Bad wedding photos continue, part 2. Good ones??

[Dave Shively]

I started a new thread so as to hopefully get some of you who replied the first time so you could see what I thought were some of the better shots.

I guess in all fairness to the photographer here are what I believe are some of the best shots of the wedding. I know some of you thought there needed to be a balance of good and bad. I just first posted the really bad ones to show what kind of bad results I was getting. Some of these are photos I would like to keep and have prints made due to the people that are in them. They may not be some of the best shots taken, but just ones that we like even though they might be bad due to whatever.

I would almost be tempted to let some of you who are better at post work and have a newer version of PhotoShop or whatever you use work on a few of these for me. It would be interesting to see what can be done with what I think are really bad.

Again thanks for all your help,
Dave

http://inlinethumb11.webshots.com/42186/2103183730100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb49.webshots.com/42032/2214058500100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb51.webshots.com/12978/2134488510100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb53.webshots.com/43380/2456523200100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb15.webshots.com/43534/2102398830100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb32.webshots.com/43039/2794896720100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/44177/2517815730100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb03.webshots.com/44866/2495334870100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

[Dave Shively]

Here are some more.

http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/1809/2744704770100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb03.webshots.com/44930/2879602310100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb16.webshots.com/34959/2437661420100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb21.webshots.com/42964/2383114690100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/44113/2882684470100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb48.webshots.com/43311/2597496740100293667S600x600Q85.jpg
Obviously not in focus but it is the only one of my niece walking down the isle.

http://inlinethumb52.webshots.com/45107/2055249170100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb42.webshots.com/26025/2545195550100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

[KinoC]

You need to align the pictures and cutting the hands or the dress of the subject is not good either...
KC

[Karl Johnston]

KC; they're not his pictures, see here; http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=719269

[Dave Shively]

And more.

http://inlinethumb43.webshots.com/44266/2837497100100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/40028/2565454850100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb12.webshots.com/45771/2442891790100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb56.webshots.com/25335/2075366940100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb33.webshots.com/45856/2255394540100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb35.webshots.com/44066/2822565090100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb13.webshots.com/44684/2805864150100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb30.webshots.com/42973/2830401740100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

[FlyingPhotog]

Forgive me for being a "Buzz Kill" but...

/soap box

Dave, I feel your pain. While some here are definately better than those you posted in the "Bad" thread, I would remind you that you are posting the work of another photographer.

I don't know what your agreement with him/her is but unless you purchased the copyright from them, you're showing really bad form by putting them up on the interwebs.

\soap box

(Not to mention stretching the POTN posting guidelines...)

[rayabel]

The copyright is a problem, unless you got copyright and proofs for $1400. If so, not too bad of a deal for you.

[Dave Shively]

I purchased and have all copyrights to all of the photos. I can do with them whatever I want. I don't by any means to sound harsh about you comment on copyrights, I am just letting you know.

Dave

[FlyingPhotog]

I purchased and have all copyrights to all of the photos. I can do with them whatever I want. I don't by any means to sound harsh about you comment on copyrights, I am just letting you know.

Dave

PM received and replied...no issue there. ;)

[rdenney]

These images are all pretty hacky, but they are a LOT better than the ones in the other thread. Makes me wonder if some of those had a soft-focus something applied to them to make them "better". The compositions on these are still pretty bad--appendages cut off and so on. But I've seen much worse.

If these were the worst of the lot instead of the best, I would say you got a $1400 wedding photographer.

With 900 pics, the question is this: If these are the best handful, and the others are the worst handful, where's the average?

Rick "'Mr. Groom, LOOK AT THE CAMERA, PLEASE!'" Denney

[Digital_zen]

Are these before or after post-process? All-in-all very dizzying, it really looks as if these are pre-PP (?) shot wide at any old angle, in order to be cropped/straightened later.
I'm pretty handy with PS-CS3 and would be happy to fix one of these up for you.

Tisk-Tisk on your photog for shooting anyone under 55 (unless of course it's Mr. Rugged himself) in direct sunlight, especially at this close to midday, AND at a wedding for Pete's sake! (Whomever "Pete" is)

[Goshawk]

It is really hard to understand how this person was allowed to do a paid shoot. I hate shooting another photographer down as we all make mistakes and weddings can be fast and furious. Something is wrong somewhere and stinks to high heaven. I find it hard to believe(not impossible just very hard) that a pro-wedding photographer would allow a assistant with no photographic skills at all to go out and do a paid wedding shoot. It just does not makes sense to me as he will damage his reputation even though it is his assistant that did the shoot. It will still reflect back to him. Are we getting the full story here???

[Karl Johnston]

HAHAHAH! I'm sorry but the last set you posted; the second last picture from the bottom; Look at the groom's eyes !!!

Again, so sorry but MAN that's an unfortunate shot

[Mintie]

It is really hard to understand how this person was allowed to do a paid shoot. I hate shooting another photographer down as we all make mistakes and weddings can be fast and furious. Something is wrong somewhere and stinks to high heaven. I find it hard to believe(not impossible just very hard) that a pro-wedding photographer would allow a assistant with no photographic skills at all to go out and do a paid wedding shoot. It just does not makes sense to me as he will damage his reputation even though it is his assistant that did the shoot. It will still reflect back to him. Are we getting the full story here???

I couldn't agree more. Whilst the last images are an improvement on the original batch, they are still way below the standard I would expect from a photographer who is charging for their service. They honestly look like they were taken by Aunt Milly on her $75.00 p&s.

As you say, something's a tad smelly here....

[Mintie]

If these were the worst of the lot instead of the best, I would say you got a $1400 wedding photographer.

Rick "'Mr. Groom, LOOK AT THE CAMERA, PLEASE!'" Denney

If that's acceptable for $1400, I'm going in to the wedding business.

I 've been labouring under the false impression that wedding photos had to be, well.....,er, good somehow...

[Goshawk]

It is a real pity we cannot get the assistant that did the shoot or the pro whom this assistant work for to join this forum and explain what is going on here. I hate one sided stories. It is fully agreed by all that these photo's posted is really not very good. But as said by the poster something(if I remember right) like 800 to 900 photo's was taken. Until we can actually see all these photographs including the end product(not practically possible) and the photographer himself joins this thread I am going to start to reserve my judgement.

[shannyD]

ehh... i was a burned bride too.. the pics were taken with a P&S. ( well before i ever knew anything about photography) i cant even edit the photos because the resolution is horrible. they were taken with a 3MP camera.

the photos that i have will never ever see the light of day.

i feel for your bride in this stance. but i have to say.. that eventhough they opted for the second shooter.. the second shooter should be really really good.. especially if main shooter is sending this other shooter out to represent their business.

it doesnt look good at all.

granted a lot can be saved. but. as some other people stated before.. even for 1400 dollars.. you shouldnt have to save anything. they should be ready to print, share. or whatever.

this is bad.

i know a photographer who lugs 30k worth of gear to a wedding that hes only paid 1k for.. and gives them images that are amazing! the same quality that his 4-6k weddings get.. granted they get photo albums, prints, and other stuff. but the quality is the same.

im kinda grossed out by what this photographer did. and feel bad for your daughter.

too bad you werent there to guide her with this.

these are the pics that she has to remember her wedding day by.

