Every bride's worst nightmare ...

[Blazing fire]

Colin is absolutely right. He nipped the problem in the bud.

"if someone hangs out their tablet as a "professional" then certain standards of performance are implied - and if one can't perform at that level then one shouldn't take money to perform at that level."

Say if I start off as a broke photographer, how should I go about gaining captial to invest in pro gear?

[Colin Southern]

Say is I start off as a broke photographer, how should I go about gaining captial to invest in pro gear?

To be honest, I think this is a very "deep" question - the answer to which would probably be a good topic for another thread, but in essence, 2 things immediately come to mind ...

1. In my case I was lucky to have a career in IT to finance the way forward.

2. I think that the answer goes a lot deeper than just "finding the $$$ for pro gear" - in my opinion it's all about learning to run a business as a professional, at which point success is 75% business skills, and only 25% photography skills.

My suggestion to anyone would be to start with amateur gear (unless you already have enough disposable income) and invest HEAVILY in both photographic AND BUSINESS training - and then "ease" into the pro side of photography when your ready.

[agaace]

Hehe this is how it would look like if I showed up at a wedding with my 40D as a pro photographer. The only difference is I know what lens I have
I kind of feel bad about the photographer - she tries to start in the business, probably make money on weddings to learn and buy more expensive gear. It's just her arrogance, lack of preparation (didn't even ask the priest in advance if flash was allowed!), and lack of knowledge were just annoying.
Tough to say the real quality of the pictures just from the youtube video. Maybe they were really really bad (and seriously couldn't be printed bigger size), but still the argument of the judge that she used 'cheap' equipment doesn't convince me. I think, unless the contract said anything about the gear, the judge shouldn't be taking into account the equipment, JUST the results. The artistic value cannot be judged, so the only arguments should be final resolution, focus point, some basic composition and light aspects (like cut off heads, big white spot instead of a forehead etc), sharpness (how to measure this? and how to say it wasn't an artistic effect?) etc. I think a contract like this should cover technical aspects like resoultion of the pictures, maybe amount and which moments of the ceremony have to be covered. If these are delivered - there's no space for argument. The rest depends on the brand of the photographer and the customer should first study the portfolio before signing the contract and trusting the photographer. Also, I think the customer should have right to purchase only the shots they like. Not satisfied? Pay only for photographer's time.

[carregwen]

I kind of feel bad about the photographer - she tries to start in the business, probably make money on weddings to learn and buy more expensive gear. It's just her arrogance, lack of preparation (didn't even ask the priest in advance if flash was allowed!), and lack of knowledge were just annoying.
Tough to say the real quality of the pictures just from the youtube video. Maybe they were really really bad (and seriously couldn't be printed bigger size), but still the argument of the judge that she used 'cheap' equipment doesn't convince me. I think, unless the contract said anything about the gear, the judge shouldn't be taking into account the equipment, JUST the results. The artistic value cannot be judged, so the only arguments should be final resolution, focus point, some basic composition and light aspects (like cut off heads, big white spot instead of a forehead etc), sharpness (how to measure this? and how to say it wasn't an artistic effect?) etc. I think a contract like this should cover technical aspects like resoultion of the pictures, maybe amount and which moments of the ceremony have to be covered. If these are delivered - there's no space for argument. The rest depends on the brand of the photographer and the customer should first study the portfolio before signing the contract and trusting the photographer. Also, I think the customer should have right to purchase only the shots they like. Not satisfied? Pay only for photographer's time.

You have some good points there Agatas, May I add a few more.

1. I have seen some wedding photographers who operate a 'buy what you like' policy. I suppose it's fairly safe as the couple will want at least some shots.

2. The quality of service/goods is one that applies to all areas, not just photography. This story is made out to be something special, but it isn't. I have had plenty of indifferent, or even bad meals recently in various restaurants where the food was probably cooked by untrained/semi-trained staff, probably using second-rate equipment. Do I sue them on a TV show?

