Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

While that is, hopefully, what happened, I recall a wedding last year where I couldn't believe how few pictures the photog was taking. When the bride/dad began their processional, I swear, photog only took one photo. From behind. For the entire aisle walk. Same with 1st dance. I barely noticed any clicks.

On the flip side, I am editing a wedding video where I can hear the photog duo *constantly*. It's funny to hear both cameras on continuous shoot when the couple lit the candles. No matter how modest their talents, those photogs will have gotten some decent pics.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

Don't know if this is because they started on film, but I think most of the really good photographers I've worked with have only pressed the button when they were ready. Minimal spray and pray. One great shot is better than a hundred shots out-of-focus, overexposed, etc.

So, for any photographers reading this, please think about using that machine gun sparingly!

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

True, though the very young lady I use as an example just didn't seem that discerning. She seemed.... unconcerned.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

When I started as a still photog back in 1971, I was using both 35mm and 6X7 format which was the preferred format for weddings. 220 Kodacolor film was costly and in the 6X7 format gave you 20 shots per roll. An entire wedding would be 300 to 400 shots. PERIOD! IF you took more than one shot for a pose or a scene (say lighting the unity candle) you would bracket the exposure, 1 up and 1 down from where you started. Today, it's so much easier for a photographer to fire off 5 or 10 shots of one scene and hope that 1 will be OK isn't unusual. Today many if not most of the photogs I know will end up with between 1200 and 2000 images for a wedding after editing.
Things are different today.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

I hang out in a photography forum where I read the fuller story. The photographer did the gig for £100 as she had no experience shooting weddings & wanted shots for her portfolio. She was bullied into supplying all the images that she had shot without any culling of duds.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

Hmm, sounds like a) they got what they paid for and b) they set the 'tog up for a lawsuit... "nice" client... biting tongue even more on "Crack" jokes...


As for the differences in shooting, much wedding photography today is "journalistic" or docu style vs. the traditional "formal" posed style. You HAVE to shoot on the fly, catch what you can, and cull out the stuff that doesn't "work" - not terribly unlike video actually!

I've shot film, with all the expenses, and I have to say I'd rather shoot digital, and take "a few" more shots, maybe bracket or burst a sequence I can't reshoot and get ONE great shot out of a series than miss it entirely.

I'm sure some "spray and pray", but that's not always the case. There are always "amateurs" and noobs that will benefit by overusing the features of the equipment to get "acceptable" results, but that doens't bump them to "pro", just means that the equipment makes up for the lacking skills! Of course someone who knows the gear will also probably take every advantage of the capabilities of the technology... and get better results.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

She should of shown them her middle finger then!

How sick do you have to be to pay some one £100 on the basis they are new to weddings and then try and sue them!? WTF.

Makes me mad to be honest ... We all have to start somewhere.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

When someone is starting out it's tempting to offer a reduced rate to build a portfolio. That's all well and good if the person is competent and confident in their ability but if the job is a learning event for the shooter as well, i.e. never done a wedding before and just hoping they'll manage it on enthusiasm alone, then I'd say it's best to do it for free. Once money is involved in the transaction, no matter how little, clients will expect a professional product. All the talk of new to the business, wanting to acquire show footage etc. will wash over their head. When they get the results they'll be as critical, excited or disappointed as if they had paid top dollar. It's their big day and they'll expect everyone they've hired and paid to be there to give it their maximum effort and involvement.
We don't know the full story on this and as Nigel has pointed out there is another side but I've met couples (well brides mostly) who'll be full of demands but deaf to anything they don't want to hear just taking it for granted that everything they demand will be provided.

It's a lesson hard learned for the photographer who it seems may have been out of her depth in the occasionally stormy world of weddings, but should be a salutary warning to couples to give the hire of every professional they'll commission on the day just as much due diligence and concern as they do when choosing the wedding dress or rings.

It'd be unkind to refer to the photographer in simian terms but we all know what peanuts buy.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

By the way, from a video perspective, what this incident amounts to is a warning not to supply clients with raw footage. You don't know how they're going to use it -- to damage your reputation, demand a discount, take you to court, etc.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

Hmmmm... sounds an awful lot like what the wise fellow said in post #13 on the previous page.

I think I'll bookmark this page to send to my (video) clients who ask why I will not supply the raw.

Re: Photographer Ruined Wedding ..
 

Sorry Shaun! Yep, your earlier comment made mine redundant.

By the way, raw footage has been discussed here before. Here's another thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-...w-footage.html.