[Karl Johnston]

Time to find a club and go hunt this guy down ;)

[DennisW1]

Time to find a club and go hunt this guy down ;)

Why? That's just rude.

My opinions might not be in the popular majority here, but this set of images looks a hell of a lot better than the first few. And I'm sorry, but I've never seen anything from Aunt Milly's P&S that looked that good, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

One good point was made, without hearing the other side of the story a lot is being assumed. Part of me wants to think this is someone just starting out and doing their damndest in a situation where they are over their head. The unfortunate part is that it produced a less than satisfactory product (at least to the OP, we haven't heard yet what his daughter and son-in-law have to say about it).

We were all new, inexperienced, nervous, and sweaty-palmed at one point in time. I'd like to think that this photographer will grow and learn, hopefully not at another wedding party's expense, but definitely with more seat time as an assistant to learn.

What I'm wondering is, was this "assistant" working as a representative of his boss or did he/she take the job on their own? If this was as a representative of the studio or photographer they worked for then he or she really should know what their hired help is doing to hurt the boss' reputation. If they took it "on the side" because the bride just wanted to save some money, well, caveat emptor.

I said I thought some of this work was not too bad, so to be more specific, from the first posting in this thread:

#1 - didn't anyone notice the woman sitting in the lower left of the frame?
#2 - Stone me if you wish, but I kind of like this one as a candid
#3 - I dunno, a vailant attempt but I don't like the "looking down on her" framing
#4 - Well, at least its a little closer than one of the original batch, you can kind of make out the B&G
#5 - The Flying Bride!! nope, doesn't work. I suspect another valiant attempt at a creative pose that failed.
#6 - I want to think she's hailing a taxi or something. Part of this is that I've always hated photographs of the bride holding up her train.
#7 - Compose this a little better (tighter), get rid of the background clutter and to be honest I like it
#8 - No No No No No No. The bride looks like she's falling over.
***continued in the next post***
#9 - The holding of the flowers is a bit awkward but bride and dad is always a keeper, I'll give this a "not bad". It could be cropped closer to get rid of the uncomfortable looking hands and it would be a good one.
#10 - Well this one is just bad. OOF, and I think I would have shot this as a vertical and maybe full length.
#11 - Assuming that's mom, where is she looking? And again with the awkward hands. They look like they're handing off the baton in a relay race.
#12 - Kids can be frustrating to get good expressions from, but aside from the little girl's expression, I really like this one. And look Ma, no awkward hands!!
#13 - I'm starting to think the groom is just one of those people you don't get good expressions from. Again, not a bad shot technically but the guy on the right looks like he's at a funeral instead of a wedding.
#14 - FOCUS!!!!!!! COMPOSE!!! terrible, just terrible. This indeed could have been done better by Aunt Minnie.
#15 & #16 - Well, they're sorta kinda in focus, but really terribly composed and HEY KID, LOOK AT THE CAMERA!! (Please?)
***part 3 *** ceremony and formals
#17 - #20 (at the altar, or whatever it is) I dunno, for "candids" they are what they are, but that's one reason I always liked re-staging the lighting of the candle up closer and with more contol. The Groom looks like he's afraid of getting burned he's so far away.
#21 - Outside the church. I would have shot this wider to include the wedding party on either side
#22 (formals) I dunno, not bad, but a little bit too wide. And I HATE posing guys with their hands folded in front of their crotch, makes 'em look lonely. (sorry, just the way I was taught, and the man who drummed that into my head used that exact catch phrase.) To be fair, this is a large wedding party which can be challenging to even the seasoned pros. I'll give it a C+ for effort. I do think I see the guy in the back row with his eyes closed, it happens but that's why you take several of a large group like this.
#23 - Enough has already been said about the groom in this one, but other than that I like the idea.
#24 - This one turned out a lot better than the one with the groom and the girls. The rather scattered posing of the men is sort of strange, but I think it's a saleable image.
The horizons on the formals are a bit off, not bad or un-correctable but noticable.

Just one man's opinions, don't take them any more seriously than that. I've not photographed a wedding for many years, and I can relate to the frustration of the OP, but let's stop crying for a public lynching, ok?

[Mintie]

Why? That's just rude.

My opinions might not be in the popular majority here, but this set of images looks a hell of a lot better than the first few. And I'm sorry, but I've never seen anything from Aunt Milly's P&S that looked that good, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

We were all new, inexperienced, nervous, and sweaty-palmed at one point in time.


I said I thought some of this work was not too bad, so to be more specific, from the first posting in this thread:


My Aunt Milly is a gun with her p&s, so don't be rude....:)

Yes, we are all inexperienced, nervous and sweaty palmed at one point in time. I've been there done that too, but I didn't charge $1250 for it. If you are that sweaty and inexperienced then you are not a professional wedding photographer and shouldn't be charging for it. You should perhaps be working on a time for prints/cd basis until you are less sweaty and nervous.

I'm sorry, I really can't agree with you that "some of this work is not to bad". If it was Aunt Milly or my 14 year old daughter doing it, then I would agree, but for a photographer to pass themselves off as a professional and charge $1250, the work should be of a much higher standard than that.

Perhaps we just need to agree to disagree.

I've said enough on this thread but I'd like to make one last point.

Much is made on this and other forums about the number of rank amateurs coming into photography and claiming to be "professional" without having the necessary experience, creativity or business acumen to actually produce "professional" looking results. I think this example is one of the worst cases I have seen of this. If I was a professional wedding photographer, I would be seething at this.

[SuzyView]

I had to link the images after the first 8 as this exceeds the image rules.

[egordon99]

Can't view the "good" photos right now but I'll check back tonight. I did see the "bad" photos and what might have happened is the photographer just didn't cull out the bad ones.

I have a lot of "bad" shots, but the client doesn't see them. I'm inside shooting with flash, go outside, switch to Av mode, lower the ISO, but forget to turn off the flash (or turn it on HSS), first shot is blown out (hit the 1/250s X-sync). I chimp so I quickly realize the problem and the next shot is fine.

Or I'm shooting crazy dancing in low light @ f/1.4-2. Miss focus on some shots, or flash doesn't fire as it's not done recharging (of course it fires for the previous misfocused shot :lol: )
So these don't see the light of day.

For the shots that DO see the light of day, I still need to color-correct many of them as I shoot in AWB (but in raw) and I usually do a bit of contrast adjusting, black level adjustments, brightness/fill-light tweaks.

So if I DID deliver ALL the shots unprocessed from a big shoot, I could totally see someone going apesh*t over how BAD some of them are.

