Ship photographers really messed up this time

[babyher]

As i am reading this thread , i am thinking about the movie Moonstruck. Cher is talking about the bad luck she had in her first marriage . She says "We took pictures at the wedding but they didn't come out...that should have been a sign" :)

 

 

Seriously I do feel for the bride. I know it is a big deal especially to the bride. Had it been me I would have gotten dressed again and taken the pictures over. These things do happen. When they do you do the best you can to fix it.

 

I can't even remember the last time I looked at the album or video of my first wedding. I know it's around some place because my DD took it a few years ago because my ex wife and I didn't want them. Ex and I refer to the video as our personal Zapruder film. Started as a nice day everyone smiling and happy and then BANG .....We have been wondering what the hell happened ever since :)

 

Current DW and I have a small album mostly from pictures taken by friends and relatives , and even that we hardly look at.

[shellunderwater]

Everybody has posted a solution to try to prevent the problem. Surely amazing how clear hindsight is, isn't it?

 

Do you think that the photographer did this by intention? Should they be fired? Or do we move on from that, as this probably isn't a problem that's so common that it happens once a month? You and I make mistakes, too.

 

Nobody has posted what the resoluition to this mistake should be.

 

coulda, woulda, shoulda, but didn't. Now what to do once the mistake happend...

 

Now what?

 

They offered to retake the pictures on the ship, right? While EVERYONE was still on the ship. When they declined that, I think the only thing left is the refund.

 

Lets see, they screwed up something that can't be 100% replaced/replicated. So, they did the next best thing, offering to get as close as possible, retaking the pictures with everyone still there. The bride declined. At that point, what else can RCCL do? What other thing could possibly be done that would magically create the pictures?

 

Bad things happen during weddings all the time. Snow storms, rain storms, hurricanes, tornadoes. Heck people are married in hospitals and immediately before being deployed overseas for military duty. Anyone think all of them were planned? Sometimes you just have to roll with the punches and make lemonade when life gives you a lemon. You can't expect them to make champagne out of lemons.

 

So, RCCL did what they could... refunded them a chucnk of money. Does everyone deserve to get a free cruise? Nope. If their trips were ruined its probably because they refused to allow a retake and spent the rest of the trip complaining about things.

[davenew]

OK, that's a shame, but we are talking electronics. Things can go wrong. I think Royal did right by refunding the wedding package (I assume that was the entire wedding cost, not just the pictures).

 

I don't understand how a loss of pictures can "ruin" a vacation though.

 

Refunding the fee is the easy option, and plain unreal.

They should sue for the trauma.

[alfaeric]

Refunding the fee is the easy option, and plain unreal.

They should sue for the trauma.

 

What other thing would you have done in RCI's position?

[fred30]

At this point the only way to sovle the problem of them wanting their wedding photos now.

 

DIVORCE!

[cruzeluvr]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LMaxwell

Using one photographer and one memory card for an event is completely unprofessional and inexcusable. That's how craigslist hacks do it. It's in just about every top 10 list of what to ask about photographers when choosing one; do they have backup shooters and/or equipment.

 

This is exactly right. I've shot some weddings and I operated with two to three cameras, multiple lenses, etc. And what happened here is exactly WHY I do that.

 

Why on earth wasn't the photographer checking his images as he was shooting? It takes 2 seconds to review shots as you shoot. I do this all the time to check lighting, exposure compensation, focus . . . it is incomprehensible for me to think of shooting something this important without backup media and equipment and without constantly verifying that everything is working right.

 

It's possible that the media card was exposed to some magnetic field that wiped it . . . I'd think something would still show with an evaluation of the card and the article said nothing was there.

 

I understand why they didn't accept the re-shoot. It's fake, staged. The expressions aren't the same, the moment is lost. They're called event photos for a reason - Event photos are moments, captured forever. They're memories for the short term, family history for the long term. I personally would have done the reshoot if I were one of the people getting married, but it would have been a very, very poor solution.

 

And then you think about the hair styles and makeup and the outfits and items like candles, flowers, setting . . . what a nightmare.

 

When a photographer shoots a wedding, he needs to be equipped to get it right. Period.

 

From my experience and observations, most of the photographers on board the ships are hardly what I would consider "professional" photographers.

[Adayatatime]

Refunding the fee is the easy option, and plain unreal.

They should sue for the trauma.

