Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 23 Apr 2012 (Monday) 19:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Worst wedding photo(grapher)s ever?!

 
jeyaganesh
Senior Member
Avatar
436 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Apr 23, 2012 19:39 |  #1

A British couple paid two photographers 750£ to capture their wedding and got horrible, blurred and out-of-focus photographs. :(

Petapixel (external link)

Their horrible photos on Telegraph newspaper. (external link)


Jay. Flickr (external link) 500px (external link) Canon EOS 5D Mark III, Canon AE-1 Program, EF 135mm f/2.0 L, EF 35mm f/1.4 L, EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PeaceFire
Goldmember
Avatar
2,281 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Glendale, AZ - Chico, CA - Duluth, MN
     
Apr 23, 2012 23:20 |  #2

From the second article: "But it goes to show, sometimes you don’t even get what you pay for."

Um... no, they got exactly what they paid for. Anyone who's cheap enough to only pay 750 euro is paying for just what this couple got.


My Gear List / My Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheBrick3
Goldmember
Avatar
2,094 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: College Park, Md.
     
Apr 23, 2012 23:25 |  #3

PeaceFire wrote in post #14317079 (external link)
From the second article: "But it goes to show, sometimes you don’t even get what you pay for."

Um... no, they got exactly what they paid for. Anyone who's cheap enough to only pay 750 euro is paying for just what this couple got.

That's just under $1,000. It's on the low end, but not $300.


1D III 5D II 5D | 580 EX II x 2
17-40L | 35L | 100L | 70-200 II | 17-35 f/2.8-f/4
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PeaceFire
Goldmember
Avatar
2,281 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Glendale, AZ - Chico, CA - Duluth, MN
     
Apr 23, 2012 23:42 |  #4

TheBrick3 wrote in post #14317114 (external link)
That's just under $1,000. It's on the low end, but not $300.

Even for the Craigslist photographers in my area that's pretty cheap.


My Gear List / My Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brokensocial
Senior Member
481 posts
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Apr 24, 2012 08:12 |  #5

Yeah, if you want more, you've got to spend more.


[mike and frida] photography - we shoot stuff.
chicago wedding photography (external link) | chicago wedding photography blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
facedodge
Goldmember
Avatar
1,192 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2012
Location: Silver Spring, MD (DC Suburb)
     
Apr 25, 2012 13:27 |  #6

I think he is dragging the shutter for an artistic quality or maybe he is being ironic.

/sarc


Gear List | Feedback | facebook (external link) | [URL="http://www.flick​r.com/photos/wmcy2/"]flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jonwhite
Goldmember
Avatar
1,279 posts
Joined Jan 2007
     
May 05, 2012 17:39 |  #7

This couple contacted me 12 months before their wedding, price was a big thing for them and after a few emails and calls the inquiry died.

Given the time again I reckon they would dedicate more of their budget to photography. Its a great wedding venue and definitely not cheap but they must have thought they could save some cash on photography.


Wedding Portfolio Website (external link) | Wedding Photographer Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
howzitboy
Goldmember
2,948 posts
Joined May 2007
Location: Hawaii
     
May 06, 2012 03:57 |  #8

i had that happen to me long time ago. my leaf shutter lens broke but you had no idea it was broken. pictures were blurry since the shutter on lens wasnt closing. glad only few shots got ruined.. would have stucked if all were...


http://onehourwedding.​blogspot.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Drewlim
Member
42 posts
Joined May 2012
     
May 20, 2012 02:03 |  #9

In this age with the power of digital.. How can u give out all blurry and out of focus shots? Even with my iphone, i think i could get better shots. Although i have not tried to do so.. Hmmm. I should try that someday. I have seen posts about it. Lol.


http://www.drewlim.com (external link)
http://www.somethingbl​ue.ph (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ziggy25
Senior Member
Avatar
259 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Location: London UK
     
May 20, 2012 07:01 |  #10

There is usually two sides to a story. Photographers usually take hundreds of pictures in a wedding. I am not going to believe this based on 5 blurred shots from a newspaper.


My gallery - Feel free to C&C
http://www.DiniOnline.​com (external link) http://www.flickr.com/​photos/ziggy25 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PeaceFire
Goldmember
Avatar
2,281 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Glendale, AZ - Chico, CA - Duluth, MN
     
May 20, 2012 11:10 |  #11

ziggy25 wrote in post #14458264 (external link)
There is usually two sides to a story. Photographers usually take hundreds of pictures in a wedding. I am not going to believe this based on 5 blurred shots from a newspaper.

There was a full gallery linked somewhere at some point (don't see it now) and, yeah, they were all bad. Even the photographers fessed up that they were horrible.


My Gear List / My Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Drewlim
Member
42 posts
Joined May 2012
     
May 21, 2012 21:32 |  #12

PeaceFire wrote in post #14458997 (external link)
There was a full gallery linked somewhere at some point (don't see it now) and, yeah, they were all bad. Even the photographers fessed up that they were horrible.

Atleast they were honest. Lol:D


http://www.drewlim.com (external link)
http://www.somethingbl​ue.ph (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
D. ­ Vance
Goldmember
Avatar
4,157 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Jan 2011
Location: WV
     
May 22, 2012 08:09 |  #13

Well, I don't know that the price is so horrible: I charge $600, but people dont know the quality of my work yet, so I don't plan to stay at $600 for my whole life.
My age scares people, I think; they're not used to a 15 year old wedding photographer.


I wonder if the video editors on The Titanic ever went, "Sorry, I can't right now. I'm busy synching the Titanic..."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JohnThomas
Senior Member
Avatar
401 posts
Joined May 2012
Location: Long Island, New York
     
May 24, 2012 20:25 |  #14

I don't know if it's fair to say that just because the photographer was "cheap" that the bride and groom got what they paid for. That would suggest the photos were indeed acceptable and there was no justification behind the couples anger.

I think novice photographers have a (huge) responsibility to make sure they can provide acceptable photographs to their clients, no matter how low a price they offer their service at. If they can't, then they should practice until they can and then figure out what they're worth.


You can call me JT
jsantiniphotography.co​m

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Red ­ Tie ­ Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,575 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
     
May 24, 2012 21:15 |  #15

CameraClicker wrote in post #14467848 (external link)
Well, I don't know that the price is so horrible: I charge $600, but people dont know the quality of my work yet, so I don't plan to stay at $600 for my whole life.
My age scares people, I think; they're not used to a 15 year old wedding photographer.

The difficulty in this is the legalities of entering into a contract - you may want to check that out.


Bryan
Gear List (external link)
San Diego Wedding Photography - Red Tie Photography (external link)
Red Tie Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,093 views & 0 likes for this thread
Worst wedding photo(grapher)s ever?!
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Arjunsarumagar
743 guests, 261 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.