Like I said above, I have NOT seen the "good" shots, so perhaps they are also atrocious... :lol:

[stathunter]

In the last thread you stated your daughter actually paid $1250 for wedding photography. Now you want the thread to process your photos for nothing. Maybe trying to save a buck runs in the family?

[egordon99]

^ ouch! :lol:

What gets me is that your daughter never saw any of the assistant's work.

I used to watch Judge Judy/People's Court and I loved when they had a wedding photography case. First question the judge asked is "have you seen any of the photographer's work before?"

I'm also interested to know how this $400 (?) savings came about by hiring the assistant. Was this arranged with the main photographer? Or did the assistant go behind the boss's back and offer you to "do it for less?"

[DYORD]

Business > Photography :D

Me either.. i wouldn't go to any wedding as a photographer unless I know what I'm doing. Being a guest, i could do some photography.. but I won't charge anything for it. (then i would say... "don't rely on me! Get a professional not a businessman!")

[stathunter]

^ ouch! :lol:




Sometimes you just have to be direct. It is one thing to post a photo and say can you fix or help with this - but 30 - 50 photos - that screams someone trying to get others to do something for free that should have been paid for in the first place. Sorry - just calling it as I see it.

[ScottME]

This whole thing is just a disaster: hiring the asst. without seeing work, hiring an asst. period, and paying $1250 for a photographer who's work you've never seen.

Just bad all around.

I took a gander at a few photogs around my area and they were all priced well below that and had much, MUCH better quality.

Edit: And the free PP is kinda lame.

[chauncey]

I said it in the "bad photo" post and I'll say it again...your professional association needs to educate the public about what is/is not acceptable quality, along with acceptable fees in your area.

[rdenney]

If that's acceptable for $1400, I'm going in to the wedding business.

I 've been labouring under the false impression that wedding photos had to be, well.....,er, good somehow...

Look, photos at a wedding are still limited by what happens at the wedding. The photographer is not working in a studio and only has partial control over the series of events, especially a new photographer who doesn't yet know how to manage wedding planners or the MOB.

Most people think of themselves as beautiful, and many women hate even well-exposed and composed shots of themselves. They should hire a sketch artist instead of a photographer.

So, wedding photographers are already behind the proverbial 8-ball.

The photos in this thread are mediocre. The images in the other thread are incompetent. $1400 is a mediocre price to pay. I paid three times that for our wedding (quite a while back), and got only a proof book and a stack of sleeved negatives from the photographer. The photographer made 220 pictures, and all 220 of them are relevant and competent. I'm sorry, but $1400 is already shopping in the bargain basement, even without considering that due diligence by the buyer wasn't performed.

If the bulk of the images are like the ones in this thread, then at least the event was adequately recorded--mediocre results for a mediocre price. If the bulk of the images were like the sample in the other thread, then it's refund time.

Rick "who has seen worse from well-regarded photographers who charged more" Denney

[Dave Shively]

In the last thread you stated your daughter actually paid $1250 for wedding photography. Now you want the thread to process your photos for nothing. Maybe trying to save a buck runs in the family?

Sometimes you just have to be direct. It is one thing to post a photo and say can you fix or help with this - but 30 - 50 photos - that screams someone trying to get others to do something for free that should have been paid for in the first place. Sorry - just calling it as I see it.Scott,

I think you better reread my first post in this thread. I do believe you missed what I said.

Here is what I said.


I would almost be tempted to let some of you who are better at post work and have a newer version of PhotoShop or whatever you use work on a few of these for me. It would be interesting to see what can be done with what I think are really bad.I never ask anyone here to process my photos for free! I said, "I would be almost tempted". And, by the off chance that someone did offer, you don't know if I would pay or not.......which I would. Also I said, "It would be interesting to see what can be done".

I also never asked nor would I ever ask someone here or anywhere else to do 30 - 50 photos.

I merely wanted to see posted here on this forum what one or two of my originals along side ones that were touched up from someone that knows better PP than I do.

[rammy]

Take a look in the classifieds here for services offered. Couple of threads for PP work there.

Post an original or a link from somewhere like a free share site. It may help put your mind at ease if you can get some decent PP work done on them.

I feel for you, your family and especially the bride. Saddened to hear that this type of quality appears acceptable to some people (the photographer). They should know better with regards to the importance of such day.

[Dave Shively]

Just in case I missed explaining things or some of you missed what I said, here is the story.

But before I get into it, I would like to say I never meant for my original post to get blown into this. I merely wanted for all to see what the results were and for all to tell me if I am all wet about the quality of these photos.

To be really fair to the photography, and me you would have to see all 882 photos. But as you know that is not possible.

My daughter found the owner/photographer at a bridle fair. His portfolio did look impressive, but the date of the wedding he was not available but his assistant was. I trying to confirm this with my daughter, but as I remember she (the assistant) he said she could do the work for what I believe was $400 less than one of his packages. I might be wrong but I think I am close here.

I did call him about 6 weeks before the wedding and told him I was concerned about the low lighting conditions at the church. He told me on the phone it would not be a problem and not to worry about it. I then asked him what equipment he/she was going to use. He told me but I forgot. The assistant used at the wedding a Nikon D3. I was preoccupied to notice what lenses she used.

She did show up wearing red shorts and flip-flops. She as an assistant to the owner/photographer had an assistant that showed up late. I did not notice this but others did.

As the father of the bride I was aging preoccupied with wedding things that I never took notice was to what kind of job she was doing.

Now I knew what we were getting as far as photos, meaning all photos on CD's untouched. I know we got photos without PP, and there are some good/decent ones, but some are so far gone that I don't believe anything can be done with them to make them unacceptable. For instance, many are of family members, especially my daughter that I want and can't be fixed due to OOF, poor background/composition, using too high and ISO (1600 outside in bright sunlight or 3200 inside on some) so as not able to bring them to acceptable sharpness and overall just bad photography. And would any of you have any reason to use a shutter speed of 1/4000 and an ISO 1600 outside in bright sunlight? Again granted I paid $1250 (approximate) and as many of you said it may not have been much and you get what you pay for. But.....even so you would expect more than mediocre photos and at least out of 882 photos the majority of them to be good. Not to mention the owner culling out the really bad ones before releasing them to me.

The general consensus from everyone here seems to agree with me. Please let me know if after reading this you still agree.

Again, I merely wanted to so you see what kind of photos I received.

Also the opportunity is gone and can not be repeated.

Thanks for you input whether you agree or disagree.

Dave

[amonline]

I purchased and have all copyrights to all of the photos. I can do with them whatever I want. I don't by any means to sound harsh about you comment on copyrights, I am just letting you know.
You mentioned owning the copyrights. Do you actually have a contract that says all copyrights have been relinquished to you? I'm not saying it's not impossible, but it's very hard to believe and would just put another proverbial nail in this photog's coffin regarding their experience as a professional.