 

Trauma :confused:

[websiteauthor]

Refunding the fee is the easy option, and plain unreal.

They should sue for the trauma.

 

I agree that refunding the fee is isn't any kind of compensation - they pretty much had to do that since they didn't deliver on the service as contracted.

 

RCI should have refunded them for the cruise if they really wanted to take care of the couple. That would have been an appropriate response to their terrible screw-up.

 

I think the couple is making a lot of noise about this situation because they're angry and they want to give RCI a black eye. Maybe other brides will read this story and decide to go with another cruise line for their wedding. Bad publicity like this will cost RCI more than if they'd just refunded the cruise costs. I also think RCI should make some changes regarding how their photographers shoot weddings.

 

While I disagree with several on here who have said some form of "they should just get over it" I will agree that they should have done the reshoot if possible. They would have come home with something, even if it was an extremely substandard alternative.

[websiteauthor]

From my experience and observations, most of the photographers on board the ships are hardly what I would consider "professional" photographers.

 

Sounds like they were charging "professional" rates.

[TravelerThom]

I very much agree with this. They were still on the ship. EVERYONE was still there. No one left to go home. You are on a ship.

 

As, as to "fake" wedding photos... I'm certain they happen all the time, as some churchs/ministers will NOT allow pictures to be taken during a ceremony. So, they take them after the actual ceremony. Fake?

 

Well, lets see, she had the choice of none or fake. How many of the pictures were going to be posed anyways....

 

Is this a bad outcome? Certainly. Losing the pictures is horrible. Bad things can happen. And it was bad planning on the photographer's part. But, I think RCCL did the best they could, having technicians look at the card, offering to retake the photos and refunding a big chunk of dollars. But, I'm sorry, saying no to a retake is just not fair to RCCL. They tried to make it right. They offered to do the best they could at that point in time.

Yes, RCI made a mistake but made more reasonable offers to rectify the situation as best they could. Way too much Bridezilla drama for me. I give three years max for anyone living with this much drama. If I had been the groom I would have asked for an annulment and saved three years of drama and the cost of the divorce.

[CI66774]

I feel badly for the couple, I really do. However, this is a cut and dry contract situation. They paid for a service they didn't receive. As such, they should receive the monies for photography back. It appears RCL offered to re-take the photos as well as refund them ALL of the wedding fees. If RCL wanted to be really nice, it could have thrown in a small OBC. I agree the service wasn't performed - and that's a shame - however, it appears RCL offered to make them whole (in a contractual sense).

[bouhunter]

They've paid for the pictures.

 

 

No they didn't, all their money was refunded.

[bouhunter]

Refunding the fee is the easy option, and plain unreal.

They should sue for the trauma.

 

Yes, sue. The modern American solution to everything.....:rolleyes:

 

"Plain unreal"? What exactly is that supposed to mean? :rolleyes:

Edited August 1, 2014 by bouhunter

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

No they didn't, all their money was refunded.

You took that sentence out of context. I was asking what should have been done after it was found out the card was blank.

[xxHadleyxx]

Refunding the fee is the easy option, and plain unreal.

They should sue for the trauma.

 

I really hope this is sarcasm.

I agree that refunding the fee is isn't any kind of compensation - they pretty much had to do that since they didn't deliver on the service as contracted.

 

RCI should have refunded them for the cruise if they really wanted to take care of the couple. That would have been an appropriate response to their terrible screw-up.

.

 

I think that would be a huge over compensation. The missed photos (which the had the option to recreate) were from a couple of hours of a full cruise--in which the couple and their families all had lodging, food, entertainment, etc.

 

If the couple had had a similar issue at a land wedding and learned of it before leaving the next day on a cruise honeymoon, would the entire cruise be ruined? Shouldn't be--and if it were (due to the couple's inability to move past it and enjoy their trip together), would it be reaosnable to expect the photographer to reimburse the couple for their honeymoon? Of course not. I do not see that this is particularly different.

Edited August 1, 2014 by NHDisneylover

[websiteauthor]

 

I think that would be a huge over compensation. The missed photos (which the had the option to recreate) were from a couple of hours of a full cruise--in which the couple and their families all had lodging, food, entertainment, etc.

 

I don't think so. The missed photos (which could NOT be recreated) were from the event which was the PURPOSE of going on the cruise for these people. They went on the cruise for the wedding and all its trimmings - and RCI failed to deliver.

 

I think if RCI had done something like this, the couple might have been less inclined to make it a public story - in the long run, I think they would have lost less if they'd comp'ed the cruise instead of experiencing the bad press that will be online for years to come. It would have been the smart thing to do from a public relations standpoint.

[xxHadleyxx]

I don't think so. The missed photos (which could NOT be recreated) were from the event which was the PURPOSE of going on the cruise for these people. They went on the cruise for the wedding and all its trimmings - and RCI failed to deliver.

 

I think if RCI had done something like this, the couple might have been less inclined to make it a public story - in the long run, I think they would have lost less if they'd comp'ed the cruise instead of experiencing the bad press that will be online for years to come. It would have been the smart thing to do from a public relations standpoint.

 

I disagree. A cruise ship wedding is both a wedding and honeymoon rolled into one location. This was a 7 day cruise--not even a shorter one on Allure (which I still think would be more than just for the wedding--which is, what? at most a 4 hour event?).

 

Nonetheless, let's play it your way. If this happened at a land based wedding, would it be reasonable to expect the photographer to reimburse the wedding couple for the entire cost of the wedding ceremony (church rental, decor, flowers, officiant, etc)? I do not think so and I would be stunned if you could find any example of that happening.

Edited August 1, 2014 by NHDisneylover

[websiteauthor]

INonetheless, let's play it your way. If this happened at a land based wedding, would it be reasonable to expect the photographer to reimburse the wedding couple for the entire cost of the wedding ceremony (church rental, decor, flowers, officiant, etc)? I do not think so and I would be stunned if you could find any example of that happening.

 

If the photographer was providing - and profiting from - the entire cost of the wedding ceremony and the honeymoon and all the guests' expenses, I think they should. You and I both know that the scenario you present isn't comparable. In a typical wedding the photographer doesn't provide the entire wedding and honeymoon. The photographer doesn't profit for seven days of expenses for all the wedding guests.

 

RCI offered a package to entice the couple to spend a bunch of money and do their cruise. They screwed up on the photos, which is a tremendously important part of the event. From a legal standpoint, they had to give the money back for that much. There's no effort for compensation there - it's just refunding for a service not performed.

 

If RCI is going to do these packages, knowing how important wedding days are, they need to make sure things are done right. And if they don't get it right, they should really try to offset the hurt they caused. That's the ethical thing to do and it's smart from a business sense.

 

If they had comp'ed the couple for their cruise, they still would have made the money from all the guests so it wouldn't have been a loss to them. And they wouldn't have this ugly mark on their name . . . I have no doubt, brides will be researching cruise weddings in the coming years and will find that story. Or this thread. And that will influence their decision on what cruise line they'll go with. Taking the ethics out of it, I think it is penny wise and pound foolish not to take care of these people.

[xxHadleyxx]

If the photographer was providing - and profiting from - the entire cost of the wedding ceremony and the honeymoon and all the guests' expenses, I think they should. You and I both know that the scenario you present isn't comparable. In a typical wedding the photographer doesn't provide the entire wedding and honeymoon. The photographer doesn't profit for seven days of expenses for all the wedding guests.

 

RCI offered a package to entice the couple to spend a bunch of money and do their cruise. They screwed up on the photos, which is a tremendously important part of the event. From a legal standpoint, they had to give the money back for that much. There's no effort for compensation there - it's just refunding for a service not performed.

 

If RCI is going to do these packages, knowing how important wedding days are, they need to make sure things are done right. And if they don't get it right, they should really try to offset the hurt they caused. That's the ethical thing to do and it's smart from a business sense.

 

If they had comp'ed the couple for their cruise, they still would have made the money from all the guests so it wouldn't have been a loss to them. And they wouldn't have this ugly mark on their name . . . I have no doubt, brides will be researching cruise weddings in the coming years and will find that story. Or this thread. And that will influence their decision on what cruise line they'll go with. Taking the ethics out of it, I think it is penny wise and pound foolish not to take care of these people.

The photographer is a third party supplier contracted by RCI--really no different, IMO, so you may think you know that but I do not know that and think you are wrong--we can agree to disagree I guess.

 

Besides, there are plenty of land based places that offer a package wedding which includes photography--I still think it would be unreasonable to expect that the entire wedding, reception food, etc be refunded based solely on the photography element failing. I maintain that refunding the money for that element and taking "make up photos" is sufficient compensation and wanting more is just entitlement mentality.

