# Problem with wedding photographer



## CanadianKaren (Sep 22, 2013)

Hi all! I'm hoping for some advice from the pros out there, as to what our next step should be. (or to tell me, if we are completely off base in being upset with our pics).

Here's the story:
We hired a local photographer to photograph our wedding. She was on par price wise with all the photographers we contacted. However, she would bring a second shooter. We thought this was a great plus, and we liked the work on her website. So we hired her. Our mistake there was that we did not look at the second shooter's work. We assumed that the second shooter would give our photographer all the pictures he took, and that she would then do the editing.

The day of the wedding, I asked her if our faces were shadowed, and was told "No, don't worry about it!" Also, the second shooter was taking pics of our rings, and my mother-in-law suggested that I wouldn't want them done on the pink couch (both hubbie & I weren't in the room). The second shooter kinda houghed his breath and said that he was the "artist". I was told when the photographers left that night that it would be 6 weeks before the pics would be ready. After the wedding, we didn't hear anything (not even any sneak peaks emailed to us), so I emailed after 6 weeks and asked when the pics would be ready. I was told that our photographer had to get together with the second shooter, and get his edited pics, and then she would bring them to us the following Friday.

My hubbie and I were completely excited to get the pics, and stuck the DVD's of jpgs into our DVD player to look at them on our big TV. Right away, we noticed that the color was off (grass that had been dull green was bright tropical green). So, we thought maybe it was the color of our TV, so we looked at them on my laptop. But still the color was off (just with the second shooter's pics). All outside pictures were overexposed. (You can't tell the difference between my skin/dress/flowers). Also, all outside pictures, our necks/faces are shadowed. One picture that the photographer edited the background to be B&W, and we were color, the edges of the color are very sharp & jaged, it looks like we were cut and pasted from another picture onto the B&W background. All pictures inside (so the ceremony & recepetion pics) should have had some noise reduction done. One of the pics that the second shooter edited to be a Thank-You card, had both my hubbie & our last name spelled incorrectly. Some of our must take poses that I know they took, weren't included in the edited pics.

Anyway, we are trying to work something out with the photographer. We've asked her to re-edit the obvious problem ones (not all, just some of the obvious ones, that we want to hang on our walls). She first offered us the RAW files so we could edit them ourselves (which I was not expecting, but thought... hey Bonus!), but then talked to the second shooter and said that it is a copyright violation, and that it's illegal to give us RAW files. Now, she is claiming that she sees nothing wrong with the pics (hasn't even fixed the spelling mistake), and will not be sending us the RAW files. She refuses to re-edit them, and won't give us the original files so we can have a blank slate to fix them ourselves.

I tried telling her that I didn't want to "steal" her work, I just wanted to be able to hang properly edited pics on our walls. Anyway... I'm not really sure where to go from here? Our photographer considers everything completely finished, and she is mad that we are not happy, and ignored emails from us. I'll post some of the pics that I was talking about, am I off base with being upset about the pics?

*OP:  The images have been deleted based on potential copyright violation.  You may edit the image to post a link, or provide proof of copyright release.*

Shadowed faces & necks:


Can't tell difference between dress/flowers: 


Difference in tree color (one was photographer edited, one was second shooter edited):


Badly edited B&W/Color:


Very grainy/noisy pic:



Please, am I wrong to be upset? And, what can I now do?


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2013)

:shock:


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 22, 2013)

What does your contract say?


----------



## kathyt (Sep 22, 2013)

I would have someone, an attorney, review your contract. I am sorry, but those are really bad.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 22, 2013)

Illegal to give you the RAWs and copyright violation are kinda hogwash.

Sounds like you've got a real issue on your hands.  I agree.  Have an atty review your contract and discuss options.  The problem is that you can't get your day back, but perhaps you can have the photographer pay for someone else to edit your shots or something.  Dunno.  Not sure what would be appropriate reparations here.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 22, 2013)

Looks like a typical Amateur Pro, or MWAC Pro... that is allergic to flash, doesn't know how to handle bad high-contrast light, has a low end camera that doesn't handle low light / high ISO well, and weak compositional skills!

If you paid for these, I hope you didn't pay much! If you tried to get a "Bargain" and not pay much... well, this is what happens. Check your contract... see what it says. I don't know if Canada has a small claims court... but you can always talk to an attorney.

Good luck... 

( I was going to post a youtube video of Judge Joe Brown giving  an Amateur PRO hell for shooting a wedding badly, but the video has been taken down!)


----------



## manicmike (Sep 22, 2013)

Fill flash. How does it work?


I seriously hope you didn't pay much for these.


----------



## CanadianKaren (Sep 22, 2013)

The photographer was the same price (within $200) of other photographers in our area.

Our contract says that we will get a disc of the edited pics. (which we did get, but I think that the editing is a crappy job). I'll chat with an attorney tomorrow, and definitely will be looking into The Better Business Bureau.

If we find someone who knows what they are doing, do you guys think that the pics can be fixed? or are they beyond help?


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 22, 2013)

Truthfully, I think my Windows Picture Viewer "auto fix" would have done a better job with the pictures that I've seen, and I'm a relative newbie by comparison of the above photographers opinions.

I assumed that they basically undercut the pros in the area to get business and maximize profitability, which had no correlation of price to quality.

The lawyer option seems the best.  Good luck.


----------



## runnah (Sep 22, 2013)

CanadianKaren said:


> If we find someone who knows what they are doing, do you guys think that the pics can be fixed? or are they beyond help?



If they shot in RAW you could recover some of these. If they shot JPEG not much you can do.

If you legally get the raw files if be more than happy to help.


----------



## rexbobcat (Sep 22, 2013)

You don't have to say, but...how much was this photographer?

You say "within $200" so I assume she cost more than $200? Heh


----------



## DarkShadow (Sep 22, 2013)

Wow, theses are bad the Skin tones and exposures are all over the place. My question is does the original photographer check out the work of the back up and if not then IMO he or she is careless and at fault.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 22, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> Truthfully, I think my Windows Picture Viewer "auto fix" would have done a better job with the pictures that I've seen, and I'm a relative newbie by comparison of the above photographers opinions.


Actually, if you look at the EXIF data for the first one that *IS* the software that is shown to have been used.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 22, 2013)

Ouch!  I'm sorry; nothing to add, other than I hope you are able to realize an acceptable resolution!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 22, 2013)

SCraig said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Truthfully, I think my Windows Picture Viewer "auto fix" would have done a better job with the pictures that I've seen, and I'm a relative newbie by comparison of the above photographers opinions.
> ...


My EXIF viewer is choking on these; what does it say about gear used?


----------



## Tailgunner (Sep 22, 2013)

SCraig said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Truthfully, I think my Windows Picture Viewer "auto fix" would have done a better job with the pictures that I've seen, and I'm a relative newbie by comparison of the above photographers opinions.
> ...



WOW...just WOW. 

Anyhow, as someone mentioned above, it would be nice if these was shot in RAW and you could get your hands on the RAW files.


