A couple has had to reshoot their wedding day pictures after it turned out their photographer was an amateur who took “diabolical” photos. The couple, who paid £100 per hour, complained the photos had “blurry backgrounds” and claimed some of the images on the photographer’s site were actually stock imagery.
Lin and Brendan Lavery, a couple of 16 years and residents of Devon, UK, were distraught to receive the images from their big day. Groom Lavery recalls:
Most of the pictures were out of focus. They are diabolical. We couldn’t believe that they were that bad. She took down her Facebook page and blocked us on her profile. We later found out she was an amateur. I wouldn’t have given £200 to an amateur.
They have since had to spend an additional £330 in order to take new pictures recreating the big day, including suit rental and the fees of another photographer. They initially consulted other photographers to see if anything was salvageable through Photoshop, but decided staging the wedding pictures was their best option.
What’s worse, a bit of investigating found the photographer in question had posted stock imagery to her social media pages, in what was likely intended to mislead potential customers. The photographer has since removed her Facebook page and blocked the couple.
Lead image by Emma Bauso from Pexels
tldr:
Couple pays $260 for wedding photos.
They’re surprised that the photos came out poorly.
The photographer apparently used stock photography on their website.
The couple then pays $430 (minus suit rental) to retake them.
I’m struggling to determine what is newsworthy here.
My favorite is the backgrounds were blurry. So... the first one used shallow depth of field and these guys wanted phone camera shots? heh
I think it was per hour though, not in total. So we really don't know how much they paid since we don't know the time coverage. The blurry background statement makes no sense to me though, since hopefully it was intentional. However clearly the photographer did some lying or they wouldn't have blocked the couple and then removed their FB page, so that does say something about them.
$130/hr - 2hrs
Regardless it’s not news. It’s not even an interesting story. It’s “Dog bites man.”
Sadly, not new news, but worth reiterating that dishonesty and lack of preparation on the part of wedding "photographers" is intolerable and has consequences. Too many weekend warriors out there lining up to cut the same corners.
People pay more, and lose more on plumbing, hvhc, auto mechanics, house painters, landscapers one hundred times a day – every day of the year.
Someone didn’t get their monies worth, and had to re-hire to get the job done.
This just isn’t news.
It could be a solid article if the angle of the article was re-touched (to use a photography analogy) a bit. If the focus was more on how to properly present your portfolio to clients to ensure accuracy and consistency of your sample images and captured images for a specific client, and then this was used as a brief example of why this is so important, I think you'd have a stronger overall message. Rather than just "couple has to repay for photos. The end".
$260 for a photographer....hahaha. youre expecting pics for that price?
They probably didn't expect to be defrauded. I've gotten things for a bargain before, it happens. I've also shot a wedding for around £250 and the shots were decent. This isn't a case of you get what you pay for, this is someone going out of their way to deceive. The photographer could just as easily have charged £1,400 and done the same thing.
I think it said 200 pounds “per hour” so depending on time it could have been a 1400 pound wedding.
I didn’t see when they said the total amount paid or how many hours they were charged.
A 1400 pound wedding? That sounds like my cousin's.
No, read again.100 per hour and the groom says he would not have given 200 to an amateur.
Yeah, in the quote from the bride it says "I wouldn’t have given £200 to an amateur." but it's not clear if she means in total, or p/h. I think the lesson to be learned here is "do your research on someone before hiring them", rather than "don't book cheap photographers"?
Alex, you make nearly the same statement shortly after me and then criticized me? Dude...
If you read the article properly, it states that the couple paid £100p/h and their total costs were £200 so its most likely that they hired the photographer for the ceremony only, not the whole day which is a reasonable professional rate in the UK.
Price doesn't determine quality of work either.
Weddings are the worst.
not necessarily "pay what you get".. but... yea for the 200 pounds, you perhaps shouldn't be expecting the world.
But, I did google the images, and yes.. they are very bad.
The couple is older, as in 69 and 71. The couple was married at a *courthouse* and paid a couple hundred for wedding photos. They also mentioned that *some* of the photos on this photographer's page were good, not the stock photos. I question how much they even researched or looked into this photographer. I wonder if all they saw was the cost. Yes, they don't deserve to be scammed, however they did say some of the OTHER photos were good. I mean, if there is a huge discrepancy in the quality of all of their photos then that tells you something is wrong.
My guess is that they booked the photographer off of one of those “budget websites”. It also appears that they got what they paid for.
Obviously, they didn't get what they were promised. Blaming the victim is a low blow.
A low blow? Do you take a car salesman or building contractor at his or her word? A few minutes online doing research or a few references for a photographer would reveal if they’re legit or not. I think the phrase, “buyer beware” applies to just about everything. Ever buy a piece of gear or software because it was much less than another only to have it fail at the worst possible moment? It’s a very similar situation to this couple’s experience.
