Another Wedding Ruined by Bad Photography

Another Wedding Ruined by Bad Photography

It's a story we photographers read about all too often. A Tulsa, Oklahoma woman has issued a warning for brides-to-be: make sure to vet your photographers before hiring.

A Facebook ad for "affordable photography" caught Natalie Barney's eye at just the right moment of her wedding's planning process. She was quoted $250 for 100 images which she accepted, booking the date.

The images on the photographer's portfolio looked impressive, but little did Barney know that she was viewing wedding images gleaned off sites like Pinterest and not the original work of the photographer.

In her statements to news media, the bride reported the first red flag which was the photographer's bizarre behavior during the ceremony. The photographer would attempt to time her shutter snaps with someone in the audience who was setting flashes off with their own camera. Was this a sign of inexperience, the result of a forgotten flash at home, or perhaps a brilliant new battery-saving technique? Was the flash-less photographer honing in her ninja-like reflexes down to the hundredth of a second?

A photo of wedding rings sitting in a box on a tree stump

Later on in the wedding, the photographer allegedly reported to the bride that she was experiencing "camera issues." Upon inspection of the low-light images taken in the latter part of the event, I've discovered the issue: the photographer having zero understanding of how shutter speed and camera focus work.

As you can imagine, the images from the event were unusable. They were underexposed, blurry, and awkwardly framed. The photographer consoled the upset bride with the promise of a free family photoshoot on a future date. When the dressed-up newlyweds arrived at the new shoot location, they were stood up by the photographer's no-show.

Headlines like these seem to pop up with regularity: "Bride Shafted by Photographer, Never Received Images." "Wedding Couple Devastated by Blurry Photographs." The reason for these incidents is obvious, that there will always be amateur photographers naive enough to jump into a paid wedding with little to no skills, and there will always be brides on a budget who fall victim to their confidence.

Having a wedding on a budget is understandable. Ripping someone off with a fake portfolio and ruining a cherished memory is not. Before judging the bride for taking the low-cost option, remember that there are plenty of talented photographers who offer budget services. In my opinion, this was unlucky for the consumer and shameful for the photographer.

You can read the entire news story on the KJRH 2 Tulsa website.

Are you tired of seeing stories like this? What do you think a fair repercussion for the photographer should be? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Author's note: The lead and body images on this article were taken by me. Follow the link above to view images from the story.

Log in or register to post comments


Deleted Account's picture

Booked for $250 and the red flag only came during the ceremony?


David Pavlich's picture

I'm not sure what to expect for $250. Maybe get the bride coming up the aisle and the bride and groom leaving the church being pelted with bird seed? To expect anything more than a handful of snapshots for this fee is absurd. It's called 'research'.

Deleted Account's picture

For $250, drive to location, (wear and tear vehicle and fuel)
Initial gear purchase, camera, lenses, computer, etc.
Shoot for X hours?
Drive home.
Download, backup and edit images. 100 x
Admin, billing, etc.
Sales tax.

Basically, working for free anyway.

Who's the fool, the person doing the shoot or the person hiring the shooter?

David Pavlich's picture

Good point! This sounds like the photographer that my stepson had for his first wedding. It was not pretty.

LA M's picture used your own images to illustrate and article about the dangers of hiring a discount photographer?

Deleted Account's picture

His portfolio is very professional.

LA M's picture

Ok..but this is an article about the bad photography of another person. It's misleading. I was actually looking at the included images and though "there is nothing wrong with those images"

Not my flavor but they are solid images that are in no way related to the article.

Deleted Account's picture

He probably doesn't have permission to use the images and people who read the article would find a link that lead to the actual photos.

Scott Mason's picture

Michael nailed it. It should be a given, but I didn't have permission to use the images from the bad photographer and doubt they would have given permission regardless. Since I (thankfully) don't take horrid wedding photos to show for example, I went with my own personal stock.

Rocco Zoccoli's picture

I thought the photos in the article were the bad photographs

Bill Wells's picture

A little humor. But i think he is a lot more architectural photography and less wedding photographer.

Scott Mason's picture

Bill, you're correct. No humor intended with the article photos but if the juxtaposition gave you a chuckle, I'll take it!

Thanks for reading.

Bill Wells's picture

Hi Scott, I was replying to Rocco's remarks. He said "I thought the photos in the article were the bad photographs"

Not remarks on the article directly.

Daniel Medley's picture

"She was quoted $250 for 100 images which she accepted, booking the date."

I feel bad for the bride, I really do. But it's at this point that the person booking the date shares some responsibility. Surely they researched other wedding photographers during the process. If they had done so, they would have noticed that $250 simply isn't realistic.

There's a huge difference between "cheap" and "value."

Kang Lee's picture

The scary thing is some people charge over $2k and are no better than the $250 one...

Bill Wells's picture

You are correct. But that is the exception and not the rule.

Daniel Medley's picture

Perhaps, but the old adage, "you get what you pay for" is mostly true.

Christian Lainesse's picture

So, the couple didn't get married because of the photographer? I didn't read past the headline...

Daniel Medley's picture

Had you read it, you wouldn't be asking the question...

Christian Lainesse's picture

It's what I do with poorly written clickbait titles

Scott Mason's picture

You loved my article, Christian? I didn't read your comment. It's what I do with trolls.

Christian Lainesse's picture

Another Article Ruined by Bad Headline

Andrew Morse's picture

That's a hard one all around - no doubt you'd expect a bride to know better with just a bit of research, but to lose all those images and memories would be devastating.

I think the underlying issue here is there's a perception that wedding photographers fleece couples into paying outrageous amounts of money, tempting some to explore low-cost options which they perceive as fair. I think this is because people only see the photographer for a few hours through the day and attribute the entire cost to a one-day salary with no consideration for overhead/equipment/repair, offsite planning hours, offsite processing hours, delivery etc. I can understand why people would question what they perceive to be a $2000/day salary, but it really does come down to a lack of understanding for the costs of operating a business.

Robert Nurse's picture

"The photographer would attempt to time her shutter snaps with someone in the audience who was setting flashes off with their own camera."

I had to stop here and collect myself from hysterical laughter! Years ago, I witnessed something like this. A friend was getting married and she hired a "wedding photographer" with an awesome Canon 1DX. Me not being a wedding photographer, I offered to be a second shooter along with another buddy of mine. Most of the wedding guy's photos were frustratingly unusable with the second shooters' photos making the cut.

"What do you think a fair repercussion for the photographer should be?"

Well, there's no crime in pretending to be a wedding photographer when you're not. But, for using images that are not yours in your portfolio should get those image owners some financial recourse.

Scott Mason's picture

"Well, there's no crime in pretending to be a wedding photographer when you're not."
Maybe not explicitly, but fraud is illegal. I'd say this is borderline fraud but on a low level.

Thanks for commenting.

Mike Dixon's picture

"Well, there's no crime in pretending to be a wedding photographer when you're not." - It is when the images in your portfolio aren't yours, it's called fraud.

Rayann Elzein's picture

You get what you pay for. Nothing else to add on this subject.

More comments