----------



## MK3Brent (Sep 22, 2013)

Camera:Canon EOS 60DLens:EF-S18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Shot at 35 mmExposure:Auto exposure, Aperture-priority AE, [SUP]1[/SUP]/2,656 sec, f/5.6, ISO 400Flash:Off, Did not fireDate:*June 27, 2013*   1:00:32PM (timezone not specified)
(2 months, 25 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes, 28 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)
File:*5,184 × 3,456* JPEG (*17.9* megapixels)   
1,763,172 bytes (1.7 megabytes)     Image compression: 97%Color Encoding:Embedded color profile: &#8220;sRGB&#8221;


Here's the full data:
*XMP*

Date Created*2013:06:27* 13:00:32.051
2 months, 25 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes, 28 seconds agoXMP ToolkitAdobe XMP Core 5.0-c061 64.140949, 2010/12/07-10:57:01Rating0Creator ToolMicrosoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385Modify Date*2013:08:06* 14:15:30-05:00
1 month, 16 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes, 30 seconds agoCreate Date*2013:06:27* 13:00:32.51-05:00
2 months, 25 days, 7 hours, 14 minutes, 28 seconds agoMetadata Date*2013:08:06* 14:15:30-05:00
1 month, 16 days, 5 hours, 59 minutes, 30 seconds agoLensEF-S18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 ISAlready AppliedTrueColor ModeRGBICC Profile NamesRGB IEC61966-2.1Formatimage/jpegInstance IDxmp.iid:5FE26626BEF7E21187FC918BA37C3592Document IDxmp.did:5EE26626BEF7E21187FC918BA37C3592Original Document IDxmp.did:5EE26626BEF7E21187FC918BA37C3592History Actionsaved,
savedHistory Instance IDxmp.iid:5EE26626BEF7E21187FC918BA37C3592,
xmp.iid:5FE26626BEF7E21187FC918BA37C3592History When*2013:08:06* 14:15:30-05:00,
2013:08:06 14:15:30-05:00
History Software AgentAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows,
Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 WindowsHistory Changed/,
/
*EXIF* &#8212; this group of metadata is encoded in 15,265 bytes (14.9k)

Bits Per Sample8 8 8Photometric InterpretationRGBMakeCanonCamera Model NameCanon EOS 60DOrientationHorizontal (normal)Samples Per Pixel3Y Cb Cr PositioningCo-sitedPadding(2,060 bytes binary data)Padding(2,060 bytes binary data)Exposure Time1/2500F Number5.60Exposure ProgramAperture-priority AEISO400Sensitivity TypeRecommended Exposure IndexRecommended Exposure Index400Exif Version0230Date/Time Original*2013:06:27* 13:00:32
2 months, 25 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes, 28 seconds agoComponents ConfigurationY, Cb, Cr, -Shutter Speed Value1/2656Aperture Value5.66Exposure Compensation0Metering ModeMulti-segmentFlashOff, Did not fireUser CommentSub Sec Time51Sub Sec Time Original51Sub Sec Time Digitized51Flashpix Version0100Color SpacesRGBInteroperability IndexR98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)Interoperability Version0100Focal Plane X Resolution5728.176796Focal Plane Y Resolution5808.403361Focal Plane Resolution UnitinchesCustom RenderedNormalExposure ModeAutoImage Size3,456 × 5,184SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 WindowsFocal Length35.0 mmWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardOwner NameSerial Number1170603120Lens Info18-200mm f/?Lens ModelEF-S18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 ISLens Serial Number000045cc70Offset Schema4,068CompressionJPEG (old-style)Modify Date*2013:08:06* 14:15:30
1 month, 16 days, 3 hours, 59 minutes, 30 seconds agoCreate Date*2013:06:27* 13:00:32
2 months, 25 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes, 28 seconds agoResolution72 pixels/inchThumbnail Length9,719
*Photoshop*

IPTC Digest60db3b08bc65597022e9d0079042b6d8Photoshop 0x043a%00%00%00%10%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%0bprintOutput%00%00%00%04%00%00%00%00PstSbool%01%00%00%00%00Inteenum%00[...]Photoshop 0x043b%00%00%00%10%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%12printOutputOptions%00%00%00%12%00%00%00%00Cptnbool%00%00%00%00%00Cl[...]X Resolution72Displayed Units XinchesPhotoshop Resolution 0x00032Y Resolution72Displayed Units YinchesPhotoshop Resolution 0x00072Print Scale(14 bytes binary data)Global Angle30Global Altitude30Print Flags_(8 null bytes)_%01Print Flags Info%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%02Color Halftoning Info(72 bytes binary data)Color Transfer Funcs(112 bytes binary data)Grid Guides Info%00%00%00%01%00%00%02@%00%00%02@%00%00%00%00URL List%00%00%00%00Slices%00%00%00%06_(10 null bytes)_%14@%00%00%0d%80%00%00%00%08%00I%00M%00G%00_%000%001%005%006%00%00%00%01_(19 null bytes)_%01_(10 null bytes)_%0d%80%00%00%14@_(16 null bytes)_%01_(19 null bytes)_%10%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%00null%00%00%00%02%00%00%00%06boundsObjc%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%00Rct1%00%00%00%04%00%00%00%00Top long_(8 null bytes)_Leftlong_(8 null bytes)_Btomlong%00%00%14@%00%00%00%00Rghtlong%00%00%0d%80%00%00%00%06slicesVlLs%00%00%00%01Objc%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%05slice%00%00%00%12%00%00%00%07sliceIDlong%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%07groupIDlong%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%06originenum%00%00%00%0cESliceOrigin%00%00%00%0dautoGenerated%00%00%00%00Typeenum%00%00%00%0aESliceType%00%00%00%00Img %00%00%00%06boundsObjc%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%00Rct1%00%00%00%04%00%00%00%00Top long_(8 null bytes)_Leftlong_(8 null bytes)_Btomlong%00%00%14@%00%00%00%00Rghtlong%00%00%0d%80%00%00%00%03urlTEXT%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%00nullTEXT%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%00MsgeTEXT%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%06altTagTEXT%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%0ecellTextIsHTMLbool%01%00%00%00%08cellTextTEXT%00%00%00%01%00%00%00%00%00%09horzAlignenum%00%00%00%0fESliceHorzAlign%00%00%00%07default%00%00%00%09vertAlignenum%00%00%00%0fESliceVertAlign%00%00%00%07default%00%00%00%0bbgColorTypeenum%00%00%00%11ESliceBGColorType%00%00%00%00None%00%00%00%09topOutsetlong%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%0aleftOutsetlong%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%0cbottomOutsetlong%00%00%00%00%00%00%00%0brightOutsetlong%00%00%00%00Pixel Aspect Ratio(12 bytes binary data)IDs Base Value%00%00%00%03Photoshop Thumbnail(9,719 bytes binary data)Version InfoAdobe Photoshop
Adobe Photoshop CS5.1Photoshop Quality8Photoshop FormatStandardProgressive Scans3 Scans
*APP14*

DCT Encode Version100APP14 Flags 0(none)APP14 Flags 1(none)Color TransformYCbCr
*IPTC*

Coded Character SetUTF8Application Record Version5472Date Created*2013:06:27*
2 months, 25 days, 18 hours, 15 minutes agoTime Created13:00:32
*File* &#8212; basic information derived from the file.