 

(BTW, the bride in the article makes it clear that her family's cruise was ruined too--it seems she feels the guests should all receive a free cruise, or some sort of compensation too as she feels they were injured by this in some way too--very odd given that it is not the norm for guests to receive the wedding photos anyway).

Edited August 1, 2014 by NHDisneylover

[beingatraveler]

**sorry this is a long post**

 

I can't even imagine how upset they would be. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding here at home and searched for ages for the right photographer who has solid reference and portfolio, something that is difficult to do at sea. You're putting a lot of trust in someone you don't know, in this case a photographer who does it as a job day in and day out, and was hired to specifically be a photographer so theoretically they should do a good job. They wouldn't hire a chef that can't cook, right? :rolleyes:

 

Mechanical things DO happen, but at the same time a "professional" (a loose term for shipboard photogs) has some responsibility to ensure their services are being provided. Did they not look at the photos in between shots? If a memory card is corrupt the pictures usually won't show up right away. Hard to know what happened, but it sucks. Royal Caribbean did step up and take care of it though.

 

I agree that the photos can't be replaced, but you still have the memories. You had all your family and friends there to make the day special, which I'm sure it was until the unfortunate events were discovered.

 

Just a fun idea...A friend of mine did all of her wedding photos on a totally separate day anyways, the photographers came in and shot the ceremony and a few at the reception, but the photos of just them, they did on another day! It was a fun way to spend the day, get all dressed up again (and wear your dress again!) and take your time taking pictures. Could be a fun way to spend a day with your new hubby :)

 

Don't get me wrong, I'd be devastated if it happened to me too, but I think that there are ways to remember how awesome that day was with or without photographic proof. You're still married to the love of your life, right? The marriage didn't dissolve with the lost photos.

[websiteauthor]

The photographer is a third party supplier contracted by RCI--really no different, IMO, so you may think you know that but I do not know that and think you are wrong--we can agree to disagree I guess.

 

The photographer is contracted by RCI. The couple's contract is with RCI, not with the subcontractor. And RCI pocketed all that money for everyone's trips, because of the business the couple brought to them for the wedding. I have no idea what you're referring to as what I think I know, but I think you're wrong and we certainly can agree to disagree.

 

Besides, there are plenty of land based places that offer a package wedding which includes photography--I still think it would be unreasonable to expect that the entire wedding, reception food, etc be refunded based solely on the photography element failing. I maintain that refunding the money for that element and taking "make up photos" is sufficient compensation and wanting more is just entitlement mentality.

 

There are not too many land-based places that not only make money for the wedding but for the honeymoon and for all the guests' vacation. It's just not the same thing.

 

Refunding the money is necessary - the service wasn't performed. That isn't compensation.

 

Taking makeup photos was a good suggestion but is a very poor substitute and isn't much of a compensation. Were they going to pay to have the bride's hair and makeup done again? Would they make another cake for a photo prop? What about flowers - will they come up with all new flowers for the photo shoot? Would they get the couple's clothes cleaned and pressed so they look good for the shoot? I'm guessing not.

 

I don't think RCI did much at all to try and make this up to the couple.

 

And I didn't say the couple should demand more. I said RCI should have offered them more. That's not entitlement - that's a company being responsible and using some common sense regarding their image.

 

(BTW, the bride in the article makes it clear that her family's cruise was ruined too--it seems she feels the guests should all receive a free cruise, or some sort of compensation too as she feels they were injured by this in some way too--very odd given that it is not the norm for guests to receive the wedding photos anyway).

 

I don't agree that the family should be comp'ed and I never suggested that. I said the couple should have been comp'ed. But as far as the family is concerned, how many people will they talk to about what happened, how many friends and co-workers will get a very negative story about RCI . . . and how many will choose other cruise lines?

[websiteauthor]

I can't even imagine how upset they would be. I'm in the middle of planning a wedding here at home and searched for ages for the right photographer who has solid reference and portfolio, something that is difficult to do at sea. You're putting a lot of trust in someone you don't know, in this case a photographer who does it as a job day in and day out, and was hired to specifically be a photographer so theoretically they should do a good job.

 

Exactly what I'm talking about. If you're a bride-to-be who is considering a cruise wedding, this situation could very easily affect your decision about going with RCI. RCI would have been wise to really take care of this couple in attempt to avoid, or mitigate, the long term potential for a very damaging story.

