why would anyone want to be a wedding photographer in the age of Public media ?

[mgb74]

I think a lot of this has to do with the changing nature of weddings - from a celebration to a spectacle. Add to that a "lifestyle blogger" client and it's a recipe for trouble.

What's also chilling is how many media outlets simply accepted the Moldovan's story and version of events. A more complete accounting here.

 

[removed account4]

thanks for the additional post mgb74 !

 

[foc]

I read the link by mgb74 above and it gives a better insight into the whole affair. Even better are some of the comments from the public at the end. Wedding photography/photographers and people's perceptions and expectations of same.

Just a few points from the article stick out for me.

1. Afterward, Polito said, she warned her studio manager: “She’s a blogger. Make sure everything looks perfect.”
That should have sounded alarm bells if it was me. When I got a prima donna clients like this making enquiries or asking to book a wedding I told them I was booked up for the date and referred them on.

2. Photographers from the studio shot the wedding ceremony that October, and the studio sent the couple proofs the next month.
Sound to me like Polito didn't shoot the wedding herself yet she took the booking. Again I have found this to annoy brides. They like to see continuity from booking through to finished album/product. About proofs, I think they are more trouble that they are worth. Give the client all images, full res (anything else only confuses them). Let them do what they like with them. The photographer gets the full fee and the client gets the images. If there is an album involved then make that an extra but they still get the images even if they don't choose an album. Give the client the option.

3. Otherwise, Polito said, “photographers will hand over the images and the bride disappears.”
If you have got paid, who cares?

4. Broke down and chose our wedding album photos…80 out of 4000 yeah that was like sophies choice
— Neely Moldovan
How many months later and the client starts this type of emotional blackmail. If they had a real problem with the images they would have made a complaint straight away. Who would wait that long if they were serious about it. This is the client playing to the gallery.

The social media comments are just part and parcel of doing business. People feel that can openly comment and cast aspersions about other people's work in the public domain and not think of the consequences. The up side is that it's like yesterdays news, it's soon forgotten. The Moldovans fanned the fire to keep it going and of course others joined in. It is basically blackmail by media, look at tripadvisor and how people try to use it. The anonymity of the web.

5. It’s not certain that Polito will ever see the money.
The most important line in the whole article.

If you have read this far and my previous posts you will understand the importance of Number 5.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

When did weddings become such grandiose productions?

When Martha Stewart started convincing brides that the wedding should be "Perfect". It's the age of the Wedding Industrial Complex. When I got married 3 years ago, My wife was the Indie Bride. We DIY what we could and only invited a small group of 100. I told my wife that some are going to be offended by our frugality, but it's not the wedding that matters, it's the marriage.

 

[Down Under]

I feel thoroughly ancient in all this.I did weddings as a high school student (early 1960s) and then university (mid-late 1960s). Two months of shooting in summer (July-August in Canada) gave me enough pocket money to see me thru for the rest of the year, but in those days, nothing cost anything. (Verichrome Pan was 50 cents a roll, go figure...)

I decided to give up weddings in 1972 and shot my last as a 'freeby' (meaning 'no fee' in Oztalk) to a friend in 1987. This final shoot was a disaster, the bride was an absolute witch and in the end after seeing the friendship sour over trifles and having given the negatives (in that pre digital era) to the groom, I walked away from the mess, having realised how much the 'scene' had changed in 15 years. I have never regretted my decision. (Predictably their marriage didn't last, but this isn't the point of my narrative, so I will say no more.)

In the'60s and '70s, those of us who were around and about at the time know life was much simpler. Greed Is Good became the byword of the '80s, followed by the grab-grab-grab '90s and early '00s. Now in the pre-apocalypse era, all common sense in almost everything seems to have flown out the window. Digital has develued photography and turned most photo professions into a big "anyone can do it" arena. According to my good friendwhose wedding packages are rated as among the finest in Australia, many of the older photographers have now walked away from the business (he too intends to retire very soon, having reached the age) and the newcomers are basically fast-talking used car sales types with shopping mall discount store digi-kits. With such a drop in the standards, it's no wonder even the best pros in the trade are seeing their situations go down the old gurgler, as we say down here.

