# If Client did not like your photo and decides not to pay you, is that right?



## nedomik (Nov 22, 2011)

I work as an assistant wedding photographer and the bride did not like the color of her hair on some of the photos because she said it is "lighter than it should be". She demands to get the original copies of the photos but unfortunately, it was my mistake I did not have any of the original copies after editing them (which was basically brightness/contrast). I told my photographer boss that since the bride isn't happy he could deduct money from my paycheck for that wedding. I only get paid $11/hour. A wedding is usually 10-15 hours. So, I get about $100-150 per wedding. I don't get paid for the editing work I have to do after the wedding. Apparently, editing work is included already on that $100-150/wedding. My photographer boss said that since I could not get him the original photos, he needs to go to someone else to fix my photos who is good in photoshop and it would cost him $100. I would end up getting paid only between $0-50. Is that right? Is that fair? They still have my photos. Not all of the photos are bad. Besides, taking photos is only half of the work and editing is the other half. I am only willing to deduct maximum 50% of my paycheck. What should I do?


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Nov 22, 2011)

No. It is not fair. It's not possible to fix a non-RAW image.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 22, 2011)

What does your contract say?


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Nov 22, 2011)

Let this be a harsh lesson to never destructively edit your originals. Always keep originals separate from edits no matter what. $100 or whatever inconsequential sum is a small price to pay to learn this lesson.


----------



## Forkie (Nov 22, 2011)

I reckon you should suck it up and put this one down to experience.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 22, 2011)

EchoingWhisper said:


> No. It is not fair. It's not possible to fix a non-RAW image.



Wrong


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 22, 2011)

You should have burned a copy of all the images before doing any work on them.  The brides hair would have to be pretty screwed up if it can't be fixed with a few simple tweeks in photoshop, if it's just a little light.  As far as not getting paid, you may just have to bite the bullet on this one, doesn't sound like the person that hired you is being very fair, but if you are going to accept work for hire, then you also have to be prepared to deliver what the client wants, everytime.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 22, 2011)

I would give them all the files I had and walk away from the whole mess and ask him not to call me anymore.

One, if your 'mentor' needs to outsource his Photoshop work, he probably shouldn't be your mentor.  Two, if your mentor isn't editing every image before the bride sees them so he can make sure they all match his style and he is happy with them, he shouldn't be your mentor.  Three, as an assistant, IMO, you shouldn't be giving images directly to the bride specifically because of situations like this.

Four, well, I could go on and on, but this entire situation sounds like a mess.

FWIW, when I assist in a wedding, I have a contract with the primary shooter.  I know how much I will be getting paid.  I know what shots are expected of me.  I transfer all of my images to the primary either that night, or burn a DVD and mail it to her(all RAW files).  Then she culls and edits ALL of the images from the night to make sure they all flow together, she makes the picks of which ones go to the client, and she usually shares the username and password to her upload site so I can see which ones she selected and how they were edited.  I am free to edit(my RAW files) and use the images I took for my own portfolio(if I ever decide to make one).

Perhaps, I am just very lucky in the arrangement that I have, but your arrangement just seems horrible to me.  If I were you, I would find another photog to shoot with.


----------



## joealcantar (Nov 22, 2011)

Rotanimod said:


> Let this be a harsh lesson to never destructively edit your originals. Always keep originals separate from edits no matter what. $100 or whatever inconsequential sum is a small price to pay to learn this lesson.


-
Agree with above, really believe it is not your problem you should have turned over a disc to the main photographer to edit.  I can't see why you would want different edits that would raise an eyebrow from the client, you guys were asking for this to happen. 
-
Believe that is why alot of folks use lightroom, it keeps the original file intact.  HMMMMM something to consider. 
Shoot RAW and do not alter the RAW files is a second option.

-
Shoot well and learn from it,  Joe
-
Next time shoot the event and hand over a copy of your originals to the LEAD photographer to edit.  Why would you want more work.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Nov 22, 2011)

Rotanimod said:


> Let this be a harsh lesson to* never destructively edit your originals. *Always keep originals separate from edits no matter what. $100 or whatever inconsequential sum is a small price to pay to learn this lesson.



