# Ugh... Instagram Filters



## DGMPhotography (Jul 19, 2019)

So, this happens to everyone. It's happened to me plenty, but a recent client just posted one of our photos, Instagram-filtered to heck, and it looks _bad_. 

Normally, I wouldn't care because it's not worth the effort to talk to them about it. However, this is a repeat client with a lot more work to come, so I'm wondering if I should address it so that it doesn't become a precedent? Or if I should still not worry about it, for fear that may deter him from working with me again. Thoughts? 

(And yes, it is in my contract that photos should not be edited, but I've never really enforced it)


----------



## tirediron (Jul 19, 2019)

I would.  I would approach it from the point of view of, "I notice that you filtered (or whatever verb is appropriate) my image of...  What was it that you didn't like about it?"  Explain to them that while you don't have anything against that look (even if you do), it's not "your" look, and the images on-line represent your brand and please don't ever do that again or you will cut off their fingers and shove them up their nose!


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 19, 2019)

tirediron said:


> I would.  I would approach it from the point of view of, "I notice that you filtered (or whatever verb is appropriate) my image of...  What was it that you didn't like about it?"  Explain to them that while you don't have anything against that look (even if you do), it's not "your" look, and the images on-line represent your brand and please don't ever do that again or you will cut off their fingers and shove them up their nose!



Thanks for the tip. I think that would be a good way to go about it. Less authoritative, and moreso trying to foster understanding.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 19, 2019)

Okay, here's the draft message right now: 

Hey man, I saw the photo you posted on Insta. I noticed that you put some filters on it and I was just wondering if there was something about the original photo you didn't like? I don't have anything against it, and I'm fine with minor edits, but something like a filter totally alters the image, and doesn't reflect the look I'm going for or my editing style. Images online represent my brand too, so if it's possible, do you think you could avoid using filters like that in the future? I thought I would just mention this now, so it isn't a point of contention for future work we do together.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Jul 19, 2019)

Time to nip it in the bud, even at the cost of losing this client. If someone sees unflattering work with your business's name attached, they have no way of knowing it's been edited and might assume your work is not up to par.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 19, 2019)

I like the way your letter comes across--it is not demanding, but rather it asks in a very nice way that people not filter your work.


----------



## thedingo0099 (Jul 20, 2019)

I’m wondering if the client is someone who has contracted you to take pictures for them
Then I wonder if there is a contract between you and the client?
If the contract doesn’t stipulate, the client can use your photos for whatever.
They become the possession of the client.
You took the photos on their behalf.

Ownership is legally complicated.
That’s why we have contracts.
If you want your images to remain your possession you’ll need to come to a different arrangement.


----------



## Original katomi (Jul 20, 2019)

A different angle... post your own msg saying that the image xyz is not original and has been altered and the professionally you distance your self from the butchered image.. that or post a msg saying that you don’t produce cr ap like that and post an image to show just how good yours are... think the 1st idea is better


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 20, 2019)

thedingo0099 said:


> I’m wondering if the client is someone who has contracted you to take pictures for them
> Then I wonder if there is a contract between you and the client?
> If the contract doesn’t stipulate, the client can use your photos for whatever.
> They become the possession of the client.
> ...



I always have a contract (if you read the post you would know that). My contract stipulates I own the copyright, and that images should not be edited. I've just typically not enforced it, but feel I should this time. 

Thanks for the input, everyone!


----------



## Original katomi (Jul 20, 2019)

Ur welcome hope you get it sorted.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Jul 20, 2019)

DGMPhotography said:


> Okay, here's the draft message right now:
> 
> Hey man, I saw the photo you posted on Insta. I noticed that you put some filters on it and I was just wondering if there was something about the original photo you didn't like? I don't have anything against it, and I'm fine with minor edits, but something like a filter totally alters the image, and doesn't reflect the look I'm going for or my editing style. Images online represent my brand too, so if it's possible, do you think you could avoid using filters like that in the future? I thought I would just mention this now, so it isn't a point of contention for future work we do together.



Where’s the part about cutting off fingers and shoving them up noses?


----------



## zombiesniper (Jul 20, 2019)

On a side note. If the customer tells you they're going to continue, ensure in the future their shoot includes and agreement for the copywrite of the images at $1000 per image taken. Then just provide them the RAW files. When they come back WTF? Tell them that's the price of photographic freedom.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 20, 2019)

zombiesniper said:


> On a side note. If the customer tells you they're going to continue, ensure in the future their shoot includes and agreement for the copywrite of the images at $1000 per image taken. Then just provide them the RAW files. When they come back WTF? Tell them that's the price of photographic freedom.



