Author Topic: How not to hire a photographer  (Read 1466 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12945
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
How not to hire a photographer
« on: September 22, 2014, 12:51:36 PM »
Summary: Woman hires photographer to do some headshots, photographer arrives at site to find bride and bridesmaids all ready for a wedding shoot. Photographer walks.

How not to hire a photographer

The OP comes back in the comments with more detail; it's really horrifying.

I could have posted this one in the Special Snowflake thread as well.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

JenJay

  • I'm a nonconformist who doesn't conform to the prevailing standards of nonconformity.
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6120
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2014, 01:06:53 PM »
Wow she had some nerve citing the contract. "Uh yeah, I'll give you 30 minutes and a couple of headshots for the price I quoted you, per the contract." I loved the top comment that she probably told the groom he was showing up for dinner and a movie.  ;D

QueenfaninCA

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 712
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2014, 02:09:05 PM »
This bride is stupid on so many levels. If you only book a professional for 30 minutes, you don't even know if they will be available beyond that time or have other appointments.

katycoo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3778
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2014, 07:48:47 PM »
Yeah, no.

I'd be more on board if she said "all day family reuninon candid party photos with some family portraits" because while you're compromising on probably quality and style, at least you're quoting for the actual time and styles you want. 

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6798
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2014, 11:30:16 AM »
I'm a bit confused by the comments about this story. 

The OP said that he walked.  Then, in the comments, he says that the bridal couple did get a pricy package of photographs and paid for it with a bad check.  There seem to be two different stories going on there. 

« Last Edit: September 23, 2014, 11:32:01 AM by Thipu1 »

z_squared82

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 432
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2014, 11:33:32 AM »
I'm a bit confused by the comments about this story. 

The OP said that he walked.  Then, in the comments, he says that the bridal couple did get a pricy package of photographs and paid for it with a bad check.  There seem to be two different stories going on there.

It was a different poster who conveyed his own story about the bad check. The original poster did walk. Or at least that's how I read it.

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6798
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2014, 11:37:10 AM »
I'm a bit confused by the comments about this story. 

The OP said that he walked.  Then, in the comments, he says that the bridal couple did get a pricy package of photographs and paid for it with a bad check.  There seem to be two different stories going on there.

It was a different poster who conveyed his own story about the bad check. The original poster did walk. Or at least that's how I read it.

Ah, so they were two different stories.  Thank you for the clarification. 

I never cease to be amazed by people who think they are so brilliant that they can cheat professionals with abandon. 

kherbert05

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 10343
    • Trees downed in my yard by Ike and the clean up
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2014, 11:46:03 AM »
I'm a bit confused by the comments about this story. 

The OP said that he walked.  Then, in the comments, he says that the bridal couple did get a pricy package of photographs and paid for it with a bad check.  There seem to be two different stories going on there. 


Jason is the the original poster. He added information about the parents trying to get him to cancel other jobs he had that day and do the wedding since he was there. He refused. Then a couple days later the wedding family flooded his facebook and website with false information about him leaving them in the lurch. He told them to remove the false complaints or he would would publish the e-mails and contract. They removed the false complaints.

Chris -posted his own similar story in the comments. He didn't get a deposit - the couple blaming illness. He did the shoot. Was paid "in full" buy check. After the check seamed to have cleared he gave them all the pictures in a leather bound book. THen his bank came back and said the check didn't clear and took the money back. He tried to get his money and press charges through legal channels but was unsuccessful.
Don't Teach Them For Your Past. Teach Them For Their Future

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2690
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #8 on: September 24, 2014, 09:17:02 PM »
Such a good example of why it's a bad idea to tell vendors that their service isn't for a wedding when it is.

Even if she'd told the photographer that this was a family reunion, it would still be bad. There's often a reason wedding services cost more, and this photographer gives the reason. Weddings are high pressure events with lots of moments that only happen once and can't be repeated. Photographers bring extra gear, and often an assistant to make sure they capture all those moments. Family reunions are a completely different event.

Vendors (as a general rule) just don't add on a 'wedding' price. And if they do, it's because weddings have extra requirements. I make wedding cakes - they don't cost more than birthday cakes of the same size and complexity. It's just that wedding cakes are often bigger and more complex. Their size often means they need to be delivered so they arrive in one piece. The fact that it's a wedding means that the cake will be on display for a lot longer than a birthday cake would, so it might need extra care, or extra construction, or whatever.

Vendors are just not out to cheat couples getting married, as a rule.

katycoo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3778
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2014, 12:49:04 AM »
Such a good example of why it's a bad idea to tell vendors that their service isn't for a wedding when it is.

Even if she'd told the photographer that this was a family reunion, it would still be bad. There's often a reason wedding services cost more, and this photographer gives the reason. Weddings are high pressure events with lots of moments that only happen once and can't be repeated. Photographers bring extra gear, and often an assistant to make sure they capture all those moments. Family reunions are a completely different event.