[Drozz119]

The assistant used at the wedding a Nikon D3.

^^ I think we've officially reached a conclusion.

We can all go back to our lives knowing we're not the worst photographer out there.

[Dave Shively]

Yes, it say I have all rights to the photos. I may do with them whatever I want.

Dave

[nicksan]

Not sure what the market is in different areas but I paid $6000 for my wedding photos 5 years ago, so to me, $1400 just sounds too low to expect anything professionally done.

Me and my wife are totally happy with the photos. Amazing actually...and it looks like it was well worth the $6000 damage it did to my wallet.

That said, I don't think the photos in this link are all that disasterous. They are not great by any stretch...but I gotta say...what do you expect for that price?

[Akire]

^^ I think we've officially reached a conclusion.

We can all go back to our lives knowing we're not the worst photographer out there.
(Kinda like when you get done watching Jerry Springer, and your Life don't seem so bad)


yeesh. I concur.

[Dave Shively]

Nicksan,

I am just curious, what did you get for you $6000? I would bet you got many prints with several sizes as well. You probably also got at least a decent photo album, maybe more than one.

All I got was her time and photos on two CD's. That's it.

Just wondering.

Dave

[sued5320]

Note that there were several posts in the original thread asking for the OP to allow image editing. Dave was not asking anyone to PP any of the shots.

[PhotogWannabe]

Dave, I feel your pain!

[DennisW1]

My Aunt Milly is a gun with her p&s, so don't be rude....:)

Yes, we are all inexperienced, nervous and sweaty palmed at one point in time. I've been there done that too, but I didn't charge $1250 for it. If you are that sweaty and inexperienced then you are not a professional wedding photographer and shouldn't be charging for it. You should perhaps be working on a time for prints/cd basis until you are less sweaty and nervous.

I'm sorry, I really can't agree with you that "some of this work is not to bad". If it was Aunt Milly or my 14 year old daughter doing it, then I would agree, but for a photographer to pass themselves off as a professional and charge $1250, the work should be of a much higher standard than that.

Perhaps we just need to agree to disagree.

I've said enough on this thread but I'd like to make one last point.

Much is made on this and other forums about the number of rank amateurs coming into photography and claiming to be "professional" without having the necessary experience, creativity or business acumen to actually produce "professional" looking results. I think this example is one of the worst cases I have seen of this. If I was a professional wedding photographer, I would be seething at this.

Good point, I'm wondering if the assistant wasn't really claiming to be a "professional", but more importantly an "available", seeing as the boss wasn't available on the date.

I'll gladly agree to disagree, that's what makes this a great forum. :)

I wouldn't claim that the work is "professional" but to be brutally honest, I've seen work other people have posted in this forum from weddings they've photographed and some if it looked worse than these examples, and these were people claiming to be "professionals".

What really fries me is Dave's description of the photographer showing up "wearing red shorts and flip-flops". WTF kind of dress is this? Unless you're going to the beach instead of a wedding in a CHURCH that's just in really, really bad taste.

I'll stand by my guess that this is someone just starting out in the business that thought they were ready to handle a wedding without really knowing what they were doing. If her boss gave this his blessing then he needs to sit his "assistant" down and explain to her that she's a long way away from being ready, and to maybe install a little better attitude in her, especially about how to look and act professional in addition to having the skills required for the job. Sounds like both the assistant and the assistant's assistant (say that 10 times fast!) really had far too casual of an attitude toward the whole day. Nothing says "I don't give a s**t" louder than showing up late, sheeezzzz.

Dave, I know you probably didn't expect this thread to take on such a life of its own but I hope that when all is said and done not only have we all learned something (including those of us who are saying to ourselves "...ya, there is a worse wedding photographer than me out there...") but that you end up with images that make your daughter and son-in-law happy with the memories of their wedding day. In the end, thats what really matters.

[DennisW1]

My daughter found the owner/photographer at a bridle fair. His portfolio did look impressive, but the date of the wedding he was not available but his assistant was. I trying to confirm this with my daughter, but as I remember she (the assistant) he said she could do the work for what I believe was $400 less than one of his packages. I might be wrong but I think I am close here.


As I said earlier, if this was with the boss' blessing then he needs to know what kind of damage his assistant is doing to his reputation. If not, well then caveat emptor.


She did show up wearing red shorts and flip-flops. She as an assistant to the owner/photographer had an assistant that showed up late. I did not notice this but others did.


I'll not rant about this again but that's in really terrible taste. (oops, guess I already did!)


As the father of the bride I was aging preoccupied with wedding things that I never took notice was to what kind of job she was doing.


Yep, I can relate to that.



For instance, many are of family members, especially my daughter that I want and can't be fixed due to OOF, poor background/composition, using too high and ISO (1600 outside in bright sunlight or 3200 inside on some) so as not able to bring them to acceptable sharpness and overall just bad photography. And would any of you have any reason to use a shutter speed of 1/4000 and an ISO 1600 outside in bright sunlight?


(....guessing here....) If you're shooting at 1/4000 outside in bright sunlight it's probably because you were formerly shooting available light inside the dark church and didn't reset your ISO for the outside shots. 1/4000 was probably manditory to not completely blow out everything out (some of what I saw was still pretty overexposed, that may well be why)


The general consensus from everyone here seems to agree with me. Please let me know if after reading this you still agree.


Hindsight is always 20/20, but if someone were asking me before the fact, I would ask if you had an opportunity to see the work of the actual person photographing the wedding and some history of their previous experience. If you hear "this is my first wedding as primary shooter" and can't see any examples of their own work then you would have to decide to either choose elsewhere or accept that you might not be getting Monte Zucker quality work.

I'll agree that you got mediocre work. I'll agree that the price you paid was pretty low-ball for wedding coverage. Unfortunately in this case you sort of got what you paid for. And as you said, the worst part is that the moment has passed and can't be re-created.

In all of this, you've not mentioned what your daughter and son-in-law think of the work. If they're happy with it then that's what's really important, despite how outraged we as photographers may be at the quality (or lack of) of the photographs. I'd be interested in knowing their reaction to the final product.

[Goshawk]

Not sure what the market is in different areas but I paid $6000 for my wedding photos 5 years ago, so to me, $1400 just sounds too low to expect anything professionally done.

Me and my wife are totally happy with the photos. Amazing actually...and it looks like it was well worth the $6000 damage it did to my wallet.

That said, I don't think the photos in this link are all that disasterous. They are not great by any stretch...but I gotta say...what do you expect for that price?
Holy mo, that is a lot of money, and this 5 years ago. In East Africa one of my friends started charging $500 but no one prepared to pay that ha ha, but nowadays that is the minimum rate he will charge, I will not do it for less than $1000 as it is a hell of a lot of work that I do not need, I might up that after reading your post:lol:, but paid wedding shoots is very rare here as most get done by friends. In South Africa the rate used to be in the $500 to $1000 region until a few years ago(bit out of touch with this last few years rates) And that was the full monty properly presented.