3. The business aspect (and as also mentioned by Colin) is a tricky one. We all want a culture where effort to succeed is rewarded. We depend upon people taking photographs, fixing cars, and growing food for us, but it's very difficult to suddenly get yourself into a position where you have the right gear, the right skill, and the right experience. It's easy to look at a professional established business and just assume they have always been successful and good at what they do. The truth is they probably struggled, made mistakes, and failed just the same as everyone does at times.

Edit: And another thing. The judge was very critical of doing the photography on the cheap in a non-professional way. Well... what about conducting a court case on TV, instead of in a proper professional court?

[Blazing fire]

From the looks of it, the colours were not fantastic, probably due to poor post processing (or lack of) and/or poor printing quality.

[Colin Southern]

Edit: And another thing. The judge was very critical of doing the photography on the cheap in a non-professional way. Well... what about conducting a court case on TV, instead of in a proper professional court?

If it's anything like "Judge Judy" (Ahem, so I've heard) then the cases are chosen from suits in the regular court system, and both parties agree to abide by the outcome of the judge on the TV program.

Possibly the difference between suing over a bad meal (which I'm sure happens too), and suing over rotton wedding pics is that you can have another meal tomorrow, whereas with a wedding you'd normally have to wait at least 18 months to give another photographer a crack at it!!

In all seriousness, "disclosure" is possibly the magic word -- if someone comes to me and says "Colin, will you shoot our wedding" and I say "I'd rather not ... I've never shot a wedding before ... they're far more difficult than you'd think ... it's a once in a lifetime moment for you ... and I'd probably do a rotten job". To which they reply "we understand all of that - and would like you to shoot it anyway" then I feel that I've made full disclosure and thay're made an informed choice ...

... On the other hand, when someone hangs out their slate and says "I'm a professional - here's a www.website that represents the standard of my work for you to make a large part of your decision on - only to discover that you're incapable of recreating images to that standard on a regular basis, then I feel that that's misleading. Perhaps a quote (I think from the Blue Angels) best sums it up:

"An amatuer practises until they get it right ... a professional practices until they never get it wrong" - in my opinion, those who CAN take a nice shot - but can't repeat it consistantly - aren't ready to be professional wedding photographers. What's the solution? Dunno - but hard as this sounds, it's not the bride & grooms problem.

Edit: And speaking of meals, it's a never-ending source of annoyment to me what I look at a photograph of a Big Mac, and I than have to try and reconcile it with this squashed mush that comes 1/2 cold with cheese 1/2 in the burger & 1/2 in the box it comes in - big chunks of raw onion - soggy fries - and a medium coke that 3/4 full - dripping down the sides - top not on properly - all delivered by a 17 year old who instructs me to "have a nice day"!

... but I digress again!

[carregwen]

Possibly the difference between suing over a bad meal (which I'm sure happens too), and suing over rotton wedding pics is that you can have another meal tomorrow, whereas with a wedding you'd normally have to wait at least 18 months to give another photographer a crack at it!!

You wicked boy, you!

Edit: And speaking of meals, it's a never-ending source of annoyment to me what I look at a photograph of a Big Mac, and I than have to try and reconcile it with this squashed mush that comes 1/2 cold with cheese 1/2 in the burger & 1/2 in the box it comes in - big chunks of raw onion - soggy fries - and a medium coke that 3/4 full - dripping down the sides - top not on properly - all delivered by a 17 year old who instructs me to "have a nice day"!

Colin. Have you seen the movie Falling Down? The best film Douglas ever made. Here is the relevant scene (appx 4 mins is the line)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM8qT9Xop5k

[Colin Southern]

Colin. Have you seen the movie Falling Down? The best film Douglas ever made. Here is the relevant scene (appx 4 mins is the line)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hM8qT9Xop5k

Oh yes - I have it on DVD

[agaace]

In all seriousness, "disclosure" is possibly the magic word [...]
... On the other hand, when someone hangs out their slate and says "I'm a professional - here's a www.website that represents the standard of my work for you to make a large part of your decision on - only to discover that you're incapable of recreating images to that standard on a regular basis, then I feel that that's misleading.

