Ship photographers really messed up this time

[Familygoboston]

It can happen:( Hubby is always a wreck when he's asked to do weddings - always carries multiple cards, at least two camera bodies to insure he can get SOMETHING if the worst happens. Usually pros use 2 shooters, each carrying multiple camera bodies for this reason.

It's not the "cruise line" ; the photography services are contracted out.

[novicetraveller]

What surprised me is that the photographer didn't have a camera that utilises 2 memory cards so that the camera would record to both cards at the same time, so that if one fails, the other takes over. Also, why didn't the photographer check the camera for the images on a continuous basis?

Regarding the holiday being ruined? I am going to guess that the couple took the decision to go on the cruise as part of their wedding experience. They came back with no photographs to show for it. You can argue all you like that the holiday was or wasn't ruined, but unless you were in their shoes, I don't think anyone here can judge.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

[quote name='novicetraveller']What surprised me is that the photographer didn't have a camera that utilises 2 memory cards so that the camera would record to both cards at the same time, so that if one fails, the other takes over. Also, why didn't the photographer check the camera for the images on a continuous basis?

Regarding the holiday being ruined? I am going to guess that the couple took the decision to go on the cruise as part of their wedding experience.[B] They came back with no photographs to show for it.[/B] You can argue all you like that the holiday was or wasn't ruined, but unless you were in their shoes, I don't think anyone here can judge.[/QUOTE]
Really? Where do you think this one was taken?
[IMG]http://d2x3wmakafwqf5.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/112/files/2014/07/wedding.png[/IMG]
I have a hard time believing they have NO photos of the cruise. In fact, they probably even have pictures from the wedding/reception. No, they don't have

[Big_G]

[quote name='Familygoboston']It can happen:( Hubby is always a wreck when he's asked to do weddings - always carries multiple cards, at least two camera bodies to insure he can get SOMETHING if the worst happens. Usually pros use 2 shooters, each carrying multiple camera bodies for this reason.

It's not the "cruise line" ; the photography services are contracted out.[/quote]

DW gets mad because I refuse to be the family photographer and that's why. I'm not opposed to taking a quick shot with a phone here and there but a special event? Not gonna' happen. :D

[novicetraveller]

[quote name='S.A.M.J.R.']Really? Where do you think this one was taken?
[IMG]http://d2x3wmakafwqf5.cloudfront.net/wordpress/wp-content/blogs.dir/112/files/2014/07/wedding.png[/IMG]
I have a hard time believing they have NO photos of the cruise. In fact, they probably even have pictures from the wedding/reception. No, they don't have[/QUOTE]

I should have said professional photos. Do you think that image you posted is acceptable? It isn't something I would want in my album.

[S.A.M.J.R.]

[quote name='novicetraveller']I should have said professional photos. Do you think that image you posted is acceptable? It isn't something I would want in my album.[/QUOTE]
If my choice was nothing in my album vs. pictures my friends/family took, give me the pictures.

No, the picture I posted was not great, but if it's what I had, I'd use it.

[novicetraveller]

[quote name='S.A.M.J.R.']If my choice was nothing in my album vs. pictures my friends/family took, give me the pictures.



No, the picture I posted was not great, but if it's what I had, I'd use it.[/QUOTE]


That is where we differ. If I have a big day with the intent on hiring a so called professional photographer to take the shots of my big day, I would accept nothing less. Maybe I have higher standards and expectations on major life events. But there again, I am also a photographer myself (not a pro, but a serious hobbyist photographer).

[S.A.M.J.R.]

[quote name='novicetraveller']That is where we differ. If I have a big day with the intent on hiring a so called professional photographer to take the shots of my big day,[B] I would accept nothing less.[/B] Maybe I have higher standards and expectations on major life events. But there again, I am also a photographer myself (not a pro, but a serious hobbyist photographer).[/QUOTE]
OK. No problem. But here's the facts... the event is over. There are NO professional pictures. So now what?

Does a lack of photographs mean the event wasn't as "special"? Do no pictures mean the event never took place?

Obviously any money paid toward photography should be refunded. According to the article, the couple was offered $2K and retakes. What, in your mind, should the cruise line have offered?

