if you get a refund you could use it to pay a competent photographer to just reshoot those shots.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 9,819
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
The big problem as I se it is we simply don'y know whats actually happened.
Are the images totally blown out or are they easily fixed by another photographer but possible the original photographer doesn't have the software or experience?.
Are the images only slightly blown but the photographer doesn't want to show them?
Was is caused by external flash, bad exposure, or a camera fault?
Without seeing the original faulty images and hearing the photographers side of the story I think any sort of usefull advice is limited.
Are the images totally blown out or are they easily fixed by another photographer but possible the original photographer doesn't have the software or experience?.
Are the images only slightly blown but the photographer doesn't want to show them?
Was is caused by external flash, bad exposure, or a camera fault?
Without seeing the original faulty images and hearing the photographers side of the story I think any sort of usefull advice is limited.
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!
- Messages
- 1,161
- Name
- James
- Edit My Images
- Yes
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 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.
- Messages
- 3,745
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you have NO formal shots I would write a polite letter to the tog saying that you are not happy about it and as such you want a refund either in full or of X amount and send it recorded delivery. Or you could approach a solicitor and speak to them about it and just go straight down the formal path. You have a good case without having formal shots, contract or no contract, formal shots are expected at every wedding.
If you speak to the venue and the suit hire place about what has happened then I am sure they will give you a good deal on the suits and let you use the venue for free to retake them.
OR, and this is a little out there but....
Even if you reshoot, you will know that they weren't taken on the day every time you look at them so, why not do something a little different, like a trash the dress day? Invite the bridal party and family, go and do something crazy in your dress (they can wear suits or casual) and have a fun day and get a decent tog to do that for you.
Where are you located?
On a side note, please go around to wedding websites and forums and post about the experiences you have had. Tell others that they should make sure there togs have contracts, insurance etc as this will help give the cowboys a kick in the nuts.
asphotographymk
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,819
- Edit My Images
- No
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.
Before you go to court you need to show you have everything possible to solve the issue, you will not need a solicitor for a small claim court issue its very easy to do and can all be put forward online (there will be a small fee i think for this it will be £35).
Before going the court route write her a letter expressing your disappointment and ask for a partial refund ( i would say a full refund is out of the question as she has provided some images) you also need to ask for a reshoot at her cost and that will include any hire charges if you decide to get the suits again. As above i would ask for a trash the dress and get some fun out of it. Asking her to reshoot also shows the courts you have given her reasonable chance to fix the problem.
£450 is very very cheap for a wedding so i dont think you can expect a high standard service but the photographer still needs to provide you with formal images as you requested. If a few formals had been missed thats one thing but all formals lost is clearly a failure to deliver.
I suspect that there was reasons for the images being deleted. Maybe they didnt ever have the images in the first place and had a corrupt memory card, it can happen. As a business owner i think honesty is always best and she is clealry covering something up.
Before you go to court you need to show you have everything possible to solve the issue, you will not need a solicitor for a small claim court issue its very easy to do and can all be put forward online (there will be a small fee i think for this it will be £35).
Before going the court route write her a letter expressing your disappointment and ask for a partial refund ( i would say a full refund is out of the question as she has provided some images) you also need to ask for a reshoot at her cost and that will include any hire charges if you decide to get the suits again. As above i would ask for a trash the dress and get some fun out of it. Asking her to reshoot also shows the courts you have given her reasonable chance to fix the problem.
£450 is very very cheap for a wedding so i dont think you can expect a high standard service but the photographer still needs to provide you with formal images as you requested. If a few formals had been missed thats one thing but all formals lost is clearly a failure to deliver.
I suspect that there was reasons for the images being deleted. Maybe they didnt ever have the images in the first place and had a corrupt memory card, it can happen. As a business owner i think honesty is always best and she is clealry covering something up.
- Messages
- 9,819
- Name
- wayne clarke
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I would be very carefull here, you don't want to get into any libel cases, nothing has yet been proved against the photographer, and it could also damage your claim for compensation if your not very cautious.
big soft moose
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy...
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so long as they dont name the photographer they'll be fine - its not different in essence to this thread
- Messages
- 17,486
- Name
- Hugh
- Edit My Images
- No
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?
but the only way you're going to 'give a kick in the nuts' is to name, so the implication is pretty clear
Last edited:
- Status