# Hired a Professional - Now need some help with the results



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

I'm in a family of 6 and it's not very often that everyone in together.   So in September we took the opportunity to have a photograph we had taken 10 years ago duplicated.    I was short on time and to what I thought, I hired a great photographer.  They had a studio on a busy street and also specialized in framing and photography.  I liked what was on their site and liked it when I spoke with them.

I expressed some concerns on how the picture 10 years ago was out of focus and how the main object in the picture was crooked.  

Either way we were not happy with the exposure issues, composition issues (items in background that could have easily been avoided) and the biggest one is focus.   There is not one picture in the batch where focus is spot on.   I politely explained that we were not happy with some of the images and asked that they possibly send me the raw files since it was part of the agreement that the we own the images after the shoot.   Instead they sent me another CD in the mail with some of the images adjusted very slightly.

The biggest problem is the one image we needed to duplicate from 10 years ago is overexposed and out of focus.    I sent him another email explaining that we still are not satisfied and asked him to just send me the raw files since I'm pretty confident the exposure can be fixed, but they are unwilling to give me the raw files.

I have pictures that I can post, but didn't know if it was against policy to post images shot from another photographer.   If not, I'll post some from the batch to see if maybe I'm the one with a bad eye.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 21, 2011)

asking photographer for the RAW is a NO NO IMO unless he/she is your friend.  He could very well use only JPEG.  Just post it somewhere and give us the link.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 21, 2011)

RAW files are not magical.  If the JPEG images are out of focus, the RAW files won't give you in-focus images either.

Ask for a refund/re-shoot.


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

So you had this picture 10 years ago and NOW you want it fixed?

Or the photographer you hired to "duplicate" that picture sucked and you want the files?

Either way... I HIGHLY doubt... unless their an idiot... that your contract says that you "own the pictures" afterwards.  They probably gave you a PRINT RELEASE, that allows you to print them when you want, but that's *not* the same thing as giving you copyright ownership.

They don't have to give you the RAW files.  And they probably won't.


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> RAW files are not magical.  If the JPEG images are out of focus, the RAW files won't give you in-focus images either.
> 
> Ask for a refund/re-shoot.



Also, this.


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

Sorry for not making that clear.   It was recently we hired a photographer to duplicate an image from 10 years ago.  Unfortunately we are all over the country, so a re-shoot may not be possible for years, until we are all together again.

I was hoping with the raw files that I could fix the exposure and sharpen the image.  Also my mother is really complaining about the objects in the background so I'll edit those out as well.

Let me know your thoughts:  Can I  them to show up directly?

[url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/psifactor/PhotoForum%20Post/P9124703.jpg[/url]

[url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/psifactor/PhotoForum%20Post/P9124704.jpg[/url]

[url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/psifactor/PhotoForum%20Post/P9124901.jpg[/url]

[url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/psifactor/PhotoForum%20Post/P9124777.jpg[/url]

[url]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/psifactor/PhotoForum%20Post/P9124746.jpg[/url]


----------



## gsgary (Oct 21, 2011)

They were not professional photographers, did you find them on Facebook ?


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

They had an actual studio................and work on their site was good.  I no longer live in the area and was short on time.  I honestly thought I made a good decision.  Are you stating that after viewing the images?


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

So ask for a refund.  RAW files aren't going to fix those.  If they're out of focus, they're out of focus... no amount of sharpening will help.

What does your contract say about refunding?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 21, 2011)

ya, you got skrewed. sorry yo. How much did you spend on this shoot?

what is the photogs website? i want to see what they advertise on there.

i would ask for a refund only and not a reshoot. dont give them a chance to do this to you again.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 21, 2011)

kdeerhake said:


> .........  Can I http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photography-beginners-forum-photo-gallery/ them to show up directly?........[URL="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/."][U][/U][/URL][URL="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v280/psifactor/PhotoForum%20Post/P9124746.jpg"][/URL][/QUOTE]
> 
> Technically, yes, but it's a TPF violation to post photos here you don't own the copyrights to.
> 
> There's a LOT of crooked horizons, but that's super-duper easy to fix.


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

DiskoJoe said:


> ya, you got skrewed. sorry yo. How much did you spend on this shoot?
> 
> what is the photogs website? i want to see what they advertise on there.



Yeah, me too! haha


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 21, 2011)

> They were not professional photographers, did you find them on Facebook ?





> hey had a studio on a busy street and also specialized in framing and photography. I liked what was on their site and liked it when I spoke with them.



The exposures could be better but they're not horrible.  Shooting it direct sunlight is hard to do.  What it your idea or theirs to shoot/pose on that boat?
It's hard to judge the sharpness with web-sized images.  They don't necessarily look tack sharp, but they don't look that blurry either.


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

Yeah I'm cool with fixing the crooked horizon with a jpeg, but I really wanted the raws to try to help out the exposure issues.

$150 for one hour.

