Very upset with wedding photos. Please take a look.

[Dave Shively]

I just got my daughters wedding photos back from the photographer and I can't tell you how disappointed I am with her results. Almost all are overexposed and just plain bad amateurish photography. Maybe she (the photographer) know something that I don't, but just about all the shots taken were at an ISO of 1600 and many were at a shutter speed of 1/4000th even all the shots outside in the bright sunlight. When shown at 100% all are very grainy. Some are just plain blurry. Here are just a few samples. Is there anything recourse I have with the photographer, after all I can't redo the photos and I will never get the opportunity again? Granted there are a few good ones but not many. Also my daughter did buy a package with all the photos on CD's that are not touched-up, but there are so many things that can't be fixed. I think we paid about $1400 for all this. I have many more examples.

Dave

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781592.jpg
Overexposed

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781602.jpg
Overexposed

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781611.jpg
As you can see the photographers reflection is in the window. Also there were 24 shots taken with this door in the background and 15 of them were on an angle.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781619.jpg
Too far away. You can't even tell who they are.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781625.jpg
Overexposed



http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781655.jpg
Overexposed and light splotches coming through the leaves
on their suits.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781658.jpg
Overexposed. All the shots taken out here look like this.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781665.jpg
Overexposed, grainy and bad composition with the bench in the shot. And the window in the background.

[neil_r]

I am sorry but these are just plain bad photographs.

Did you see any of the photographers work prior to engaging her?

[twofruitz]

Dave, I feel really bad for your situation. I'm wondering how you came to find this photographer and how far did your product differ from the photographers folio products?

[flickserve]

Feel sorry for you. What were the better ones like?

[neil_r]

I have re-looked at these. Given the quality shown here, both in terms of composition and technical execution I would seriously consider seeking some kind of financial redress from the photographer.

If the work you saw prior to hiring her was of a significantly higher standard than this, I would also question the validity of her portfolio.

I would also ask the guests to send you any pictures that managed to grab, they may well be better than some of these.

[Dave Shively]

My mistake was letting my daughter pick the photographer herself at a bridle fair. This was the work of the photographers assistant not the owner and was about $400 cheaper. We saw his work and it was great and assumed he had a good assistant. Wrong! The ones of the reception are just as bad too. Here are a few more. Granted they don't look to bad this small but at full size they are terrible.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368784286.jpg
Way to many were taken at an angle.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368784291.jpg
I know we had a large wedding party, but you can't even tell who they are.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368784295.jpg


http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368784300.jpg
What good photographer would use this window as a background. By the way the man in the middle is my very good friend Hershel "Woody" Williams Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient from Iwo Jima.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368785537.jpg
Is this bad or what?

[twofruitz]

My neck hurts; and I need my glasses. I would certainly take these back asking questions.

$1400 should get you an amazingly photographed wedding.

[neil_r]

No they are bad. Were this in the UK I would look to take this to litigation under the sale of goods act, in that these are not "Fit for Purpose"

Have you spoken to the Photographer, I can't for a minute believe that they are happy having such bad work out there ostensibly in their name.

[The Moose]

I would recommend you go and speak to someone about what you can do about this before going straight to the photographer. I don't mean to sound rude but there are a lot of people who have a DSLR and have gone into wedding photography because of the money when they aren't good enough. This person has somehow overcharged a lot when they shouldn't have. I hope you can work something out.

[hybridkyle]

WOW, I should start charging for my wedding shots....

I shot a friends wedding not long after getting my 350D and they were better than this. I feel SO sorry for you guys, that really sucks :(

[JMHPhotography]

I'll play the devil's advocate here... as a wedding photographer myself.

First... I agree that the examples shown here are less than ideal so I won't defend the work. I really can't. But... I have to point out that some of your critiques are a little unfair.

First image: It lacks a good level of contrast which gives it a washed out look, and the window in the background is blown out... but the subject is technically not overexposed. I did a face mask selection in photoshop and the histogram shows that the exposure level on her skin tones is dead on. Unless of course she's really tanned. But to me she looks like she's a fair skinned Caucasian. Now the trade off for the window being blown out is that rim light on the bride which I like... but if it were me, I would have shot RAW and done a two conversion composite to get the detail back in the window.

second image... same thing. no contrast, but exposure is technically correct.

third image... fair critique though I'm more put off by the angle and by how far to the edge of the frame they are than the reflection.

fourth image... Probably missing the point of this shot which is to show off some of the gorgeous architecture of the church. However, the execution of this particular shot is pretty dismal. It looks like the photographer is shooting at angles just for the sake of shooting at angles. I shoot at angles occasionally but I only use angles that support the image I'm trying to make. There is a certain flow it should have. Hard to explain it, but when it looks right, you can feel it. I think it's important to have these types of shots as well as shots where you could easily identify the people. It helps round out the album. I personally WOULD have done a shot like this and it would have gone into the album with a close up in the same location and setup.

fifth image... yeah.. that's pretty bad, though I think that if the photographer shot RAW, there seems to be some good detail in the highlights that could be recovered.

sixth and seventh images... horrible location choice. the background is way too bright. and the trees do not provide enough shade. Won't even defend it.

eighth image... overexposed??? are you serious? The fact that it's as grainy as is it tells me this was badly underexposed and then pushed up. The windows in the background no doubt fooled the camera's meter. Composition... the bench, yeah get that out of there! But the windows would have been BRILLIANT for this image had the photographer executed the shot correctly.

[ixobelle]

ouch.

If it was some other guy's assistant I'd make a show of going straight to the boss and making a huge fuss. I'm normally not a person into confrontation, but those are pretty bad.

Throw the pricetag in there and yeah... wow.

[SuzyView]

I don't think these images are unmanageable. Like the last edit by John is good. I just wish the groom didn't look like a vampire.

I shoot pro weddings and these are about the worst I've seen from a pro in a while. I feel bad. I'd definitely ask the photographer to give up the RAW or untouched files and see if s pro editor could save them. Definitely say not satisfied and would not recommend to friends if the pro doesn't give up the originals.