I completely agree. There should be a BIG fine for mocking up a portfolio, saying you're gonna use pro gear and not doing so or lying about your experience. Wedding shots are way too important for fooling around. Personally I never lie about my experience, even if it means less money. I go to an interview for a job and I openly say I have no clue about the technology I'm going to use - and they still hire me because I'm honest. But on the other hand, in this case, you only know one side of the story. We don't know how the portfolio looked like. Maybe the pics were the same quality? Maybe the student bride wanted it to be cheap, so hired a cheap photographer, but expected super quality? We don't even know what the photographer disclosed or not. Reasonable customers know they get what they pay for and nothing comes for free. If it comes to trust, there are reviews online, friend recommendations etc. If I see something half price anywhere, the first question I ask is "why so cheap?", and I dig it in until I find the real answer and the real trade off, and then decide if I'm fine with that. If a pro photographer arranged a meeting with me at a Walmart parking lot, I'd never hire such a 'pro'. Seriously. I feel sorry for the bride, it must be horrible to go straight from the church to the court, but honestly, she was asking for the trouble..

I already learned in America people just sue each other about anything. Colin, you just reminded me about the french fries I had 2 weeks ago that were too salty, I think I should go for a lawsuit - you know, to learn the American culture. If you live among Americans, behave like an American. Besides salt is unhealthy

[Colin Southern]

Hi Agata,

I agree with you too.

I think the difficult thing for a customer though is not knowing what constitutes professional equipment - or more to the point the advantages of using it, and of course what to look for in evaluating photography. Case in point - how many time have we looked at something - thought that it looked OK - only to discover that someone elses work was "an order of magnitude" better? Perhaps it's a bit like having to choose a surgeon for an operation, based on a website ... I'm kinda in the category of "what on earth do I know about evaluating a surgeon / surgery" - and I think that a lot of others are in the same category when it comes to photography. Perhaps a good case-in-point of that might be those portraits I took last night - I'm sure many might think that you can do something like that with a point and shoot, but in reality (if I count the printer and PC along with the photography equipment, I used over $40,000 worth of gear to get that shot -- but someone not familiar with photography would probably be thinking "point & shoot" was all that was used.

The old "get what you pay for" is probably still one of the key indicators ... if I were getting married and had someone like David Ziser, Hanson Fong, Gary Fong etc booked to do the job then the photography would be one aspect of the big day that I wouldn't be worried about.

[agaace]

See that's why when you have no clue, you:
1) Ask friends who were happy with the photos and can show you the photos - easy and efficient
2) Do research - visit many wedding websites and compare photos to have an idea of an "ok" shot and a "wow" shot
3) Go for a famous name like David Ziser - and pay for your peace of mind
4) Do the effort to learn some basics - at least to be able to distinguish which equipment is better

I have no clue how a car works (I'm not a mechanic) but when I buy one, I don't just randomly pick a make I do research, test drive a few different makes, check out market prices so that I know when I'm being ripped off or when the deal is suspicious (so the car might have been in an accident). I ask friends if they are satisfied with what they have, if their cars break down often, I check car's history, take it to 2 independent mechanics etc. I even learn basics like what is a difference between a SOHC and a DOHC engine to find out, if I'm really willing to pay a couple of thousands more for the better engine (because the dealer will tell me for sure I can't live without it). I did some 2-3 weeks of research when I was buying my car, but as a result, I'm perfectly happy with my choice, and I got exactly what I wanted and what I needed. Of course there was still some risk - I was buying a used car without any warranty and I got a suspiciously good deal, but the more preparation and research you do, the smaller the risk of making a bad choice. You don't need to be a mechanic to buy a quality car, you can even be a girl with no clue about cars. So I assume, you don't need to be a photography expert to hire a good photographer. Just do some preparation and research, instead of picking a random person for the most important moment of your life that will never happen again, and then complain. Apparently, for some people it's just easier to go to court.