File TypeJPEGMIME Typeimage/jpegExif Byte OrderBig-endian (Motorola, MM)Bits Per Sample8Current IPTC Digest60db3b08bc65597022e9d0079042b6d8Encoding ProcessBaseline DCT, Huffman codingColor Components3File Size1722 kBImage Size3,456 × 5,184Y Cb Cr Sub SamplingYCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
*Composite*
This block of data is computed based upon other items. Some of it may be wildly incorrect, especially if the image has been resized.

Aperture5.60Date/Time Created*2013:06:27* 13:00:32
2 months, 25 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes, 28 seconds agoScale Factor To 35 mm Equivalent1.6Shutter Speed1/2500Create Date*2013:06:27* 13:00:32.51
2 months, 25 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes, 28 seconds agoDate/Time Original*2013:06:27* 13:00:32.51
2 months, 25 days, 5 hours, 14 minutes, 28 seconds agoModify Date*2013:08:06* 14:15:30.51
1 month, 16 days, 3 hours, 59 minutes, 30 seconds agoThumbnail Image(9,719 bytes binary data)Circle Of Confusion11.45 mLight Value14.3


----------



## Tiller (Sep 22, 2013)

Looks like jpeg was indeed used.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> My EXIF viewer is choking on these; what does it say about gear used?


Here is EXIF data from the first one ...







OP I hope you can work something out to get some satisfaction.  In my personal opinion some of those are just so poorly composed, shot, and edited I'd be ashamed to show them to anyone.  Cut off elbows, horizontal lines not level, horrendous shadows, blown highlights, no fill flash, and that's just the first one.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 22, 2013)

Tiller said:


> Looks like jpeg was indeed used.


Don't think so:  
File:*5,184 × 3,456* JPEG (*17.9* megapixels)


----------



## Tiller (Sep 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> Don't think so:
> File:5,184 × 3,456 JPEG (17.9 megapixels)



That's weird. I was just going off where it said jpeg. I wonder why it still says jpeg if it was shot in raw?


----------



## Tailgunner (Sep 22, 2013)

Tiller said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > Don't think so:
> ...



Agreed, that's odd.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 22, 2013)

I think it's referring to the embedded preview .jpg file.


----------



## Tiller (Sep 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I think it's referring to the embedded preview .jpg file.



Oh, gotcha!


----------



## Braineack (Sep 22, 2013)

400iso at 1/2500 and f/5.6. jeez.


----------



## DarkShadow (Sep 22, 2013)

Braineack said:


> 400iso at 1/2500 and f/5.6. jeez.



Exactly.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 22, 2013)

She PAID for the photos.  She has every right to post her wedding photos on this forum.  Geez MOD!  Post the photos back.. seriously.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 22, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> She PAID for the photos. She has every right to post her wedding photos on this forum. Geez MOD! Post the photos back.. seriously.



I bought MS Word; I have every right to install it on as many computers as I want.  Sorry, I think Bill would disagree!


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 22, 2013)

This is ONE of those things that make this forum unbearable to be in it.  So if someone got married and get the high res files (90% of wedding photography these days are done that way), they can't post anything online?


----------



## Derrel (Sep 22, 2013)

SCraig said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Truthfully, I think my Windows Picture Viewer "auto fix" would have done a better job with the pictures that I've seen, and I'm a relative newbie by comparison of the above photographers opinions.
> ...



Doggone it...I got here late and the photos have already been removed...


----------



## runnah (Sep 22, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> This is ONE of those things that make this forum unbearable to be in it.


  I agree.


----------



## runnah (Sep 22, 2013)

OP make sure you do everything possible to destroy this persons reputation. They should not be doing this for money and should have their camera smashed in front of them.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 22, 2013)

CanadianKaren said:


> The photographer was the same price (within $200) of other photographers in our area.
> 
> Our contract says that we will get a disc of the edited pics. (which we did get, but I think that the editing is a crappy job). I'll chat with an attorney tomorrow, and definitely will be looking into The Better Business Bureau.
> 
> If we find someone who knows what they are doing, do you guys think that the pics can be fixed? or are they beyond help?



I am a pretty good editor... but I would have tossed those!


----------



## kathyt (Sep 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> CanadianKaren said:
> 
> 
> > The photographer was the same price (within $200) of other photographers in our area.
> ...


Hey cgibs, did you shoot this wedding? JK. I only kid the ones I like.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 22, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > CanadianKaren said:
> ...



If I did... it was with my eyes closed using a sony DSLR!  lol!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 22, 2013)

I understand the feeling, but the simple fact is that many photographers include limitations on distribution in their contracts.  Whether or not that was the case here, we do not know until the OP responds.  Regardless, it is unlikely the copyright was transferred and the fact that she paid for the images is likely irrelevant.  

I'm sorry that some of you find this annoying, and I appreciate that it makes the thread somewhat pointless, HOWEVER, how would you feel if your images were used in a way that you had not authorized, irrespective of the quality of the work (which was very bad indeed).


----------



## kathyt (Sep 22, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I understand the feeling, but the simple fact is that many photographers include limitations on distribution in their contracts.  Whether or not that was the case here, we do not know until the OP responds.  Regardless, it is unlikely the copyright was transferred and the fact that she paid for the images is likely irrelevant.
> 
> I'm sorry that some of you find this annoying, and I appreciate that it makes the thread somewhat pointless, HOWEVER, how would you feel if your images were used in a way that you had not authorized, irrespective of the quality of the work (which was very bad indeed).


If the photographer is charging clients for their work, and are proud of what they put out there.....then why would they cared if their beautiful images are shared. Free advertising.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 22, 2013)

OP... please post links to an external site where these are posted! I believe that is still allowed?


----------



## kathyt (Sep 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> OP... please post links to an external site where these are posted! I believe that is still allowed?


I love when you push the envelope cgips! That's my boy!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 22, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> OP... please post links to an external site where these are posted! I believe that is still allowed?


Absolutely allowed.


----------



## texkam (Sep 22, 2013)

> I understand the feeling, but the simple fact is that many photographers include limitations on distribution in their contracts. Whether or not that was the case here, we do not know until the OP responds. Regardless, it is unlikely the copyright was transferred and the fact that she paid for the images is likely irrelevant.


conjecture - definition of conjecture by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

That's quite a can of worms you're opening IMHO. How do you know the images I or anyone else posts are really ours? I think the OP should bear the responsibility for anything posted. I see no way a harmed photog can hold TPF responsible unless they knowingly allowed this to happen. This sounds too much like what the Walmart photo police do, decide if the images legally belong to me. Wow.