They preach that to us at the University over and over and over


----------



## CCericola (Nov 22, 2011)

This is not right. You did what was asked of you without the proper instructions. The "professional" you worked for is taking advantage of you. To him you are slave labor and he knows he can walk all over you. You put in the time, he has to pay you. If the bride did not like some of the images then it is up to him to fix them. She may have not liked any of his either and he is not telling you. 

Your employers way of doing business is despicable and not the normal way of doing things as far as I have been doing this. Yes, you made some mistakes but they could have been avoided if the photographer was not so stingy and edited his own photos or paid to have all the photos edited at once.

Tell him on second thought you will need to be paid in full. If he has any questions you will have your lawyer contact him directly. I am so angry for you right now because when I first graduated college I was happy to have any job and it took me 2 years to finally realize my boss was walking all over me and I was making less than minimum wage. Don't be a dormat.


----------



## raider (Nov 22, 2011)

sounds like you both need learning - cut losses


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 22, 2011)

CCericola said:


> This is not right. You did what was asked of you without the proper instructions. The "professional" you worked for is taking advantage of you. To him you are slave labor and he knows he can walk all over you. You put in the time, he has to pay you. If the bride did not like some of the images then it is up to him to fix them. She may have not liked any of his either and he is not telling you.
> 
> Your employers way of doing business is despicable and not the normal way of doing things as far as I have been doing this. Yes, you made some mistakes but they could have been avoided if the photographer was not so stingy and edited his own photos or paid to have all the photos edited at once.
> 
> Tell him on second thought you will need to be paid in full. If he has any questions you will have your lawyer contact him directly. I am so angry for you right now because when I first graduated college I was happy to have any job and it took me 2 years to finally realize my boss was walking all over me and I was making less than minimum wage. Don't be a dormat.



If you're going to play photographer/photoshop editor then you are going to have to learn from the basic mistakes you made.


----------



## CCericola (Nov 22, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:


> CCericola said:
> 
> 
> > This is not right. You did what was asked of you without the proper instructions. The "professional" you worked for is taking advantage of you. To him you are slave labor and he knows he can walk all over you. You put in the time, he has to pay you. If the bride did not like some of the images then it is up to him to fix them. She may have not liked any of his either and he is not telling you.
> ...



I totally agree. The Professional photographer made several mistakes and has to learn from them. You do not try to skip out on paying people.


----------



## unpopular (Nov 22, 2011)

Before I start, I want to make it absolutely clear I am not a professional photographer. I am a graphic artist.

It depends on the contract. I spell things out entirely BEFORE doing anything. I happen to like doing everything on spec, you win most and on occasion you loose some. If you don't spell this out then it's pretty grey and ultimately might depend on a judge's opinion.

If you're not willing to work on spec, this is why you have a startup or sitting fee, just in case they don't approve any proofs. This should be the absolute minimum you'll need to break even. If they don't want any prints, or walk away from the work you can just say "that sucks" and not "I just worked entirely for free"!

It's a balance between minimizing the clients risk while minimizing your own and still getting paid if things don't work out. From their perspective, you're saying "no matter how much you suck or screw up I'm stuck paying you", while there are a zillion analogies of why this is fair in your mind, the client might be uneasy with this arrangement. A non-refundable sitting fee, paid upfront is good a compromise.

But if you don't spell this out, my guess is (without any legal expertise) that the client has no obligation to you. No, it's not fair, but you didn't have a contract either - and that's what contracts are for, to make this crappy unfair world fair.


----------



## tirediron (Nov 22, 2011)

You should find yourself a new mentor.  This one clearly is NOT teaching you what you need to know in terms of work-flow, business, etc.  As second-shooter/apprentice/mentee, you should not have to, or be expected to deal with client complaints.  Do what you need to do to get this sorted (but I would NOT volunteer to give up a cent of my pay cheque) and find a new place to work.


----------



## mwcfarms (Nov 22, 2011)

As I second shooter I do not do any of the edits ever. I hand my shots all over to the primary and away I go with my money in hand. Much nicer because the day isn't a tonne of work but editting and culling sure is.  Your primary is an idiot in my opinion. Not only is he walking all over you by this but he is allowing you to form contacts/relationships with his clients. This allows you to the opportunity to build a better relationship and get the referrals that he could have. Not saying you would but its happened lol. Also allowing you to edit the files is going to cause his edits to most likely look different. Its nice to have some continuity to the flow of images from that day. I agree with Cericola, don't be a doormat. Good luck!


