This came from one of my favorite photo sites, PetaPixel.
Apparently as Thomas and Anneka Geary prepared for their wedding; coordinating the arrival of 120 family members and guests, spending over £14,000 ($22,600 US) for their wedding, all that stuff – they spent £750 ($1,210 US) for the photographer. They hired a company called Westgate Photography as their wedding photographers. They THOUGHT that they had hired this company to take care of capturing their special moments. Unfortunately, Thomas and Anneka Geary hired another company with the same name. Same name… but a wildly different level of photography.
Photos like this.
And this.
A gallery of the “best” of these images can be viewed – I warn you, these pictures are best viewed with a side of Drambouie and Drammamine – at this link from the UK’s Daily Telegraph. In addition, the indoors photos were taken WITHOUT FLASH – apparently one of the cameramen suffered from epilepsy and the flash would have caused him to sustain a seizure. Even so…
Check out the ghost hand in this picture.
In that instance, the photographers tried to digitally remove the image of a little boy – but didn’t completely “remove” him from the shot.
Apparently these wedding photographers wouldn’t know a bouquet from bokeh. This “Westgate Photography” has ceased operations, and apparently has sold its equipment in order to give the Gearys a partial refund.
I’m not going to make any apologies for anyone in this story. Did the Gearys do their homework when selecting a photographer? Did they see this company’s previous work? Was this a horrible accident in which one of the cameras broke in mid-photo shoot and nobody knew it? Or were these photographers people who tried to enter a high-stress business – wedding photography – without any clue of what to expect? Were these photographers completely over their heads and thought they could fix everything in PhotoShop? And wasn’t the cardinal rule of wedding photography – always have a second shooter in case ANYTHING goes wrong – followed here, or was the second shooter just as clueless as the first?
And in the end, the Gearys will always have a memorable wedding. Because if they want any great moments from it… they’ll have to get it through their memories.
Chuck The Writer 
How sad ! Hopefully they had guests who took lots of pictures, sometimes those are the best anyway!
LikeLike
You get what you pay for.
This is also why I’m not enthusiastic about shooting weddings!
LikeLike
Bennett –
I hear you, my man. You and me both! 🙂
LikeLike
My friend used to videotape weddings as a student with a plain and simple statement: No editing, you get what you get. For about $250 – 6 hours – it was a bargain. Videotaping is a backup to photograph, though, of course. It included about 30 minutes of leaving the camera situated to have people interacting in a natural way on the dance floor and at the tables. I am sure something can be said/done if you truly believe you hired ANOTHER FIRM with much more experience, so I would certainly handle the situation from that angle.
LikeLike
We had 3 photographers at our wedding. One was the professional we hired. The other 2 were friends, who along with their gifts gave us copies of all the photos they took, nicely put into albums when we got home from our honeymoon. (One of them, the best man’s BIL, even had copies of the negatives made, and gave us a set!)
The photographer was okay. He captured some nice moments, but most of them are traditional and not too spontaneous. Our friends caught all the laughter and spontenaity that everyone said made our wedding and reception special.
I made a scrapbook album of photos from our courtship, engagement, wedding and honeymoon for my hubby’s anniversary gift years later. I copied the photos I wanted from those albums, and credited each one to whoever took it. When the finished work was done, most of the wedding and reception ones, capturing the hilarity and sweetness of our special day, were taken by our friends . . .
LikeLike
I’m a photo junkie and have taken some nice pics and have been asked several times If I would photograph weddings my answer is always the same. “not a chance” I will gladly come and take pictures but higher a professional and get references. For 50 percent of married couples this is a one time event you really don’t want it messed up. It is unfortunate that there are those out there that only see the dollar signs and are ambivilant to the importance of the occasion. I feel for the couple. As to the person who stated you get what you pay for I think $1200.00 is a lot of money don’t you
LikeLike
These pics are a shame for sure. And Chuck, if you did photograph a wedding there is NO DOUBT the pictures would be magnificent!!!
LikeLike
CAK – yeah, I kinda limit my wedding photography for very special occasions.
By the way, everybody say hi to Alexis and her new hubby James.
LikeLike
As to the person who stated you get what you pay for I think $1200.00 is a lot of money don’t you
To hire two people for the day? No. You’re talking at least 6 hours of actual shooting time, plus at least as much time in consultation, processing, editing, organization, and delivery of the final product. $1200 is insanely cheap after taxes, equipment costs, depreciation, and hiring the 2nd shooter. That works out to about $20/hour into the photographer’s pocket; how many $120 weekends would you have to work to make a living (hint: $120 x 52 = $6240)?
Don’t forget all the associated costs of running a business, either. marketing, travel costs, overhead if you own or rent a studio. No, I only shoot weddings if there’s an open bar.
LikeLike
B, i think ur calculation is for $120… the couple paid $1200, not 120…
LikeLike