Vendors (as a general rule) just don't add on a 'wedding' price. And if they do, it's because weddings have extra requirements. I make wedding cakes - they don't cost more than birthday cakes of the same size and complexity. It's just that wedding cakes are often bigger and more complex. Their size often means they need to be delivered so they arrive in one piece. The fact that it's a wedding means that the cake will be on display for a lot longer than a birthday cake would, so it might need extra care, or extra construction, or whatever.

Vendors are just not out to cheat couples getting married, as a rule.

I do not mean to suggest that photographers charge an unwarranted "wedding tax". But I think a couple should be able to choose to have a wedding photographed with the understanding that they're not paying for all that extra detail and some things may get missed.  As long as they understand what they're choosing, I think they should be allowed to make that choice.

PastryGoddess

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4744
    • My Image Portfolio and Store
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2014, 01:44:05 AM »
Such a good example of why it's a bad idea to tell vendors that their service isn't for a wedding when it is.

Even if she'd told the photographer that this was a family reunion, it would still be bad. There's often a reason wedding services cost more, and this photographer gives the reason. Weddings are high pressure events with lots of moments that only happen once and can't be repeated. Photographers bring extra gear, and often an assistant to make sure they capture all those moments. Family reunions are a completely different event.

Vendors (as a general rule) just don't add on a 'wedding' price. And if they do, it's because weddings have extra requirements. I make wedding cakes - they don't cost more than birthday cakes of the same size and complexity. It's just that wedding cakes are often bigger and more complex. Their size often means they need to be delivered so they arrive in one piece. The fact that it's a wedding means that the cake will be on display for a lot longer than a birthday cake would, so it might need extra care, or extra construction, or whatever.

Vendors are just not out to cheat couples getting married, as a rule.

I do not mean to suggest that photographers charge an unwarranted "wedding tax". But I think a couple should be able to choose to have a wedding photographed with the understanding that they're not paying for all that extra detail and some things may get missed.  As long as they understand what they're choosing, I think they should be allowed to make that choice.

As a photographer, allowing clients to determine that line is a non starter.  Every client's definition is going to be different

I work as an assistant to a few wedding photographers.  What differs is the amount of stuff/pictures the couple gets after the wedding.  But allowing the client to determine the detail level and number of shots is not a realistic or very good business practice. 

CakeEater

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2690
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2014, 02:00:57 AM »
Such a good example of why it's a bad idea to tell vendors that their service isn't for a wedding when it is.

Even if she'd told the photographer that this was a family reunion, it would still be bad. There's often a reason wedding services cost more, and this photographer gives the reason. Weddings are high pressure events with lots of moments that only happen once and can't be repeated. Photographers bring extra gear, and often an assistant to make sure they capture all those moments. Family reunions are a completely different event.

Vendors (as a general rule) just don't add on a 'wedding' price. And if they do, it's because weddings have extra requirements. I make wedding cakes - they don't cost more than birthday cakes of the same size and complexity. It's just that wedding cakes are often bigger and more complex. Their size often means they need to be delivered so they arrive in one piece. The fact that it's a wedding means that the cake will be on display for a lot longer than a birthday cake would, so it might need extra care, or extra construction, or whatever.

Vendors are just not out to cheat couples getting married, as a rule.

I do not mean to suggest that photographers charge an unwarranted "wedding tax". But I think a couple should be able to choose to have a wedding photographed with the understanding that they're not paying for all that extra detail and some things may get missed.  As long as they understand what they're choosing, I think they should be allowed to make that choice.

As a photographer, allowing clients to determine that line is a non starter.  Every client's definition is going to be different

I work as an assistant to a few wedding photographers.  What differs is the amount of stuff/pictures the couple gets after the wedding.  But allowing the client to determine the detail level and number of shots is not a realistic or very good business practice.

Yes, I just don't think that most people will really be understanding when they don't get a photo of their first kiss, or the bride hugging her mother because the battery died, and there was no assistant to hand the fresh camera to the photographer. Will they really be fine with it when the photographer says, 'Remember, you elected not to pay for the assistant?' I just don't think they will.

It's up to the professional to provide the service they know needs to happen at a wedding.

Thipu1

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6798
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2014, 09:48:35 AM »
Also, the finished product reflects on the photographer's reputation and can influence further bookings.  I can understand why a photographer would not want to skimp or cut corners. 

Karza

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2014, 08:54:28 PM »
Also, the finished product reflects on the photographer's reputation and can influence further bookings.  I can understand why a photographer would not want to skimp or cut corners.

Exactly this. Couples who are planning their wedding will often look through the photographer's previous work. This includes not only the sample work that the photographer provides themselves, but also the wedding pictures that friends/family have at home.

kareng57

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 12283
Re: How not to hire a photographer
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2014, 11:11:29 PM »
Also, the finished product reflects on the photographer's reputation and can influence further bookings.  I can understand why a photographer would not want to skimp or cut corners.


Exactly, I used to know a seamstress who would often refuse a job if the prospective buyer had already purchased the fabric (without Seamstress's input) and she knew that the finished garment would simply not look good with that particular fabric.  Her philosophy was "once the finished garment is out there, it's got my name on it" - figuratively, anyway.