----------



## alvintran1998 (Sep 22, 2013)

I can absolutely relate to the OP's problem as I've kind of experienced the problem myself. Well, it was not my wedding, but it was my uncle's wedding, and to save a few bucks, he hired a videographer and a photographer on for cheap. And the results are horrendous, the movie came out was awful, no storyline, no special effect, not seamless and the music was horrible. The photographer used flash on every photo, just shot at everything with no planning and awful lighting set up. I actually took some photos on my own point and shoot camera just for myself, and everybody who saw my photos said that they actually tell a story and capture the important moments and are better than the ones paid for. 
But I guess it's true what they say, "You get what you pay for", but I guess in your case, not so much since the price was similar to others. I can't view the photos so I don't know how bad they look, but I wish you guys the best, and congratulations on your wedding! 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tailgunner (Sep 23, 2013)

What happened? I admit, I generally walk through life confused but what gives? The OP posted some photos she bought, Mods replied 2-3 times, and then the same mod turns around and deletes the photos asking for copyright proof? What did I miss? I see countless photos posted every week on here and never heard of anyone being asked for copyright proof? And what does it mean "we want know until the OP replies?" If you're worried about copyright infringement, enough to delete the photos anyways, are you seriously going to except someone's word for copyright proof? Good luck with that in court.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 23, 2013)

tirediron said:


> I understand the feeling, but the simple fact is that many photographers include limitations on distribution in their contracts.  Whether or not that was the case here, we do not know until the OP responds.  Regardless, it is unlikely the copyright was transferred and the fact that she paid for the images is likely irrelevant.
> 
> I'm sorry that some of you find this annoying, and I appreciate that it makes the thread somewhat pointless, HOWEVER, how would you feel if your images were used in a way that you had not authorized, irrespective of the quality of the work (which was very bad indeed).



My wedding clients can share my photos all they want (facebook, google +, forum, etc.).  As long as the photo is not commercially used and it is non editorial (if it is for editorial, I want to be aware of it and I should handle it), I will be fine.  The OP is not making any money posting the photos here.  It is part of running business, some clients are happy some are not.  Luckily I do not have a client that is very unhappy with my work and post the photos publicly.  If that does happen to me, I will just have to shoot better and make sure that does not happen to me again.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 23, 2013)

I think the board just wants to protect itself from any litigation for having copyrighted material on the board without approval until ownership etc can be clearly identified.  Afterall, I don't think those photographers want international bad publicity/ bashing/ embarrassment.

I also noticed that the pics didn't have any "name photography" watermarked on any photos.

Even with my newbie flash knowledge, when I did the selective color challenge I had to use a flash to minimize the harsh shadows of the monkey/flowers shot in super bright sunlight.  I actually used the 1/8000 shutter speed (w/o flash) just to see.  Boy, that was a bright day just like they apparently had at that wedding.


----------



## runnah (Sep 23, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> I think the board just wants to protect itself from any litigation for having copyrighted material on the board without approval until ownership etc can be clearly identified.  Afterall, I don't think those photographers want international bad publicity/ bashing/ embarrassment.  I also noticed that the pics didn't have any "name photography" watermarked on any photos.



I wouldn't want my name on them!


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 23, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> I think the board just wants to protect itself from any litigation for having copyrighted material on the board without approval until ownership etc can be clearly identified.  Afterall, I don't think those photographers want international bad publicity/ bashing/ embarrassment.
> 
> I also noticed that the pics didn't have any "name photography" watermarked on any photos.



The rules about not being able embedding the photos (NOT HOSTED ON THIS FORUM SERVER) is ridiculous.  I rather see the photos on this forum (moderated for NSFW) than clicking on a link.  Clicking a link is dangerous.


----------



## orljustin (Sep 23, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > I think the board just wants to protect itself from any litigation for having copyrighted material on the board without approval until ownership etc can be clearly identified. Afterall, I don't think those photographers want international bad publicity/ bashing/ embarrassment.  I also noticed that the pics didn't have any "name photography" watermarked on any photos.
> ...


  I don't see any issue.  People should be able to post and receive comment on any product or service they have purchased.  In any case it is editorial / fair use .  "If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work  for instance, writing a book review  fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:"  What Is Fair Use? :: Copyright Overview by Rich Stim :: Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center


----------



## kathyt (Sep 23, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the feeling, but the simple fact is that many photographers include limitations on distribution in their contracts.  Whether or not that was the case here, we do not know until the OP responds.  Regardless, it is unlikely the copyright was transferred and the fact that she paid for the images is likely irrelevant.
> ...


I am unhappy with my boudoir session you just did for me. You did not make my chest bigger.


----------



## runnah (Sep 23, 2013)

Anything more than a handful is wasted I like to say.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I am unhappy with my boudoir session you just did for me. You did not make my chest bigger.



I can fix that - and no camera is involved.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Sep 23, 2013)

That poor Canon 60D and 18-200, I must have a moment of silence in honour of my same gear, condolences dear other guy's camera, I'm sorry you are being done so wrong!


----------



## kathyt (Sep 23, 2013)

runnah said:


> Anything more than a handful is wasted I like to say.


Thanks runnah, then I am in the clear.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 23, 2013)

runnah said:


> Anything more than a handful is wasted I like to say.



If you think its wasted, you arent doing the right things with them.


----------



## kathyt (Sep 23, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Anything more than a handful is wasted I like to say.
> ...


Okay, we got sidetracked again ya'll. Let's get back to crappy wedding pictures.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 23, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



since the pictures got deleted...really no way to get back to them unless the OP posts a link to them. 
after reading about them though...im sorry I got in too late to see them.


----------



## runnah (Sep 23, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Anything more than a handful is wasted I like to say.
> ...



You are more of a thumbsprainer type of guy?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 23, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Just go to Facebook... look up any typical Natural Light PRO Wedding photographer... examine those shots... you will have a basic idea of what they looked like!   Really harsh, contrasty exposures when outside, lots of noise and fuzziniess when inside, mixed with poor composition everywhere...


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 23, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



except these ones were really bad


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 23, 2013)

astroNikon said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



So are the vast majority of these types of shots on Facebook... many are even worse. Pretty amazing stuff...


----------



## CanadianKaren (Sep 23, 2013)

Thanks all for confirming that the pictures are crap!  Sorry that they got deleted. We were told that we owned the edited pics (which I posted here). We were offered the RAW files, but when we were supposed to get them in the mail, they were all jpgs, and we got told that the RAW files were copyrighted, and it was illegal to give them to us.

Sorry that the pics got deleted. The pics have never been posted online (ie her website) but I may post some on my blog (depends what our lawyer says when I chat with him today). I'm also looking into the Better Business Bureau. In email corespondence our photographer said she would send the RAW files, even asked us what program we had that would open them. Then she talked to the second shooter, and came up with the copyright/illegal line, and has been telling us that ever since. 

We are from a small town (3 hours from a city), and contacted probably a dozen photographers prior to hiring the one we did. Photographers in our area are mostly work-at-home people, there are no what I would call "professional" studios. Anyway the photographers we contacted ranged in price from $700 - $1200. The one we went with was $1200, and had the two shooters.

Yes, I am unhappy with the pics, but our photographer could have avoided all of this (lawyers/Better Business Bureau) if she had just given us the RAW files like she said she was going to do.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 23, 2013)

CanadianKaren said:


> Yes, I am unhappy with the pics, but our photographer could have avoided all of this (lawyers/Better Business Bureau) if she knew how to use a camera, compose a picture, and position subjects in harsh lighting.



FTFY.