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 22, 2011)

I agree with what everyone else is saying.  Cut your losses and walk away.  This is not a good situation for you to be working for this 'photographer'.


----------



## Destin (Nov 22, 2011)

mwcfarms said:


> As I second shooter I do not do any of the edits ever. I hand my shots all over to the primary and away I go with my money in hand. Much nicer because the day isn't a tonne of work but editting and culling sure is.  Your primary is an idiot in my opinion. Not only is he walking all over you by this but he is allowing you to form contacts/relationships with his clients. This allows you to the opportunity to build a better relationship and get the referrals that he could have. Not saying you would but its happened lol. Also allowing you to edit the files is going to cause his edits to most likely look different. Its nice to have some continuity to the flow of images from that day. I agree with Cericola, don't be a doormat. Good luck!



From what I read of the OP's post it doesn't sound like he was a second shooter. It sounds like he was the primary photographer, who doesn't have his own business, and works for a "photography pimp" if you will. Almost like the guy running the business isn't even a photographer, just a business man. He does the advertising, and the couples go through him to hire the company to shoot their wedding, and then the company send out one of it's VASTLY UNDERPAID ($100-150 for a WEDDING? ARE YOU EFFIN $HI77EN ME??) to shoot the wedding. 

.. At least that's the impression that I got...


----------



## mwcfarms (Nov 22, 2011)

I hope that's not the case because then its both of their faults.


----------



## CCericola (Nov 22, 2011)

If you are a graphic designer you should think twice before working on spec. The approach you are pursuing is one that compromises the quality of work clients are entitled to and also violates a tacit, long-standing ethical standard in the communication design profession worldwide. Speculative work for ad agencies are the only time that this is praticed because contracts are substantial and continuous without the ad agency delivering any final products at the time of the bid. In the case of ad agencies do you think they don't pay their staff if they don't get the contract?

The professional photographer needs to pay his staff for their time. The final product is his responsibility and his alone. Yes the OP should have made copies of all the files but it was the professional photographer's responsibility to make sure the people he hired had the skills needed to do the job. If he knew going in he was hiring someone with little experience then he should have made sure each step was monitored or explained. Now if the OP lied to the Photographer about their skills then feel free to tell me to go fly a kite.


----------



## CCericola (Nov 22, 2011)

Destin said:


> mwcfarms said:
> 
> 
> > As I second shooter I do not do any of the edits ever. I hand my shots all over to the primary and away I go with my money in hand. Much nicer because the day isn't a tonne of work but editting and culling sure is.  Your primary is an idiot in my opinion. Not only is he walking all over you by this but he is allowing you to form contacts/relationships with his clients. This allows you to the opportunity to build a better relationship and get the referrals that he could have. Not saying you would but its happened lol. Also allowing you to edit the files is going to cause his edits to most likely look different. Its nice to have some continuity to the flow of images from that day. I agree with Cericola, don't be a doormat. Good luck!
> ...



I don't think that's what's going on ( I hope not) but the first sentence does say "I work as an *assistant* wedding photographer"


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 22, 2011)

The only thing I get out of this thread is that most people have their heads stuck up their *ss so far they have no idea what's going on.

I asked a very simple question and it was not answered by the OP. It was also ignored by all further responders (if that is a word) except maybe the graphic designer.

The fact that the OP is doing PP work means, to me, that there is no contract between him/her and the main photog, because it means the main photog has no idea what he is doing. If you were the main, would you let the second do PP?

In that case, the OP has nothing to worry about. The problem belongs to the main photog. 

End of thread.



But if the OP does have a contract with the main, then we need to know what it says before speculating all over the darn place. Don't we?


----------



## mwcfarms (Nov 22, 2011)

Regardless of speculation or how far I have my head up my @ss do you think the OP should really think about working for a guy like this. How is educating the OP on what might be the NORM for other second shooters a bad thing. If I read his original post correctly I still think that your assuming their is a contract is just the same as our speculations. If the main is letting him do PP and talk to the clients do you honestly think he would have an actual contract in place? Or even a decent one.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 22, 2011)

No. I actually think there is no contract. Because the Main would have to be the weirdest photog to let the second do any PP, it tells me there is no contract. This main has no idea what he/she is doing.

So, the OP owes the main NOTHING.

Not only that but why is the bride talking to the Second?


