# Pretty bad...



## woollybear (Apr 20, 2013)

but worth a lawsuit?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312026/With-camera-I-thee-behead-Couple-Evette-Gary-Crack-sue-photographer-claim-ruined-big-day.html


----------



## Click (Apr 20, 2013)

Poor couple


I'm not that bad after all.  ;D


----------



## Ewinter (Apr 20, 2013)

Hahaha, definitely worth a lawsuit.
really, it depends on the contract, but the photos are so bad a free reshoot would be an insult


----------



## RGF (Apr 20, 2013)

Every photographer gets bad images. Not sure why they were sent to client. What about the good ones - or were they any good ones?

And what did the contract say?

Did the couple do their homework and check out the photographer. 

IN the end, probably plenty of fault on everyone's part


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 20, 2013)

Unfortunately, lots of inexperienced photographers put out there shingle and call themselves professional. Some countries actually license photographers, but I doubt if that guarantees anything, just a way of collecting taxes.


I would not touch a wedding except for a relative who would have nothing if it wasn't for me. Since I don't charge relatives, they can't sue.


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 20, 2013)

Where was that thread about 'anyone who takes a photograph is a photographer' ? :-\


----------



## blaydese (Apr 22, 2013)

WOW!

I don't feel so bad now...and I thought my pictures (like this one of mine) were crappppy, over done, blown out, excrement shots ...







I wonder what the rest of their shots looked like? Were they all bad?

Maybe the guy was mad at them?

Sad though, that is a one day event, can never truly get that day back.

Peace! 8)


----------



## Nishi Drew (Apr 22, 2013)

Well see, anyone who gets paid is a professional photographer, I don't see the issue here, did the photographer claim he's "Ryan Brenizer on a budget"? I bet the uncle Bob at the reception took better shots here though. But is this news worthy? Like is there a breaking news article for every restaurant that claims to serve top-notch food that doesn't appeal to any critic? Although it's probably the couple's fault for not looking carefully into the guy's portfolio, there are cases of people just using stock photos or shots from other photogs to promote themselves and get away with it... until they show their work to their clients, and try to still get paid with the way they write up their contract.


----------



## Sith Zombie (Apr 22, 2013)

Wow! now that's bad photography!
Theres not a lot of detail given about the contracts and the photographers previous experience so a lot of things could have happened:
1] The photographer conned the couple by using false examples of previous work
2] The rest of the photographs were pretty good but the couple are trying to get some compensation for the bad ones
3] The couple cheaped out on someone they knew wasn't too hot
4] The couple didn't even bother to look at the photographers portfolio 
5] The photographer was struck with temporary blindness for the day but really needed to cash so didn't tell anyone.

The one thing we do know is these photos SUCK.


----------



## Maui5150 (Apr 22, 2013)

woollybear said:


> but worth a lawsuit?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312026/With-camera-I-thee-behead-Couple-Evette-Gary-Crack-sue-photographer-claim-ruined-big-day.html



Looking at the couple, they should be embarrassed. Maybe put down the butter, cake, chips, beer, sweets, and like would have helped too.

The fact thay got that horse in a white tarp and made it look like a dress is an accomplishment though


----------



## J.R. (Apr 22, 2013)

Too bad the couple thought likewise ;D


----------



## Quasimodo (Apr 22, 2013)

LOL, you made my day with this hillarious article. Thank you for bringing here


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 22, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Where was that thread about 'anyone who takes a photograph is a photographer' ? :-\



It's true.... anyone who takes pictures is a photographer.... the point is, are they any good? With no set standard, this is what you get.... There is a wonderful line, "self evaluation is fraught with peril"... we see ourselves as experts... everyone who picks up a camera KNOWS that they are good.... but compared to what?

For example, I take bird pictures and if I compare them to those from the members of my canoe club, I am very obviously a great photographer.... but then compare them to the ones posted on this form and it becomes obvious that I have lots to learn.


----------



## zim (Apr 22, 2013)

;D ;D ;D that's funny cheered my Monday up no end, maybe it's just me but I think that's the work of pure genius........ comic genius


----------



## risc32 (Apr 22, 2013)

i shoot weddings, i have one this saturday. the first shot is bad, the other shot with his hand blocking her face is bad. the dancing shot is bad, but the rest are ok with me. a convert to B&W and a bit of crop and they are fine. I have a shot somewhat like that rain shot that everyone loves.