Shooting in film could be difficult but it was bearable. According to the same pro friend, digital has turned the business into a nightmare. Thousands of images are taken, the bride (or her mother) wants everything post-processed to perfection, and threatens to go OL at the slightest disagreement or for the most illogical reasons ("he made me look so fat!" ishrieks the 120 kilogram behemoth in the two-sizes-too-small bridal white gown). The event is a gala production with the goal of showing off to family who gloat in vainglory and make friends seethe with envy. Families in Australia (especially Melbourne) squander $50,000 or more on the big do, but carp and bicker to the last dollar to get the photographer as cheaply as they can, yet demand the most involved shoots, thousands of perfect images and the very best post-processing. The results must look like the latest bridal magazine or they go on like two-bob watches. Who needs it?

The case in question seems to me to have been the usual teapot-tempest by someone out to get as much out of it as they could, in money and publicity. A million dollar payment is ridiculous and most defendants will either appeal or counter sue or find other ways to avoid payment. Canadians and Australians are (sometimes) more sensible when such legalities are involved, as lawyers in the two countries usually want their fees and costs upfront. Here in Australia we have young cash-desperate legal big mouths who lure the suckers with free first consultations and threaten to sue the family dog but inflate their costs and the client has to pay upfront, which deters many nuisance cases from reaching court.

As foc (#28) so wisely wrote, this case will have its ten seconds of fame in the media and will then be very quickly forgotten, just another flash-in-the-pan moment for the media to feed on and then discard. The plaintiffs will likely end up with nothing, a good small business operator is savvy to protect themselves from such feral litigants and the $2 corporation with all assets owned by third parties is the most effective means to keep the crocodile pack at bay.

So let us not worry too much, good people - the world as we know it (and see it through our lenses) won't end today or even tomorrow. Humanity remains secure. For now.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I feel thoroughly ancient in all this.I did weddings as a high school student (early 1960s) and then university (mid-late 1960s). Two months of shooting in summer (July-August in Canada) gave me enough pocket money to see me thru for the rest of the year, but in those days, nothing cost anything. (Verichrome Pan was 50 cents a roll, go figure...)

I decided to give up weddings in 1972 and shot my last as a 'freeby' (meaning 'no fee' in Oztalk) to a friend in 1987. This final shoot was a disaster, the bride was an absolute witch and in the end after seeing the friendship sour over trifles and having given the negatives (in that pre digital era) to the groom, I walked away from the mess, having realised how much the 'scene' had changed in 15 years. I have never regretted my decision. (Predictably their marriage didn't last, but this isn't the point of my narrative, so I will say no more.)

In the'60s and '70s, those of us who were around and about at the time know life was much simpler. Greed Is Good became the byword of the '80s, followed by the grab-grab-grab '90s and early '00s. Now in the pre-apocalypse era, all common sense in almost everything seems to have flown out the window. Digital has develued photography and turned most photo professions into a big "anyone can do it" arena. According to my good friendwhose wedding packages are rated as among the finest in Australia, many of the older photographers have now walked away from the business (he too intends to retire very soon, having reached the age) and the newcomers are basically fast-talking used car sales types with shopping mall discount store digi-kits. With such a drop in the standards, it's no wonder even the best pros in the trade are seeing their situations go down the old gurgler, as we say down here.

Shooting in film could be difficult but it was bearable. According to the same pro friend, digital has turned the business into a nightmare. Thousands of images are taken, the bride (or her mother) wants everything post-processed to perfection, and threatens to go OL at the slightest disagreement or for the most illogical reasons ("he made me look so fat!" ishrieks the 120 kilogram behemoth in the two-sizes-too-small bridal white gown). The event is a gala production with the goal of showing off to family who gloat in vainglory and make friends seethe with envy. Families in Australia (especially Melbourne) squander $50,000 or more on the big do, but carp and bicker to the last dollar to get the photographer as cheaply as they can, yet demand the most involved shoots, thousands of perfect images and the very best post-processing. The results must look like the latest bridal magazine or they go on like two-bob watches. Who needs it?