[Goshawk]

Red shorts and flip flops at a church ???
Dave it seems by the samples you have posted and by what you are telling us that you guys ended up with a un-professional photographer.
I understand that you only posted this thread for other views.
But as I said in an earlier post it is very difficult to correctly express our views if we only see a very small percentage of the work(that has been selected by you) and also importantly if the photographer herself is not participating/defending/explaining herself in this thread.
Personally I actually find this thread unfair and one sided.

[fly my pretties]

Forgive me for being a "Buzz Kill" but...

/soap box

Dave, I feel your pain. While some here are definately better than those you posted in the "Bad" thread, I would remind you that you are posting the work of another photographer.

I don't know what your agreement with him/her is but unless you purchased the copyright from them, you're showing really bad form by putting them up on the interwebs.

\soap box

(Not to mention stretching the POTN posting guidelines...)

Why is it bad form? There is no argument for this.

Poor photographers who solicit themselves commercially should be advertised as exactly that. Dave is doing people a service by providing us examples of his skill.

Also, my girlfriend is an intellectual property solicitor, so I know he has done nothing wrong by posting these pictures.

[egordon99]

If you hired the assistant via the "boss", you have a beef with the boss. If you did this behind his back, caveat emptor (BUT let the boss know what happened ;) )

[nicksan]

Dave,

IIRC, I got a VERY nice Album, all the film negatives, and extra photo shoot at some other location after the ceremony at the Cathedral.

I also paid additional money on top of the $6k for the DVD production of the event, which also came out GREAT.

This company actually is a very professional production company that also produces commercials in Japan so we knew from the beginning we were getting top notch products from them. It took them a month to get the album and DVD to us. We saw their work beforehand, were very impressed (and depressed at the price :D) then we had a sit down with the lead photographer and videographer a few days before the wedding. They had 3 photographers and 2 videographers at the wedding.

We hired a separate photographer for the reception...a freelance one on the cheap. And the results were consistent with the price. Still, we were happy with them being that we were looking for candid shots, not formal ones, at the reception.

So yes, I agree. For $6000 we got a LOT more than you did. But still, IIRC, the difference between the "Deluxe" and "Standard" packages wasn't all that much, hence we went all out and got everything. So if we didn't want all the negatives and just a basic album, no extra shoot after the ceremony, then we still would have paid $4000-$4500 for it.

I'm sure we could have found a local freelance photographer for $2000, but we weren't going to risk it. It was a difficult decision to bleed out $6000 because we were on a pretty strict budget for our wedding, but we thought it was worth it because it's a once in a lifetime event. (Hopefully, for the most of us...;):lol:)

I mean, I am a guy, so in typical fashion I really didn't make any of these decisions other than to check out their work beforehand and agreeing with my wife that they look good. But I gotta admit, looking at the wedding album afterwards, I was thoroughly impressed and was completely convinced it was worth the money.

So once again, I feel $1400 is a price that would be too low for comfort, at least for me. But again, people have different value systems when it comes to things like this.

-Nick
Nicksan,

I am just curious, what did you get for you $6000? I would bet you got many prints with several sizes as well. You probably also got at least a decent photo album, maybe more than one.

All I got was her time and photos on two CD's. That's it.

Just wondering.

Dave

[nicksan]

I somehow think that the rates differ dramatically between Hawaii and South Africa.:lol:

It's very popular for Japanese folks to have a wedding in Hawaii and they know it. So they can charge that much and still retain business. (5 years ago...don't know about that now!)

Although I am from the USA, Hawaii was a good location for relatives in Japan, otherwise I would have had my wedding in NY.

We did a lot of research and found the range to be $4000-$6000. We went with these guys b/c they were undoubtedly top of the line. I mean, seriously, there was just no doubt about their work. That's the last thing we were worried about...the wedding album and DVD.

Again, well worth the $6k we paid. Remember, there was a team of 5 plus the coordinator for the photographers/videographers.


Holy mo, that is a lot of money, and this 5 years ago. In East Africa one of my friends started charging $500 but no one prepared to pay that ha ha, but nowadays that is the minimum rate he will charge, I will not do it for less than $1000 as it is a hell of a lot of work that I do not need, I might up that after reading your post:lol:, but paid wedding shoots is very rare here as most get done by friends. In South Africa the rate used to be in the $500 to $1000 region until a few years ago(bit out of touch with this last few years rates) And that was the full monty properly presented.

[JeffreyG]

A team of six people in Hawaii for $6000. That sounds reasonable, particularly if the results were stellar as Nicksan has stated.

I participated in the other thread, and I'll comment again here. Of course, my comments will be based on the OP's own statements and assessment that these photos are the best of the bunch and the other thread were the worst.

The photos in this thread are mediocre. Some can be salvaged and so at least the OP has some record of the day, but overall there are no great shots here and most of these would have been culled by me.

The thing that is really problematic about this whole tale is the other set (the bad ones). I''ve taken pictures that bad.....but I'd be mortified if anyone saw them. For sure I would never hand a CD to a paying client with images like that.

Sure, the OP paid for unprocessed images, but you have to be crazy not to at least sort them and cull out the bad ones.

And for what is most important to the OP, once you cull the bad shots (cut off hands, crazy tilts, OOF, blown backgrounds, benches) are you left with at least one acceptable shot of all the important stuff? Do you have B$G together, bride full length, bride with parents, groom with parents, bridesmaids, groomsmen and the entire wedding party together? If you are missing many of these shots do to the low quality then you have a legitimate complaint.

[egordon99]

OK, just looked at the "good" pictures posted earlier in the thread. They're not THAT bad. MUCH better than the ones in the other thread.

The assistant messed up in giving you ALL the shots but you did "ask" for unprocessed JPGs on a CD/DVD. So you got exactly what you bargained for....

Me personally, I spend the hour or two culling out all the "bad" shots so the client only sees the good shots. Had your photographer done this, we would not be having this discussion.

BUT, wearing shorts/flip-flops was stupid.

[rdenney]

Nicksan,

I am just curious, what did you get for you $6000? I would bet you got many prints with several sizes as well. You probably also got at least a decent photo album, maybe more than one.

All I got was her time and photos on two CD's. That's it.



For $4000, we got the photographer's time (no assistant), a proof book (just 5x5 prints of all the negatives in a $15 album), and a stack of sleeved negatives. That covered 220 images, of which 220 were competent and relevant in the proof book. That's a film equivalent of the CD you got after taking it down to Walmart to print 220 of those images. I expect the photographer's cost for those proofs from 6x6 negatives was $100, plus $15 for the book. Wal-Mart would print digital images more cheaply.

We saw portfolios of many in the area who charged $1000-1500. They all used 35mm equipment, and we saw pictures with cut off heads, cut off feet, tilted horizons, blown out highlights (improper use of flash), and so on. That's why we ended up spending the money.