----------



## Meh (Apr 22, 2013)

I really have no comment on this particular case since we don't know all the details and haven't see all the photos that were delivered, etc.

But here's a question for the wedding togs... have you ever shot a wedding and the bride, groom, wedding party, guests were not co-operative and/or wouldn't make time for the shots you normally set up? What was the outcome?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 22, 2013)

woollybear said:


> but worth a lawsuit?
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312026/With-camera-I-thee-behead-Couple-Evette-Gary-Crack-sue-photographer-claim-ruined-big-day.html


Those are some exclusive and unique photos ... the best pic is the one with their heads chopped off, that takes some skill ;D


----------



## Brendon (Apr 22, 2013)

Ok, I agree that the posted photos are bad but we have no idea what the rest of the photos look like from the event. At a minimum this photographer is guilty of not properly culling and post processing his/her photos. For instance, the pic with the umbrella has a very good expression on the brides face and the photo would actually be a good one if it were cropped to lose the trash can. 

I know photographers willing to shoot a wedding and only post process a small number of photos while handing over the raw or large jpg for ALL of the photos during the day. If that is what happened here then it's pretty ridiculous on the part of the wedding couple because they don't understand how things work. If the photographer handed over all of the day's photos then it's pretty normal if 50% are out of focus, eyes shut, bad expressions, someone stepping into the frame, or need something cropped out. It looks to me like the pictures haven't been processed at all so it leads me to believe this is the case.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 22, 2013)

zim said:


> that's the work of pure genius


Amen ;D ;D ;D


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 22, 2013)

Maui5150 said:


> woollybear said:
> 
> 
> > but worth a lawsuit?
> ...



Are you really serious with your comments?


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 22, 2013)

By the way many here have rightly pointed out that we do not know what happened with the other photos.... surely the photographer took at least 500 photos.


----------



## Zv (Apr 22, 2013)

What I wanna know is why did the photographer send them all his shots? Did he not even look at them at all? That in it self is proof he's no pro. Idiot. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 22, 2013)

Zv said:


> What I wanna know is why did the photographer send them all his shots? Did he not even look at them at all? That in it self is proof he's no pro. Idiot. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.



Perhaps the contract said ALL shots.... It could be that the photographer took 2000 shots, a dozen or so are bad... it could be a 99 percent hit rate... it could be .1 percent hit rate, we don't know.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Apr 22, 2013)

> The photographer told The Sun the location of the event, a 14th-century manor house, was difficult to shoot pictures in



yeah well that is why you PAY a professionell photographer. what a moron.


----------



## ereka (Apr 22, 2013)

Zv said:


> What I wanna know is why did the photographer send them all his shots? Did he not even look at them at all? That in it self is proof he's no pro. Idiot. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.



The article refers to the photographer in question as 'she' not 'he' (_'It's just awful, she's robbed us of everything'_)


----------



## Maui5150 (Apr 22, 2013)

RAKAMRAK said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > woollybear said:
> ...



Did you really have to ask?


----------



## ereka (Apr 22, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Perhaps the contract said ALL shots.... It could be that the photographer took 2000 shots, a dozen or so are bad... it could be a 99 percent hit rate... it could be .1 percent hit rate, we don't know.



According to the article '_Mr Crack, 30, has said the collection does not feature any good photographs_'.


----------



## Meh (Apr 22, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > What I wanna know is why did the photographer send them all his shots? Did he not even look at them at all? That in it self is proof he's no pro. Idiot. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
> ...



Or they couple may have gotten into some argument or debate with the photographer and eventually she gave up, sighed deeply, shouted "oh bollocks", and just handed over ALL the shots and told the lovely couple to piss off. Then, being the miserable type, the couple selected the worst shots and filed a lawsuit seeking the costs of a new reception just to get a free party with more cake. People are like that.


----------



## shutterwideshut (Apr 22, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Too bad the couple thought likewise ;D



;D ;D ;D


----------



## unfocused (Apr 22, 2013)

Like others, I am scratching my head as to how they ever even saw these pictures. It only reinforces my resolve to never let my subjects see the original shots. I mostly shoot for family and friends, but even in those cases, I'm not letting them see everything I shoot.

