S’pore Couple’s Wedding Footage Gone Wrong; Company Claims S$1K Package Doesn’t Include “Advanced Editing”

Love is blind—or so a particular wedding videography company in Singapore probably thought. They probably thought love was so blind that the couple they shot wedding footage for would be blind to how bad the footage is.

Singapore Couple’s Wedding Footage From “Singapore’s Best” Gone Wrong

On Friday (12 May), Uma, also known as @pizza.diva on TikTok, posted a TikTok video detailing her wedding nightmare—her wedding footage had gone terribly wrong.

According to Uma, the couple received summary footage from her three videographers from C J Videos Singapore one month after her wedding. When the couple looked through the two-hour-long footage, they got a not-so-pleasant surprise—most of the footage was overexposed.

Ironically, the videography company claims to be “Singapore’s Best Videography and Photography Company”.

Well, “Singapore’s Best” is now being exposed on TikTok for its videographers’ overexposed footage.

Perhaps they should have clarified that they were the best at filming the worst footage.

According to the TikTok, even after the couple informed the company about the hiccup, the company claimed the footage was overexposed because there was “too much light” at the wedding venue.

When asked to edit the footage for its overexposure, the company remarked that the couple’s $1,020 package did not include “advanced editing”.

Maybe they’re on a budget—CapCut’s premium subscription isn’t all that cheap.

The TikTok then showcased some stills taken from the wedding footage and contrasted them to photos taken on smartphones by the wedding guests.

Uma might be the apple of her husband’s eye, but after seeing the wedding footage’s stills, we’re convinced there was a literal apple in the videographers’ eyes.

Perhaps the videographers’ optometrists forgot to include their astigmatism measurements in their glasses or contacts prescription.

I mean, at least the company’s overexposed stills are in line with the theme of “daylight robbery”.

If one didn’t know better, you would have thought the videographers took these videos on a Nokia in the 1990s. However, Uma said these videographers actually turned up with professional gear.

You had one job, C J Videos, one job.

Netizens also left several jokes on Uma’s TikTok, commenting that while Uma and her husband may be a match made in heaven, the videographers at her wedding literally put them in heaven.

Videographers Explained that Overexposed Footage was a Result of Wedding Venue’s Lighting

Uma also posted a follow-up TikTok explaining the whole saga, and you bet that she gave the people what they wanted—juicy screenshots of her conversations with the videographers.

@pizza.diva Replying to @pootpoot_man thanks to C J Videos Singapore’s goodwill we now have 26GB of RAW footage, several of which are overexposed and unusable. #sg #singapore #videography #photography #weddingvideo #weddingvideography #weddingvideographer #wedding #weddingtiktok #sgwedding #sgweddingvideo #weddingfilm #tamilwedding #hinduwedding #indianwedding #sgindian #weddingnightmare ♬ original sound – Uma ✨

Following the Singaporean couple’s discovery of how their videographers quite literally placed them in heaven, they raised the issue to one of the videographers, Rushwin, via WhatsApp. The couple also sent some of the overexposed stills from the wedding footage to Rushwin.

In response, the videographer asked to meet the couple in person to “explain the reason for this”.

Perhaps the videographer can’t explain himself over WhatsApp because he isn’t great with tech and electronics, as evident from the wedding footage.

Join our Telegram channel for more entertaining and informative articles at https://t.me/goodyfeedsg or follow us on Twitter : https://twitter.com/goodyfeed

The next day, the videographer clarified that he needed to meet the couple in person to show the couple on his laptop “the reason behind the brightness/colour difference” in the footage.

Uma’s husband eventually met two of the three videographers on 2 April to understand the situation further.

According to Uma, during the meet-up, the videographers clarified that the overexposed footage resulted from the wedding venue’s lighting.

In response, her husband, a photographer himself, gave the videographers a few suggestions to fix the overexposure issue and how to avoid such an issue in the future.

Regardless, her husband sent a polite message to the videographers after the meet-up, thanking them for their time.