----------



## unpopular (Nov 22, 2011)

CCericola said:


> If you are a graphic designer you should think twice before working on spec. The approach you are pursuing is one that compromises the quality of work clients are entitled to and also violates a tacit, long-standing ethical standard in the communication design profession worldwide. Speculative work for ad agencies are the only time that this is praticed because contracts are substantial and continuous without the ad agency delivering any final products at the time of the bid. In the case of ad agencies do you think they don't pay their staff if they don't get the contract?



I don't "do" professional ethics. The only ethic I have is to provide products that my client demands, there is a market for spec work, and I provide that. So-called "professional ethics" are baloney and nine out of ten times the only purpose for them is to screw the client and prevent competition. It's essentially service equivalent to price fixing.

I am not sure how spec work provides any lower quality to the client. If anything contract work does as the client already has an obligation to pay regardless of quality. They have to pay you regardless if you produce quality work. By working on spec, I have to convince the client that the product I am offering is worth their money. Whether or not this harms my competition really isn't my problem.


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 22, 2011)

c.cloudwalker said:


> No. I actually think there is no contract. Because the Main would have to be the weirdest photog to let the second do any PP, it tells me there is no contract. This main has no idea what he/she is doing.
> 
> So, the OP owes the main NOTHING.
> 
> Not only that but why is the bride talking to the Second?


Reading comprehension = fail

For one thing, the OP is not being asked for money. The OP is in a position where his paycheck is being withheld. 

I agree mwcfarms. I thought it was very useful for people to explain to the OP how these types of things normally work, which is what I did. I also mentioned a contract in my explanation. Me thinks you should have another cup of coffee before getting back to this thread...seems like you're a bit grumpier than normal today.


----------



## gsgary (Nov 22, 2011)

Delete all the photos and walk away


----------



## nedomik (Nov 22, 2011)

Hello everyone!

I am just new in this forum and I do not know the lingo here such as PP, OP, etc.

Anyway, the main photog and me did not have any contract. He hired me over the phone saying he'll pay me $150 per wedding. When I started doing weddings, he said he did not say he's going to pay me $150/wedding but instead $11/hr.

He told me to edit my own photos and give it to him.

I never talk to his clients. I never get to speak with the bride.

It's been over the month since the wedding and  was still not paid for it. So I texted the main photog to send me my paycheck. He said he already paid me but I said he still hasn't. Then he texted me that the wedding is not happy with some of her photos being lighter than usual and wants it fixed.

My main photog is a man and I am a woman. My photog boss can't edit the screwed up photos because the bride is lebanese and no man can see her hair except for her husband and family. There. I hope that answers your questions.


----------



## MTVision (Nov 22, 2011)

nedomik said:
			
		

> Hello everyone!
> 
> I am just new in this forum and I do not know the lingo here such as PP, OP, etc.
> 
> ...



PP = post processing
OP = original poster


----------



## Kerbouchard (Nov 22, 2011)

nedomik said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I am just new in this forum and I do not know the lingo here such as PP, OP, etc.
> 
> ...



That certainly does shed some light on this.  Sounds like whoever you were working for is complete scum.  Personally, I would walk away from the entire thing and consider it a lesson learned, but I can understand you wanting your money.

I know nothing about your law and don't know if you have some sort of small claims solution, but it sounds like that may be the only way you are ever going to get paid for this gig.


----------



## raider (Nov 22, 2011)

i've seen hair before.  she shouldn't describe her hair if no one can see it.  that's like an American woman describing her hooha - totally indecent.  i'm off this thread - hope the OP has a day job - jeez.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 22, 2011)

Kerbouchard said:


> Reading comprehension = fail  You've got to be kidding me. Who spends half his post talking about a "mentor"? Where the hell did you get the mentor thing?
> 
> For one thing, the OP is not being asked for money. The OP is in a position where his paycheck is being withheld. Really big difference!



I agree that the second half of your post did say good, useful stuff and I missed it. Maybe you can agree that it is only in a non-specific way and quite vague to the OP considering the OP seems to know or understand very little about the whole deal.






nedomik said:


> Hello everyone!
> 
> I am just new in this forum and I do not know the lingo here such as PP, OP, etc.
> 
> ...