----------



## CanadianKaren (Sep 23, 2013)

Braineack said:


> CanadianKaren said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I am unhappy with the pics, but our photographer could have avoided all of this (lawyers/Better Business Bureau) if she knew how to use a camera.
> ...



 Yeah that too!


----------



## runnah (Sep 23, 2013)

CanadianKaren said:


> Thanks all for confirming that the pictures are crap!  Sorry that they got deleted. We were told that we owned the edited pics (which I posted here). We were offered the RAW files, but when we were supposed to get them in the mail, they were all jpgs, and we got told that the RAW files were copyrighted, and it was illegal to give them to us.
> 
> Sorry that the pics got deleted. The pics have never been posted online (ie her website) but I may post some on my blog (depends what our lawyer says when I chat with him today). I'm also looking into the Better Business Bureau. In email corespondence our photographer said she would send the RAW files, even asked us what program we had that would open them. Then she talked to the second shooter, and came up with the copyright/illegal line, and has been telling us that ever since.
> 
> ...



$1200 isn't super high but also not super low. $1200 should have gotten MUCH better photos.

Also it's not illegal to give out RAW files. It all depends on the contract. If you paid for just the finished product then you can't have the RAWs. If you paid for Right for everything than they are yours.


----------



## Overread (Sep 23, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> The rules about not being able embedding the photos (NOT HOSTED ON THIS FORUM SERVER) is ridiculous.  I rather see the photos on this forum (moderated for NSFW) than clicking on a link.  Clicking a link is dangerous.



These days an image itself can have malicious contented added which will spark off when the page its upon is accessed; so its no more dangerous than viewing the image if the user has malicious intent (we remove a fair few hidden image spammers which have malicious images embedded into their posts). 

As for our policy on images we have a simple rule that if its not yours you post a link to them, ideally to the original source on the net of the images. This is because we want to keep what is shown on the site as being the posters photos only; further the rule helps avoid ambiguous image posting. We also have it as a courtesy to professionals who might not have signed over distribution rights (not every photographer sells/gives JPEGs and scanners are easily bought and used these days). We are fine if users present a clear notice that they have permission, otherwise they have to be links off-site. IT might be a pain for threads like this, but that is the way the rules are (indeed the strict following of the rule is in part aided and the result of user feedback as users have flagged photos via the report system and also been helpful in informing new members of the rule). 

If you wish to discuss this further please start a thread on the topic with a clear outline in the feedback subsection. 

And now back to your discussion on bad wedding photos - or boobies or whatever it is now


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 23, 2013)

CanadianKaren said:


> Thanks all for confirming that the pictures are crap!  Sorry that they got deleted. We were told that we owned the edited pics (which I posted here). We were offered the RAW files, but when we were supposed to get them in the mail, they were all jpgs, and we got told that the RAW files were copyrighted, and it was illegal to give them to us.
> 
> Sorry that the pics got deleted. The pics have never been posted online (ie her website) but I may post some on my blog (depends what our lawyer says when I chat with him today). I'm also looking into the Better Business Bureau. In email corespondence our photographer said she would send the RAW files, even asked us what program we had that would open them. Then she talked to the second shooter, and came up with the copyright/illegal line, and has been telling us that ever since.
> 
> ...



The way those were shot, is the issue. Even with the RAW files.. it would take a lot of work (hopefully with a professional editor) to make those images presentable. And as mentioned... it is the contract that determines who gets what.. there is no law against giving out RAW files.

I would have expected  charges in the $200-300 dollar range considering the images... (and even that would have been high).. but $1200?? Right out ripoff! A lot of amateurs want to get into shooting weddings because they think it pays well...  but they can't take images that justify what they want to charge. 

Good luck!


----------



## jwbryson1 (Sep 23, 2013)

I MISSED THE PICS!!!  Arggghhh!!!  :mrgreen:


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 23, 2013)

I didn't read the whole thread, but I saw on the most recent page that the photographer and the 2nd are claiming that it's illegal / breech of copyright to give raw files.  On it's own, that is false.  As others have mentioned, it totally depends on what was agreed upon in the contract.

The photographer automatically owns the rights to the images when they are taken...and they can choose what rights they sell/give to the client.  In most cases with wedding photography, if we are selling the files, it would come with limited usage or copy rights.  Basically, this would allow the client to make prints of the photos.  This may (or may not) allow the clients to post the photos on-line and it may (or may not) allow them to edit/change the photos etc.  Just because you have the files on a disc, doesn't mean you are automatically allowed to do anything besides view them.  

This is probably why they are reluctant to give any raw files.  Raw files aren't really even images yet, they need to be processed/edited to become images.  The general consensus among photographers is to never give out your raw files because they are an 'unfinished' product.  However, if the images don't meet the expected standard of quality, then allowing someone else to edit the raw files, may be an option....but they rights holder would have to OK that.  

From the sounds of it, it was the photos from the 2nd shooter that were the problem?  (or were the 1st shooter's photos bad as well?).

If they won't give you raw files (and the right to edit/process them) then I'd push for the hired photographer to get the (raw) files from the 2nd and either edit them herself, or have someone do it...to the standard of her own photos.  

The one thing in your favor is that you paid for a service based on the quality of images seen.  If the photos are clearly not up to that standard, then you may have a case.  (they might have breached the contract by providing sub standard results).  But, they may also have a clause in their contract to help protect them in this case.  

I do hope that something can be worked out.  Wedding photography can be an odd case because it's something you'll (hopefully) purchase once in your lifetime.  So there isn't much room for trial and error.  If you go to a restaurant and get bad service or bad food, you don't go back....I'm sure you won't hire this photographer for your next wedding, but hopefully you don't have a next wedding.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 23, 2013)

The_Traveler said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I am unhappy with my boudoir session you just did for me. You did not make my chest bigger.
> ...



And as a side note, in those situations, I work on manual with a very slow speed.


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 23, 2013)

Very simple answer... find someone who does SEO for a living.  find out what they would charge to have your facebook page rank first for the term "mytown wedding photography" and "photographers name".

Then CALL (don't write) the fauxtogapher and tell them: "Either I get the the RAW files with a full release of all rights from both you and the second shooter, in the next 24 hours, via FedEx, or I wire this $xxx to Vikraj in India and within 2 months all anyone will see when they Google EITHER "mytown wedding photography" or "photographers name" is your crappy pictures along with the professional opinion of about 20 other photographers as to your lack of qualifications and skill as a photographer and your lack of honor and integrity as a businessman.

Allow me to read you a few choice excerpts some professional photographers have offered as a critique of your work: "Anyway, they were really bad, for anybody who didn't see. Tilted  horizons full of people with nasty almost pure black shadows  on their faces all squinting uncomfortably at the camera, cropped  awkwardly, etc. It looked sort of like a drunk monkey was handed a DSLR  set on manual."

FEDEX.
24hours.

Or else."

*click* bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



.... edited to add "photographers name" and priceless drunk monkey critique.  ;-)


----------



## Braineack (Sep 23, 2013)

There's a lot of cheap wedding photo post-services online, might want to see about having them send the images you'd like reworked to them instead?

quick google search: Pricing and Services for wedding photography post processing and post production services.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 23, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > I understand the feeling, but the simple fact is that many photographers include limitations on distribution in their contracts.  Whether or not that was the case here, we do not know until the OP responds.  Regardless, it is unlikely the copyright was transferred and the fact that she paid for the images is likely irrelevant.
> ...