[natalieegbert]

Ok so it was the photographers assistant and not the photographer, who took the pictures?

[NicholasP]

Jesus these are horrible :lmfao:

[DennisW1]

I just got my daughters wedding photos back from the photographer and I can't tell you how disappointed I am with her results. Almost all are overexposed and just plain bad amateurish photography. Maybe she (the photographer) know something that I don't, but just about all the shots taken were at an ISO of 1600 and many were at a shutter speed of 1/4000th even all the shots outside in the bright sunlight. When shown at 100% all are very grainy. Some are just plain blurry. Here are just a few samples. Is there anything recourse I have with the photographer, after all I can't redo the photos and I will never get the opportunity again? Granted there are a few good ones but not many. Also my daughter did buy a package with all the photos on CD's that are not touched-up, but there are so many things that can't be fixed. I think we paid about $1400 for all this. I have many more examples.

Dave

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781592.jpg
Overexposed

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781602.jpg
Overexposed

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781611.jpg
As you can see the photographers reflection is in the window. Also there were 24 shots taken with this door in the background and 15 of them were on an angle.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781619.jpg
Too far away. You can't even tell who they are.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781625.jpg
Overexposed



http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781655.jpg
Overexposed and light splotches coming through the leaves
on their suits.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781658.jpg
Overexposed. All the shots taken out here look like this.

http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781665.jpg
Overexposed, grainy and bad composition with the bench in the shot. And the window in the background.


You booked the assistant after seeing only the *real* photographer's work? Yikes!! I realize you propably know this but your daughter should have realized that you want to see examples of the actual work of the person who will be photographing YOUR wedding.

You're right, all of even the samples you've posted here aren't *terrible* (ok, the bench really really sucks) but if they're all so far overexposed as you say then any fixing is going to be marginally sucessful at best.

It almost sounds like the photographer didn't pay attention to camera settings. Even it you don't like some of the poses at least you wouldn't be dealing with every image having the highlights blown out past the point of no return.

I think you do indeed have some financial relief owed to you. If this assistant was hanging on the cottails of his boss by representing that work as his own, you've been the victim of false advertising. I realize this doesn't bring back that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have good quality images of your daughter's wedding day but at this point I guess its the best you can hope for. Sorry this had to happen.

And for those aspiring beginners asking what's the big deal about weddings, this is a good example You don't get a second chance to get it right, you can't ask them to come back tomorrow if your only camera breaks or if you screw something up in the heat of battle. You only get one shot at getting it right, and even those people who say that the photographs aren't that important to them will be upset, disappointed, and possibly downright angry when they don't get 'em (this is not directed at the OP).

[BradM]

This is an unfortunate situation that may well have no easy resolution.

Was a contract was signed? Are you a signatory on the contract? If not even if you paid for it, then the photographer has no requirement to discuss this with you or come to some agreement, however if you did sign does it include an article that speaks to servicability of the end product?

If so review it closely for what was promised to be delivered. If the terms haven't been met then you have clear recourse, probably with the conditions of satisfaction articulated in the contract.

If no contract is in place, then the question of what is good enough may end up in a small claims court room and I am afraid most courts would accept these images meeting the implied requirements for this event.

Know where you stand before hand, people buy bad "art", bad service or other faulty products everday and 99% of the time there is no legal obligation to do better.

It is unfortunate but too many people look for bargains, and the photography at a wedding is one of the places people often try to come in under budget for the event.

The thought they lose track of it is the photos that are really the only long term product or service that comes away from a wedding. The flowers, the cake, the limo and everything else is fleeting in nature, only the images may still be there for decades to come.

After quoting what I charge to do a wedding I have been told a number of times they could hire 4 or 5 other people to do the same event. I am happy to tell them what to look for, and more importantly find a photog that will offer to let them speak to previous clients. How that sitting down and looking at prints and how web shots can't be judged for the true quality of the image captured can make the real difference in getting a lifetime of memories they can hold in their laps.

I certainly hope that a reasonable settlement can be come to, but a few dollars is not going to allow the memories to be recaptured and will certainly be a poor subsitute.

[mikekelley]

Jesus these are bad. Was she drunk? Those tilt shots are just awful. That would probably also explain ISO 1600 for everything :lol:

[JMHPhotography]

My mistake was letting my daughter pick the photographer herself at a bridle fair. This was the work of the photographers assistant not the owner and was about $400 cheaper. We saw his work and it was great and assumed he had a good assistant. Wrong! The ones of the reception are just as bad too. Here are a few more. Granted they don't look to bad this small but at full size they are terrible.

Way to many were taken at an angle.

I know we had a large wedding party, but you can't even tell who they are.


What good photographer would use this window as a background. By the way the man in the middle is my very good friend Hershel "Woody" Williams Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient from Iwo Jima.

Is this bad or what?

Ok, so you knowingly opted for the assistant to save $400.00 and went on assumption that the assistant's picture would be just as good as the photographer's? You should really think about that for a minute and let it soak in. Sorry to sound so uhm... jerkish, I reallyh don't mean to be, but as a struggling photographer losing business to the Craigslist "Pro's" who specialize in $500.00 CD only weddings, It just makes me lose my mind to hear people complain about crap photography when they weren't willing to pay for the good stuff in the first place.

don't worry... these new examples look pretty horrible small as well.

Large wedding parties are HARD to photograph in a way that will allow the viewer to pick out individuals. Not impossible.. but hard.

To answer the question... "what good photographer would use that window...?"

Any good photographer who knew the proper way to do it would. I know I could.

[chauncey]

After my recent experience with this "wedding stuff" as described here http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=715840&highlight=public+apology , I feel a need to comment....They suck!

Having said that, it begs another question...when one hires a bad "serviceman" and the results are less than adequate, who's fault is it?
Is it the employer that neglected to check resumes or that employee that lacks the ability to fulfill his duties?