Johnson Photography Custom photography and framing specialists. We offer custom portrait sessions at very reasonable and affordable pricing. Explore photography without Boundaries. Custom picture and art framing in the Sandusky Ohio area is also avai
Now that I'm re-looking at their website I do see some photos that I do not like.   Also not to knock other brands, but I'm used to seeing Nikon or Canons.  He was shooting with an Olympus?


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 21, 2011)

The sun is just at a horrible spot without additional lighting.  He should have put light on the right hand side.  Unfortunately you cant change the orientation of the subject to make it work without additional lighting.

The other photos are Meh....  Bad placement of the sun for no flash photo.


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> > They were not professional photographers, did you find them on Facebook ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



10 years ago when we were still kids my parents had a family picture taken on the boat which they have framed and in the house.   My idea was to have that "updated" for them and they could have them side by side as a comparison.   Focus is pretty bad in some of the group photos, and other ones you can tell the focus was on our pants.   The photographer had his choice of time of the day.  This should have been a red flag from me when he didn't care what time of day, we were also willing to move the boat anywhere which could have taken us out of direct sunlight.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 21, 2011)

I just saw their work...  What you got is pretty much up to the standard to what he/she has on the website. There is a big hint there "Affordable pricing".  Sometimes you get amazing photos for cheaper price but the odd is against you.


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

What is the going rate for a _good_ family photographer, on site, one hour?  

For future reference!


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 21, 2011)

They don't look that sharp to me, although the shots on the boat would be hard to make good the way the light was so harsh.  The one under the trees would look a lot better with a high pass.  I personally don't think RAW files are that big of a deal giving out especially if you're not doing any liquify or effects that people may get mad about which I highly doubt happened in these shots cuz they barely look touched up at all.  Also white is a hard color to shoot, did the photographer tell you that before hand.  I don't even do photography as a money making venture and I tell everyone its best to wear solids.  I think the one by the trees would've looked great in B&W but with white shirts on they might get lost in the background.  Hopefully you will get something worked out with your photos.


----------



## KmH (Oct 21, 2011)

kdeerhake said:


> since it was part of the agreement that the we own the images after the shoot.   .


That would be highly unusual.

I suspect the agreement included a model release and a use licensing clause (essentially rental agreements), but did not include transfer of copyright, which here in the US is what defines image ownership.

The entry bar for photographers that charge for their services has gotten so low that a store front and a web site are no longer a reliable indicator of a true professional (expert) photographer.

That the photographer was not using supplimental light sources should have been a big waving red flag.

It would be interesting to know how much they charged you.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 21, 2011)

kdeerhake said:


> Yeah I'm cool with fixing the crooked horizon with a jpeg, but I really wanted the raws to try to help out the exposure issues.
> 
> $150 for one hour.
> 
> ...



The site is not great but the photos you got were not even close to that. Did Bill take these photos? That is the only person I see getting any type of credit on the site. The fact that he was using olympus is not really the problem. You can still get decent quality from one of their motors. But you got skrewed. Mid day or not these were way below the par for what they advertise. This is especially low quality for someone that charges $150 an hour. Next time find a hipster kid off the street.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 21, 2011)

kdeerhake said:


> What is the going rate for a _good_ family photographer, on site, one hour?
> 
> For future reference!



$150 an hour is not unusual.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 21, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> I just saw their work...  What you got is pretty much up to the standard to what he/she has on the website. There is a big hint there "Affordable pricing".  Sometimes you get amazing photos for cheaper price but the odd is against you.



I wouldnt call $150 an hour affordable. Reasonable if they produce good work but $50 an hour is affordable.


----------



## dots (Oct 21, 2011)

$150-200 an hour, as a guesstimate. Plus possible, additional expenses; dependent on what the getting "on-site" involves.


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

There was no written contract ( another red flag!).    I guess it's really my fault, I could have asked on here for a reference or spent more time looking.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 21, 2011)

kdeerhake said:


> There was no written contract ( another red flag!).    I guess it's really my fault, I could have asked on here for a reference or spent more time looking.



Remember the time old saying, " If you want something done right, do it yourself."

After seeing what gear you have listed in your signature I am wondering why you didnt just set up your own gear on a tripod and shoot this yourself using a trigger. Couldnt have been any worse and you wouldnt have been out anything. Plus you have L glass. You that thing son!


----------



## KmH (Oct 21, 2011)

The slideshow on that web site is rife with photographs that display the same poor use of light seen in yours. Some have been rescued to an extent by the use of image editing software.

I would say you did not do enough due diligence before choosing a photographer. Caveate Emptor (Buyer Beware)

By the way. By posting that link to their web site, that studio has now gotten backlinks directly to your thread here on TPF.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 21, 2011)

kdeerhake said:


> There was no written contract ( another red flag!).    I guess it's really my fault, I could have asked on here for a reference or spent more time looking.