The case in question seems to me to have been the usual teapot-tempest by someone out to get as much out of it as they could, in money and publicity. A million dollar payment is ridiculous and most defendants will either appeal or counter sue or find other ways to avoid payment. Canadians and Australians are (sometimes) more sensible when such legalities are involved, as lawyers in the two countries usually want their fees and costs upfront. Here in Australia we have young cash-desperate legal big mouths who lure the suckers with free first consultations and threaten to sue the family dog but inflate their costs and the client has to pay upfront, which deters many nuisance cases from reaching court.

As foc (#28) so wisely wrote, this case will have its ten seconds of fame in the media and will then be very quickly forgotten, just another flash-in-the-pan moment for the media to feed on and then discard. The plaintiffs will likely end up with nothing, a good small business operator is savvy to protect themselves from such feral litigants and the $2 corporation with all assets owned by third parties is the most effective means to keep the crocodile pack at bay.

So let us not worry too much, good people - the world as we know it (and see it through our lenses) won't end today or even tomorrow. Humanity remains secure. For now.

Nicely summed up. Bridezillas want to put the images on line before they are taken. Go figure.

 

[removed account4]

makes me wonder why anyone would want to own a dry cleaners too ...

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/tearful-testimony-54-million-pants-lawsuit/story?id=3269485
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443.html

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I'll bite, as a wedding photographer.

1. Bad clients are extremely rare. In most cases, you can tell when someone will be a problem in the consultation stage. You then simply "become unavailable" for the date in question. Or simply say you're not a good fit. I've had clients be pretty annoying, but I've never had a nightmare or anything close to it. I think almost any job has the risk of dealing with people you don't like. You're probably more likely to just die in a highway accident than be sued by some psycho bride.

2. You can shoot film, and shoot in the way you want. I learned wedding photography was a real career while doing darkroom prints for John Dolan, who is a visionary in photography in general. Since then I can approach a wedding with a Rolleiflex, a Pentax 67, Holga's, etc. Very few other areas of commercial photography allow you to shoot this way. It's much more creatively rewarding than firing away with a DSLR and picking the perfect preset. (Tho I often have to do that too due to realities of the job).

3. It can be lucrative. It's often not, but there are many who do very well. It's also somewhat easier to book weddings than recurring editorial and ad jobs. At worst, it's a side gig that (if you're smart) could contribute to your mortgage or a car payment. I'm "2nd" shooting for a bigger photog this month, 1 day, $850 for shooting w/o any post work. That's more than my rent, or more than 2 car payments for a single day's work.

4. It actually is quite satisfying to make people happy with your work. As you get better you do this more and more, and it's a nice thing to get such positive feedback.

Some tips to avoid wedding photography hell:
Don't be in over your head (you better have 2nd shot with someone before you attempt a full wedding for someone who expects professional standards). Cull your clients in the meeting stage (this includes bridezillas and people who are simply obviously looking for a style that you don't produce). Shoot the way YOU want, that's how you make it creatively satisfying. Don't rely on it if you can't, and charge at the very least the minimum amount that makes it worth it for you to "get out of bed" that day. Frankly I would hate shooting low or no budget events for non-creative people. Bottom barrel golf club weddings are not for me, and more importantly, they won't get your career to a higher level. If that's all that happens in your area then I won't lie to you, don't bother, or move. I've seen a lot of small town people trying to go national but can't because all they have in their book are barn & golf course weddings.

It's not a great career, but it's what I got. And I've had WAY worse jobs.

 

[Wallendo]

I read the original link a few days ago and did a google search to find other references. But it still seems like part of the story is missing.

The photographer's business model appears to be one where the client pays for everything up front including the wedding album. After the wedding, the photographer gives the digital images to the client, but first the client must receive their album. Even though the album was prepaid, it will not be delivered without a cover photo which costs an additional $125. Why wasn't the album cover photo included in the original price (the clients paid "thousands")? Why can't the client have the image files that were paid for prior to receiving the album? It seems like a strange business model, but apparently it was all in the contract.

Also, she went from 75 weddings a year to 2 a year. I found a link that she was removed from the allowed photographers list at a certain venue because of her client's complaints. I feel like something is missing here.