I would suggest that you guys and your professional association, in your respective areas, publish a manual for the bride, stating "this is what you get for $1000 and this is what you get for $5000" or whatever.
Anything, to help that overwhelmed bride/mother make an informed decision about expectations on this aspect of the eventful day, would be a good thing.

If you'll already have such an manual, it's not getting enough play in the press.

[JMHPhotography]

I don't think these images are unmanageable. Like the last edit by John is good. I just wish the groom didn't look like a vampire.

I shoot pro weddings and these are about the worst I've seen from a pro in a while. I feel bad. I'd definitely ask the photographer to give up the RAW or untouched files and see if s pro editor could save them. Definitely say not satisfied and would not recommend to friends if the pro doesn't give up the originals.

Thanks Suzy... I pulled my edit because I don't own the images, and because the OP didn't have editing ok... I hate that myself, so I didn't want to do the same thing. But if the OP wants to see it, I'll post it up for him.

[SuzyView]

That's fine, John.

Yes, a pro would know how to light that pose in front of the bright window, we wouldn't do it. :) But I think you live and learn. If the bride can recover the originals, maybe someone with good PP work can save them. What makes a good wedding pro isn't so much just taking the pictures, it's what one does after. I know many of the images here are not very good for many reasons, but saving some money is what is happening in the real world now. Just be careful next time.

[Dave Shively]

I am having trouble uploading more pictures and I will do so later. Right now I have to go pick up the newlyweds at the airport back from their honeymoon.

The assistant was the one taking the shots.

I don't know if my daughter signed a contract or not, but I certainly will find out soon.

Yes I know a good photographer can use a window to his or her advantage, but this did not know how to do it.

I believe there are about 600 some odd photos and there are some good ones but not many. And yes I know some can be fixed, but overall it will not be good.

Dave

[JeffreyG]

The photos are unfortunately bad. At this point the whole selection process is just arguing about closing barn doors after the horses are gone.

The best thing for the person who hired the photographer to do is return to them with their list of grievances. We can help with that.
1. The purposely tilted shots are not artfully done (3,4) and the rest seem to be tilted through carelessness (1, 6).
2. There are several scenes that were strongly backlit and the photographer did not properly expose for ambient and light the subjects with a flash. (6,7,8 )
3. Poor composition for large groups both the outdoor one with the loooooong string of people and the indoor one with the bench front and center.
4. General poor IQ from shooting at high ISO even in good light shows lack of understanding of fundamentals of photography.

OP also needs to think about redress. Have what you want in mind before beginning the conversation relative to returned money or reshoot of B&G or what.

[Michael_Lambert]

While the shots do suck IMHO... I hope they where shot in some sort of RAW format and i would insist on copies of them... Many of the shots can be recroped and adjusted if in RAW and be fairly usable!

[advaitin]

Clearly, you were dealing with a second rate photographer. Perhaps she may have shot Raw files and some would be salvageable? Is there a way for you to get the files into your possession, perhaps in exchange for you not bringing her to small claims court.

Then have a good technician try to make the best of a bad deal.

[tnguyen600]

Dave, you should set your profile to "Image Editing OK".


I really would like to see how some of the members on here would edit these photos. I'm sure they'd turn out a whole lot better.

[mortar]

I don't know if I missed it being posted already but I would take the images back to the owner of the shop and show him the images and tell him your dislikes. I would think a pro could see what you're talking about easliy.

If the owner is a pro and a good business owner he should rectify this and think twice about sending this assistant out on assignment again.

[DStanic]

Wow I feel sorry for your daughter, these wedding pictures are not good by any means. For $1400 they should at least be exposed properly. I would be trying to get some money back, or at least try to get the RAW files (assuming the photographer even shot in RAW!. Or I would ask for them to be re-edited because that is just plain terrible work,

[Joelene]

I am sorry, shooters like that get my panties in a bunch! These are plain terrible.. Yes they can be fixed up with some heavy ps work, however; for 1400.00 you shouldnt 'have to! Not to mention most non photographers don't even have photoshop, let alone know how to use it!

I don't agree with slamming the bride for saving the 400.00 and going with the assistant. Yes, they opted to save money, knowing they were not going to get "the best" however they should have at least received GOOD shots. Not to mention the "main shooter" should have known better then to send this guy/gal out on their own!

I myself have a low budget bride package of 1500.00 and digi files and four hours of coverage, my brides would never get anything like this! Just because they are not dishing out thousands and thousands of dollars doesn't mean they should not get the best I can provide. Even from my second shooter, honestly I have seen teenagers shoot better than this with with pop up flash and kit lenses!

I don't need to zoom in at 100% to see the first two are oof. no bumping of contrast can fix that. The tilts are just badly done! These have been badly photo shopped too! No camera is going to turn one guy yellow and the other guy slightly pink. the group shot with the bench was obviously under and brought up..

Shooting the entire wedding at a 1600 iso? are you kidding me?! This sounds like someone who doesn't "get it" and forgets to change from one setting to another! The main shooter should have KNOWN not to send this shooter out on his / her own! I know I said that already but really! Would any of you guys? seriously?

The ONLY other explanation I can see is the assistant low balled the photographer without his knowledge and the bride and groom should have seen a scam from the get go if that is the case! I don't' have the facts and am just speculating.....and if that is the case shame on everyone involved!

There are plenty of "first wedding' threads on these forums alone where the images are a thousand times better!

I am so sorry you are dealing with this. I would head straight back to that studio and be getting some sort of compensation! One thing the studio I used to work for did when he had a crappy shooter mess up a wedding, was not return money but pay for a tux rental, hair and make - up redone and took the bride and groom out himself for another shoot.

OR I am willing to bet there are other shooters in your area, good ones, that will do a bride and groom re-shoot for free. I would and have in the past for these poor poor brides.

No you cannot recreate the day, but you could at least demand they provide images that you had expected, if you are up for the fight. As long as the images they showed in the portfolio are nothing like the ones you have received.