To me, that's like going to buy a car, getting a truckload of parts delivered and being told to assemble it myself. It's only half the product. I know some photographers give their clients everything and I know that when they are waiving money in front of you, it's hard not to comply. But, I don't want my bad shots being posted for the whole world to see.


----------



## Meh (Apr 22, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Like others, I am scratching my head as to how they ever even saw these pictures. It only reinforces my resolve to never let my subjects see the original shots. I mostly shoot for family and friends, but even in those cases, I'm not letting them see everything I shoot.
> 
> To me, that's like going to buy a car, getting a truckload of parts delivered and being told to assemble it myself. It's only half the product. I know some photographers give their clients everything and I know that when they are waiving money in front of you, it's hard not to comply. But, I don't want my bad shots being posted for the whole world to see.



I think you've hit the nail on the head... money talks and it's not always easy, especially for a struggling photog, to turn down money over the risk that a not-so-good shot gets shown around as an example of your bad work. Even if it's not the money, it might seem easier to give into the pressure of a client demanding ALL the photos on the basis that "the photos are of them and therefore it's their right to have them and decide for themselves if the photos are good or not".


----------



## eyeland (Apr 22, 2013)

hahaha having a hard time getting past the name and general appearance of the couple.. I know it's not a nice thing to say and I am sure they are swell people, but without any further information of "proof" I can only relate to this story as comic relief  
On the topic of handing over originals, I think it's something most of us learn the hard way.. Recently shot a wedding for my brother in-law and complied with his request to give him all the pictures seeing as I didn't really have time to PP as many as he'd like.. Boy did I regret that...


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 22, 2013)

ummm... ok... did ANY good pictures come out of them, or were these representative of the whole batch.... If he gave them even 400 images and these 5 were the worst, and 395 are good and even OK IMAGES, then this lawsuit is meritless.. But, then again, edit out these images... the should NEVER be shown to the clients... Every photographer will get an occasional blurred shot or wrongly cropped shot, but likely the next frame will be in focus and properly cropped... No need to ever show these images... If the photog was a complete airhead and all or even half the images are bad, then sue their butt... I agree there are too many shoot and burners that need to be weeded out in the industry and bringing the industry down reputation wise, but then again, if these are the only bad images, then deal with it.


----------



## ksagomonyants (Apr 22, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> ummm... ok... did ANY good pictures come out of them, or were these representative of the whole batch.... If he gave them even 400 images and these 5 were the worst, and 395 are good and even OK IMAGES, then this lawsuit is meritless.. But, then again, edit out these images... the should NEVER be shown to the clients... Every photographer will get an occasional blurred shot or wrongly cropped shot, but likely the next frame will be in focus and properly cropped... No need to ever show these images... If the photog was a complete airhead and all or even half the images are bad, then sue their butt... I agree there are too many shoot and burners that need to be weeded out in the industry and bringing the industry down reputation wise, but then again, if these are the only bad images, then deal with it.



+1


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 22, 2013)

unfocused said:


> Like others, I am scratching my head as to how they ever even saw these pictures. It only reinforces my resolve to never let my subjects see the original shots. I mostly shoot for family and friends, but even in those cases, I'm not letting them see everything I shoot.



I shot "the group" at a family gathering.... I explained that I would take multiple pictures because you get people blinking, strange momentary facial expressions, etc. I set the camera up to take 10 images and we all posed as the camera clicked away for 20 seconds. When I examined the pictures later, there was not a single image without someone blinking or jaw open, one eye shut, etc etc. Photoshop is your friend! The family never got to see the originals, just the composite photoshopped image.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 22, 2013)

absolutely they shouldn't have been given some of these photos. still, without seeing the entirety of the work i can't really say. I take shots like the one of the feet sometimes. I do it for use later in post with WB etc, not for customer use. also this "shoes in" shot is currently popular. Don't ask me, but it is, and sometimes the church coordinator will even set it up. you wouldn't believe the stupid junk the guy was doing with "my" bride/groom at the last shoot i did. of course this shot didn't even show her shoes, but maybe the next frames did.

Typically at a wedding i shoot somewhere in the area of 1200-1500 shots. They are then knocked down to 800 or a 1000 or so. but for a close friend last summer i didn't cut as much as usual. i usually pick one or two besties from any given shot, but for him i left them in. i probably shouldn't of, but i did cut out any random weird stuff i got.


