What would you do if you had some bad photos?

[belsokar]

So I shot a wedding using some rented lenses...unfortunately, there was a problem with one of my lenses...the left 25% of the image was always out of focus...I picked up the lenses right before the wedding, and had no time to test and view on a larger screen which would have easily shown the problem...out of about 1000 images, about 50 images display the issue...of those 50 images, I have enough similar type shots with other lenses that I could delete 40 of the 50 poorly focused images...so that leaves about 10 images that just stink! Do you just deliver these to the client? Hold them back and tell them the shots were no good? These were from a set of posed family shots that I'm sure the client will remember and notice are missing...

[belsokar]

sorry, meant to put this in the "Business..." section, don't know what happened!

[hypertech]

I don't deliver bad photos.

If the choice is no photos or poor photos in a situation where retakes are impossible, I think I would deliver them what I had along with an apology, an explanation, and a refund.

[giuliasmith]

NEVER DELIVER IMAGES THAT YOU ARE UNSURE ABOUT!

Wow - I always have a fear of something like this happening when shooting weddings! Personally, I edit out ALL the pictures I have any doubt about - this usually takes my 1200 shots down to about 350-400. I would rather deliver 400 good shots than 800 mediocre shots.

Think of it this way, they will never see the shots that are deleted, so they won't know they ever existed!

[OdiN1701]

See if you can fix them, or crop, etc. but if not, I wouldn't deliver them. Are those 10 shots "key" shots?

Also - lesson learned - you will test your lenses next time won't you?

[Anke]

How bad exactly are they, would the client notice if its in a small print?
Can you post an example?

[Karl Johnston]

Delete the bad ones.

[neil_r]

delete the bad ones if you don't have enough for their album give them a refund

[Karl Johnston]

Give them a refund because 50 didn't work out? That's madness ! Unless you've specified that you would deliver 1000 or a certain number.

It's pretty standard to have some shots that don't work out or need to be culled; most photographers have at least 50% on average. The fact that 50 didn't work out isn't much to sweat over. It's very impressive you have that high of a keeping ratio, anyway, good job.

[neil_r]

sorry a poor attempt at irony on my part.

Twas a joke.

The party do not know how many images were taken and as long as you have not screwed up the formals they will never know!

[noxcuses1]

So you're worried about 1% of the images being bad? Just delete them and use the other 990 images you took. :)

Don't give any bad work to the client. period.

[belsokar]

I appreciate all the feedback...I have already deleted several hundred shots that are just poorly focused, un-salvageable, etc...

These 10 shots in question will most likely be noticed as they are family shots where anyone in the left quadrant is out of focus...It's definitely not noticeable on my 3" camera screen :cry: though!

But it would definitely be noticeable on a 4x6...I am not on my biz computer right now, so don't have a sample image, but can try to post one a bit later...

Still not totally sure if I should deliver or not, I can always leave them out and see if they notice...

[noxcuses1]

If you feel that you can't leave them out, can some editing do the trick? Maybe darken around the edges, or change to black and white with more contrast?

[canonnoob]

I appreciate all the feedback...I have already deleted several hundred shots that are just poorly focused, un-salvageable, etc...

These 10 shots in question will most likely be noticed as they are family shots where anyone in the left quadrant is out of focus...It's definitely not noticeable on my 3" camera screen :cry: though!

But it would definitely be noticeable on a 4x6...I am not on my biz computer right now, so don't have a sample image, but can try to post one a bit later...

Still not totally sure if I should deliver or not, I can always leave them out and see if they notice...


sounds like user error.... like you didnt have enough DOF or something

[belsokar]

sounds like user error.... like you didnt have enough DOF or something

Nope...I was worried that maybe that was the issue for a bit, but these were shots with people standing side by side...

plus to test, when I got home and noticed the issue, I tested again to make sure I wasn't crazy...set up the camera for several shots on a tripod...setup some objects to photograph, all side by side...everything equidistant and symmetrical,...and just as I had suspected, everything in the left quadrant was out of focus...everything in the right and center was perfect...

plus rental shop agreed with me and didn't charge me for the lens after testing themselves...

[belsokar]

If you feel that you can't leave them out, can some editing do the trick? Maybe darken around the edges, or change to black and white with more contrast?

I thought about that...cropping is impossible due to proximity of people in the picture...B&W could help a little, but then I'd have some posed shots that for no other reason are B&W...I'd probably get a request to provide a color version as well...

I might give the ol' vignette a shot to see if that can mask it just enough...

[canonnoob]

what is the lens in question BTW?

[belsokar]

what is the lens in question BTW?

Canon EF 17-35 f/2.8L I believe...the sad thing is, I had reserved the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8,...but they didn't have it, so they offered me that instead,

[Karl Johnston]

sorry a poor attempt at irony on my part.

Twas a joke.

Totally missed it, sorry :lol: was wondering what kind of hardcore photog you must be to advocate a 100% keeper rate and then offer a refund after you missed a couple!

950/1000 would be a 95% keeper rate, which I still find pretty damn great.

[canonnoob]

Canon EF 17-35 f/2.8L I believe...the sad thing is, I had reserved the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8,...but they didn't have it, so they offered me that instead,

sure it wasnt the 16-35 2.8 L

[belsokar]

sure it wasnt the 16-35 2.8 L

Could have been...All I know is it was an EF "L" lens (red ring)...and that was the approximate zoom range...I seem to remember the dude telling me 17-35...maybe he stated it wrong, I never looked that closely at it to verify...but now that I think about it actually,...I feel like my exf data shows it as 17-35,...did canon used to make a 17-35 "L" lens? again, I'm not in front of my biz computer right now so I can't verify...

[The Moose]

Canon did make a 17-35 f/2.8L. It was before the 16-35 f/2.8L which, IIRC, now has two (Mark I and Mark II). Before the 17-35 there was a 20-35 f/2.8-4L I think.

[Gatorboy]

Let's see some samples of these "bad" photos.

[Undispu7ed]

I agree with Gator