There panties slightly un-twisted, feeling a bit better after that vent. I am sorry for my crappy grammar, I am a visual artist not an articulate one!

[YankeeMom]

Very good idea about having them pay for and re-shoot the formals. Hopefully, some of the guests got good candids.

Hopefully, a complaint will a.) help salvage the primary photographers reputation and b.) save future brides and families heart-ache in the future.

That second's work looks absolutely like what I would expect from a guest with a point-and-shoot! 1600? That blows my mind.

[Joelene]

I forgot to say one thing. In the past when the re-shoots had to happen was when photographers shot on film. With digital, honestly how can this happen? Did he / she not LOOK at least once or twice on the back of the camera? hmmf.

[JMHPhotography]

I am sorry, shooters like that get my panties in a bunch! These are plain terrible.. Yes they can be fixed up with some heavy ps work, however; for 1400.00 you shouldnt 'have to! Not to mention most non photographers don't even have photoshop, let alone know how to use it!

I don't agree with slamming the bride for saving the 400.00 and going with the assistant. Yes, they opted to save money, knowing they were not going to get "the best" however they should have at least received GOOD shots. Not to mention the "main shooter" should have known better then to send this guy/gal out on their own!

I myself have a low budget bride package of 1500.00 and digi files and four hours of coverage, my brides would never get anything like this! Just because they are not dishing out thousands and thousands of dollars doesn't mean they should not get the best I can provide. Even from my second shooter, honestly I have seen teenagers shoot better than this with with pop up flash and kit lenses!

I don't need to zoom in at 100% to see the first two are oof. no bumping of contrast can fix that. The tilts are just badly done! These have been badly photo shopped too! No camera is going to turn one guy yellow and the other guy slightly pink. the group shot with the bench was obviously under and brought up..

Shooting the entire wedding at a 1600 iso? are you kidding me?! This sounds like someone who doesn't "get it" and forgets to change from one setting to another! The main shooter should have KNOWN not to send this shooter out on his / her own! I know I said that already but really! Would any of you guys? seriously?

The ONLY other explanation I can see is the assistant low balled the photographer without his knowledge and the bride and groom should have seen a scam from the get go if that is the case! I don't' have the facts and am just speculating.....and if that is the case shame on everyone involved!

There are plenty of "first wedding' threads on these forums alone where the images are a thousand times better!

I am so sorry you are dealing with this. I would head straight back to that studio and be getting some sort of compensation! One thing the studio I used to work for did when he had a crappy shooter mess up a wedding, was not return money but pay for a tux rental, hair and make - up redone and took the bride and groom out himself for another shoot.

OR I am willing to bet there are other shooters in your area, good ones, that will do a bride and groom re-shoot for free. I would and have in the past for these poor poor brides.

No you cannot recreate the day, but you could at least demand they provide images that you had expected, if you are up for the fight. As long as the images they showed in the portfolio are nothing like the ones you have received.


There panties slightly un-twisted, feeling a bit better after that vent. I am sorry for my crappy grammar, I am a visual artist not an articulate one!


haha... wow. nice venting.

I don't think I was "slamming" the bride. I actually sympathize with her. I understand wanting to save money. But the way to do it is not to go with a LESSER photographer. You said it yourself. You have a budget package, but YOU are still the photographer. And THAT is the proper way to save money. To expect a specific level of quality from an assistant that you would get from the actual professional is not only unrealistic, it's also unreasonable and that was the point I was trying to make.

I don't think the first one is OOF. I do think it's a little unsharp though. There is a difference. It's obvious these shots were all straight out of camera with no sharpening or anything done to them.

[Optiq]

What a shame. Without RAW files to maybe salvage a couple of those, the only thing that's going to fix those is a reshoot (or a divorce and another full wedding).

Sheesh, and I was worried if I had enough skill to sell my services in something like a wedding. What nerve. Any beginner could do better with a P&S.

[Joelene]

haha... wow. nice venting.

I don't think I was "slamming" the bride. I actually sympathize with her. I understand wanting to save money. But the way to do it is not to go with a LESSER photographer. You said it yourself. You have a budget package, but YOU are still the photographer. And THAT is the proper way to save money. To expect a specific level of quality from an assistant that you would get from the actual professional is not only unrealistic, it's also unreasonable and that was the point I was trying to make.

I don't think the first one is OOF. I do think it's a little unsharp though. There is a difference. It's obvious these shots were all straight out of camera with no sharpening or anything done to them.

You are right I guess the term "Slamming" was a bit harsh. Sorry. :o

I disagree with #1, it would be a tossed shot in my editing pile.

My budget package does still provide me, yes. BUT... I am sending my second out on a wedding this year, by request of the bride to save money. I am confident he will do a great job after all it is MY reputation on the line. Not his. Not only is he going out I am hiring, at a cost to me, for him to have a second shooter on this wedding as well. Simply as "just in case" No bride should have crappy wedding pictures. Period. If a contract is signed it should be to protect BOTH the photographer and the bride. Not just the photographer. arrrrg... getting bunched up again... LOL

You are right that it is unrealistic and unreasonable not to mention just plain silly to expect the same quality of images, but like I said, at least GOOD ones would be expected.

To the OP. have the other shooter pay for my flight there and a I am ready and willing to show him and his second shooter how to do it right! That can be your compensation. :p

hehe horn tootin.. sorry.

[Goshawk]

This guy must have kept ALL his photographs, these look like ones that should have been binned.

[shomat]

I'm a little surprised at the people who are saying these photos aren't so bad. The bride purchased a result and didn't get it - technicalities and effort mean nothing. Those photos are awful and I'd be livid if I was their recipient.

[shomat]

Very good idea about having them pay for and re-shoot the formals. Hopefully, some of the guests got good candids.

Hopefully, a complaint will a.) help salvage the primary photographers reputation and b.) save future brides and families heart-ache in the future.

That second's work looks absolutely like what I would expect from a guest with a point-and-shoot! 1600? That blows my mind.