Rick "water under the bridge, of course" Denney

[nicksan]

I'll snap a few pics from the wedding album when I have the opportunity to do so, just to show what $6000 got me...well the photo album part at least...

[chauncey]

As a totally side question, have any of you pros worked for the same bride/groom in two different weddings?

[stathunter]

As a totally side question, have any of you pros worked for the same bride/groom in two different weddings?

Chauncey - yes I have had a repeat customer - the fella is on his 3rd marriage - I am hoping for even more business from him in years to come.

[c2thew]

there were a couple decent ones in here that could be saved, most noticiably the indoor shots.

2, 3, 7

http://inlinethumb21.webshots.com/42964/2383114690100293667S600x600Q85.jpg
ok this was just a tad too close and the facial expression on the niece cannot be photoshopped into a happy face.

[Goshawk]

Chauncey - yes I have had a repeat customer - the fella is on his 3rd marriage - I am hoping for even more business from him in years to come.
Now that is what you call a good customer:lol:

[cnsconnor84]

After seeing these ones they are not bad. Definitely not worth all the negative attention they have been getting on these boards. If anything he's guilty of leaving the bad ones on the disc that's all.

[Cromfel]

Im feeling really bad because of some people here trying to throw salt on Dave's wounds. Gee people, dont be so arrogant if someone is simply puzzled about bad photos and asking if it could be fixed by PP from someone who knows their photoshop. :rolleyes:

[DStanic]

$6000 is alot of money but if that is for 5 photographers then it's worth it. Depends how many shots/angles and how eleborate you want! Most people will hire a good photog with an assistant for $2000 or less in many areas.

[Mosca]

After reading this thread, I went back and looked at our wedding photos from 1989. I don't remember what we paid then; $1000 sticks in my mind. I DO remember that the photographer was a young guy who was just starting his business on the side. He was a photographer for the local paper. His name was Henry, I don't remember his last name.

He showed up in dark suit and a tie, he posed everyone, he took the pictures, he got the reception shots, and he left. The photos are beautiful; there are maybe 50. The most noticeable feature is that we were so much THINNER 20 years ago!

And that was film. No histograms, no live view. No 882 shots on a CF card. (And that's another thing; 882 photos! How about a few dozen that count? Even if you had 882 perfect shots, the impact of any one of them is only 1/882nd of the total. Less is more. 50 perfect shots are better than 882.) I have no idea what gear he was using; I wasn't interested back then, and even if I was, I was preoccupied that day.

Dave, take heart. With a little work there are probably 50 good pictures in there. 20 years from now that will be all she will need. She doesn't need to see the 832 losers; I didn't. I got 50 great shots that I wouldn't trade for anything.

[Dave Shively]

I have an update on this whole mess.

I talked to the owner/photographer on the phone. I told him how dissatisfied I was with the photos his assistant took. He still stands behind her and her photography. He did say that he would have a talk with her about her attire (shorts and flip-flops).

I gave him some examples of what I thought were really bad due to blurry, overexpose, bad background choice, tilted images, bad composition and just generally bad photography. These were the same photos that I posted here. He still stands behind these photos and said they are not bad and that they are good shots.

After he realized how upset I was, he did say he would PP about 15 of what I thought were bad and see what he could do with them. Here is just one that I am going to let him work on. I see noway that this one can be fixed because it is too far gone.

http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/42641/2038506950100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

I told him about this shot and he said this is a good photo. It was shot at 1/60 f/5.6 and an ISO of 3200 and no flash. What about the bench?

http://inlinethumb18.webshots.com/3089/2235157710100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

Here it is cropped at 100% and he say this is a good shot!
http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/44865/2392016680100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

There were only 4 taken of me walking down the isle with my daughter and all 4 are OOF and shot at 1/60 f/5.6 and an ISO of 2000.

http://inlinethumb54.webshots.com/693/2749645410100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

Here is the same photo at 100% crop.

Do I have a right to be upset especially after here thinks these are good?

Dave

[JeffreyG]

I think if those 100% crops were from a surveillance video of a bank robbery then you and your daughter would stand a fair chance at aquittal. I'd call recognizing anyone in those photos 'reasonable doubt'. The second shot is simply OOF.

The noise in the first one is quite bad.

Now, you said earlier that the owner of the photography business had a very good looking portfolio. Tell him the challenge is that you want the two above photographs processed and printed to look as good as what is in his portfolio.

[nicksan]

I gotta tell you, even for $1400, you would at least expect in focus pics.
I understand the photographer/owner defending his "team" but I am a little mystified on how he could seriously defend these particular samples. They are, as you stated, lost.

[Dave Shively]

Now, you said earlier that the owner of the photography business had a very good looking portfolio. Tell him the challenge is that you want the two above photographs processed and printed to look as good as what is in his portfolio.Jeffery, good point.

[DAMphyne]

It sucks that so many of your photos are so un-acceptable, But I kind of agree that they gave you way too many pics.
I remember doing a wedding (1972), and the boss gave me a 36 exposure roll to use.
Talk about extreme budget, I think he charged $125.

If someone invited me to look at their wedding album with over 800 pics in it, I'd ask if I could take it home so I would have time to actually look at all of them.

I'd go through and pick out only the best, like a previous poster said, 50 good photos are much easier to enjoy.

Good luck to you on this.

[TeeTee]

So I haven't read the 10+ pages on this topic.

But did you do your homework? Show us some samples of the photographer's reference work. It doesn't matter if the photos themselves are bad, but rather the quality and level of service you could have reasonably expected from the individual you hired.

[nicksan]

So I haven't read the 10+ pages on this topic.

But did you do your homework? Show us some samples of the photographer's reference work. It doesn't matter if the photos themselves are bad, but rather the quality and level of service you could have reasonably expected from the individual you hired.

This was explained already...

[YankeeMom]

Not sure what the market is in different areas but I paid $6000 for my wedding photos 5 years ago, so to me, $1400 just sounds too low to expect anything professionally done.

Me and my wife are totally happy with the photos. Amazing actually...and it looks like it was well worth the $6000 damage it did to my wallet.

That said, I don't think the photos in this link are all that disasterous. They are not great by any stretch...but I gotta say...what do you expect for that price?

Too low? Well, then, most of us must be worth, at least, $2500. (I'll take $2000 with my P&S.) IOW, any one of us would jump at a job like that if that performance was considered acceptable for $1200. Give me a break. 1600 and 3200 ISO?!!! How can anyone defend this "photographer"! :confused:

[YankeeMom]

Why? That's just rude.

My opinions might not be in the popular majority here, but this set of images looks a hell of a lot better than the first few. And I'm sorry, but I've never seen anything from Aunt Milly's P&S that looked that good, I think that's a bit of a stretch.

One good point was made, without hearing the other side of the story a lot is being assumed. Part of me wants to think this is someone just starting out and doing their damndest in a situation where they are over their head. The unfortunate part is that it produced a less than satisfactory product (at least to the OP, we haven't heard yet what his daughter and son-in-law have to say about it).