[kevinf]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...&postcount=117
Someone at POTN posted a blurb that is interesting, see below:

I work at a professional studio in the city where the plaintiff lives. she brought us the photographs to see if there was any way to fix them. after looking at the EXIF data on the JPEGS that she had, we found that the defendant photographed in JPEG, medium resolution, ISO 1600, Srgb colorspace. Upon doing her edits the defendant used a free online editing program and saved over the originals. The color of the 4x6's from WalMart were horrendous with virtually no shadow detail and color casting

[Dave Humphries]

Hmmmm,

Some of that is understandable, dependent upon the image (e.g. if inside), medium res/jpg quality isn't, nor is saving over the original (as I doubt there is a backup process in the download workflow).

It sounds like they woke up one day and thought "I'm going to be a wedding photographer, with a digital camera; how hard can it be?"

The mind boggles at some people's arrogant self believe over the evidence prevailing. There's a time when a sensible person admits they got it wrong.

Cheers,

[carregwen]

It sounds like they woke up one day and thought "I'm going to be a wedding photographer, with a digital camera; how hard can it be?"

Dave

Not for the first time, you have spurred me into action!

I think today I'm going to become a complete waster - early-retired, spending my days watching day-time TV, and cataloguing my collection of Dinky toys. But I'm going to do it professionally! and charge mega-bucks for it.

How hard can that be?

[Shadowman]

I can see another scenario that could occur, what if a professional photographer takes a wedding assignment breaks their camera (i know most would have more than one, needs to borrow the camera of a friend and goes to the wedding assignment without familiarizing themselves with the equipment, fiddles around with the dials during the shoot, takes less than desirable photos and ends up in court just as the photographer in the court tv case did. The bottom line is you have to know your equipment, what works under particular conditions, and how to correct if any photos do not look presentable.

[rick55]

I can see another scenario that could occur, what if a professional photographer takes a wedding assignment breaks their camera. . . .

If any professional (or serious amateur) borrowed a camera, I think we could assume that they'd immediately look at the f-number. We might also assume they'd put the camera in raw mode, although maybe it's possible they only know high-end Nikons, and assume an XTi can't do raw.

I think this also fits with the Q&A of Blazing Fire and Colin: someone getting into the business might start with pro-sumer or even entry-level gear, but I think they'd have to know photography. If not, I'm starting now.

Cheers,
Rick

[Nihia]

Well, I'm going to have a little say too ... gear: it isn't necesssary to have the absolute top stuff if you know your stuff. In 2008 a (real) professional wedding photographer did a whole wedding with a D40 & D30 plus excellent lenses, average lighting gear etc. The pics were wonderful & the bride's Dad paid mega-bucks, no kidding (included were some photobooks as well as enlargements). Was reported in Digital Wedding Photography (online) Forum by another high-ranking photographer. Like anything else, if you know what you are doing you can get great results. The D40 is a good camera anyway.

All due respects to previous comments.

Nihia

[Radu Dinu Cordeanu]

Hi,
I saw what Colin showed as an exercise of understanding spoken English.This is a show,only,which has nothing in common with reality.
A juge has to have an expert's report as a base of his jugement.
Thank You for reading.
Radu Dinu

[Eightohms]

I have heard that it is not what you have, tis' how you use it.

Mal. Stevens
D40 w/18-200 Zoom user.

[Colin Southern]

I have heard that it is not what you have, tis' how you use it.

Mal. Stevens
D40 w/18-200 Zoom user.

Yes and no, in my opinion. Any photo is the result of a while chain of things - camera performance / lens performance / photographer performance. In many cases the biggest limiting factor is the photographer - but - at a certain level as they gain knowledge and experience other things become the limiting factors. The greatest photographer in the world isn't going to get as good images using a kit lens as he would using a professional grade lens. Or as I like to say, "put Michael Schumacher" in a mini and he's still going to finish last in a formula 1 race!