If it were me I'd rather seek a reimbursement which could be used to hire a different photographer for re-shoots.

[Optiq]

There are several commenting on the 1600 ISO and of course that was outrageous. That was a major mistake with that "photographer" understanding the camera and basic photography in general. What's worse is the composition. The composition was atrocious: Shots with bright windows in the background . . . inappropriate objects . . . out of focus . . . over exposure or incorrect metering . . . can't see who the subjects are . . . . etc. adnasuem.

To the OP: is your sample posting of shots the median of quality or the best or the worst?

[xxloverxx]

I have to say, the one time I shot a wedding non-professionally, as someone who was simply invited to the wedding an happened to bring a camera along, my shots were no where near as bad as that. I don't think they're totally gone from any chance of rescue, there is still potential to bring something back into these photos, but the ones that were taken at an angle will require a lot of work (there simply isn't enough negative space to straighten the image, I'm sure more experienced people will disagree here)

I'll be blunt - details from overexposed areas are gone. Unless the photog can provide you with RAW files (if it was even shot in RAW). Out of focus photos are gone, even with RAW files

Grain would be the least of my worries if I were you - I would worry more about bringing some contrast back into the photos first, then worry about noise reduction.

It may just be that you resized the photos for uploading, but a lot of these photos seem to be soft, out of focus or just noisy.

It seems like the photog was snapping away in auto mode - can you check the EXIF to confirm this? I normally shoot aperture-priority and even my snapshots aren't this bad - IMO this is the work of a total beginner, and it would certainly be worthwhile to contact the photog and demand an explanation - work of this level for a once-in-a-lifetime event is completely unacceptable; you should not have to be labouring in front of the computer for hours just to get something satisfactory.

[Karl Johnston]

Just a quick question, what was the amount of work you were paying for these images? How many did you get? Did you at all be told you were paying for "digital negatives?"

These look like unprocessed raw files with their washed out look and low contrast. Granted they are horrible (jesus) but they all have that lack of contrast/washed out look that unprocessed RAW files have.

What did the photographer's website or portfolio look like? 1400 is pretty darned cheap. If the photos on their website or portfolio looked better than this, or completely different, maybe they've stolen images and put them in their portfolio. I don't know who you would talk to about something like that but it sounds like he or she is a con-artist.

Just hold on a moment I just read this post:
My mistake was letting my daughter pick the photographer herself at a bridle fair. This was the work of the photographers assistant not the owner and was about $400 cheaper. We saw his work and it was great and assumed he had a good assistant. Wrong! The ones of the reception are just as bad too. Here are a few more. Granted they don't look to bad this small but at full size they are terrible.
There we go, there's always half a story told and then the other half told later..

You booked the photographer's assistant? Were you being told that the assistant would be shooting the photographs, not the owner? I've never heard of anyone letting their assistant (if assistant does mean the laborer that carries the equipment and not the second/student shooter) shoot in their place like that, I'd say if you weren't told then you could slam the photographer/owner for fraud.

But if you were told then...well I'm sorry but I don't at all feel sorry for you. I feel sorry for the owner/photographer's poor judgment in thinking his assistant was ready to cover the event on her/his own but you really should go check into having a re-shoot for at least the formals

[saturnin]

that sux.. for that much money to get below average service/results, sorry bout the situation

[Karl Johnston]

I mean I am sorry about the pictures turning out so awfully but it's a bit unfair to assume the photographer's assistant could do as great a job as the owner, looking at it from the photographer's point of view.

That said, like I said, poor judgment of the owner.

Sorry for your photos; they are horrible. Not even a good retouch could fix some of them (whats with that blurriness? EW!)

[mortar]

I will say that your daughter is quite beautiful, you should be very proud!

[Optiq]

I will say that your daughter is quite beautiful, you should be very proud!

Agreed.

She has kind of a Drew Barrymore/Christina Aguilera thing going there!

Try not to freak out too much about this in her presence . . . but that's gonna be tough!

[YankeeMom]

I mean I am sorry about the pictures turning out so awfully but it's a bit unfair to assume the photographer's assistant could do as great a job as the owner, looking at it from the photographer's point of view.

As good as the owner? They aren't even as good as my 66-year-old Dad could do. That "Photog" had to be an equiptment holder. Maybe a teenager? UGH.

[superstes]

Not one shot is good here.

There is no reason for this type of crap, 1400 or free, with a DSLR, auto would have done 200 percent better.

Taking a fairly good shot with a DSLR is not that hard, theses are just out and out sloppy.

[miket019]

I'm not going to give a speech about who did what wrong, it's a little late for that.

I can tell some of those photos can be saved through processing. You would be amaze what a raw file can do.

[superstes]

I'm not going to give a speech about who did what wrong, it's a little late for that.

I can tell some of those photos can be saved through processing. You would be amaze what a raw file can do.

Your talking rubbish, sorry friend.

Even RAW files would not bring them back to a respectable standard to be handed to a paying client.

[sandpiper]

but it's a bit unfair to assume the photographer's assistant could do as great a job as the owner,

This is true, but the difference should be in the flair and creativity with posing, composition etc.

I can understand an assistant having less artistic flair than the main guy, but they should still be capable of producing technically good images, and without silly composition like the couple at 45 degrees coming out from the corner of he frame. There is still a minimum acceptable standard when charging that amount of money, this assistant didn't produce usable shots.

[miket019]

Your talking rubbish, sorry friend.

Even RAW files would not bring them back to a respectable standard to be handed to a paying client.

Nobody is talking rubbish.

Nobody is saying anything about making them professional photos.

If it's in raw, some of those photos can be saved. I am not sure if you read the whole thread or just come in here to spark debate but many others agree.

[fotographee]

wow i think you need to get your money back with these photos!

[miket019]

I believe there are about 600 some odd photos and there are some good ones but not many. And yes I know some can be fixed, but overall it will not be good.

Dave

Good luck dave, hope you get some of that money back. keep us updated.