This a disagree with, contracts are red flags in my opinion.  For a maid service, lawn mowing, any service it is a one sided contract, they are making it for them not for the customer.  I talked to one wedding photographer locally to me who said in his contract it states that can't hire another photographer, to me that's ridiculous.  If I buy a piece of art from someone he won't make me sign something saying I can't hang up another piece of art in my house.  At the end of the day contract or no contract when they say the RAW images got lost and we only have the JPEG you're screwed.  If you want a contract write it yourself, although I'd just try to find someone honest that a contract isn't needed.  To me a photographer is a art service, if I'm paying and I want them to shoot on my card in Raw images and give me the card when they're done well they shouldn't have a problem with that, although the images will look like crap without processing.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 21, 2011)

KmH said:


> The slideshow on that web site is rife with photographs that display the same poor use of light seen in yours. Some have been rescued to an extent by the use of image editing software.
> 
> I would say you did not do enough due diligence before choosing a photographer. Caveate Emptor (Buyer Beware)
> 
> By the way. By posting that link to their web site, that studio has now gotten backlinks directly to your thread here on TPF.



Yeah but they don't look technologically advanced enough to find the backlinks.  For those of you interested yahoo.com  (in the search area) site:http://(thenyoursite)  is the quickest way I know of finding out who is back linked to my sites.


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> I talked to one wedding photographer locally to me who said in his contract it states that can't hire another photographer, to me that's ridiculous.



Go shoot a wedding with another photographer constantly in your way, trying to get the same shots you are, distracting your subjects away from your camera and then talk about how ridiculous that clause is.  EVERY decent and professional wedding photographer I know has that clause in their contracts and for good reason.  The bride and groom can't hire another photographer while the current photographer is still employed by them.  After the wedding... before the wedding... if you fire the photographer before the wedding... fine.  But not during.

I fail to see how you think that's unreasonable... but that's not what this thread is about, so I'll end my hijacking here.

I apologize to the OP for this quick derailment.


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The slideshow on that web site is rife with photographs that display the same poor use of light seen in yours. Some have been rescued to an extent by the use of image editing software.
> ...



If they use Google analytics... it's as easy as logging into your account...


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 21, 2011)

e.rose said:


> If they use Google analytics... it's as easy as logging into your account...



I only know how to get site references in google analytics, I think that's what you're talking about.  It would've give the actual page only referral from thephotoforum.com, but it's pretty powerful so it may have something similar to google webmaster tools also.

About the wedding thing I'll make it short.  2 Photographers for wedding is good thing, most won't disagree it even is suggested in most google searches.  So why get 2 that work together seems to heighten the chances that if bad photos are taken it would be doubled.  It's 1 important day of your life why put all your eggs in one basket?  Again, contracts bad!!!!  Who uses and makes contracts? Lawyers!  Enough said.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 21, 2011)

e.rose said:


> shootermcgavin said:
> 
> 
> > I talked to one wedding photographer locally to me who said in his contract it states that can't hire another photographer, to me that's ridiculous.
> ...



This is completely reasonable. If the people want more then one photographer then they should state this to the main photog and have them hire additional help. Two shooters at a wedding is very handy but someone has to be running the show. You cant have two competing photogs. Thats stupid. But most major services will offer multiple shooters from the agency if that is what you would like.


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

DiskoJoe said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > shootermcgavin said:
> ...



I'm not sure to which opinion you're stating is reasonable... but I agree with you.  There's nothing wrong with more than one photographer... as long as they come from the same company and there is a main photographer and second shooters... because at that point the main photographer can tell the second shooters what he/she needs done and no one is getting in anyone's way, nor are they competing.  They're working together.  It's hiring two * separate* competing photographers I disagree with.

And to address the "it's only 1 day, why not cover your bases" statement...

I got married.

I had to hire a photographer.

I did my research, I hired one I loved, and because I hired a professional, one with enough of a portfolio to tell me she'd do a wonderful job, I got exactly what I paid for and hired her to do.  No regrets.

People need to spend more time than just a few minutes and checking a couple websites if their "once in a lifetime day" is so important to them.

I don't know why you'd spend a couple grand on two competing photographers, when you can spend that entire amount on one and get a fabulous, reliable photographer who has second shooters at their disposal.


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

DiskoJoe said:


> kdeerhake said:
> 
> 
> > There was no written contract ( another red flag!).    I guess it's really my fault, I could have asked on here for a reference or spent more time looking.
> ...



I wanted a stress free environment where I didn't have to worry about it.  Also I'm too much of an amateur to give this a try, but again I'm confident my results couldn't have been any worse than what we received.  



KmH said:


> By the way. By posting that link to their web site, that studio has now gotten backlinks directly to your thread here on TPF.


   I doubt they even know what that is!  If so, I was considering sending them the link.



shootermcgavin said:


> They don't look that sharp to me, although the shots on the boat would be hard to make good the way the light was so harsh.  The one under the trees would look a lot better with a high pass.  I personally don't think RAW files are that big of a deal giving out especially if you're not doing any liquify or effects that people may get mad about which I highly doubt happened in these shots cuz they barely look touched up at all.  Also white is a hard color to shoot, did the photographer tell you that before hand.  I don't even do photography as a money making venture and I tell everyone its best to wear solids.  I think the one by the trees would've looked great in B&W but with white shirts on they might get lost in the background.  Hopefully you will get something worked out with your photos.