Also she is now writing and selling a course on creating a $800,000 wedding photography business. I'm not sure I would buy a book on creating a highly profitable business written by someone whose business failed.

Alas, this is the problem with digital web news. Articles tend to be short and leave out a lot of details.

 

[mgb74]

I read the original link a few days ago and did a google search to find other references. But it still seems like part of the story is missing.

The photographer's business model appears to be one where the client pays for everything up front including the wedding album. After the wedding, the photographer gives the digital images to the client, but first the client must receive their album. Even though the album was prepaid, it will not be delivered without a cover photo which costs an additional $125. Why wasn't the album cover photo included in the original price (the clients paid "thousands")? Why can't the client have the image files that were paid for prior to receiving the album? It seems like a strange business model, but apparently it was all in the contract.

...

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the client chose a special cover, imported from "wherever", that cost the additional $125.

 

[Sirius Glass]

A good way to get sued is to not follow your own contract. Not delivering a promised album is just plain stupid unless the buyer will not make the photograph selection.

 

[removed account4]

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that the client chose a special cover, imported from "wherever", that cost the additional $125.

i think the cover is the LAST thing the client picks ... after the 8,000 proofs to 18 ...
THEN cover image is picked, the order goes to milan and it arrives soon after.

i shot a wedding** a few years ago and the cover image was embossed into the book-cover
it didn't go to milan,but to mN ...
i didn't get all the $$ up front ( should have ! )
and yes, i held the book hostage until i was paid ... and was like pulling teeth !
it was the last i might ever do ...
i do work for people all the time ( architects and engineers &c )
1/2 up front, half when the work is delivered, and sometimes they try to get the
images before i am paid, sometimes they add images, and i have to ammend the contract
... maybe i'll show them lo-rez proofs, i'll let them inspect the images, but that is about it ...

like the lady in the article --- its what they agreed to, no payment no images ... contract in hand ...
some people don't want to pay for what they agreed to purchase,
the way they agreed to purchase BEFORE the job ... the world is a strange one ...

** the mitzva went fine the wedding was a pain.

 

[Sirius Glass]

i think the cover is the LAST thing the client picks ... after the 8,000 proofs to 18 ...
THEN cover image is picked, the order goes to milan and it arrives soon after.

i shot a wedding** a few years ago and the cover image was embossed into the book-cover
it didn't go to milan,but to mN ...
i didn't get all the $$ up front ( should have ! )
and yes, i held the book hostage until i was paid ... and was like pulling teeth !
it was the last i might ever do ...
i do work for people all the time ( architects and engineers &c )
1/2 up front, half when the work is delivered, and sometimes they try to get the
images before i am paid, sometimes they add images, and i have to ammend the contract
... maybe i'll show them lo-rez proofs, i'll let them inspect the images, but that is about it ...

like the lady in the article --- its what they agreed to, no payment no images ... contract in hand ...
some people don't want to pay for what they agreed to purchase,
the way they agreed to purchase BEFORE the job ... the world is a strange one ...

** the mitzva went fine the wedding was a pain.

And there you have it. Why I will not do wedding photography. I can find much more rewarding things to keep me busy.

 

[dmr]

I can't imagine wanting to be a wedding photographer, ever

^^^^^^^^^ This!

 

[pdeeh]

^^^^^^^^^ This!

hehe
just to be clear, i mean no disrespect, just that I'm not that sort of person; in the same way I can't imagine being a secondary school teacher or an estate agent.

 

[CMoore]

my mom has the wedding album of her grandparents, or at least the jewel print version of it ..
not sure where it was taken, cessaria, or alexandria .. around 190x it is pretty amazing. its the bare essentials
like wedding albums used to be.
if they were still the bare essentials, instead of people trying to out-do eachother like the cold war/space race
i'd be doing weddings every weekend, even with social media-hades. unfortunately these days the wedding album is
more of a hollywoodland production instead of a wedding album.

Hear Hear...!!
I was just on Yoputube looking at videos of some very respected and (somewhat i guess) expensive and well known "Wedding Photographers".
Nothing at all wrong with their pictures from a Technical/Practical viewpoint. But.....the pics themselves looked so contrived...as if the wedding was a cross between an event for MTV and a Super-Model fashion show. If it were not for the girl in a wedding dress and the guy in a Tux.....you might wonder What In The F the pictures were all about.