[Karl Johnston]

As good as the owner? They aren't even as good as my 66-year-old Dad could do. That "Photog" had to be an equiptment holder. Maybe a teenager? UGH.
Hey don't knock people because of their age, there's a few really, really good 16-20 year old photographers on here that do really great work! But yeah, I was glossing it over by saying these weren't as good...

Anyway, in all practicality I think the best course of action for you, Dave, is to check in with a lawyer and see about what you can do for your daughter; take along the contract with you. Maybe you can go after them for fraud, or maybe you can just demand something like your money back -if the photographers decline that request...personally if I @#$%ed up that bad; my contract says I have to return up to 75% back- based on the fact that you guys feel your coverage wasn't (obviously) what it should have been.

[Dave Shively]

Well I learned just a little more after talking to my daughter. The cost was $1250 not $1400 but I don't see this as making any difference. And we both knew that the assistant was doing the work and the assistant had her own assistant. Still I do not think I got what I paid for. I should have at the very least gotten decent photos even if I paid $800.

I also found the contact and the crux of it says "Contacting parties understand that background, composition and the album content are at the sole discretion of the photographer/staff". Nothing is said about bad photos or bad photography.

I checked and there are 882 photos taken.

The example I posted earlier were some of the worst because I wanted to make my point. There are, however "some" decent one here as well but still these need a lot of work to look more than reasonable. I don't think I am asking to much here.

Here are some more random samples.

http://inlinethumb48.webshots.com/38575/2170662920100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

1/60 f/5.6 ISO 3200

http://inlinethumb63.webshots.com/45758/2191370130100293667S600x600Q85.jpg
1/500 f/5.6 ISO 800

http://inlinethumb45.webshots.com/43820/2361330920100293667S600x600Q85.jpg
1/40 f/5.6 ISO 3200

http://inlinethumb37.webshots.com/44644/2280942190100293667S600x600Q85.jpg
1/60 f/5.6 ISO 800

http://inlinethumb32.webshots.com/44191/2892183780100293667S600x600Q85.jpg
1/80 f/5.6 ISO 800

http://inlinethumb01.webshots.com/42688/2421162260100293667S600x600Q85.jpg
1/50 f/8 ISO 1600

[reignmkr]

I think we can agree that wedding photogs should exhibit their best samples to the B&G. To just put everything on a CD is not a good move. The latest samples are better but if these are the best, then I would speak with the photographer and give her some constructive criticism. Photog to photog.

[fly my pretties]

All of the pictures you have posted, including the most recent ones above me are absolutely terrible. They are just appalingly bad on every level. The fact that this photographer has the nerve to consider himself worthy of recording the memory of the biggest day in two people's lives just completely disgusts me. The arrogance of it is truly abhorrent.

$1400 is a lot of money and the person that took these pictures has absolutely no concept of composition or basic exposure settings. While $1400 isn't going to get David LaChappele to guest shoot your big day, it should at least buy someone who knows the fundamental concepts of photography.

I really feel for you Dave, you have every right to be upset. I myself would seek compensation over this affair, if the photographer cares about his business, he will reimburse you as well as fire this amateur so that he can't ruin anyone else's big day.

Good luck on a resolution.

[tkbslc]

While these do suck really bad for what was paid, You can at least take comfort in that the day was at least recorded with some pictures, even though they look pretty unprofessional. There is at least SOMETHING to put in an album and remember in 30 years. I think you are probably sharing the bad shots and there are likely some half-decent shots in there that you could make a small album out of.

Just trying to give some minor positive to look at. At least all the pictures weren't lost on a hard drive crash or something...

[Jacobredphoto]

As good as the owner? They aren't even as good as my 66-year-old Dad could do. That "Photog" had to be an equiptment holder. Maybe a teenager? UGH.

Hey now, I'm 16 years old, no need to make fun of people's ages. Anyone can suck at photography, regardless of age. No, I'm not a pro yet but I know that I will be in the near future, I'm improving day by day. I also have standards for myself and KNOW what I can and can't do.

To the OP, I'm terribly sorry that this entire situation went down like it did. I hope that you can salvage some pictures and get at least a portion of the money spent back.

[YankeeMom]

Hey now, I'm 16 years old, no need to make fun of people's ages. Anyone can suck at photography, regardless of age. No, I'm not a pro yet but I know that I will be in the near future, I'm improving day by day. I also have standards for myself and KNOW what I can and can't do.

To the OP, I'm terribly sorry that this entire situation went down like it did. I hope that you can salvage some pictures and get at least a portion of the money spent back.

Yes, by teenager, I meant someone still in training, like an apprentice.

[YankeeMom]

That last one is the only decent shot, IMO. (But I agree that photoshop could salvage some of them, esp. if there are over 800.)

[Mintie]

No, I'm sorry - even the ones you posted as "decent" suck big time. For god sake the photographer hasn't even managed to get a straight stage in #'s 4 & 5 of that second group. They are truly appalling and an example of what happens when a complete amateur gets a camera in their hands and thinks wedding photography is easy.

The "angled" shots in the original batch are awful; just awful.

I would be coming down on them like a ton of bricks. For those arguing on here that the RAW files can be reprocessed; isn't that slightly missing the point that a "professional" photography outfit handed this bag of crap to a familiy and tried to pass it off as acceptable. Isn't it also missing the point that the owner or manager of the firm should have checked the rubbish his assistant was taking and if the manager thinks these are acceptable, doesn't that speak volumes about his/her professionalism.

Set the dogs onto them...

[Spacemunkie]

Set the dogs onto them...

Have to agree. Cowboys in any line of business need to be put in their place for the benefit of other potential customers.

[Goshawk]

That last one is the only decent shot, IMO. (But I agree that photoshop could salvage some of them, esp. if there are over 800.)
A re-crop to straighten the background will improve the photograph a lot.

[Karl Johnston]

I feel bad for your daughter, dave.

Tell you what. Bring the whole reception and family up to the arctic and I will re-shoot a session for free!