You're operating from an assumption of a rational, honest businessperson, Robin. Which is clearly not relevant to the photographer that this thread is about =P

In the OP, it is stated that the photog has been making crazy claims about RAW files being illegal, changing their minds, etc. It sounds like they are a very poorly informed, and/or unstable individual when it comes to possible litigation or whatever, so it is pretty reasonable in this case for the forum to play it safe. Especially considering that the thread is highly negative and would probably piss them off majorly if they stumbled upon it, making the aforementioned instability worse.

Anyway, they were really bad, for anybody who didn't see. Tilted horizons full of people with nasty almost pure black/white sharp shadows on their faces all squinting uncomfortably at the camera, cropped awkwardly, etc. It looked sort of like a drunk monkey was handed a DSLR set on manual.


----------



## Tee (Sep 23, 2013)

I thought in Canada the buyer got the copyright? In that case she could post the images. 

Either way, send then to "You Are Not A Photigrapher.com" and let the masses see them.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 23, 2013)

Tee said:


> I thought in Canada the buyer got the copyright? In that case she could post the images.
> 
> Either way, send then to "You Are Not A Photigrapher.com" and let the masses see them.


Canadian copyright law recently underwent a major revision, primarily in favour of the creator of the IP, and is now very similar to US law.


----------



## jaomul (Sep 23, 2013)

It is likely true that the photographer does not have to give the raw, I have never heard of anyone even mentioning raw files on their contracts (to be fair I would not have seen much legal paperwork anyway). It seems like the lack of obligation has put this business in a "take the money and run situation", leaving the customer in the lurch. It seems odd that a photographer would not supply the raws, after all most people that take photos do this firstly with editing a secondary necessity.Many even hire editing out. Please keep us informed of how this plays out


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 23, 2013)

Well no you certainly don't have to give people your RAWs if the contract didn't promise any.  But "I don't want to give you the RAWs" is a whole different ball game than "It is illegal for me to give you the RAWs".

One of those is just kinda stingy. The other one is a pants-on-head-ridiculous lie.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 23, 2013)

Looks to me that there was not enough homework done on looking for a photographer before the wedding


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 23, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Looks to me that there was not enough homework done on looking for a photographer before the wedding



Really?  Based on what?  That she spoke w/ several photographers and reviewed portfolios and then chose not the cheapest?

I mean yes, she clearly chose a loser... but I'm not hearing much cause to blame the victim on this one.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 23, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Looks to me that there was not enough homework done on looking for a photographer before the wedding
> ...



I have told a few people that are looking for wedding photographers (because i have refused) that if they find one they like, book a small portrait session with the photographer and see how they get on


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 23, 2013)

gsgary said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Right.  And for someone who hasn't been privy to your special instructions, they would be derelict in their due diligence to not do that?  Of course not, because the general public doens't really go about this task in that way.  Sure it might be a good idea (if you have the idea) but it's really NOT in the generally acknowledged best practices that the general public would be going by.

So again, I'm not hearing much cause to blame the victim in this case.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 23, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



Well i would never book from what i saw on a website, you can't beat recommendations  a when it is once in a lifetime shoot (well not for me my first wedding album went in the bin cost £600 in 1984)


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 23, 2013)

Well I guess she could take notes for the next time she gets married.  Do you have anything to offer that might actually help her out today?


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 23, 2013)

Asking for the raw files would certainly offend photographers.  The edited files should be good as is.  The processing should match the samples you were shown.


----------



## runnah (Sep 23, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Asking for the raw files would certainly offend photographers.  The edited files should be good as is.  The processing should match the samples you were shown.



If I took these photos I'd return the money, sell my camera and jump off a bridge.


----------



## CanadianKaren (Sep 23, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Asking for the raw files would certainly offend photographers.  The edited files should be good as is.  The processing should match the samples you were shown.



Actually we didn't ask for the raw files, she offered, then didn't send them. We think that the edited pics we got were not equal to the samples that we had seen prior to hiring her.


----------



## play18now (Sep 23, 2013)

Robin_Usagani said:


> Asking for the raw files would certainly offend photographers.  The edited files should be good as is.  The processing should match the samples you were shown.



"Should" being the operative word here Robin.  Sadly not everyone operates their business the way that you do. 

I wish I'd gotten on board a little earlier so I could have seen them.  As I read through this thread I had so many "WTF?!" moments, it was unreal.  The settings for one: f/5.6, ISO400, 1/2500th?  Professional (?) wedding photographer shooting with a 60D and EF-S 18-200?  So many of the actions of the photographer don't make sense to me.  I still can't figure out why they offered you the RAW files in the first place, and then rescinded the offer.  None of the photographers I know or have dealt with would ever do that.  And to me it doesn't make sense to have two people with such obviously different styles editing the photographs.


----------



## manicmike (Sep 23, 2013)

Sounds like misrepresenting her work. I wouldn't be surprised if she's been sued before.


----------



## IByte (Sep 23, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> I am unhappy with my boudoir session you just did for me. You did not make my chest bigger.



That's what happens when you come to a NY shoot, and bring Ovaltine instead of Hershey's chocolate syrup special K!


----------



## weepete (Sep 23, 2013)

Sounds to me like the photographer didn't know what she was doing at all. 

I think all you can do is ask she edits the raw files again to provide a similar standard to what in in her portfolio. If that doesn't work explain that you expect a similar standard to what she represented she could produce and ask her to get the raw files again (though she is perfectly within her rights to not give you them or to ask for more money for them and a different contract).

I suspect the only realistic course of action you have though is to ask for a refund and if she refuses try and take her to court to reclaim your costs though. I suspect that taking her to court would only work if there is a significant difference between what she showed you and what your pics ended up like. Ultimatley you will need to decide if that is worth it.

I guess hireing a photographer is a bit like getting a tradesman, allways ask how they learned and who they served their time with. Though I appreciate that does not help you now.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 23, 2013)

Always make sure to see samples from a large number of previous weddings, with different people, and they ALL need to be good.

If the OP did that, then there wasn't much reason to have expected any disaster, and I wouldn't blame him/her at all.

However, it's also somewhat more likely to possibly get a refund if this is dramatically different than a whole set of multiple other wedding shoots you were shown. Especially if it turns out that the reason the others were better was because they weren't the photographer's images... or they posted only good ones from other more skilled second shooters that temporarily worked for them, or something.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 23, 2013)

So, with no images to view, we're pretty much left with "You shouldn't have hired a crappy photographer".

Yeah, I think we can all agree on that...


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 23, 2013)

OP, is there any particular reason you can't link to the photographer's website...? Unless you still want to try some sort of nice guy diplomatic route and are concerned about burning bridges.


----------



## Tailgunner (Sep 23, 2013)

Is it illegal to pm the photos to forum members?


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 23, 2013)

Unless the OP comes back and links to the photos, this thread is pretty pointless...


