Wedding photographer sued for taking cleavage shots of bridesmaids

6 years 2 months ago #568819 by Ted Baker
So the photographer apparently only took 70 of the bride, 11 of the husband, none of their parents and a whole lot of the bridesmaids cleavage, and other woman with short cut clothes on.  And this is in addition to photos being mostly blurry.

Have to admit, the guy kind of looks like a creep

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5410109...ng-photographer.html  


Photo Comments
,
6 years 2 months ago #568843 by effron
Let me guess, they hired the low bidder, probably didn't check references, never asked to see a portfolio, etc? Its another good deal that wasn't, it seems.

Why so serious?
Photo Comments
,
6 years 2 months ago #568867 by Prago

effron wrote: Let me guess, they hired the low bidder, probably didn't check references, never asked to see a portfolio, etc? Its another good deal that wasn't, it seems.



:agree:   from Craigslist 

SWM into chainsaws and hockey masks seeks like-minded SWF. No weirdos, please
Photo Comments
,
6 years 2 months ago #568985 by Street Shark
OMG those photos are so BAD!  LOL I don't blame them for being ticked off.  But then again, that photographer looks a bit strange.  


Photo Comments
,
6 years 1 month ago #569054 by Roman Omell
Sorry, but you get what you pay for.  £600 is what $837 give or take right?  For a wedding, what do you expect?  Don't get me wrong, you should get more than this.  However you're likely not going to get someone that responsible or has experience.  You might luck out, however IMO, your just going to get rubbish.  


Photo Comments
,
6 years 1 month ago #569158 by Soccer Mom
I really don't have anything to say about this.  

:rofl:

I mean come on people, what did you expect.  

Canon 7D, 18-55mm, 55-250mm, 70-200mm L f/2.8, 100mm and 17-55mm f/2.8
Photo Comments
,
6 years 1 month ago #569292 by icepics
It's in a tabloid, who knows how much of this is true. Yeah, they got somebody's pictures from somewhere... A quick search didn't turn up an actual photographer by that name. Who knows, it's clickbait.

Sharon
Photo Comments
,
6 years 1 month ago #569417 by Allen Carrel
So you are saying this didn't happen?


Photo Comments
,
6 years 1 month ago #569577 by NickSano
Put aside all the obvious answers for this, I find this funny.  It's like that photographer from a couple months ago that gave that family photoshopped faces because she didn't know how to post process.  Then this guy that these people hired, clearly didn't know what he was doing and gave much lower than expected results.  

The funny part is why?   Don't these want to be photographers think about getting good first, then getting clients?  

Might be an idea to ponder for them.  


Photo Comments
,
6 years 1 month ago #569693 by icepics
I'm saying I don't know if this happened or what exactly happened - it's only showing up in British tabloids. Of course it may have happened and the so-called photographer could just be a British version of a craigslist 'faux'tographer or person with a camera. Who knows.

No, I doubt whoever took the pictures has any interest in getting good with a camera first then building their business and getting clients, etc. The article said the photographer was no longer in business (if that's true).

And that other situation turned out to be fake (with the cartoon faces photoshopped in). The person just set up a facebook page for it, the date the account started was right before they posted the pictures. I think they made up the whole thing, it turned out to be a hoax.

Sharon
Photo Comments
,

817.3K

241K

  • Facebook

    817,251 / Likes

  • Twitter

    241,000 / Followers

  • Google+

    1,620,816 / Followers

Latest Reviews

The Canon EOS R100 is an entry-level mirrorless camera introduced in 2023. But just because it’s an entry-level camera doesn’t mean it’s a bare-bones camera. Find out why in this review!

Apr 22, 2024

Nikon’s retro-looking Nikon Zfc is anything but retro. Under its classic body is a host of features and amenities that make it a worthwhile compact mirrorless camera for 2024.

Apr 15, 2024

The Canon EOS R50 is one of the newest R-system cameras from Canon. Is it worth your money? Find out all the details you need to know in this comprehensive review.

Apr 10, 2024

The Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II is Sony’s flagship mirrorless zoom lens. As such, it’s loaded with features and has a top-shelf build quality that makes it a top pick!

Mar 27, 2024

Forum Top Posters

Latest Articles

Creating impactful photos of landscapes depends on many factors, not the least of which is your talent behind the lens. This guide explores other elements required for the best product.

Apr 23, 2024

The Canon EOS R100 is an entry-level mirrorless camera introduced in 2023. But just because it’s an entry-level camera doesn’t mean it’s a bare-bones camera. Find out why in this review!

Apr 22, 2024

Are you ready to upgrade your camera? Before buying new, you might consider the value of purchasing used gear to save money.

Apr 18, 2024

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV is a micro four thirds camera released in 2020. It’s an entry-level system along with the OM-D E-M5 Mark III. Use this guide to determine which one is best for you!

Apr 17, 2024

Blue hour photography might not be as well known as golden hour photography, but it is every bit as good a time to create epic images of landscapes. Learn how in this quick tutorial!

Apr 17, 2024

Nikon’s retro-looking Nikon Zfc is anything but retro. Under its classic body is a host of features and amenities that make it a worthwhile compact mirrorless camera for 2024.

Apr 15, 2024

Moving from taking snapshots of your dog to creating beautiful images doesn’t have to be that difficult! Use the tips outlined in this dog photography guide, and you’ll get better results in no time.

Apr 15, 2024

Acrylic print photos are a beautiful way to display your favorite images. But they don’t come without some questions. Get all the answers you need about this medium in this guide!

Apr 15, 2024