how not to be a wedding photographer.

From another forum, but I don't have a link (yet)
"As the father of the photographer concerned i would like to add some facts to this debate.

1) My daughter has never portrayed herself as anything more than an amateur taking pictures as a hobby. The 100 charged was to cover costs (transport, memory sticks , buying photoshop, a day off work from her job as a check out assistant etc etc).

2) No one has seen all 606 images provided to the B&G except them and us.

3) To say this wedding was being done on a tight budget is an understatement. 30 spent on inflated balloons that were going down 3 hrs before the reception. My wife and i at our daughters request went and purchased more balloons and gas and spent 2 hrs putting things right with not even a thank you from the B&G.

4) My daughter did struggle to take pictures outside the registry office as the brides maids had taken her umbrella (never did return it either).

5) The pictures were to be edited but due to the bride pressuring my daughter she made the biggest mistake of just giving her all 606.

6) No list was provided but my daughter did ask that they nominate family members to "organise" family for photos.

7) We refused to talk to the reporter who came to our door at 0805 on Thursday as until the courts have decided we felt it best.

8) So glad the photographer that sat outside our house for 2 hrs didn't get a usable shot, good job he only gets paid if they use a shot our he could be taken to court."
 
Poor girls seems rather naive and ignorant to what she was getting herself into. I wouldn't have given them all 606 photos, what does a quick edit take...not long at all to flag photos. Very naive but a lesson learnt.

I've only done a couple weddings for friends/family and whilst i think the results were ok and probably were passable/saleable i wouldn't dream of charging until i had ample gear that i felt comfortable with and experience to go with it. I used a 30D/40D, 580exIIs with L glass at the time a few years back.

I find the comments weird about how the day was ruined, how very odd.
 
^^^
You can.

But that's besides the point, The Suns efforts look somewhat lowend. For starters it doesn't look like the tog has ever heard of bouncing a flash. He/she's used the most unflattering hard light possible. The only saving grace is that he's using off camera flash.
 
Last edited:
Just as I was reading this thread again, up popped a message on Facebook from an old school friend with her wedding photos all lit up throughout with selective colouring. It's quite poop.

Oh and this isn't just a sun article, it's on a few tabloids and websites. The daily mail has it too. Odd how it's tory papers running the story though. Maybe the photographer is a Labour councillors mate :p
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you're mistaken and think that the new photographer just went over the original 606 images and retouched them, or you're being disgustingly rude (and wrong) about the couple...
 
An Exception said:
From another forum, but I don't have a link (yet)
"As the father of the photographer concerned i would like to add some facts to this debate.

1) My daughter has never portrayed herself as anything more than an amateur taking pictures as a hobby. The 100 charged was to cover costs (transport, memory sticks , buying photoshop, a day off work from her job as a check out assistant etc etc).

2) No one has seen all 606 images provided to the B&G except them and us.

3) To say this wedding was being done on a tight budget is an understatement. 30 spent on inflated balloons that were going down 3 hrs before the reception. My wife and i at our daughters request went and purchased more balloons and gas and spent 2 hrs putting things right with not even a thank you from the B&G.

4) My daughter did struggle to take pictures outside the registry office as the brides maids had taken her umbrella (never did return it either).

5) The pictures were to be edited but due to the bride pressuring my daughter she made the biggest mistake of just giving her all 606.

6) No list was provided but my daughter did ask that they nominate family members to "organise" family for photos.

7) We refused to talk to the reporter who came to our door at 0805 on Thursday as until the courts have decided we felt it best.

8) So glad the photographer that sat outside our house for 2 hrs didn't get a usable shot, good job he only gets paid if they use a shot our he could be taken to court."
Click to expand...

See now, that adds much more clarity to the story. Basically she's agreed to do something more or less as a favour and hasn't even had the chance to filter out the throw aways which the scum and mail have gleefully posted nationally to ruin someone's name. I imagine their court case will award the 'photographer' damages for the paper not reporting factually accurate info and the bride and groom flat out lying to get sympathy and more than likely money by suing someone. The press side of it must have been a delightful bonus for the scum B&G.
 
Razor-BladE said:
To me, their comment seems as though they are making reference to the photos.
Click to expand...

That would only make sense in the poster thought that the updated article were retouched samples from the original shoot. Clearly the are not, but they are still bad pictures.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but frankly from all the information currently available, I get the impression this couple are not particularly pleasant on the inside either. They have destroyed some poor girls name and sought damages for their own poor decisions & greed.
 
An Exception said:
I think said person is saying the couple are fugly.
Click to expand...

They're not the best looking couple in the world, but I wasn't actually referring to the bride and groom, more to the qualities, or lack thereof, of the photos. There is only so much PP can do to a photo that is just plain rubbish, as I can hold my hand up and say about some of mine!

Felt commenting on the people would take it even further off topic than it has already gone!
 
Well yeah, it's not post processing, they're new photos that were taken by a volunteering photographer at a recreation of the service which they put on in order to get a half decent wedding album. Nobody's said anything about post processing afaik??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom