Without trying to be insensitive, I'm curious as to what the photographer will do with the photos from the shoot. If you where the husband, would you want them? They would be so bittersweet as the last moments of your wife alive and happy, but also the cause of her death. I personally don't think I could stand to look at them.
camerausername wrote:
This is horrible for everyone involved.
Does anyone have wording in their contracts to possibly protect them from liability in situations like this? What about for transporting clients in your vehicle?
Yes to the former
NEVER to the latter. You'd have to get special insurance for your car if you plan on doing that... your normal insurance would NOT BE VALID while you're using the vehicle to transport clients. I've verified this with two (major) insurers. The clients can drive their car and in some cases I may ride with them... or if they're not local we have cabs in south florida. To make sure that it's NEVER an awkward issue I always make sure to have the child seats installed in my car (previously with the Miata this would never be an issue as it's a 2 seater)... there isn't enough trunk space in my car to fit the child seats... so it would be impossible without discarding them to carry people.
And yeah some peeps are going to tell you about how cool it is to interact with clients while going from location to location. It is. Every time I've RIDDEN in their vehicle, their rented vehicle or their cab it was awesome. That said, see above... re: I'm not going to risk my children's financial future over interacting with clients on a car ride (and I'm not paying some bullshit insurance premium either)
lisy78 wrote:
I'm just going based on what I read. It said there wasn't immediately a strong current. YES rip off a wedding dress. It's made of fabric right?
Right...but to rip tight fitting dress off a struggling person in a situation where you're most likely stumbling and slipping around in a foot or so of river water? I mean, it's easy to say what should have or could have been done, but living in that moment may prove otherwise. While the current was reported as slow moving, it was obviously quick enough to drag her away, and who knows how far away the photographer/assistant was when she fell and how much time they had to get to her. The information provided is far too vague. Anyway, I'm not trying to argue with you here...just providing another perspective.
Either way, going in the water with a wedding dress (any clothing really) in a body of water that has a current is not exactly my definition of a safe activity. I've had clients that wanted to go in the water (atlantic ocean) and they had to sign a special waiver that indicates going in the water is their request and they accept all liability, will pay for my defense and any judgements against me resulting from claims by anyone including thselves and their heirs.
I don't fu#k around with my children's future just because someone doesn't respect the ocean
My sentiments exactly. The same applies to any other potentially dangerous situation...especially heights.
M Vers wrote:
Right...but to rip tight fitting dress off a struggling person in a situation where you're most likely stumbling and slipping around in a foot or so of river water?
And actually, going off the Montreal Gazette article, we're not talking a foot of water; we're talking deep enough to not be able to touch. At which point you have to try and keep yourself afloat AND a person who just took on a bunch of water weight in their dress. Unless you are someone who is in the water frequently and incredibly fit (think lifeguard), that's a losing battle pretty much every time.
I agree with lisy and other's, the lesson to take away from this tragedy is to make sure you consider the risks of each shoot. If it's dangerous, make sure your ass is covered and that you have thought of all the potential things that can go wrong.
othfilm wrote:
And actually, going off the Montreal Gazette article, we're not talking a foot of water; we're talking deep enough to not be able to touch.
I was referring to this portion of the original article:
" 'She was doing the photo shoot in about 6 inches or 1-foot of water when part of her wedding dress got soaked and became extremely heavy,' McInnis told MailOnline."
This is very sad. I can't imagine the horror everyone involved is going through. I am suprised that this hasn't happened more often. There is a place I have been using for about 12 years and at one time was a pretty nice place because very few people took photos there. Now everyone who owns a dslr and uses it and I have seen some pretty stupid things done. I am just waiting for the day someone breaks their necks by falling off a cliff or off the side of a hill into a giant patch of cactus, I am sure after that happens there will be a restriction on photography.
I used to shoot models and there was one girl who wanted a shoot at a beach, she wanted to stand on the rocks and have the spray of water in the backround as the waves hit the rocks. I declined and she did a tfp with some guy on model mayhem. Anyway a wave hit here and knocked her off the rocks and she got some pretty deep gashes.
Whenever I get a request for something that is so obviously dangerous I always tell them my insurance doesn't doesn't cover stupidity.
Jimsokay wrote:
The photographer put or allowed her to be in harms way,major responsibility here.
But how far do you take this? Certainly this could be viewed as gross negligence, but so could walking a couple across a busy street, or having them swim in a pool in their own backyard, or having them jump up in the air for a jumping shot.
Honestly, it's a slipper slope to entirely blame the photographer. This was a location of the bride's choosing, per the articles I've read. She knew the area, not the photog. Should the photog have safety checked the location? Sure. And maybe they did. But accidents can and do happen.
All too tragically the reality of the real world smash into the fantasy one people build around their nuptials.
I can't imagine how that photographer would be able to do another wedding without thinking of this client and what happened.
So sad and make me angry it's all for photos of vanity and most clients don't look at beyond a few months pass.
As to all the talk about ripping off the dress to help the bride. Easier said than done. Wet clothing are extremely heavy and in current they are nasty. If you have tried water survival training, trying to swim or even move in a calm pool with clothing on (even just a track suit) is orders of magnitude harder than if you are in a swim suit. Moving water would be that much worse. I think the simple fact was they got themselves into a death trap and the worse happened. They would have needed a fully equipped rescue crew to have saved her I think.
Luckily for future brides are lot of photographers are now aware of the dangers of a trash the dress in water. Hopefully this save lives.
gotak wrote:
All too tragically the reality of the real world smash into the fantasy one people build around their nuptials.
I can't imagine how that photographer would be able to do another wedding without thinking of this client and what happened.
So sad and make me angry it's all for photos of vanity and most clients don't look at beyond a few months pass.
As to all the talk about ripping off the dress to help the bride. Easier said than done. Wet clothing are extremely heavy and in current they are nasty. If you have tried water survival training, trying to swim or even move in a calm pool with clothing on (even just a track suit) is orders of magnitude harder than if you are in a swim suit. Moving water would be that much worse. I think the simple fact was they got themselves into a death trap and the worse happened. They would have needed a fully equipped rescue crew to have saved her I think.
Luckily for future brides are lot of photographers are now aware of the dangers of a trash the dress in water. Hopefully this save lives....Show more →
Yeah I'm aware of the difficulty of swimming with clothes on. I had posted about it earlier but then deleted it but I'd been in a canoe "accident" ( idiot college friend thought it would be funny to hit my canoe with his) and the experience in fresh water with clothes on is what informed my "rip the clothes off" statement... in my case I'm fairly confident that had I not immediately removed my shoes and clothes the college prank could have turned into something much worse. Given that experience if I were ever in a similar situation with someone else my first instinct would probably be to remove their clothes. Upon further thought I can see how this might have not been totally obvious to the photographer... and even if it had... I suppose it could be kind of weird to make the transition from "I'm taking your photos" to ... I'm ripping off your wedding dress and now you're naked. ... I can just see myself with a bride in a foot of flowing water ... dress getting heavier, she can hardly walk, she asks me to help her out and I'm all "Take the dress off! NOW!" ... yeah that could come across as weird.... especially if there was never an account of a bride who drowned during her Trash The Dress.
I heard about this story quickly after it happened from a friend. So sorry to hear this. Insurance is so important. Safety always comes first when we are creating beautiful photos.