*Another Red Flag*  I know white is hard to shoot and I asked the photographer, Bill if he was okay with everyone wearing white.   He replied to go ahead and wear whatever we wanted and white was not a problem for him.  Wow, I'm sounding dumber and dumber as we go!  lol


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

DiskoJoe said:


> kdeerhake said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah I'm cool with fixing the crooked horizon with a jpeg, but I really wanted the raws to try to help out the exposure issues.
> ...



I thought the $150 was about the going rate for someone who knew what they were doing, and I just made a bad selection.   Yes it was Bill the owner who I spoke with and was the shooter.  Very nice guy, just wasn't able to perform on that day for whatever reason


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 21, 2011)

150 is dirt cheap if you get the files.


----------



## CCericola (Oct 21, 2011)

Hi kdeerhake,

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. I would definitely ask for a refund or discount if you are not happy with the results. If they are out of focus then having the raw file will not matter. I truly hope you and your family have another opportunity to take another photo. If you are looking for someone in the Clearwater area I recommend Marley Lindley (www.beautifulweddingsphotography.com) She is not only a PPA member, but she is CPP so she went through the trouble to become certified. She has a lot of family portrait examples near the water and even wearing all white.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 21, 2011)

e.rose said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> > e.rose said:
> ...



Because it's a day you can not recapture, and regardless if it's the best photographer in the world people make mistakes.  They might have a drinking or drug problem, or the mob might be after them or a bunch of more probable everyday events.  I would prefer 2 photographers from 2 totally separate companies...  I don't see the point of getting two from the same company because essentially you're getting 1 that gets more photos to edit in the end shot by 2 people.  I'd like two different eyes and ways of doing things and the ability to choose.  A normal size wedding is 500 people, so I've  been told, there's plenty of people to shoot so you don't step on each others toes.  If you're getting paid why the heck would you care, it sounds childish to me to insist only you or the company you are with can shoot the photos.  Plus the majority of companies are one man bands, that's the downside of photography it's hard to duplicate the art you created so you're pretty much stuck with the money you can make unless quality isn't important than you can hire some kid to take pictures and hope he comes back with something good.  I don't do weddings and I would never make a contract for any kind of service, I'm just saying how as a consumer I see it and it doesn't make a lot of sense.  I may change my mind someday, I have slightly more respect for a photographer wanting to keep his RAW files, but only if he edited them drastically.  I would love for someone to tell me hey I want to pay you $150 to shoot photos of us for an hour and give us all the raw data and that is it, editing takes more time than the shoot anyway and less files I'd have to worry about saving just in case.


----------



## CCericola (Oct 21, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > DiskoJoe said:
> ...




Wow, The cloud of crystal meth residue in the midwest must be getting thicker.


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > DiskoJoe said:
> ...



 ooohhOOOHKAY! 



CCericola said:


> Wow, The cloud of crystal meth residue in the midwest must be getting thicker.



Yeah... no kidding.  

Also, funny you should mention this as I'm sitting here watching Breaking Bad...


----------



## joealcantar (Oct 21, 2011)

Holidays are coming up again, do the shot again.
-
Shoot well, Joe


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Oct 21, 2011)

I :heart: Breaking Bad. But Weeds was better.


----------



## e.rose (Oct 21, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> I :heart: Breaking Bad. But Weeds was better.



What?!  No way...

I mean don't get me wrong... I LOVED Weeds, but I lost touch with it because I didn't have HBO...

But Breaking Bad is SO much more... INTENSE!

Everything is phenomenal about this show... the acting is fantastic, the writing is fantastic and I love the cinematography.

Weeds was good but... I dunno... it's different than this.

It was good in it's own way.  

Although, I'd really like to see the rest of what I missed of that show.  It was a damn good show.


----------



## kdeerhake (Oct 21, 2011)

ccerolia,  thank you for the link, I'll look it up for my clearwater needs.   This was up in ohio (very small town) which also reduced my choices in photographers. 

Joealcantar,  that's a nice thought, we are just spread out and it being in Ohio makes holiday shoots outdoors not really a good option.  It may be another few years before we can all be together again.





FYI  Dexter>breaking bad!


----------



## sandtown (Nov 1, 2011)

From Bill Johnson owner/photog at Johnson  Photography:
Oh my, where to start. Well first, we  are smart enough to find this blog. Second, posting our images is  violation of copyrights. Third posting about contrast, exposure, and  sharpness and then linking to 179 kb web image is just plain  slanderous.

