More bad wedding photography

[Jonathan]

Apologies for linking to the Sun and Daily Mail.  But for some reason the chap's website is down at the moment.

Couple of things to remember as you laugh

• This guy is listed as a current member of the SWPP (bet that changes soon).  From their "why you should choose an SWPP member page.... "

  SWPP & BPPA has a strict Code of Ethics that is rigidly enforced to ensure the consumer is not only hiring a talented photographer, but also one with impeccable business practices. Don't settle for less.  Hire a Photographer who is a member of the SWPP & BPPA.  You'll be glad you did!

• Yeah, courts can apparently rule that they don't like your pictures.  Scary.  These were obviously awful but what about some of the "arty" shots I see?  Don't forget one of the criticisms was that the bridesmaids looked embarrassed in a silly pose.
• By my calculation he still made £230 on the day

[John Doyle2]

Really slapdash photography of such an important event. Amazing, that he was still allowed to make cash for such shoddy work!

[skellum]

Apologies for linking to the Sun and Daily Mail.  But for some reason the chap's website is down at the moment.

Couple of things to remember as you laugh

• This guy is listed as a current member of the SWPP (bet that changes soon).  From their "why you should choose an SWPP member page.... "

  SWPP & BPPA has a strict Code of Ethics that is rigidly enforced to ensure the consumer is not only hiring a talented photographer, but also one with impeccable business practices. Don't settle for less.  Hire a Photographer who is a member of the SWPP & BPPA.  You'll be glad you did!

• Yeah, courts can apparently rule that they don't like your pictures.  Scary.  These were obviously awful but what about some of the "arty" shots I see?  Don't forget one of the criticisms was that the bridesmaids looked embarrassed in a silly pose.
• By my calculation he still made £230 on the day

The Bridesmaids shot was his best. As for SWPP & BPPA they must be cowboy outfits aswell not to check this idiot out. I thought you had to submit work to a panel before you became a member, of course he could of used someone elses work but you would think they would check ( Cowboys!, the photographer and both SWPP & BPPA )..

[Hinfrance]

 .  . and I thought my stuff was cr*p . .

[jinky]

I was loathe to say it on a flickr group but I actually dropped a line to this guy asking about second shooter experience. I must say that having had a quick look at his website at the time his other stuff was better than this. Not up to Jonathan`s stndards but better than this!
There is no truth in the rumour that I got the 2nd shooter role and covered this one for him 

Makes me feel I was much better off shooting with fizzio for the day up in Newcastle.

[greypoint]

Well these are truly awful - for anyone wanting to get into wedding photography you can't do better than copy the world's best - he now has a handy video outlining the 10 commandments for wedding photographers - his gallery remains truly inspiring

http://www.derekpyephotography.com/

[DaveB]

Is it normal practice to hand over all the shots from the day? 400 shots for them to look through seems a bit much to me. I'm not surprised they found some cack ones...OK his were really bad but surely you only show them a range of the best.

[Oly Paul]

Don't you just love the digital age, where anyone that can point a camera can call themselves a professional photographer because they think the camera does it all . I've done four weddings as a favour after being pressured into it by relatives/friends and limited by 4 rolls of film but I could not have done worse than these even if I had tried to be incompetant!

[ABERS]

I recently had a whole bundle of info through the post from the SWPP, why I don't know, but there appears to be several groups all headed with SW. As far as I can recall there was one for landscape, portraiture and a couple of others I can't recall. They seemed to think that putting the SW+= with your name made you into a seasoned professional.

You apparently send them a few images and a cheque and you are welcomed into the exclusivity of their association. I had a feeling the cheque was more important than the portfolio.

[Oldboy]

Don't you just love the digital age, where anyone that can point a camera can call themselves a professional photographer because they think the camera does it all . I've done four weddings as a favour after being pressured into it by relatives/friends and limited by 4 rolls of film but I could not have done worse than these even if I had tried to be incompetant!

I've seen your portrait shots. Incompetent and you don't go together. 

[oggalily]

The BBC Magazine website has chimed in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8292164.stm

[irv_b]

Now that is a timely boost because I have an extended family wedding to do this weekend surely and I cant be as bad as that (trying not to tempt fate here )

[hevans]

Those photos aren't that bad - they just haven't been photoshopped enough to make them look edgy and trendy.

My only experience with weddings and photography is when I was 18 and took shots of my friend's sister's wedding. It was easy peasy: the church didn't allow any shots during the service, so it was only group photos. Things have changed alot now. The only other experience was a few weeks back when I was a guest at the neighbour's wedding, and I just took some point and shoot shots with the wife's compact camera.  I had a chance to see the one's from the pro, and wasn't overly impressed. Although, it could be my standards are quite higher having seen some from members here.

It's not a subject I like, too much stress and too many people. Now if only there were weddings for hermits...

H.

[Oldboy]

The BBC Magazine website has chimed in:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8292164.stm

It was on the BBC News at dinner time, so may be on at six O'clock and ten. I don't think he will have any more weddings. 

[Jonathan]

You apparently send them a few images and a cheque and you are welcomed into the exclusivity of their association. I had a feeling the cheque was more important than the portfolio.

How dare you cast aspersions on the integrity of the SWPP?  Let me assure you there's no requirement to send any pictures.  Really.

Here's the application form complete with baffling and ungrammatical rules (they have ripped a chunk out about 3 months' notice to quit because a court said that basically it wasn't legal).  No request for any pictures at all.  And yes they are the only organisation I know of that asks for postage for its free joining gift.

Seriously - if I were them I'd worry about getting sued since they claim that all their members are excellent photographers and abide by a code of ethics when they make no attempt to check that either of these are true.  It's a lawsuit waiting to happen.