Thank you for chiming in and making it clear this person has no idea what he is doing. And because you don't either, you got caught in the middle. At least, we know why he can't PP the photos. Although it has very litle to do with Lebanon. There are plenty of Catholics there. You are talking about Muslims. Or, at least, I imagine.

But this gives us the answer to the problem. You don't get paid, you don't do any more work.

And you don't do any more work until you have gotten paid.

And that includes pay for the extra work...


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Nov 22, 2011)

If I wasn't clear enough for some, get paid before you do any more work.


----------



## KmH (Nov 22, 2011)

nedomik said:


> Anyway, the main photog and me did not have any contract.


Big mistake. 

You're done.

In court it's his word against your word. 

In short, you failed to protect your interests and willingly put yourself in a situation making it very easy for him to take advantage of you.



> When an inexperienced business person does business with an experienced business person, the unexperienced business person often gets some expensive experience.


----------



## bennielou (Nov 22, 2011)

Oh Lord, another simple issue made crazy.

Here is the easy peasy rundown on how these things TYPICALLY work in photoworld:

Main shooter sells wedding, talks to client, manages the big day and PROCESSES THE IMAGES.  After all, THEY are the one that has to deal with the client, and SHOULD KNOW the client expectations.  They are the ones, ultimately, that will be sued if some suing crazyness happens.

I mean, why in the hell did
A: the main photog turn over some images that didn't work with the client?
B: Not take said blame for said images?

I would NEVER throw someone under the bus like that, and CERTAINLY never give out an team members phone number.
I WOULD know, having a relationship with the client, that the photos wouldn't work and would have culled them before the client ever saw them.

In my opinion, the associate shooter, second, assistant, whatever....owes absolutely nada, and shouldn't be involved in the fight between the MAIN SHOOTER AND THE CLIENT in the first place.

I've had crappy, flaky (not saying the OP is) people work with me in the past, but that was ME BAD.

I mean after all, if you are hired to lay bricks on someones house, you don't go after the poor guy that laid the crooked one.  You go after the contractor.  He's the guy that sold you the deal, and should have OVERSEEN the project.


----------



## CCericola (Nov 22, 2011)

nedomik said:


> It's been over the month since the wedding and  was still not paid for it. So I texted the main photog to send me my paycheck. He said he already paid me but I said he still hasn't. Then he texted me that the wedding is not happy with some of her photos being lighter than usual and wants it fixed.



This bothers me. First he tells you he already paid you, then changes his story and says there is a problem with the pictures. Which one is the lie?


----------



## KmH (Nov 22, 2011)

It doesn't matter which is the lie. Clearly, she isn't going to get paid.

She has no leverage, because there was no written contract and the guy has the photos.


----------



## CCericola (Nov 22, 2011)

I wouldn't say that. He can't deny he hired her to do a job. He will have to prove he paid her. Small claims may take her side. Actually a letter from a lawyer may scare him into coughing up the cash. But neither of us are lawyers so who knows.


----------



## Overread (Nov 22, 2011)

CCericola said:


> nedomik said:
> 
> 
> > It's been over the month since the wedding and  was still not paid for it. So I texted the main photog to send me my paycheck. He said he already paid me but I said he still hasn't. Then he texted me that the wedding is not happy with some of her photos being lighter than usual and wants it fixed.
> ...



I agree it does sound very fishy. If this is how the photographer normally manages their business chances are they've been scamming both their clients and their interns/students - getting away with it mostly because they charge a very low rate and don't have contracts - making any claims very hard to chase up and generally not to be worth the time or investment for the small amount that can be reaped from such actions. 

I'd say cut it - forget it - learn from it and get a proper processional mentor. A letter from a lawyer might help scare them, but chances are they might already be hardened to not fearing a letter with no real threat behind it.


----------



## mjhoward (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm not real keen on the legal ends of things, but if the guy doesn't want to admit that he hired you to do the job, then you should still own all the rights to the photos taken, right?  You might even own the rights to them for the simple fact that there was no contract outlining that anyone other than the person that took the photos owns the rights.  As long as the files retain the EXIF data that shows that they were taken with your camera, it shouldn't be too hard to prove.  I could certainly be wrong though, I'm interested to hear opinions on this.


----------



## raider (Nov 22, 2011)

CCericola said:


> I wouldn't say that. He can't deny he hired her to do a job. He will have to prove he paid her. Small claims may take her side. Actually a letter from a lawyer may scare him into coughing up the cash. But neither of us are lawyers so who knows.