----------



## gsgary (Sep 24, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Well I guess she could take notes for the next time she gets married.  Do you have anything to offer that might actually help her out today?


Forget about it and get on with her life its not the end of the world

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dinardy (Sep 24, 2013)

Wow... I feel like I just wasted five minutes of my life reading this nonsense. 
Off to watch Breaking Bad!


----------



## gsgary (Sep 24, 2013)

Dinardy said:


> Wow... I feel like I just wasted five minutes of my life reading this nonsense.
> Off to watch Breaking Bad!
> 
> View attachment 56334



What can be done the photo are **** and there is no going back look to the future thinking about it will only make her more upset

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## kathyt (Sep 24, 2013)

IByte said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > I am unhappy with my boudoir session you just did for me. You did not make my chest bigger.
> ...


I know, I know.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 24, 2013)

I was forwarded one of the images that someone saved. It wasn't good; harsh shadows in a photo taken in what looks like midday.

It's difficult to determine someone's proficiency based on a single photograph, but the photo, combined with what's already been said here, doesn't paint a pretty picture...


----------



## CanadianKaren (Sep 27, 2013)

Just to update anyone interested: I have been attempting to contact the photographer all week, all emails have been ignored. I posted a message to her facebook page, it was deleted and I was de-friended. I've contacted the Better Business Bureau and filed a complaint. Now, we wait and see what happens with that! I'm not holding my breath that we'll get the raw files that she said she would give us, but I hope we do! Thanks for all the advice/input. I'll keep you posted!


----------



## manicmike (Sep 27, 2013)

Post the Facebook link here and we'll handle it.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 27, 2013)

Lets not start any sort of internet war here.  Let the OP handle it via proper channels.  We don't want to get the forum involved in any legal dealings.  

After all, we've only heard one side of the story.


----------



## runnah (Sep 27, 2013)

Big Mike said:


> Lets not start any sort of internet war here.  Let the OP handle it via proper channels.  We don't want to get the forum involved in any legal dealings.
> 
> After all, we've only heard one side of the story.



Exactly. Besides, let reddit handle your dirty work.


----------



## Overread (Sep 27, 2013)

The BB is one angle but you might be needing to take your own legal council directly as the BB wheel might not only turn very slowly but might also require a greater body of reports before they act. Most lawyers will hear a case without charge, that is to say they'll let you pitch your case to them and provide their view on what's possible before you hire them. Ask a few and see what the costs, risks and possibilities are with taking your own legal action. 

The lack of communication and the move to defriend and remove contact points is a very bad sign from the part of the photographer; whatever else happens keeping good communication is key in any dispute (no matter which side is in the right or wrong) when one side cuts off communication it breaks things down. Honestly the next contact they should get is either the BB (which as said might take time or never come) or a letter from your lawyer. 


And fully agreed that we don't need a witch hunt. They do not solve things and often make situations far worse or even more complex (because they can then turn around and sue you for attempting to organise or starting such a campaign toward them).


----------



## DarkShadow (Sep 28, 2013)

Agree with Big Mike on don't do the internet war but handle it in a mature fashion then take here to judge Judy.:mrgreen:


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Sep 28, 2013)

You should not get the raw files but you should get your money back.

Sorry about the crappy photos though.


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 28, 2013)

And if you have to sue, be sure to request compensation for actual damages (cash), compensatory damages (emotional distress) and punitive damages (teach the photog a lesson).

I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advise, this what I actually do myself in cases such as yours.  I find it a lot cheaper to show people how much it could cost them to play in court, before paying my own lawyer. Suddenly, they get a lot more cooperative not in court.

In your case, I would demand a full refund from the photog plus the raw files.  If you only get the full refund, well not the end of the world.

But the format in which you make this demand is important.  Read this:  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/.../339354-how-would-you-handle.html#post3051055

So, get an example of a pleading / initial complaint from your county court house.  You can probably find one online. I can email you an example of one for PA if you need, as I'm currently in the process of doing this myself for an insurance claim (my car was hit while parked.  meh.) and it's just as good as any for your purposes as courts tend to be more flexible and the clerks will guide you somewhat when your pro se.

NOW, write up your complaint, following the examples you find. Spell out the facts, establish jurisdiction snd venue, state the torts committed by the tortfeasor.  lol.  And demand a jury trial.

Be sure to include that you are demanding compensation for actual damages (full refund of cash), compensatory damages (emotional distress), punitive damages (teach the photog a lesson), and compensation for legal expense incurred (if you have to file, your lawyer will cost more than the cash refund, and you want that covered as well).

I don't use small claims court, because it doesn't require a lawyer to play ball.  I make sure the other party knows that if they don't settle with me, it's gonna cost them lawyer dollars of their own just to argue their point of view.  They usually know their wrong already.

THEN fax it to the photog.  Tell her you want your money back and the raw files.  Unless they prefer that your lawyer file this on Monday in which case you'll see her in court.

VERY few people have the backbone to stand in front of a lawsuit.  And I find they respond much better to an actual lawsuit about to be filed than they do to a letter from a lawyer.  It shows that you have already put the wheels in motion and are serious about pulling the trigger.

ONE THING, if you do this yourself, you may very well screw it up.  But in my mind, all you have to lose is what you've already lost, ie you really have nothing to lose, and the photog could be slammed for thousands, espectially if you get sympathetic jury.  

If you really care, you should probably have a lawyer deal with this.  If you do actually have to file, don't use the pleading, hire a lawyer and have them write the one that gets filed.

But chances are, this will get the log jam broken.


----------



## gsgary (Sep 28, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> And if you have to sue, be sure to request compensation for actual damages (cash), compensatory damages (emotional distress) and punitive damages (teach the photog a lesson).
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, so this is not legal advise, this what I actually do myself in cases such as yours.  I find it a lot cheaper to show people how much it could cost them to play in court, before paying my own lawyer. Suddenly, they get a lot more cooperative not in court.
> 
> ...



Sueing should make it all better, it will just cause more stress

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CanadianKaren (Nov 13, 2013)

I'm back with a couple more questions for you pros out there. Our photographer finally replied to our Business Bureau complaint. I won't go into all the details of her reply, just enough to ask my question. She claims that the second shooter that she hired for our wedding day edited his own pictures because according to her "they are his property and his to edit." We never had any dealings with the second shooter until 1 week before the wedding when they both came to check out our house & see where we wanted pictures. I admit that it was my mistake in trusting her that the second shooter she hired would have a similar photographic style as hers. But my question is.... If you, as a professional, hire a second shooter for a job, who edits the pictures that the second shooter takes? Also who owns the pictures, you or the second shooter?