Solid strategy xD


----------



## Derrel (Jul 20, 2019)

I personally think that many people are overreacting to Instagram filters. If the client hires you to take photos  many people will feel that they own the photos. I'm not certain that being hardline about this will actually get you more business. I think there is a fine line between shooting for hire, and repeatedly emphasizing that you own the copyright to the photos


----------



## Derrel (Jul 20, 2019)

I browse Instagram daily, and have noticed that the filter aspect of Instagram has become much less pronounced than it used to be. In fact the vest majority of the photos that I see on Instagram have not been filtered, and look very "unfiltered".


----------



## Derrel (Jul 20, 2019)

When Instagram started out it only allowed users to post square aspect ratio photos. Of course that has been changed, and the vast majority of the photos that I see these days are shown as verticals. Vertical video, once largely  regarded as anathema has come to be the standard on many platforms and for many content creators. Instagram has gone from a photo display platform to more of a real time social media and an advertising  platform.

 If a person really butchers a photo with an absolutely horrible filter job, that is one thing. But if a person just does a little bit of color toning,or converts a color image to black-and-white, and your copyright is on the front of the photo, is that such a bad thing if say 1000 people see it?


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 20, 2019)

Derrel said:


> When Instagram started out it only allowed users to post square aspect ratio photos. Of course that has been changed, and the vast majority of the photos that I see these days are shown as verticals. Vertical video, once largely  regarded as anathema has come to be the standard on many platforms and for many content creators. Instagram has gone from a photo display platform to more of a real time social media and an advertising  platform.
> 
> If a person really butchers a photo with an absolutely horrible filter job, that is one thing. But if a person just does a little bit of color toning,or converts a color image to black-and-white, and your copyright is on the front of the photo, is that such a bad thing if say 1000 people see it?



This is the photo in question - thoughts? 

Original:

 

Instagrammed:


----------



## Derrel (Jul 20, 2019)

Not nearly as bad as I had envisioned. In some ways, one being the crop in particular, the Instagram version is better than the original in my opinion. As for the Low fidelity look and the washed out highlights, it does look very Instagram-ish . But, as I said, it is not as bad as I had envisioned it to be.


----------



## thedingo0099 (Jul 20, 2019)

More fool you.
Contracts work 2 ways.
Seems like you’ve set yourself a legal precedent by ignoring its terms; ie, acting on the other party when they break their terms of agreement.
You might find it a bit late to start now.
Count your losses and learn your lesson.
If you want others to be serious about contractual arrangements, be serious yourself.
Don’t part with your files.



DGMPhotography said:


> thedingo0099 said:
> 
> 
> > I’m wondering if the client is someone who has contracted you to take pictures for them
> ...


----------



## DGMPhotography (Jul 22, 2019)

thedingo0099 said:


> More fool you.
> Contracts work 2 ways.
> Seems like you’ve set yourself a legal precedent by ignoring its terms; ie, acting on the other party when they break their terms of agreement.
> You might find it a bit late to start now.
> ...



It would be nice if that was the case, but unfortunately in the real world, sticking to your guns like that more often loses you business than gaining. I think it truly depends on the specific client-photographer relationship. In this case, I feel the client would continue to work with me if I do call him out on it, because he values my opinion and is typically very open to feedback.


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Jul 22, 2019)

I noticed he cropped out your watermark. Now, good or bad, no one knows the picture’s source.


----------



## JBPhotog (Jul 22, 2019)

Contracts should be written specific to the actual use by the client. Generic contracts are just too loose to be of actual use and are strife for contentious behaviour by the client.

Most if not all concerns about copyright or moral right infringement can be handled during the pre-shoot discussion. Find out what the clients intended use will be and include that stipulation in the "license of use" section of your contract. If they say Instagram, you should be aware that typically images are square or vertical, not often are they horizontal format. Any addition of your watermark should also be discussed in your pre-shoot discussions, keeping in mind that most commercial shoots don't provide the inclusion of a watermark.


----------



## Jeff G (Jul 23, 2019)

If he is a valued customer, I would not do it via mail, or email, do it face to face, or via phone if in person is not an option. It is easy to read the wrong "tone" in a written message and it sounds like the casual approach in person might be the most effective, possibly waiting until your next shoot to bring it up.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 23, 2019)

The edit cleared up his skin, and brought out his eyes, and lightened the feel overall.   Yours is very dark and contrast/structured/harsh and red tinted.

You should learn from what he did.  I ask all my clients what type of photos they like before a shoot, and to offer a pinterest board if possible.  If they send me all color toned images, I know that's probably how I need to edit the set.  I have a home chef who wants some promo portraits for a new blog launching in a few months, and she wants very bright, clean, studio-esque f/16 type of shots.


----------