[xxHadleyxx]

 

Refunding the money is necessary - the service wasn't performed. That isn't compensation.

 

The photography portion of the service as not performed--but everything else was. 2-4 hours of photography is in no way the equivalent to losing everything on a 7 night cruise. I get that it would be upsetting; heck we spent nearly half our wedding budget on the photographer, but loss of that is not reason to be refunded for the entire week. How about not getting to go to that "dream" port due to a mechanical issue--should every passenger then be refunded for their entire trip? Nope. Of course not.

 

 

Taking makeup photos was a good suggestion but is a very poor substitute and isn't much of a compensation. Were they going to pay to have the bride's hair and makeup done again? Would they make another cake for a photo prop? What about flowers - will they come up with all new flowers for the photo shoot? Would they get the couple's clothes cleaned and pressed so they look good for the shoot? I'm guessing not.

 

 

I do agree that, if the wedding party had their hair and make up done on board, it should have been redone for the reshoot free of charge. I would think flowers, and even a cake would be doable too if they asked. We have no idea what might have been offered in that vein, since the couple refused the idea outright.

Had they said yes to a reshoot, I would support them asking for those elements if not offered--but they refused a reshoot on principle before it could even get to the point of figuring that stuff out--or so it seems anyway.

[websiteauthor]

The photography portion of the service as not performed--but everything else was. 2-4 hours of photography is in no way the equivalent to losing everything on a 7 night cruise. I get that it would be upsetting; heck we spent nearly half our wedding budget on the photographer, but loss of that is not reason to be refunded for the entire week. How about not getting to go to that "dream" port due to a mechanical issue--should every passenger then be refunded for their entire trip? Nope. Of course not.

 

For some people the photographs are an integral part of the event - lose those and it really does screw up the event. And you just can't separate the wedding from the cruise because the cruise only happened because of the wedding. The wedding only took place for a couple hours, but those hours were disproportionately important.

 

You're talking about equivalence and I'm talking about responsiveness and smart business. Let me give you an example what I mean. I went with three family members to Gordon Biersch restaurant, and naturally ordered the garlic fries appetizer (because they're just about the best thing in the world). We waited 20 minutes or so and then the main courses came out. No fries. I asked the waiter who went back and checked. The manager came out and apologized for the screw-up. He then said, "I'm going to pick up your check because I feel bad about what happened." Yep, he picked up an $80 ticket because they screwed up $6 fries. And I did ultimately get the fries.

 

If he'd just taken the fries off the check, I would have been telling people about the lousy service at Gordon Biersch. Instead, I think the restaurant is great. I go back frequently. I tell people about how well they took care of us. They screwed up but they really went out of their way to offset that.

 

That's being smart, doing what you can to turn a negative into a positive.

 

Comping the couple would have done a lot to turn the situation around. They could have gotten creative and treated the couple to special things - tour of the bridge, maybe a special excursion, captains table, etc. etc. - to further soften the blow. Then, even if the couple DID complain publicly the company could talk about all the things they did to compensate the couple for what happened. A refund and phony reshoot is lousy compensation.

 

 

 

I

do agree that, if the wedding party had their hair and make up done on board, it should have been redone for the reshoot free of charge. I would think flowers, and even a cake would be doable too if they asked. We have no idea what might have been offered in that vein, since the couple refused the idea outright.

Had they said yes to a reshoot, I would support them asking for those elements if not offered--but they refused a reshoot on principle before it could even get to the point of figuring that stuff out--or so it seems anyway.

 

I agree with that. The couple should have accepted the reshoot. Of course, that would have made it harder for them to throw a fit after the cruise LOL

[TravelerThom]

...The couple should have accepted the reshoot. Of course, that would have made it harder for them to throw a fit after the cruise LOL

BINGO.

 

RCI comped their entire wedding package (of which the photos were a relatively small portion). Now they are trolling for a free honeymoon also, preferably for not only them but also for their family and friends. Believe me if you search my posts you can find some where I slammed RCI for what I thought was insufficient compensation, but in this case I smell a shakedown.

 

It is more than a little disingenuous that in the original CKNW article the bride whines "I have nothing" under a picture of the couple with her in her wedding gown (admittedly I don't think it is ship photo). Let's see: she is married (cost comped by the cruise line), has a husband, has at least one photo, had a week honeymoon experience, yet "I have nothing". Life should be about an on-going happy marriage, but she seems determined to overlook that.