----------



## risc32 (Apr 22, 2013)

look, you don't want to know how sausages are made.


----------



## rongage (Apr 22, 2013)

Meh said:


> I really have no comment on this particular case since we don't know all the details and haven't see all the photos that were delivered, etc.
> 
> But here's a question for the wedding togs... have you ever shot a wedding and the bride, groom, wedding party, guests were not co-operative and/or wouldn't make time for the shots you normally set up? What was the outcome?



I just shot a wedding this past Saturday. It was a low budget ceremony-only wedding. The bride really, really, really did not want to get her picture taken with the groom after the ceremony. Ended up being the last shots taken. I can't say that the shots were my best work (no flash, strong natural light coming in the church windows, etc, etc) but I got some good usable shots out of the thing.

http://www.prgstudios.com/weddings/jason-and-natalie/


----------



## lholmes549 (Apr 22, 2013)

I have never shot a wedding and never plan to, but I am 100% sure I could take better photos than those shown in the article. Having taken photos at a few formals/dinners in similar conditions it can be challenging but I could have taken better photos on my phone. 
Too many people call themselves pro photographers nowadays and they are nowhere near the standard, in terms of final images or the gear required. Taking on someone's wedding is a big step and you have to be sure you're up to it. 
Having said that, this story stinks of a couple who have tried to skimp on the cheapest "photographer" without seeing any proof of past work.


----------



## Maui5150 (Apr 22, 2013)

rongage said:


> ... The bride really, really, really did not want to get her picture taken with the groom after the ceremony.



Might be completely out of context, but if I was a divorce lawyer, I would be circling this couple.


----------



## tpatana (Apr 22, 2013)

Maui5150 said:


> rongage said:
> 
> 
> > ... The bride really, really, really did not want to get her picture taken with the groom after the ceremony.
> ...



Lol, I was wondering same...


----------



## wombat779 (Apr 22, 2013)

As bad as these pics are, the ones that the "photographer" took at my sister-in-law's wedding were actually worse. Pretty much every shot more or less out of focus, badly incorrect settings (grossly slow shutter speeds, incorrect aperture for situation), blown highlights (e.g., wedding dress one big white blob), harsh on-camera flash with almost black backgrounds and blown subjects, no "composition" to speak of (basically all looked like P&S amateur vacation shots, except not as good), you name it. EXIF data shows the camera was on full-auto the whole time.

When my sister-in-law sent them to me to try to "fix" them I was horrified. I tried my best to post-process some of them to make them marginally usable, but you can't fix OOF or blown highlights. Thankfully I was at the wedding too and took many of the same shots (particularly the group shots) that were otherwise unsalvageable, so she was able to use mine instead in the album.

Ultimately, neither me or my sister-in-law made a big deal out of the awfulness of the pictures, since what is done is done. However, I could tell she was pretty disappointed. There are some pretty poor "pro" photographers out there...


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 22, 2013)

lholmes549 said:


> I have never shot a wedding and never plan to, but I am 100% sure I could take better photos than those shown in the article. Having taken photos at a few formals/dinners in similar conditions it can be challenging but I could have taken better photos on my phone.
> Too many people call themselves pro photographers nowadays and they are nowhere near the standard, in terms of final images or the gear required. Taking on someone's wedding is a big step and you have to be sure you're up to it.
> Having said that, this story stinks of a couple who have tried to skimp on the cheapest "photographer" without seeing any proof of past work.



well as i mentioned before, are these representative of the whole, or are these JUST the worst? Every photographer in every wedding will get bad shots, it's a thing of certainty... BUT WE DONT SHOW THEM TO THE CLIENT. We show them the lovely exposed and framed and focused images... shoot, my typical wedding with me and my assistant... we have about 1800 images... Once i cull that down to 300-400, then i'm showing my strongest work. so... if these just weren't edited out and most of the other shots before and after these frames look good and these are the few bad ones... oh well, it happens... if the entire thing sucks, then complain.


----------



## eyeland (Apr 23, 2013)

Maui5150 said:


> rongage said:
> 
> 
> > ... The bride really, really, really did not want to get her picture taken with the groom after the ceremony.
> ...


+1


----------