(Note: I am not responsible for the travel costs/hotel fees/food/etc)

Seriously, this is what inspired me to create this company; emphasis on professionalism throughout the range of the professional imaging industry.
:( I really feel for everyone who doesn't get the quality they deserve. We need a more emphasized body of professional photographers that people can recognize and go to and rely on; expect quality work from and if it fails..like it obviously has done here..then you can actually do something about.

Joe blow and Plain Jane the photographers in this job could be long gone with the 1400 $ by now, or what have you. Then you're stuck with the shoddy job and then what?

As I was told recently from a client; It's just bad business, situations like these. He talked about how he had a freelance designer locally design his business cards for a whooping 3000$ (for 100! they sucked too, I could've done a better job in windows paint). What he liked about me was; he got a good quality product for a reasonable cost and he respected a good, honest business. Emphasized that quality work comes hand in hand...you get what you put in. In this case, granted 1000 $ isn't that much for a wedding photographer ...its still quite a chunk and you should've had far more than these shots to show for it.

Think about it, what can we buy with a 1000$ ? A fairly new laptop...2 sets of 80 mL epson ink cartridges...an xbox 360 with as many games as you could play till your eyeballs started turning purple from your gaming addiction...a set of tires for my car that I desperately could use but will probably put off another winter because I can't find the Jack....a 135 2.0L...it goes on. 1000$ is 2 and a half weeks of working minimum wage full time! Or for me, that's 25 8.5x11" prints (about a month's worth).

I feel for you, though, I hope you can get some nice honest and friendly people on here to help with the retouching of the ones that can be partially salvaged. You gave them a pretty negative review on this forum, so maybe if someone parks by and puts their name into google they'll find this horror story and take second thoughts before considering them for their wedding (you get some pretty crazy referrals from key words generated on this website...)

[Goshawk]

I feel bad for your daughter, dave.

Tell you what. Bring the whole reception and family up to the arctic and I will re-shoot a session for free!

(Note: I am not responsible for the travel costs/hotel fees/food/etc)

Seriously, this is what inspired me to create this company; emphasis on professionalism throughout the range of the professional imaging industry.
:( I really feel for everyone who doesn't get the quality they deserve. We need a more emphasized body of professional photographers that people can recognize and go to and rely on; expect quality work from and if it fails..like it obviously has done here..then you can actually do something about.

Joe blow and Plain Jane the photographers in this job could be long gone with the 1400 $ by now, or what have you. Then you're stuck with the shoddy job and then what?
Arctic ??? Damn it must be nice up there. (oh he checked with his daughter they were apparently ripped for $1250 not $1400)

[Karl Johnston]

Arctic ??? Damn it must be nice up there. (oh he checked with his daughter they were apparently ripped for $1250 not $1400)
Take a look at my fine art gallery on my website for some sample images :p
or, I see you have a flickr...check me out too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/karljohnston

[DunnoWhen]

I also found the contact and the crux of it says "Contacting parties understand that background, composition and the album content are at the sole discretion of the photographer/staff".

And herein lies your best argument.

As professional wedding photographers, they should know better what type of backgrounds and composition are required.

This term within the contract is written for the benefit of the photographer so that the client does not insist on being photographed before unsuitable backgrounds or in silly postures. On this occasion this term will come back to bite them.

I hope that you manage to recover all your costs and to get some decent formals from someone who knows what they are doing.

[Goshawk]

Take a look at my fine art gallery on my website for some sample images :p
or, I see you have a flickr...check me out too: http://www.flickr.com/photos/karljohnston
Had a look. what a lovely place. That Aurora Borealis is mind blowing. Great photo's.

[johnstoy]

Post processing these will improve them to some degree... As said... get the original files and have some one spend a lot of time on each photo... I usually spend 30 minutes per pic, while converting from RAW and post processing... Portraits for enlargements sometimes take hours, and then I return to them later on another day, and re-critique, and post process some more.

Unfortunately, some of the tilted, blown out, and out of focus captures, will be tough to salvage...

[wdwpsu]

Dave.. A suggestion about expectation management.

While these pictures are very dissapointing, I'd be cautious not to make too big of a deal of it to your daughter. We all have a more critical eye than Joe Average, and see things that others may not. Pointing out the mistakes in a photograph to your daughter may turn her against a picture that she otherwise enjoyed. For example, instead of looking at that one picture, she's never going to see anything past that bench. But, maybe that wouldn't have annoyed her originally.

I'd let her come to her own conclusion about the pictures, and if she doesn't like them, you could then show her what's wrong with them.

Beyond that, I agree with everyone else in that it wasn't the work of a professional, and you should expect more for your money. Due diligence in post processing can fix some of the mistakes. And, if your daughter isn't happy, I suggest you take your examples back to the pro and point them out.

[egordon99]

I have a feeling that if the photographer chimped and saw the "problems", they had NO idea how to fix them (especially the backlit stuff)

I forgot to say one thing. In the past when the re-shoots had to happen was when photographers shot on film. With digital, honestly how can this happen? Did he / she not LOOK at least once or twice on the back of the camera? hmmf.

[shomat]

Dave.. A suggestion about expectation management.

While these pictures are very dissapointing, I'd be cautious not to make too big of a deal of it to your daughter. We all have a more critical eye than Joe Average, and see things that others may not. Pointing out the mistakes in a photograph to your daughter may turn her against a picture that she otherwise enjoyed. For example, instead of looking at that one picture, she's never going to see anything past that bench. But, maybe that wouldn't have annoyed her originally.


The pictures are atrocious and fall short of any sort of expectations by miles. Wedding day is one of the most memorable days in a person's life, something that can't just be repeated, and so it's not a big deal... it's a huge deal.

[wdwpsu]

The pictures are atrocious and fall short of any sort of expectations by miles. Wedding day is one of the most memorable days in a person's life, something that can't just be repeated, and so it's not a big deal... it's a huge deal.
I completely agree with you. It's a huge deal, and unacceptable by all means. What I'm saying is that us, as photographers, have a more critical eye and can catch things that other's don't.
For the very reason you mentioned, I hope his daughter is happy with the photos, because it can not be repeated. But, I definitely can see MANY MANY reasons that she probably is not happy.