Dude, they're 69 and 71, give them a break. Sometimes in life you can hire someone to do a job and they're not a complete grifter, I'm guessing these two have lived pretty long lives without being scammed at every turn, or they would have been more cautious.
I didn't know their ages when I wrote the first comment, scrolled down and saw someone else mention their ages, which is when I thought, to be fair, I can't really see people that age trawling the interwebs for info on someone.
or its a sign of wanting to lock down your relationship status for legal reasons :-)
Dissing elderly optimists in love is a clear sign of...well, fill in the blank.
I'm not dissing the elderly, I'm dissing marriage. :)
Ah, well then, that would be "Getting married is a clear sign of dementia." No age mention required. As such, ANYBODY seeking a wedding photographer should be assumed to have diminished mental capacity. Which explains why the wedding market is the favorite place for fraudsters seeking easy marks.
I agree with this. But, one would assume we get wiser with age.... Which wasn't the case in this scenario.
"A few minutes online doing research..."
The photog had stock images on the website and actively sought to mislead the client. How is a buyer supposed to know that? Also, not everyone is a research expert. Some folks don't spend their lives online. Blaming the victim is a low blow. Responsibility lies squarely with the con artist.
As for "buyer beware", while it might be good advice, it's another form of blaming the victim after the fact. There's a reason why the government regulates product safety: consumers simply aren't equipped to evaluate many risks. If the photographer were up-front about their lack of ability and presented a website that actually represented what they could deliver, that would be different. But, in this case, the victims got conned, and blaming them seems simply churlish.
How many times will you post the same thing? You expressed your opinion so stop repeating yourself, we heard you the first time.
I didn't "post the same thing". I responded to additional comments in your second post with additional material of my own.
You expressed your opinion so stop repeating yourself, we heard you the first time.
.
Let's face it: wedding work attracts the lowest common denominator. Every time I see a "shooting my first wedding, need advice" post, I want to scream at my computer. The capacity for people to be delusional and irresponsible is truly depressing. Don't point fingers at the clients. They may have been naive, but it's the bottom feeder photogs, especially the dishonest ones, who should be keelhauled.
I didn't shoot my first wedding solo until I'd worked at least 20 weddings as an assistant or second shooter.
Everyone shoots a 'first wedding' at some point. Mine was in Jan last year, which I offered for free to a couple with pretty much zero budget. I was happy for the experience, they were happy for the photos (and video). Not every client is a photographer with a critical eye and not every novice is shit, lol.
I prefer free if you are honest with your actual experience than cheap with lies for starting. We shot film back when I did my first few weddings. Couldn't afford free but it was additional stress until the rolls were processed and safe.
"Everyone shoots a 'first wedding' at some point." Yes, but one should work their way up to that. Weddings are a big deal and tremendous responsibility, and one ought to get a ton of experience before shooting a wedding (at least as a Primary/Principle photographer). Ideally, one would first take assisting wedding gigs, shoot as a Secondary, etc., to garner a lot of experience.
Imagine trying to fly a helicopter for your first time. Are you just going to jump in the helicopter and start flying right away?
This is not incompatible with what I wrote above.
Don't call the photog a bottom feeder unless you have seen the photos yourself....
Saw the photos, and they are shit.
If I understand well, their only point of reference was a Facebook page. People get what they ask for.
I'm pretty sure this elderly couple didn't "ask" to be ripped off.
Man... I want to explain it to you, but no, you are on your own.
Oh, darn. LOL
Remind people of this when you hear people say how easy photography is and how modern cameras do everything on their own.
Based on the info given, I can't say or not say (determine) how good or bad this phOtOg was, so yes let's see some phOtOs!!!!
Yep! I'd like to see the actual photos with the blurred background. The stock photo thing is a different story, but background blur is use a LOT for wedding shots.
Spend 2 seconds on google to type "Brendan Lavery wedding" and you'll see them.
I googled it and didn't find any blurry photos. I saw sharp photos of a really ugly room with bad lighting but I couldn't find the blurry ones.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/newlyweds-devastated-diabolical...
Many, many years ago, when I contemplated doing wedding photography before I realised
A) I didn't have the gear necessary
B) I DEFINITELY didn't have the skill necessary
I had been looking at wedding supplies (wedding albums, leaves, frames, etc. to try to cost it up).
As shocking as it may sound, there were "courses" which would "teach" you how to shoot weddings and they would include a full portfolio (stock!) so that you had something to show to prospective clients. There wasn't even any pretence at suggesting you should create your own - they gave you fake wedding photos so you could get clients.
In many cases, I'm sure, the "course" was just an excuse to sell you a complete - and fake - wedding portfolio so you could fool customers. It was a bit of a shock to see, but then there are website templates that kind of do the same thing these days.
In my law days I once had to handle the breach of contract dispute for a couple who'd had lousy photos taken. The posing etc. wasn't that terrible, but the photographer clearly didn't know how to use his gear. Out of focus, badly exposed etc. His argument was that they got what they paid for - they didn't!