You condone this type of business relation?  she should lose the case for a terrible decision.  this case says she is in high school, has no business sense, or someone's dodging paying taxes.


----------



## KmH (Nov 22, 2011)

mjhoward said:


> I'm not real keen on the legal ends of things, but if the guy doesn't want to admit that he hired you to do the job, then you should still own all the rights to the photos taken, right?  You might even own the rights to them for the simple fact that there was no contract outlining that anyone other than the person that took the photos owns the rights.  As long as the files retain the EXIF data that shows that they were taken with your camera, it shouldn't be too hard to prove.  I could certainly be wrong though, I'm interested to hear opinions on this.


It is a piece of cake to strip the EXIF data or even to re-write it. A well known EXIF data writer/editor application is found at www.photome.de. 

Consequently, it makes poor evidence.


----------



## RamanMaan (Nov 24, 2011)

This is not fair. As you did mistake so you have to pay for it. But that payment should be not so much, that will be around thirty percent. Try to understand your client.


----------



## BlairWright (Nov 24, 2011)

Change them to B&W and be done with it.

Also, if you're second shooter it's not your issue. You shouldn't even be editing in the first place, it's the main photographer's fault for being careless with his business.


----------



## ghache (Nov 24, 2011)

lol, so your boss photographer is paying you 150 per wedding for around 15 hours of work + YOU edit the shots yourself for free. why dont you tell your boss to **** off and get the gigs yourself? you should be paid for the editing work you do or he should edit the shots himself. if hes not happy the way you edit your shots. tell him to **** off, quit that job and tell him he can find another second shooter that works for free.


----------



## rsbones (Nov 24, 2011)

BlairWright said:


> Change them to B&W and be done with it.
> 
> Also, if you're second shooter it's not your issue. You shouldn't even be editing in the first place, it's the main photographer's fault for being careless with his business.



Did you all miss the part where the main photographer (boss) can't edit the photos, and in fact, can't even look at the photos because he is a male? That's the unique twist to this story that makes 3/4 of the replies her irrelevant. It's no use talking about who should be making edits from a business perspective when we have a religious rule that is overriding what would normally be the proper way to run the business. The boss had to hire the photographer because she is female and relied on her to produce images the client liked and the client doesn't: the only way he can fix them is to hire another female to edit them and that's why he doesn't want to pay the photographer.

I still think the photographer should get paid and the boss should eat the costs of the photo editing. But the bosses reasoning here isn't totally because he's a jackass: he's working against some cultural restraints that make it hard for him to deal directly with the client and the photos of the client.


----------



## MLeeK (Nov 24, 2011)

nedomik said:


> I work as an assistant wedding photographer and the bride did not like the color of her hair on some of the photos because she said it is "lighter than it should be". She demands to get the original copies of the photos but unfortunately, it was my mistake I did not have any of the original copies after editing them (which was basically brightness/contrast). I told my photographer boss that since the bride isn't happy he could deduct money from my paycheck for that wedding. I only get paid $11/hour. A wedding is usually 10-15 hours. So, I get about $100-150 per wedding. I don't get paid for the editing work I have to do after the wedding. Apparently, editing work is included already on that $100-150/wedding.


Have you discussed editing work and what is expected of you with the primary shooter? It is really odd that you would edit your shots and the main photog would be editing his or her shots. It would not produce a cohesive set at all. About the only time I'd want something like this to be done would be if the client wanted two completely different style photographers to shoot and that's never come up for me. Not inconceivable. 



nedomik said:


> My photographer boss said that since I could not get him the original photos, he needs to go to someone else to fix my photos who is good in photoshop and it would cost him $100. I would end up getting paid only between $0-50. Is that right? Is that fair? They still have my photos. Not all of the photos are bad. Besides, taking photos is only half of the work and editing is the other half. I am only willing to deduct maximum 50% of my paycheck. What should I do?



At this point? I agree with Kieth. Cut your losses. The original photographer stands to lose more than $150 if these images aren't salvageable... At which point if there is no contract outlining your responsibilities for this? He or she may turn around expect that back from you. You are not in the US, so I can't fathom what is feasible for a lawsuit there, but I'd venture to guess that if you screwed up a job you were hired to do, you can be liable for the damages.


----------

