This was so well presented and so informative 👏well done you’re a very clever well spoken lady!!! First time I’ve come across one of your videos…I’m heading over to your channel and see what other interesting stuff there is!
I have seen a number of videos on separate, and really enjoyed hearing your perspective as a lawyer. I have heard a lot of people say that the client should have known that her photos would be sepia (or warm) because that is the photographer's style. Consistent with this, the photographer's website showcases many beautiful warm beach photos, and all the clients look like they have lovely golden tans. But, the photographer's website also says at the top of what I think is the home page "I truly don’t take it for granted. I want you to FEEL your photos and I want your photos to feel like YOU. I want your photos to be golden, genuine, + timeless." Is she not implying that the client can have more natural photos that "feel like you" and are "genuine"? She also says "golden," but I think that could be taken to mean "precious" - I would not take it as meaning that every photo will look golden/sepia. Also, I looked at photos of the garden themed wedding on the photographer's website. If you scroll down far enough to see people in an outdoor setting with green plants, the photos are maybe a little on the warm side, but there are lots of white teeth, white dresses and white shirts. Also, the plants look green and alive, although maybe a bit yellowish-green rather than blue-green. so still a bit on the warm side. The skin tones are still golden, and everyone looks tanned. From what I understand, the client liked the golden beach look overall, but had a problem with her teeth and dress not being white in the photos, and green plants looking yellow-orange-brown as if they were all dried out. She is also a make-up artist who did her own make-up, and my understanding is that she wanted at least some of the bridal photos to reflect the actual colours of her skin and make-up. My understanding is that when the photographer retouched the photos following the bride's request, everything was still sepia, and in some cases a darker sepia. The re-edits apparently did not accommodate the client's requests for white teeth and a white wedding dress, green plants and colours closer to how her skin and her make-up actually looked, at least in some of the bride-only photos. I also heard that the client sent the photographer a mood board of what she wanted before hiring her, and the photographer told her she could provide photos consistent with her mood board. I did not see the mood board online, but I imagine that it might have shown things like green plants, white teeth and dresses, and some photos of natural make-up. Could there be a possibility of false advertising in a situation like this? I am an amateur photographer, and my tendency would be to side with the photographer. But I felt that the bride had some valid points and reasonable requests, so I tended to side with her. I haven't looked at all the videos, but I feel that people conclude that she is is difficult client or a bridezilla because of the number of videos she has posted, but they don't really take into account whether her specific points were reasonable and valid. That being said, I might feel differently if I looked at all the videos.
I have shared this opinion on both Ryan Troy's video in the comments and on Vahagraphy's livestream two weeks ago.... Plain and simple, the photographer shot her self in the foot for not wanting to let go of her massive ego to make this one client happy, nip the situation in the butt quickly and move on. What EVERYONE who has made an opinion has failed to mention is that both client and photographer are "boss babes," which the wedding industry is severely dominated by, so it's not surprising these two didn't walk out as best friends out of the gate. That said, I've been in this industry since 2005 and I despise it TBH, pays well, but I prefer to not work alongside "boss babes." I have never had a positive experience with them in all my years in this industry. From what I've seen in most comment sections, is that photographers specifically boss babes have sided with the photographer, however, the average bride will side with the client. And who pays our rent? Certainly not other photographers. And to your point, I throw up each time I see a website like the photographer in question with all the BS flowery language: photography is my passion, timeless, genuine, feel like you, it's not about its about you, etc., when we all know its a sack of crap. Go to my website and you'll see I make every effort to scare away my clients. And the ones who stick around let me drink on the job.
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer unrelated to the toppic, the expression is "nip it in the bud". As in cutting the leaf or flower as it is still in the bud stage to prevent growth. The variant with the "butt" gives me nightmares!
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer ok, and what are you nipping in that theoretical butt, pray tell? The skin or the poop? Or something else entirely that you placed inside? And more importantly, what would be your intent in sharply biting or pinching said things? I really, really need to know now!
With a harassment clause what prevents a less than ethical photographer from invoking the clause and banking the loot?? Also, from a legal standpoint, what good are raw wedding pictures to a photographer? Specifically, how many couples would be comfortable with a photographer selling their photographs to the commercial market?
1. Raw Photos are a photographer way of showing they own the photos. 2. Photographers (unless stated in a contract) are not able to just sell photos to a commercial market.
@@itsgreg72 do you have any idea if there is a general photo pro policy for raw image retention? For me, I do think a photographer should provide the couple with JPEGs of all captured images with the exception of mistake images.
I’m a professional boudoir photographer and I’m team bride. The editing was terrible (yellow teeth for example) and could have easily been changed to make a client who paid you $8000 dollars happy and satisfied.