[novicetraveller]

[quote name='S.A.M.J.R.']OK. No problem. But here's the facts... the event is over. There are NO professional pictures. So now what?



Does a lack of photographs mean the event wasn't as "special"? Do no pictures mean the event never took place?



Obviously any money paid toward photography should be refunded. According to the article, the couple was offered $2K and retakes. What, in your mind, should the cruise line have offered?[/QUOTE]


They should have provided a photographer who was capable in the first place. Retaking the event is never an option. The lack of professional photos prevents the couple from sharing the experience with their friends and kids (if they ever have any).

Their wedding is special, but has been ruined because it can never be shared with anyone after the event. Sorry if you don't get it.

[xxHadleyxx]

[quote name='novicetraveller']They should have provided a photographer who was capable in the first place. Retaking the event is never an option. The lack of professional photos prevents the couple from sharing the experience with their friends and kids (if they ever have any).

Their wedding is special, but has been ruined because it can never be shared with anyone after the event. Sorry if you don't get it.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but once the screw up already occurred--which it did, what should be done? RCI or the photography company they contract with could not go back in time.

What they could do was refund the cost (which they did) and also do a shoot of the bride, groom, guests etc on the ship, even a mock up of the actual wedding, so there would still be photos for an album (which they offered and the couple turned down).

I really do not see how any other compensation would change the situation or is warranted--and I agree that refusing to take photos after the fact comes across as "acting like a petulant child"

[alfaeric]

[quote name='novicetraveller']They should have provided a photographer who was capable in the first place. Retaking the event is never an option. The lack of professional photos prevents the couple from sharing the experience with their friends and kids (if they ever have any).

Their wedding is special, but has been ruined because it can never be shared with anyone after the event. Sorry if you don't get it.[/QUOTE]

shoulda, woulda, coulda, but didn't.

so now what?

A human made a mistake. Should that person be fired?

There's no time machine to go back.

[bouhunter]

[quote name='novicetraveller'] Retaking the event is never an option. .[/QUOTE]

Well, in this case it was actually the ONLY option......:rolleyes:

[basilisk43]

[quote name='novicetraveller']They should have provided a photographer who was capable in the first place. Retaking the event is never an option. The lack of professional photos prevents the couple from sharing the experience with their friends and kids (if they ever have any).

Their wedding is special, but has been ruined because it can never be shared with anyone after the event. Sorry if you don't get it.[/QUOTE]
Yes it would be devastating to lose the photos, no question.

But, retaking the event is never an option? hmm And I bet 10 years down the track when someone asks to see her wedding photos the bride says "Our photographer messed up so we don't have any, but boy are we glad we refused to do a retake so we could see what we looked like. I mean, that would have been fake, and we are, like, real people"
Petulance never looks good in hindsight.

[WpgCruise]

We're really quick to blame the photographer based on nothing but a news report aren't we?

Have none of us ever had a hard disk or memory card work perfectly until the point it goes pfht?

None of us know the photographer didn't check after each picture was taken. Given the photographer does this for a living, I would suggest s/he probably did.

I tend to think it was an equipment failure rather than a human one, just based on my own experience.

Now, the happy couple refusing a "Do Over", well that's their choice but I really don't understand what else can be done. The bride didn't appear to offer any suggestions as to what Royal Caribbean could have done to make her happy, so it would appear it's a case of no one wins.

A tough experience but I hope this is the biggest disappointment the happy couple suffers in their life together. If it is they will truly have had a blessed life.

[Cruzin-K]

Photos are extremely important to me, and I would have been devastated and yes, it would have ruined my whole cruise. I guess that's just me (and apparently the bride). However, I probably would have opted for the retakes, depending on just how complicated the recreation would have been.

[knittinggirl]

We had a lot of photos done before the ceremony with the bride's family and the groom's family. Also after the ceremony at the altar. Those could have been redone. It's not like the family had driven away. Even if the familyy shot the same poses as the pro , the pros have better knowledge of the exposure triangle. As well as shooting from kneeling, or even prone to change the perspective.

Sent from my KFJWA using Tapatalk HD

[Adayatatime]

Makes me wonder what life was like before photography:eek:

Maybe there was just no point to carrying out any event because you hadn't got any photos.