OK next item:The cost for our studio was  for one hour and 30 images on CD-ROM with print release. We spent over 3 hours on this shoot, 1/2 hour early to  make sure we are on time, 1/2 drive time, hour at first location, 15 min  driving to second location, 20-30 min at second location and then 30  min drive back. Let's clear up false statement number one. We then spent  approx 2 more hours in post processing the images. Then add two hours  reworking images for the customer. Over 7 hours, not including emailing  and phone calls to attempt to have a satisfied customer. We also stated  that the customer would receive 30 images, and we gave them over 70. The  first email received from the customer stated she generally loved them,  but 19 she had issues with. That means over 50 she loved......said we  would deliver 30 , she stated she loved over 50.......not sure where the  issue is ?????? Three times the amount of time shooting, almost twice  the images (that was approved by customer.) Oh yes we are definitely in  this for the money.

As far as the "not a  professional" comment, thank you for your opinion, and with ZERO images  in your gallery I can tell you are the next Ansel Adams in the making.  My images are there to see, on my website and in my studio. This is not a  part time job, nor a soccer mom with camera. I shoot 2 sessions a day  to make sure every single one is original and the best it can be. We  been in business for 4 years and counting, not bad for not supposing to  be a professional. With six studios in our town Johnson photography is  the only one that is open right now. As a side note in 4 years this is  the first customer not satisfied with our work. Not as funny as the drug  user and drunk comment, but very entertaining none the less. 
I am not hiding my work:  Johnson Photography Custom photography and framing specialists. We offer custom portrait sessions at very reasonable and affordable pricing. Explore photography without Boundaries. Custom picture and art framing in the Sandusky Ohio area is also avai
facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/pages/Johnson-Photography/133483033350670
If  you are in the area of Cedar Point stop by at :
157 Columbus  Ave <br>Sandusky, OH 44870

The images that are  posted are small web sized images, 179 kb. The original images are 3.5  to 5.5 MB, best case scenario, and the data shown in the web image is  4.994% Over 95% of color, contrast, clarity is not there due to small  file size. On the 5.5 MB images the web size files show 3.178% of the  data, yup 96.5% of data was removed. Now let's post these small images  and ask opinions on their color, sharpness, exposure, or any other merit  of the photo.

Next item: slanting horizon lines.  Would anyone please point to the rule set in stone that the horizon  should be and will be flat in every portrait. It's called an art for a  reason, if the customer wanted a mall chain photo she should have gone  to the mall. No other portraits we have taken looks like hers, and how  many more photos of a family in khaki and white shirts, sitting in the  grass do we really need. We stand out, we are different, it is art. This  is the reason for changing the horizon line, it's the only item given  to me be different. Narrow mindedness and the fear of pushing bounds is  the death of art. If the horizon line MUST be level, turn the image you  don't need the raw files.

Lighting: We use natural  light for outdoor portraits, always have always will. If a portrait is  requested on a boat in summer, it's going to be sunny. (shocking) If we  are to use a flash on the right in the images on the boat it looks  unnatural as the natural light is every where but on there faces, no  thanks. As far as moving the boat, this thread is the first that has  been mentioned. Bad placement of sun, I'm good but I can't move the sun  (really cool if I could) the location was chosen by customer, and time  was agreed on by customer.The sun is where it is, the boat was where it  was. The bow pointed north, no matter what time of day the sun would be  an issue. I was asked to recapture a portrait exactly, that is what was  done, to the customers request.

The images in  question were taken to a PPA certified master photographer for his  opinion and printed. As the histograms show the images are correctly  exposed. The natural lighting was better than could be expected as fill  light and recover sliders push and pull areas of the image not allowed  by digital photography limitations. And sharpness is right on. I'll  follow the opinion of a 30 year master photographer face to face than a  rant from an anonymous post.

I am sorry  that a customer of ours was not satisfied, I work very hard to insure  that every one is. Rude and obnoxious emails that have a different  complaint each time makes it impossible to satisfy the customer. Posting  small files and requesting a critique is (illegal) and very underhanded  thing to do.

I stand by my work, and  always will. I don't always hit a home run, it's an art, and subject to  likes and dislikes. They are good portraits and incredible prints. 20x30  print was amazing, nice color and razor sharp. 

Thank you for allowing me to add my two  cents.
Bill Johnson
Johnson Photography  LLC

Sorry I don't have any response to the Breaking  Bad comments, never watched the show


----------



## kdeerhake (Nov 1, 2011)

1.  It's nice how quickly you can respond to this after I sent you the link a few hours ago, but you cannot respond to me in weeks.....
2.  I was given permission by Bill to do whatever we chose with the images and in his words "you can do whatever you want with the images, even post them on your facebook."  FYI you are getting full credit for the images.
3. The one image that you were hired for is one of the worst ones 

I'll post my emails later or just delete the thread topic.