----------



## pixmedic (Nov 13, 2013)

CanadianKaren said:


> I'm back with a couple more questions for you pros out there. Our photographer finally replied to our Business Bureau complaint. I won't go into all the details of her reply, just enough to ask my question. She claims that the second shooter that she hired for our wedding day edited his own pictures because according to her "they are his property and his to edit." We never had any dealings with the second shooter until 1 week before the wedding when they both came to check out our house & see where we wanted pictures. I admit that it was my mistake in trusting her that the second shooter she hired would have a similar photographic style as hers. But my question is.... If you, as a professional, hire a second shooter for a job, who edits the pictures that the second shooter takes? Also who owns the pictures, you or the second shooter?



it totally depends on what the contract between the photographer and the second shooter says. 
if there is no contract, then the shooter retains copyrights to the photos. 
if there was no contract, the main photographer was foolish, at best.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 13, 2013)

Before going any further first I would contact the photographer you hired and request a copy of the contract between them and the second shooter.  If they have no such contract things are going to get more complicated from there, but it's probably the first step in this process before you start threatening any legal action.  It would be best to know who you should sue before you start threatining to sue.


----------



## kathyt (Nov 13, 2013)

CanadianKaren said:


> I'm back with a couple more questions for you pros out there. Our photographer finally replied to our Business Bureau complaint. I won't go into all the details of her reply, just enough to ask my question. She claims that the second shooter that she hired for our wedding day edited his own pictures because according to her "they are his property and his to edit." We never had any dealings with the second shooter until 1 week before the wedding when they both came to check out our house & see where we wanted pictures. I admit that it was my mistake in trusting her that the second shooter she hired would have a similar photographic style as hers. But my question is.... If you, as a professional, hire a second shooter for a job, who edits the pictures that the second shooter takes? Also who owns the pictures, you or the second shooter?


I edit all of the images that my second shooter takes. She shoots on my CF cards, and then I take the cards at the end of the day. Once I have them uploaded and backed up I let her use the cards to upload to her own computer and use for her portfolio. A wedding should be consistent and cohesive. Having multiple editing styles doesn't generally work.


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 13, 2013)

The first shooter should have gotten the raw files from 2nd shooter and edited them.  But that does not mean you SHOULD get the raw files.  If you don't like the edit, then tough luck.  It is your own fault hiring a noob photographer.  Experienced wedding photographers will always edit the 2nd shooter and hire awesome seconds.

If someone hires me as 2nd and expect me to edit the photos as well, I better get paid way more than $400.


----------



## IByte (Nov 13, 2013)

Reason why I stick to physics.


----------



## jowensphoto (Nov 13, 2013)

CanadianKaren said:


> I'm back with a couple more questions for you pros out there. Our photographer finally replied to our Business Bureau complaint. I won't go into all the details of her reply, just enough to ask my question. She claims that the second shooter that she hired for our wedding day edited his own pictures because according to her "they are his property and his to edit." We never had any dealings with the second shooter until 1 week before the wedding when they both came to check out our house & see where we wanted pictures. I admit that it was my mistake in trusting her that the second shooter she hired would have a similar photographic style as hers. But my question is.... If you, as a professional, hire a second shooter for a job, who edits the pictures that the second shooter takes? Also who owns the pictures, you or the second shooter?




My second shooter contract essentially states that I own their images, as they are an at-will employee of my business, but I also release some/all of the images to the shooter for portfolio use. I'm going to assume your lead shooter didn't have this sort of agreement with her second.

I edit all of the images myself and do not include any edits done by the second.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 14, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Before going any further first I would contact the photographer you hired and request a copy of the contract between them and the second shooter.



Under what legal pretense would she be entitled to that? I won't argue that it would be good to have, but I don't believe either the main or second shooter would be under any obligation, whatsoever, to provide it...



> If they have no such contract things are going to get more complicated from there, but it's probably the first step in this process before you start threatening any legal action.  It would be best to know who you should sue before you start threatining to sue.



There's one person to sue (if that's the road to be taken), and that's the main shooter. That's the person who has a contract with the couple. The second shooter has no contract with the couple. It would therefore be difficult to sue that person for not adhering to the stipulations of that contract, simply because no such contract exists. Additionally, I don't see how the couple could successfully sue the second shooter for not adhering to the stipulations of a contract made with the primary...


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 14, 2013)

I don't make a habit of shooting weddings but, if I did, there's no way in Hell I'd offer them the raw images and, if I ever did, it would come with a profoundly steep price tag...


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 14, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Before going any further first I would contact the photographer you hired and request a copy of the contract between them and the second shooter.
> ...




Legally she isn't "entitled" to it at this stage, however depending on the contract or the lack thereof the photographer might be willing to volunteer it - if there is no contract or if the contract essential states that which the original photographer has already stated, that the second shooter actually has ownership of those photos, it's quite possible the first photographer might be willing to offer the contract as a show of proof of those statements.

Regardless it certainly doesn't hurt to ask, if the photographer is unwilling to produce a copy of the contract between themselves and the second shooter then you are really no worse off than you are now. My guess is there probably is no contract, and by simply requesting one most likely the original photographer will admit no such contract exists.  But it would be useful information to have prior to going down this particular road.

Like most people I'm sure the second shooter would most likely prefer to avoid a full blown lawsuit as well, a lot of times merely showing that you are serious about persuing such a course of action is all that is needed to bring the matter to a resolution.


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 14, 2013)

I don't make a habit of shooting weddings but, if I did, there's no way in Hell I'd offer them the raw images and, if I ever did, it would come with a profoundly steep price tag...


----------



## Steve5D (Nov 14, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> Like most people I'm sure the second shooter would most likely prefer to avoid a full blown lawsuit as well...



That goes directly to my point. The couple likely has no legal ground on which to successfully sue, and I'd be willing to bet that the second shooter is well aware of that. 

"Threatening" a lawsuit would be little more than hot air...


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Nov 14, 2013)

It wont happen to me because I only hire awesome 2nd shooters  but that would suck if the 2nd edit the photos and he/she uses selective colorings and heavy vignette.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 14, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Like most people I'm sure the second shooter would most likely prefer to avoid a full blown lawsuit as well...
> ...



Well I couldn't really be sure of that unless I were able to see the contract between the couple and the primary photographer as well as the contract (if any) between the secondary photographer and the primary photographer.  I'm guessing that most likely that a lawsuit probably wouldn't be very productive if the only claim is based on simply being dissatisfied with the results.   Unless there is some form of negligence involved on the part of the primary photographers part - so odds are very good you would be correct.  From the sounds of things the dissatisfaction was really with the second shooters work, however, so again without a better understanding of the second shooters contractual obligations to the first it's a little difficult to judge wheter or not a legal suit would be the best course of action.

In most cases, probably not.  Particularly if there is no such contract, in which case everything would default back to the primary and whatever contract he/she had with the couple - and my guess is that the contract is worded in such a way that being dissatisfied with the end result does not constitute a breach of contract.  As to what the second shooter knows or doesn't know concerning how successful a lawsuit may or may not be, that I really can't speak too - but I've found a lot of times people are willing to be more reasonable if they think that it might be a viable option.

I don't think asking for the RAW files is a good approach - however if they could sit down with both the primary and secondary photographer and perhaps work out a deal where the primary would be allowed to re-edit the secondary's work and provide a finished product, that would most likely be the best route to go here.


----------



## KwikPictureFraming (Nov 16, 2013)

Amateurs, What can you do?


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 16, 2013)

KwikPictureFraming said:


> Amateurs, What can you do?



My first thought would be.. hmm, not hire them?


----------