If your whole wedding and holiday is spoiled because of this, it makes me wonder what the vows meant.

Certainly in religious ceremonies in many UK churches you are forbidden taking photos because of (a) law and (b) its off-putting and detracts from the ceremony, which I do agree with.

You are making one of the biggest commitments in your life and the whole event is ruined because of photos? What is the point then of a ceremony?

It's upsetting to lose photos of any event, but its not that extreme.

[DCT61]

"Their wedding is special, but has been ruined because it can never be shared with anyone after the event"

I guess we now have the answer to the old question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears It, does it make a sound.

The answer is no.

She had a wedding, but all she got to show for it is this lousy husband.

[novicetraveller]

[quote name='DCT61']"Their wedding is special, but has been ruined because it can never be shared with anyone after the event"

I guess we now have the answer to the old question: If a tree falls in the woods and no one hears It, does it make a sound.

The answer is no.

She had a wedding, but all she got to show for it is this lousy husband.[/QUOTE]

Really? You want to compare a falling of a tree to a Wedding? Wow. Show's how little importance you have on things in life. Wow!

[Grayce]

I was married in 1991, long before digital photography. The camera malfunctioned and the wedding photos were double exposed. I was very disappointed but was able to get several photos from family who attended the wedding. It certainly did not turn my wedding into a nightmare. At the time it was just important to me to be married. The life we have built together over the last 23 years is much more precious than that one moment in time.

Sent from my Galaxy Note

[novicetraveller]

[quote name='Adayatatime']Makes me wonder what life was like before photography:eek:

Maybe there was just no point to carrying out any event because you hadn't got any photos.

If your whole wedding and holiday is spoiled because of this, it makes me wonder what the vows meant.

Certainly in religious ceremonies in many UK churches you are forbidden taking photos because of (a) law and (b) its off-putting and detracts from the ceremony, which I do agree with.

You are making one of the biggest commitments in your life and the whole event is ruined because of photos? What is the point then of a ceremony?

It's upsetting to lose photos of any event, but its not that extreme.[/QUOTE]

I hate to break it to you. Photography is allowed in churches, it's the use of flash that isn't allowed. However, certain religious centres (Temples and Mosques) don't permit the use of cameras for religious reasons, and not legal reasons. However, photography on private property without consent (in general) in the UK isn't allowed unless you have prior permission, but it definitely isn't against the law.

[novicetraveller]

[quote name='Grayce']I was married in 1991, long before digital photography. The camera malfunctioned and the wedding photos were double exposed. I was very disappointed but was able to get several photos from family who attended the wedding. It certainly did not turn my wedding into a nightmare. At the time it was just important to me to be married. The life we have built together over the last 23 years is much more precious than that one moment in time.

Sent from my Galaxy Note[/QUOTE]

I'm glad your marriage has worked out and that you don't apply materialistic things to your marriage, but some people prefer to be able to look back on their day and recall memories. It's good that your family and friends were able to produce images for you, but at the same time, I am gutted that the images that were produced by the photographer you relied on didn't produce any usable results.

[A&L_Ont]

[quote name='micmacmissy'] They came all the way from the UK. [/QUOTE]

Actually, they came from Surrey in BC, Canada.

We just looked at our wedding pics last week as it was our 10 year anniversary. The time previous to that was at our one year. Hopefully the couple in this story makes those milestones.

It is unfortunate that it happened. Edited August 1, 2014 by A&L_Ont

[Adayatatime]

[quote name='novicetraveller']I hate to break it to you. Photography is allowed in churches, it's the use of flash that isn't allowed. However, certain religious centres (Temples and Mosques) don't permit the use of cameras for religious reasons, and not legal reasons. However, photography on private property without consent (in general) in the UK isn't allowed unless you have prior permission, but it definitely isn't against the law.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for putting me straight. Shows how little I personally care or know about rules regarding photography. I didn't realise it was to do with the flash. Why is that? (Just curious).

[Clarea]

[quote name='Adayatatime']Thanks for putting me straight. Shows how little I personally care or know about rules regarding photography. I didn't realise it was to do with the flash. Why is that? (Just curious).[/quote]
Supposedly the heat and light produced by flash photography speed up the chemical reactions that cause deterioration.