Yet, the videographers merely left Uma’s husband’s text on read. Nonetheless, the couple gave the videographers the benefit of the doubt and assumed they were working on editing the couple’s wedding footage.

Couple Gets “Ghosted” By Videographers for A Month

However, as it turns out, the videographers ” ghosted” the couple for a whole month. Only after Uma’s husband sent the videographers a voice message asking for updates did they finally return from the dead to provide “service recovery”.

Or at least, their idea of “service recovery”: do nothing, explain everything away.

Customer is always right? We bet C J Videos will say “Pui!” to that.

The videographer sent an extended essay of a text which, if you don’t look carefully, almost appears like a breakup text.

And break up with the couple they did.

The videographer shared that the couple’s $1,020 package was for six hours of videography services. This means that “advanced editing or equipment rental beyond what was agreed upon”, including editing the overexposed footage, was not part of the company’s job scope.

The videographer also noted that although the $1,200 package did not call for it, the company had already “included some cinematic footage” in the wedding footage “at no cost”. As such, the company believed they had rendered the best possible services they could given the low cost of their videography services.

Image: TikTok (@pizza.diva)

If this is their idea of “the best service possible”, we wonder what sort of wedding footage they’re sending to other couples. Nevertheless, the videographer tried to tie up loose ends by offering the raw footage of the wedding at no additional cost.

TLDR; Bo zuo gang.

With an attitude like that, you can bet your bottom dollar that the couple wouldn’t play nice anymore. They were now out to even the score, and even the score they did.

The Reverse Sweep: Singaporean Couple Hits Back 

Uma’s husband responded with a lengthy message putting the videographers back in their place.

In the message, Uma’s husband shared that the couple’s wedding photographer had given the couple much higher quality work than C J Videos. However, both services cost approximately the same amount.

By the end of the message, you could tell that Uma’s husband was quite dulan already. He wrapped up the message with a mic-drop statement: “Do note that you will not be receiving any good feedback or comments from me”.

That wasn’t the end of it—Uma also had her two cents to offer.

Uma noted that the company’s Instagram stories filmed with a mobile phone were of much better quality than the wedding footage filmed with professional gear.

She then made a tongue-in-cheek comment, saying that the couple would have, in hindsight, even preferred if the videographers filmed the wedding footage on a mobile phone.

Uma also reiterated that the couple did not expect “over-the-top editing” from the company but rather just the “basic editing” the videographers promised with the $1,020 package.

“We were expecting the bare minimum,” Uma added.

Someone needs to check if the videographers need bandages after reading the couples’ texts because those were intense burns.

Uma also sent a screenshot of her conversation with a friend discussing the subpar quality of the footage, urging the videographers to take responsibility for their work.

And in the most predictable move of the century, the videographers “ghosted” the couple again.

Still mad at your ex for ghosting you? Well, they aren’t the worst yet. These videographers are. Let’s hope they aren’t on dating apps.

Couple Follows Up with Videographers Again; Videographers Leave the Group Chat

If you thought this was the saga’s end, you’re severely underestimating how thick-skinned these videographers are.

Five days after the couple roasted the videographers, Uma followed up with another text asking how many times the couple must chase the videographers before Uma and her husband can get “a proper response”.

The videographers finally responded—we leave it up to you readers to decide how “proper” it is.

Rushwin, one of the videographers, asked for the pair’s email address so that C J Videos could send the wedding’s raw footage to the couple “out of goodwill”.

Subsequently, the videographers left the group chat, leaving the couple hanging high and dry.

Perhaps they were done with heaven. Off to hell they go.

Upon seeing these screenshots and listening to Uma’s explanation, many netizens were left appalled.

Some netizens suggested that the couple report the videography company to the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case), much like what the victims of the UFC Gym and Genius League Enrichment Centre closure did.

Perhaps it’s businesses’ newest trend to “ghost” their customers. We’re guessing UFC Gym, Genius League, and C J Videos are on the leaderboard.

Others suggested that we harness the power of the internet’s masses to blow up the comments on C J Videos’ social media platforms.