----------



## Aayria (Nov 1, 2011)




----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Nov 1, 2011)

sandtown said:


> From Bill Johnson owner/photog at Johnson  Photography:
> Oh my, where to start. Well first, we  are smart enough to find this blog. Second, posting our images is  violation of copyrights. Third posting about contrast, exposure, and  sharpness and then linking to 179 kb web image is just plain  slanderous.
> 
> OK next item:The cost for our studio was  for one hour and 30 images on CD-ROM with print release. We spent over 3 hours on this shoot, 1/2 hour early to  make sure we are on time, 1/2 drive time, hour at first location, 15 min  driving to second location, 20-30 min at second location and then 30  min drive back. Let's clear up false statement number one. We then spent  approx 2 more hours in post processing the images. Then add two hours  reworking images for the customer. Over 7 hours, not including emailing  and phone calls to attempt to have a satisfied customer. We also stated  that the customer would receive 30 images, and we gave them over 70. The  first email received from the customer stated she generally loved them,  but 19 she had issues with. That means over 50 she loved......said we  would deliver 30 , she stated she loved over 50.......not sure where the  issue is ?????? Three times the amount of time shooting, almost twice  the images (that was approved by customer.) Oh yes we are definitely in  this for the money.
> ...




Rant threads are awesome.

I love it when we get the other side of the story!

Thanks Bill!


----------



## shootermcgavin (Nov 1, 2011)

ha ha I thought this thread was dead, this is great...  I need to find this law where it is illegal to post small files and ask for critique, big files are ok I would assume.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 1, 2011)

sandtown said:


> From Bill Johnson owner/photog at Johnson  Photography:
> Oh my, where to start. Well first, we  are smart enough to find this blog. Second, posting our images is  violation of copyrights. Third posting about contrast, exposure, and  sharpness and then linking to 179 kb web image is just plain  slanderous.
> 
> OK next item:The cost for our studio was  for one hour and 30 images on CD-ROM with print release. We spent over 3 hours on this shoot, 1/2 hour early to  make sure we are on time, 1/2 drive time, hour at first location, 15 min  driving to second location, 20-30 min at second location and then 30  min drive back. Let's clear up false statement number one. We then spent  approx 2 more hours in post processing the images. Then add two hours  reworking images for the customer. Over 7 hours, not including emailing  and phone calls to attempt to have a satisfied customer. We also stated  that the customer would receive 30 images, and we gave them over 70. The  first email received from the customer stated she generally loved them,  but 19 she had issues with. That means over 50 she loved......said we  would deliver 30 , she stated she loved over 50.......not sure where the  issue is ?????? Three times the amount of time shooting, almost twice  the images (that was approved by customer.) Oh yes we are definitely in  this for the money.
> ...




What sort of images would you like to see ? why would i want to put images in a gallery on here, also had a look at your uninspiring wedding shots


----------



## e.rose (Nov 1, 2011)

sandtown said:


> Sorry I don't have any response to the Breaking  Bad comments, never watched the show



You should totally check it out... it's ADDICTING!


----------



## CCericola (Nov 1, 2011)

e.rose said:


> sandtown said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry I don't have any response to the Breaking  Bad comments, never watched the show
> ...



HEHE I see what you did there.


----------



## KmH (Nov 1, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> ha ha I thought this thread was dead, this is great...  I need to find this law where it is illegal to post small files and ask for critique, big files are ok I would assume.


 USC Title 17 - U.S. Copyright Office


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 28, 2011)

Holy crap...  How did I miss the response by the photographer???


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 28, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Holy crap...  How did I miss the response by the photographer???



I did too!!! Now I have to read it all over again!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 28, 2011)

Sorry Bill.. (you probably wont check this thread).  I am a fan of natural light.  On the shots not on the boat, you had the ability to put the sun wherever you want.  If this was my gig I probably would have had really good photos else where.  The chance the client wont be happy will be reduced significantly even if I didnt do a good job on the boat shot.  I probably would tried my best to shoot the boat shot when the sun has totally disappear from the horizon so you don't have direct sunlight.  Just orange glow in the sky.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 28, 2011)

I'd say the shoot was on par with everything else on his website. Granted it's not fantabulous, but it's exactly as expected from what shows in their work. His work isn't fantastic by any means, but it's consistently about the same. With the exception of the major white balance issues he hasn't figured out how to fix in the however many years he claims to be in business.
Bill, my friend, you had a fail on lighting. But you handled it amazingly well overall. You failed to control the environment in which you were shooting properly and because of it you have light issues. Natural light photographers who are GOOD at what they do control every aspect of the light they are working in and the moment a boat in the full light of day came up they'd have said not only "NO," but "OH HELL NO." I am a strobist with a ton of lights in my arsenal and I might have even said no because of the logistics and placement problems with the fill light I'd need. At the very least I'd have shot for HDR. 
The lighting on the images you produced is much better than I would have expected considering the conditions you were working in. I am guessing there is no small amount of editing to get to that point. Nicely done. HOWEVER... The client hired you for your expertise. You should have given that expertise and said that a boat in the full light of day is not going to work for you and why. 
Now why would you do that? Because it is your reputation on the line. The potential for disaster was huge and you knew it. If I were hired to shoot something I did not have the ability to shoot I'd have to say "No, thank you..." or "I can do this and that and... but the situation you are talking about is a poor one for THIS reason..." Lesson learned. This may well have been a shoot I turned down.