My personal opinion is she has buyers remorse about what she paid. In her videos she said she sat on them for a MONTH. Then said that she was looking and looking and looking at them and started nit picking at them. I think she wanted money back and figured that she could manipulate and “force” the photographer to give her what she wanted. Her photos are in line with the photographers work online. I personally don’t like the sepia filter and prefer a true to color editing. I am on the photographers side. Bride was acting entitled and in my opinion had such a negative air about her. There’s just something off about her that rubs me the wrong way.
The photographer fulfilled all her duties. The change of opinion and wants from the bride does not mean the photographer now needs to change anything that was agreed upon
The client was more than happy to receive the original files, pay for them and move on. Clearly, the photographer with her massive boss babe ego thought it'd be funny to ask for another $4k after the client already paid her $8k for said files. Clearly this photographer is not someone any bride should be collaborating with. Plain and simple, if she can't bother to keep this one client happy, nip the situation in the butt quickly and move on, what hope do her future clients have?
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer as an attorney she doesn't have to do anything outside of the contract especially when the client is entitled and threatened the photographer
@@Laurengfan as an attorney you say, I ask you show proof that the client as you say, allegedly threaten the photographer. You should know better than to slander people like that.
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer we dont have to proof anything. I'm saying the photographer said she was being threatened and as someone that doesnt by contract NEED to do anything beyond what she has already done, I would not do any more for this client.
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer you are also very annoying. We have contracts for a reason. We don't have to go above and beyond. Just do as the contract says and you're good
The edits were horrendous, and I would have been unhappy with the photos. I appreciate the professional photographers who weren't afraid to give their honest opinion on her amateur edits. This isn't one of those videos so it wasn't as informative as I would have liked and preferred the commentary of other you tube channels.
![How Vendors Can Protect Their Creative Work [2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YpxoIVr0WhM/mqdefault.jpg)
![“อ.เบียร์ คนตื่นธรรม” มาตามคำเรียกร้อง แหกศาสตร์ฮวงจุ้ย เตือนสติอย่างมงาย | แฉ 7 พ.ย. 67 [1/3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5fc4S3xBNfc/mqdefault.jpg)
This was so well presented and so informative 👏well done you’re a very clever well spoken lady!!! First time I’ve come across one of your videos…I’m heading over to your channel and see what other interesting stuff there is!
The photographer actually did do an interview telling her side of the story. She did the interview with TH-camr channel "The Vendor Table" .
She did, but she only confirm the client's point of view. Massive ego.
I have seen a number of videos on separate, and really enjoyed hearing your perspective as a lawyer. I have heard a lot of people say that the client should have known that her photos would be sepia (or warm) because that is the photographer's style. Consistent with this, the photographer's website showcases many beautiful warm beach photos, and all the clients look like they have lovely golden tans. But, the photographer's website also says at the top of what I think is the home page "I truly don’t take it for granted. I want you to FEEL your photos and I want your photos to feel like YOU. I want your photos to be golden, genuine, + timeless." Is she not implying that the client can have more natural photos that "feel like you" and are "genuine"? She also says "golden," but I think that could be taken to mean "precious" - I would not take it as meaning that every photo will look golden/sepia. Also, I looked at photos of the garden themed wedding on the photographer's website. If you scroll down far enough to see people in an outdoor setting with green plants, the photos are maybe a little on the warm side, but there are lots of white teeth, white dresses and white shirts. Also, the plants look green and alive, although maybe a bit yellowish-green rather than blue-green. so still a bit on the warm side. The skin tones are still golden, and everyone looks tanned. From what I understand, the client liked the golden beach look overall, but had a problem with her teeth and dress not being white in the photos, and green plants looking yellow-orange-brown as if they were all dried out. She is also a make-up artist who did her own make-up, and my understanding is that she wanted at least some of the bridal photos to reflect the actual colours of her skin and make-up. My understanding is that when the photographer retouched the photos following the bride's request, everything was still sepia, and in some cases a darker sepia. The re-edits apparently did not accommodate the client's requests for white teeth and a white wedding dress, green plants and colours closer to how her skin and her make-up actually looked, at least in some of the bride-only photos. I also heard that the client sent the photographer a mood board of what she wanted before hiring her, and the photographer told her she could provide photos consistent with her mood board. I did not see the mood board online, but I imagine that it might have shown things like green plants, white teeth and dresses, and some photos of natural make-up. Could there be a possibility of false advertising in a situation like this? I am an amateur photographer, and my tendency would be to side with the photographer. But I felt that the bride had some valid points and reasonable requests, so I tended to side with her. I haven't looked at all the videos, but I feel that people conclude that she is is difficult client or a bridezilla because of the number of videos she has posted, but they don't really take into account whether her specific points were reasonable and valid. That being said, I might feel differently if I looked at all the videos.