We were all new, inexperienced, nervous, and sweaty-palmed at one point in time. I'd like to think that this photographer will grow and learn, hopefully not at another wedding party's expense, but definitely with more seat time as an assistant to learn.

I agree -- no lynching, but 1600 and 3200 ISO?!! That is not inexperience, that is I-don't-know-what-the-hell-I'm-doing. (And collecting -- if not stealing -- $1200 as a reward.) :confused:

[Goshawk]

It sucks that so many of your photos are so un-acceptable, But I kind of agree that they gave you way too many pics.
I remember doing a wedding (1972), and the boss gave me a 36 exposure roll to use.
Talk about extreme budget, I think he charged $125.

If someone invited me to look at their wedding album with over 800 pics in it, I'd ask if I could take it home so I would have time to actually look at all of them.

I'd go through and pick out only the best, like a previous poster said, 50 good photos are much easier to enjoy.

Good luck to you on this.
1972 :D Damn I was like 10 years old. Will not ask ok :lol:

[Jaymz]

1972 :D Damn I was like 10 years old. Will not ask ok :lol:


10? It was still 3 years til my birth. :p

[DStanic]

Maybe the photog forgot her flash at home along with proper attire.

For the last time I think $1400 should get you quality in-focus photos. They might be "traditional" and boring, but at least have the technical stuff done properly.

Those photos look like a $500 newb off of craigslist or something.

Anyways, it sucks that the owner/photog shrug those off as "good". Offering to try and fix 15 of them :rolleyes: that's pretty lame. He should have gave you some money back or something (I know that's what I would do if *I* screwed up a wedding that bad!)

[Permagrin]

hmmm not every venue will let one use flash. I've shot in some veritible caves where I was thankful to be able to get a decent shot at 1600 iso (on the ds2...the files weren't crisp either) but they were certainly better than no shot.

I think that while I understand the OP's frustration with these shots (there are definitely things that could have been done differently) and the ones in the other thread, I don't pp everything before a client sees it. They see the shots, choose what they want and those get pp'd. Often the originals look nothing like the final product when processed.

Saying that one is inexperienced because they needed to use a high iso does seem absurd. One uses what one has to use to do the job.

[Permagrin]

I'm curious as to how many of the people commenting on these and other photos are wedding photographers?

[JeffreyG]

hmmm not every venue will let one use flash. I've shot in some veritible caves where I was thankful to be able to get a decent shot at 1600 iso (on the ds2...the files weren't crisp either) but they were certainly better than no shot.

I think that while I understand the OP's frustration with these shots (there are definitely things that could have been done differently) and the ones in the other thread, I don't pp everything before a client sees it. They see the shots, choose what they want and those get pp'd. Often the originals look nothing like the final product when processed.

Saying that one is inexperienced because they needed to use a high iso does seem absurd. One uses what one has to use to do the job.

I've never heard of a reception hall banning flash. Plus there were some outdoor shots that certainly needed flash too.

The comments relative to use of high ISO and inexperience in this thread were not blanket statements. The OP has stated that the photographer was shooting outside in bright sun at ISO1600 with shutter speeds over 1/4000. That is either inexperience or forgetfulness.

[nicksan]

Wasn't exactly defending the photographer. Clearly the results speak for themselves as far as lack of ability is concerned.

I can only compare to my personal experience of having paid $6000 for professional results. Perhaps that sounds high, but it was in Hawaii where weddings are BIG business, especially for the Japanese crowd.

I would assume prices vary greatly based on location so take what I said with a grain of salt. Perhaps I overpaied. I would rather overpay a little and get professional results than to get a "discount" and have it turn into a nightmare.

But this goes with anything. Not specific to wedding photography. Construction comes to mind. Often times, you get what you paid for...even less. Not always...but often.

Too low? Well, then, most of us must be worth, at least, $2500. (I'll take $2000 with my P&S.) IOW, any one of us would jump at a job like that if that performance was considered acceptable for $1200. Give me a break. 1600 and 3200 ISO?!!! How can anyone defend this "photographer"! :confused:

[YankeeMom]

hmmm not every venue will let one use flash. I've shot in some veritible caves where I was thankful to be able to get a decent shot at 1600 iso (on the ds2...the files weren't crisp either) but they were certainly better than no shot.

I think that while I understand the OP's frustration with these shots (there are definitely things that could have been done differently) and the ones in the other thread, I don't pp everything before a client sees it. They see the shots, choose what they want and those get pp'd. Often the originals look nothing like the final product when processed.

I'm sorry, but I would not like that. Choosing a photo and then getting something completely different in PP.

Saying that one is inexperienced because they needed to use a high iso does seem absurd. One uses what one has to use to do the job.

NEED to use 1600 outside in BRIGHT SUN? Again, didn't. know. what. she. was. doing.

[YankeeMom]

I'm curious as to how many of the people commenting on these and other photos are wedding photographers?

Not me. I'm not idiot enough to pass myself off as one either. (And I STILL could do better than her with my P&S.) :confused:

[YankeeMom]

Wasn't exactly defending the photographer. Clearly the results speak for themselves as far as lack of ability is concerned.

I can only compare to my personal experience of having paid $6000 for professional results. Perhaps that sounds high, but it was in Hawaii where weddings are BIG business, especially for the Japanese crowd.

I would assume prices vary greatly based on location so take what I said with a grain of salt. Perhaps I overpaied. I would rather overpay a little and get professional results than to get a "discount" and have it turn into a nightmare.

But this goes with anything. Not specific to wedding photography. Construction comes to mind. Often times, you get what you paid for...even less. Not always...but often.

I agree that $6000 is high, but probably not in HI or NY. Definitely for $1200 a customer would expect acceptable pictures and I think we all concur on that. We all feel for the OP -- personally, I don't think any blame can be put on him for his choices or expectations.

[Mintie]

I'm curious as to how many of the people commenting on these and other photos are wedding photographers?

We may not be wedding photographers but we are all photographers and recognise crap when we see it.

I'm not a mechanic but I know when a car's broke...

[DennisW1]

I'm curious as to how many of the people commenting on these and other photos are wedding photographers?

fair question.

I no longer do weddings, haven't done them since the days of film and back then I did at least a couple hundred by my best guess. While the medium has changed the basics of good posing, composition and exposure remain the same.

[Permagrin]

my question was only intended to gauge the experience of the responses.

I said in my first post that I understood why the OP was frustrated. I do know that "proofs" rarely exhibit the "qualities" of the final print (I'm not talking about posing, choice of lens etc...those things usually get us hired if we market our portfolios well). And Yankeemom, if I handed you a shot that was "technically okay" but had nothing of the processing or blemish removals or reasons that I was hired in the first place, I guarantee you wouldn't be happy. Perhaps you misunderstood my "nothing like the original" comment. Most people don't realize how much wedding photos are edited (and yet made to look not).