 

[Tim Stapp]

sorry to resurrect this old post. But, as a part time wedding photographer; I love being able to document the event. The only other time that family, extended family and friends get together in one place is to celebrate one's life (funeral). Are there ways to make more money photographically?,,,YES:Senior Portaits come to mind. But I have found that once you provide a quality product to an individual (starting with senior portraits), the wedding comes next, then the newborn shots, the birthday parties, on and on. I have an associate that I was/am a second shooter with that had a second generation portrait then wedding then newborn....on and on and on shoot.

 

[MattKing]

Here is a local Canadian version of the same situation: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/chinese-wedding-weibo-defamation-1.4556433
For those who aren't familiar with Canadian Tort law, the fact that a Supreme Court Justice ordered payment of $40,000.00 in aggravated and punitive damages is particularly interesting. Our courts rarely order punitive damage awards.

 

[faberryman]

Canadian court just awarded $89,000 to a wedding photographer who was demonized on social media by a bride to be. Included punitive damages.

https://petapixel.com/2018/03/01/bride-ordered-pay-89000-trashing-wedding-photog-online/

 

[MattKing]

Here is a local Canadian version of the same situation: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/chinese-wedding-weibo-defamation-1.4556433
For those who aren't familiar with Canadian Tort law, the fact that a Supreme Court Justice ordered payment of $40,000.00 in aggravated and punitive damages is particularly interesting. Our courts rarely order punitive damage awards.

Canadian court just awarded $89,000 to a wedding photographer who was demonized on social media by a bride to be. Included punitive damages.

https://petapixel.com/2018/03/01/bride-ordered-pay-89000-trashing-wedding-photog-online/

Two stories about the same case - the second one is US based, and has converted the award into the equivalent in US dollars.

 

[mgb74]

I'm glad to see the pushback on these self-entitled a-holes who think the world revolves around them. According to the news article, this bride cancelled the payment check prior to the wedding. I'm surprised the photographer went ahead with it.

Important to note that the judge determined that the bride went far beyond a negative review.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

This lawsuit was a few years back. The plaintiff is a lawyer. Thanks to Gary Fong for helping to defend this photographer.

https://petapixel.com/2014/12/09/gary-fong-account-ridiculous-300000-lawsuit-threat-nelson-tang/

 

[Sirius Glass]

Here is a local Canadian version of the same situation: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/chinese-wedding-weibo-defamation-1.4556433
For those who aren't familiar with Canadian Tort law, the fact that a Supreme Court Justice ordered payment of $40,000.00 in aggravated and punitive damages is particularly interesting. Our courts rarely order punitive damage awards.

Canadian court just awarded $89,000 to a wedding photographer who was demonized on social media by a bride to be. Included punitive damages.

https://petapixel.com/2018/03/01/bride-ordered-pay-89000-trashing-wedding-photog-online/

I saw these articles in the news and thought back to this thread. Good for the photographer fighting back and winning.

 

[macfred]

When did weddings become such grandiose productions? ...
My parents', grandparents', aunt's, and other wedding photos: just a couple. That's it.
Maybe it's a certain eastern Europe old-country cheapness in my family, but it's good enough, eh?

+1 ! Same for me and my family.

--
For me no more weddings anymore - not behind a camera, nor in front of it ...

 

[foc]

As a professional wedding photographer for 32 years, (now semi retired) it was nice the hear some good news for the photographer.

How ever I think the photographer left themselves open to dispute by arranging for another photographer to cover the event. I know it wasn't in the contract, but (IMO) why delegate to another photographer when the enquiry and booking was made with Kitty Chan.

Delegating in wedding photography will at some point end badly.

The client;s biggest mistake was to bad mouth the photographer on social media. (not content with the small court claim).

I have always found that to instigate legal proceedings is easy, to defend is harder. BUT better still is not to end up in that situation.

I am delighted the photographer won, but will she see the money?

Thankfully in my 32 years I never had litigation and I never had contracts either.