OP-If your emails  were rude and didn't get you any response you might ask yourself why? A professionally worded, tactful, respectful approach might have served better. HOWEVER that's also no excuse for blowing off the irate client. Both of you get a point off for that one. 

As for "small town..." You and I both know that Sandusky isn't small by any standards and it's a burb of Cleveland, so your defense there doesn't hold water either. Google Cleveland OH photographers and see what you get. Hell, google Sandusky OH photographers and see what you get. You can find some amazing ones on craigslist there... 

ANNNND in closing... For $150 what do you expect? Ansel Adams? Annie Lebovitz? That was damn cheap for what you got! You really do get what you pay for (which is also why the other clients are happy... they are paying cheap as hell for a decent photographer.) Bill, you need to really look at your pricing model there!


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 28, 2011)

sandtown said:


> From Bill Johnson owner/photog at Johnson  Photography:
> Oh my, where to start. Well first, we  are smart enough to find this blog. Second, posting our images is  violation of copyrights. Third posting about contrast, exposure, and  sharpness and then linking to 179 kb web image is just plain  slanderous.
> 
> OK next item:The cost for our studio was  for one hour and 30 images on CD-ROM with print release. We spent over 3 hours on this shoot, 1/2 hour early to  make sure we are on time, 1/2 drive time, hour at first location, 15 min  driving to second location, 20-30 min at second location and then 30  min drive back. Let's clear up false statement number one. We then spent  approx 2 more hours in post processing the images. Then add two hours  reworking images for the customer. Over 7 hours, not including emailing  and phone calls to attempt to have a satisfied customer. We also stated  that the customer would receive 30 images, and we gave them over 70. The  first email received from the customer stated she generally loved them,  but 19 she had issues with. That means over 50 she loved......said we  would deliver 30 , she stated she loved over 50.......not sure where the  issue is ?????? Three times the amount of time shooting, almost twice  the images (that was approved by customer.) Oh yes we are definitely in  this for the money.
> ...



Rant all you want. Your work still sucks.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 28, 2011)

AFter reading the rant from Bill closer I have one question - Whats up with the Ansel Adams reference? A friend of my parents said that to me once and about kicked his ass for being such a ****ing dick.


----------



## thinkricky (Dec 28, 2011)

No need to say anything. It's already been said.

I just wanted to say something.


----------



## o hey tyler (Dec 28, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> kdeerhake said:
> 
> 
> > There was no written contract ( another red flag!).    I guess it's really my fault, I could have asked on here for a reference or spent more time looking.
> ...



This post made me el oh el. 

I hope you never shoot a wedding.


----------



## DCMoney (Dec 28, 2011)

Im out of popcorn anyone else got some I can have?

This thread has it all!!!


----------



## ghache (Dec 28, 2011)

Client is not happy because of out of focus overexposed images, noob error IMO.

On the other side, client reviewed the images on the photographer website and got pretty much what was advertised.

Like johnson said, he worked 7 hours for 150$ thats ****in cheap. you got cheap.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 28, 2011)

Seriously.. I rather be called a craigslist photographer.  If I have been shooting and in business for long time, I hope my work is way better than that.


----------



## Vtec44 (Dec 28, 2011)

Another natural light shooter!  Yay!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 28, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> Another natural light shooter!  Yay!


Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 28, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Another natural light shooter!  Yay!
> ...



As long as they know what the heck they are doing with natural light. That sh!t is HARD!!!


----------



## ghache (Dec 28, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



that **** is not that hard, you just have to choose your backgrounds and location carefully and shoot at a time where the sun is not high up. its not rocket science. 

If a client ask for a shoot in a middle of a field at 1PM and other time and location is not an option, I make sure to let the client know that this is not the best shooting situation and explain them why. especially for Familly portraits with groups.


----------



## Vtec44 (Dec 28, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > Another natural light shooter!  Yay!
> ...



Yep!  There's nothing wrong with that



MLeeK said:


> As long as they know what the heck they are doing with natural light. That sh!t is HARD!!!



 I suck at natural light so I always bring my flashes/reflectors especially when there's no open shades around during mid afternoon shoot.  lol


----------



## Dominantly (Dec 28, 2011)

BAH, terrible

There is room to fix it, but it doesnt fix the fact it wasn't thought of before/during the shoot.


----------



## ababysean (Dec 28, 2011)

what did you get for 150 dollars.

If you got a CD of images, you got a cheap photographer....

The photos suck, but if you look at their website and FACEBOOK page, the photos are pretty much right on par with what is there....

Don't ask for a refund, next time do research before you spend money.  

I bet you were shopping based on price.  Did you call anyone else?  I bet you did and they were all higher and you just went with the cheapest one, right?


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 28, 2011)

Vtec44 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



Me too! Or shoot for HDR!