I have shared this opinion on both Ryan Troy's video in the comments and on Vahagraphy's livestream two weeks ago....
Plain and simple, the photographer shot her self in the foot for not wanting to let go of her massive ego to make this one client happy, nip the situation in the butt quickly and move on.
What EVERYONE who has made an opinion has failed to mention is that both client and photographer are "boss babes," which the wedding industry is severely dominated by, so it's not surprising these two didn't walk out as best friends out of the gate. That said, I've been in this industry since 2005 and I despise it TBH, pays well, but I prefer to not work alongside "boss babes." I have never had a positive experience with them in all my years in this industry.
From what I've seen in most comment sections, is that photographers specifically boss babes have sided with the photographer, however, the average bride will side with the client. And who pays our rent? Certainly not other photographers.
And to your point, I throw up each time I see a website like the photographer in question with all the BS flowery language: photography is my passion, timeless, genuine, feel like you, it's not about its about you, etc., when we all know its a sack of crap. Go to my website and you'll see I make every effort to scare away my clients. And the ones who stick around let me drink on the job.
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer unrelated to the toppic, the expression is "nip it in the bud". As in cutting the leaf or flower as it is still in the bud stage to prevent growth.
The variant with the "butt" gives me nightmares!
@@namelessbrat7197 I meant what I said, 'butt.' We're adults here are we not?
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer ok, and what are you nipping in that theoretical butt, pray tell? The skin or the poop? Or something else entirely that you placed inside?
And more importantly, what would be your intent in sharply biting or pinching said things?
I really, really need to know now!
With a harassment clause what prevents a less than ethical photographer from invoking the clause and banking the loot??
Also, from a legal standpoint, what good are raw wedding pictures to a photographer? Specifically, how many couples would be comfortable with a photographer selling their photographs to the commercial market?
1. Raw Photos are a photographer way of showing they own the photos. 2. Photographers (unless stated in a contract) are not able to just sell photos to a commercial market.
@@itsgreg72 do you have any idea if there is a general photo pro policy for raw image retention? For me, I do think a photographer should provide the couple with JPEGs of all captured images with the exception of mistake images.
I could never take the side of a bridezilla.
I’m a professional boudoir photographer and I’m team bride. The editing was terrible (yellow teeth for example) and could have easily been changed to make a client who paid you $8000 dollars happy and satisfied.
Exactly
It’s not high maintenance to want your teeth to be white. Or to want your dress to be close to white.
Preach !!!!
The bride made 19 video 19!!!!
Actually, the client contacted the photographer a month after receiving the pictures, not a few days.
No it was a few days even the photographer said so
My personal opinion is she has buyers remorse about what she paid. In her videos she said she sat on them for a MONTH. Then said that she was looking and looking and looking at them and started nit picking at them. I think she wanted money back and figured that she could manipulate and “force” the photographer to give her what she wanted. Her photos are in line with the photographers work online. I personally don’t like the sepia filter and prefer a true to color editing. I am on the photographers side. Bride was acting entitled and in my opinion had such a negative air about her. There’s just something off about her that rubs me the wrong way.
The photographer fulfilled all her duties. The change of opinion and wants from the bride does not mean the photographer now needs to change anything that was agreed upon
The client was more than happy to receive the original files, pay for them and move on. Clearly, the photographer with her massive boss babe ego thought it'd be funny to ask for another $4k after the client already paid her $8k for said files. Clearly this photographer is not someone any bride should be collaborating with. Plain and simple, if she can't bother to keep this one client happy, nip the situation in the butt quickly and move on, what hope do her future clients have?
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer as an attorney she doesn't have to do anything outside of the contract especially when the client is entitled and threatened the photographer
@@Laurengfan as an attorney you say, I ask you show proof that the client as you say, allegedly threaten the photographer. You should know better than to slander people like that.
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer we dont have to proof anything. I'm saying the photographer said she was being threatened and as someone that doesnt by contract NEED to do anything beyond what she has already done, I would not do any more for this client.
@@thedrunkweddingphotographer you are also very annoying. We have contracts for a reason. We don't have to go above and beyond. Just do as the contract says and you're good
The edits were horrendous, and I would have been unhappy with the photos. I appreciate the professional photographers who weren't afraid to give their honest opinion on her amateur edits. This isn't one of those videos so it wasn't as informative as I would have liked and preferred the commentary of other you tube channels.
She was unhappy with her yellow teeth not the editing style.