As to this situation, firstly, I would never take a wedding photographer without seeing their work (the recommendation of a superior would cause me to examine their work but the hiring wouldn't happen without knowing what they could do). If I had seen their work (as the OP indicated he'd seen some) I'd realize it was the finished work and not the proof work. If the OP has been given these photos as finished work then that is another matter. What he'd be seeing from me at this point are very small proofs to choose from. (where details would not be easy to copy save as real photos)

Secondly, there are some good poses here with some bad mistakes (the bench is a classic example of an amateur...but the pose isn't bad). The bench would be removed in the final print if I'd made the mistake of having it there in the first place. The reflection could be a mistake by anyone (and one of the reasons why I asked who's actually done this before...if you have, you'd know that there are times when one kicks oneself for stupid mistakes at key moments). I find it odd that the photographer actually gave many of these shots to the client.

I am not disputing the errors. I just think that in viewing a set of proofs from many portfolios, we'd see things like this if we looked at everything everyone takes. The longer one does something, the less mistakes they make...which is why the main photographer charges $6K and the assistant charges $1200. Maybe not the 1600 iso in daylight (and yet how many threads have we seen here where someone titled it "oh my gosh I can't believe I did this") but mistakes.

Anyway, it's just an opinion. We all have them :)

[maxblack]

http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/44865/2392016680100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

There were only 4 taken of me walking down the isle with my daughter and all 4 are OOF and shot at 1/60 f/5.6 and an ISO of 2000.


Is this not taken with a flash @ ISO 2000?
I'm just asking. It just looks that way to me.

[kevinf]

which is why the main photographer charges $6K and the assistant charges $1200.

The main photographer charges $1600, not $6000.

[Permagrin]

The main photographer charges $1600, not $6000.

my mistake.

[kevinf]

The main photographer also implied that her work would be satisfactory by allowing her to shoot the wedding in his stead.

[nicksan]

my mistake.

Sorry, I think I injected a little confusion with mentioning that my wedding photos cost $6000.

As promised earlier, here's what $6000 got me....and in retrospect, I think I may have gotten the DVD production included with the $6000 price. My mistake...I think we just said screw it and went for the whole package deal. I just remember the pain I was in due to the price!:lol:

Nice album in a nice box and "bag". Film negative. Chuck in the DVD that's not in the photo and there you go...$6000.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p895322353.jpg

Some random pages from the photo album. There really aren't too many pages. Short and sweet...Note that the photos are part of the page itself. It's not a separate photo paper glued on or laminated on. This is probably pretty normal...I wouldn't know. This is the only wedding album I've seen in person!
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p983872130-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p961697877.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p723688248.jpg

These were shots taken after the ceremony that we paid a little extra for. Kinda more casual shots. We really liked these a LOT. (Goodness, I'm beginning to sound like my wife showing these pictures to one of her friends!)
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p599405906.jpg

Several pages are cut in different lengths to form one page/picture of the cathedral.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p900366472.jpg

So there you go...$6000 for album and DVD production in Hawaii.

BTW, I gained like 30 lbs since the time these photos were taken so suffice it to say the honeymoon's been long over.;)

[c2thew]

wow, thanks for posting your album, it does show quite alot of thought and effort going into the layout.

[Frugal]

Is this not taken with a flash @ ISO 2000?
I'm just asking. It just looks that way to me.Definitely flash - reflection on woodwork and shadow on end wall.
gross incompetence

[vipergts831]

I especailly like the last touch with the edges of the book combining to create the cathedral.


Sorry, I think I injected a little confusion with mentioning that my wedding photos cost $6000.

As promised earlier, here's what $6000 got me....and in retrospect, I think I may have gotten the DVD production included with the $6000 price. My mistake...I think we just said screw it and went for the whole package deal. I just remember the pain I was in due to the price!:lol:

Nice album in a nice box and "bag". Film negative. Chuck in the DVD that's not in the photo and there you go...$6000.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p895322353.jpg

Some random pages from the photo album. There really aren't too many pages. Short and sweet...Note that the photos are part of the page itself. It's not a separate photo paper glued on or laminated on. This is probably pretty normal...I wouldn't know. This is the only wedding album I've seen in person!
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p983872130-4.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p961697877.jpg

http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p723688248.jpg

These were shots taken after the ceremony that we paid a little extra for. Kinda more casual shots. We really liked these a LOT. (Goodness, I'm beginning to sound like my wife showing these pictures to one of her friends!)
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p599405906.jpg

Several pages are cut in different lengths to form one page/picture of the cathedral.
http://nicksan.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p900366472.jpg

So there you go...$6000 for album and DVD production in Hawaii.

BTW, I gained like 30 lbs since the time these photos were taken so suffice it to say the honeymoon's been long over.;)

[thebishopp]

Wow, that is a very well done album. Shot with film. Very good work imo. Expensive but that photog definately delivered - is the dvd as good as that album?.

HI is expensive anyway but that is good work (born and raised there myself - living in the mainland now).


Sorry, I think I injected a little confusion with mentioning that my wedding photos cost $6000.

As promised earlier, here's what $6000 got me....and in retrospect, I think I may have gotten the DVD production included with the $6000 price. My mistake...I think we just said screw it and went for the whole package deal. I just remember the pain I was in due to the price!:lol:

Nice album in a nice box and "bag". Film negative. Chuck in the DVD that's not in the photo and there you go...$6000.


Some random pages from the photo album. There really aren't too many pages. Short and sweet...Note that the photos are part of the page itself. It's not a separate photo paper glued on or laminated on. This is probably pretty normal...I wouldn't know. This is the only wedding album I've seen in person!






These were shots taken after the ceremony that we paid a little extra for. Kinda more casual shots. We really liked these a LOT. (Goodness, I'm beginning to sound like my wife showing these pictures to one of her friends!)


Several pages are cut in different lengths to form one page/picture of the cathedral.


So there you go...$6000 for album and DVD production in Hawaii.

BTW, I gained like 30 lbs since the time these photos were taken so suffice it to say the honeymoon's been long over.;)

[Karl Johnston]

Holy **** 6000$ ...but money well spent...how much do one of those albums cost?

[nicksan]

Wow, that is a very well done album. Shot with film. Very good work imo. Expensive but that photog definately delivered - is the dvd as good as that album?.

HI is expensive anyway but that is good work (born and raised there myself - living in the mainland now).

Yeah, the DVD is top notch. The company that produces them also produces TV commercials in Japan.

Definitely worth the $6000 we paid for the package.

[polarbare]

If you're still unhappy take your photog to small claims court. Unless her boss' name is on the contract your beef is with her. It should be pretty easy to convince a judge that she wasn't competant (high ISO in bright sun, flip flops,etc)

And the cost to you is probably $50 and a day off work.

[Dalus]

You get what you pay for? Then that guy should have payed you not the other way around.