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 28, 2011)

ghache said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > Schwettylens said:
> ...


It's definitely hard to turn down a shoot in the middle of a field at 1pm when I can just use my flashes and take the shoot and produce excellent results. I could not do that shoot at 1pm without my flashes and produce anything I'd charge anyone a dime for. It's hard.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 28, 2011)

I rather do 1PM shoot with no flash than cloudy no sun day.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 28, 2011)

ghache said:


> Client is not happy because of out of focus overexposed images, noob error IMO.
> 
> On the other side, client reviewed the images on the photographer website and got pretty much what was advertised.
> 
> Like johnson said, he worked 7 hours for 150$ thats ****in cheap. you got cheap.



I took 7 hours to turn out this crap. Man, i could have taken pictures this bad in 20 mins (that's including editing time) and had them on their way.


----------



## ababysean (Dec 28, 2011)

you are nuts. I would choose a cloudy day over a sunny in a heart beat!  But then again I'm chasing kids so I need to have the light work with me, and using OCF outside with a toddler, yea FAIL!


----------



## ghache (Dec 28, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> ghache said:
> 
> 
> > MLeeK said:
> ...



Your right, this is why i always have my flash in the trunk


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 28, 2011)

How about 1PM sunny day in alaska during the winter time? LOL..  Always low sun when it is out.


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 28, 2011)

Now that is a setting! The colors in the daytime sky in AK in the winter can be amazing and the shoot could be a whole lot of fun! You may well need flash because of those colors in the sky-or you are likely to have some very magenta subjects due to that color that happens when the sun is cutting thru the atmosphere. Or very blue depending on the day.
I lived in Fairbanks, AK for 3 years.


----------



## katerolla (Dec 28, 2011)

sandtown said:


> Lighting: We use natural light for outdoor portraits, always have always will. If a portrait is requested on a boat in summer, it's going to be sunny. (shocking) If we are to use a flash on the right in the images on the boat it looks unnatural as the natural light is every where but on there faces, no thanks. As far as moving the boat, this thread is the first that has been mentioned. Bad placement of sun, I'm good but I can't move the sun (really cool if I could) the location was chosen by customer, and time was agreed on by customer.The sun is where it is, the boat was where it was. The bow pointed north, no matter what time of day the sun would be an issue. I was asked to recapture a portrait exactly, that is what was done, to the customers request.



This paragraph worries me a little, first of all any one who got a DSLR for Christmas could have taken those photos on auto setting, as a professions your photos must stand out for snapshots (in this case they do not)

Second,(_ Lighting: We use natural light for outdoor portraits, always have always will_ ) a flash is your sun, learn to use it

Thirdly (_the location was chosen by customer, and time was agreed on by customer.The sun is where it is) _Its your job as a professional photographer to educate the customer of the harsh sun and give alternatives times


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 28, 2011)

kdeerhake said:


> Sorry for not making that clear.   It was recently we hired a photographer to duplicate an image from 10 years ago.  Unfortunately we are all over the country, so a re-shoot may not be possible for years, until we are all together again.
> 
> I was hoping with the raw files that I could fix the exposure and sharpen the image.  Also my mother is really complaining about the objects in the background so I'll edit those out as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## MLeeK (Dec 29, 2011)

jjty said:


> oh when i saw his website Johnson Photography Custom photography and framing specialists. We offer custom portrait sessions at very reasonable and affordable pricing. Explore photography without Boundaries. Custom picture and art framing in the Sandusky Ohio area is also avai he has the same concept of this one,  D a v i d B e c k s t e a d . c o m - site by Photoidentities one of the top wedding photographer.
> 
> dont forget to visit my site guys and drop some comments.. thanks!!
> Cebu City wedding photographer, Destination wedding photographer, Cebu wedding photographer - James Jayson Ty - Documentary wedding photography



OK. You have pimped yourself out for SEO here sufficiently. How about you either decide you are a member and get over this posting your website everywhere or find another forum to post it all over?


----------



## naptime (Dec 29, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> jjty said:
> 
> 
> > oh when i saw his website Johnson Photography Custom photography and framing specialists. We offer custom portrait sessions at very reasonable and affordable pricing. Explore photography without Boundaries. Custom picture and art framing in the Sandusky Ohio area is also avai he has the same concept of this one,  D a v i d B e c k s t e a d . c o m - site by Photoidentities one of the top wedding photographer.
> ...



seriously. i've never seen so many old threads revived, just so you could post a link to your website in your comment.

come on man....


----------



## naptime (Dec 29, 2011)

jjty said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> > jjty said:
> ...



search engine optimization.

posting a link to your website in every post that you make, so that google sees that there are lots of links to you, thereby making your site relavant. but in the process annoying the people on the board with your constant self promotion.

i own a business too. but you dont see me linking back to it with every post i make. 

come to think of it, it's not even in my signature and i've only mentioned it once.

it's plain rude when thats your sole purpose for posting or reviving threads. and on most forums, it will get you booted.


----------