[form]

$1400 can get you any average to good photographer, or it can get you 2 or 3 of me with no album or prints but just retouched photos on DVD disc.

The low contrast is a lack of processing, and much of the flaws in the photos could be resolved with processing. Many photographers' photos look fairly dull straight out of camera and need retouching. Out of focus subjects are surprisingly common during difficult occasions such as the ceremony - I get many OOF shots and some in focus simply because I have to depend on AI servo to get it right and it's not always spot-on. Joe Buissink supposedly shoots at ISO1600 all the time, ALL the time. We miss things in the background sometimes, and some things in the foreground; nobody's perfect. You can't expect to make out any of the faces in a big group photo when viewed at 500 pixels wide; it would have to be much larger. I went through the angles phase and still do it occasionally; sometimes it's used to great benefit by turning the boring horizontals and verticals of an image into more interesting diagonals - though usually not approaching 45 degrees of angle.

Sure they didn't do a perfect job, but when she picks a "no retouching" disc of original photos, they are probably not going to be great. They weren't given a chance to be processed so all could see their true potential. If the meddling family member decides to cloud the perception of the bride and make her hate her own photos, then who is the real cause of dissatisfaction here? The original poster is nitpicking in many (though not all) of the image critiques, and getting a massive band wagon of people who agree about how bad the flaws are; I would hate to think of my clients' family members doing this to my work, it's quite slanderous.

As for the aforementioned massive band wagon, I sincerely hope that all of you who throw out the insults like peanut shells can do - and most importantly have done - a better job under similar circumstances. Most of the photos are not awful by any means, but they have some flaws - as do all of my photos. Yes, a completely OOF photo like the processional would be scrapped by me, but the rest could be perfectly usable.

[DennisW1]

Dave.. A suggestion about expectation management.

While these pictures are very dissapointing, I'd be cautious not to make too big of a deal of it to your daughter. We all have a more critical eye than Joe Average, and see things that others may not. Pointing out the mistakes in a photograph to your daughter may turn her against a picture that she otherwise enjoyed. For example, instead of looking at that one picture, she's never going to see anything past that bench. But, maybe that wouldn't have annoyed her originally.

I'd let her come to her own conclusion about the pictures, and if she doesn't like them, you could then show her what's wrong with them.

Beyond that, I agree with everyone else in that it wasn't the work of a professional, and you should expect more for your money. Due diligence in post processing can fix some of the mistakes. And, if your daughter isn't happy, I suggest you take your examples back to the pro and point them out.


Yikes! A very, very good point that I think has been completely overlooked throughout this entire discussion.

As photographers we can't imagine anyone being happy with these images, but the fact is that many weddings are shot by uncle joe or aunt mary with their P&S camera or by guests with the infamous disposable cameras given out to them, and that's perfectly OK with the B&G. Photographs are memories of a moment in time, and to some the moment captured is far more important than every little technical detail being absolutely perfect. Yes, most of what has been shown here as samples of the work are terrible, I'm certainly not denying that.

Probably the best thing Dave could do it sit back and let his daughter decide how she feels about the work, without any coaching or questions, and then if she's really unhappy it would be time to seek some recourse. If she's happy with them then I guess as hard as it might be, the wisest thing to do would be to simply grin and bear it.

[SuzyView]

The real work for me isn't the shooting, it the work after in PP. So, yes, the untouched images are usually not perfect and every shot gets something done to them that I send to the client. So, giving us these may not reflect truly the skill of the pro, but really, with digital, chimping is a necessary evil and I do it every 10 or so shots because the situation changes and my settings need readjustment. I don't know any pro that doesn't move the dials around when the circumstances change and the LCD isn't showing a good shot. At least zoom in to see if you are in focus and if the WB is good.

[Fade2]

By no means am I a photography critic but these at best are horrible.
Sorry you had to pay $1400.00 for this.
A kid would've done better with a polaroid or a Walgreen's disposable camera!
And a lot of the problem seem to be how the photographer posed the patrons.

[form]

If you are no photography critic then your opinion is completely moot and should not be given, because it inaccurately skews other viewers' perspectives.

[Joelene]

hehe... sorry that was funny.

So Dave, when you talked to your daughter did she mention whether or not she likes them? I am sure you have not informed her of your disappointment, and are not going to "guide" her in anyway...

ETA:

I would like to "play" with a couple of these in ps! Because some are "fixable" and have potential to be GREAT shots. even as jpgs...

[YankeeMom]

$1400 can get you any average to good photographer, or it can get you 2 or 3 of me with no album or prints but just retouched photos on DVD disc.

The low contrast is a lack of processing, and much of the flaws in the photos could be resolved with processing. Many photographers' photos look fairly dull straight out of camera and need retouching. Out of focus subjects are surprisingly common during difficult occasions such as the ceremony - I get many OOF shots and some in focus simply because I have to depend on AI servo to get it right and it's not always spot-on. Joe Buissink supposedly shoots at ISO1600 all the time, ALL the time. We miss things in the background sometimes, and some things in the foreground; nobody's perfect. You can't expect to make out any of the faces in a big group photo when viewed at 500 pixels wide; it would have to be much larger. I went through the angles phase and still do it occasionally; sometimes it's used to great benefit by turning the boring horizontals and verticals of an image into more interesting diagonals - though usually not approaching 45 degrees of angle.

Sure they didn't do a perfect job, but when she picks a "no retouching" disc of original photos, they are probably not going to be great. They weren't given a chance to be processed so all could see their true potential. If the meddling family member decides to cloud the perception of the bride and make her hate her own photos, then who is the real cause of dissatisfaction here? The original poster is nitpicking in many (though not all) of the image critiques, and getting a massive band wagon of people who agree about how bad the flaws are; I would hate to think of my clients' family members doing this to my work, it's quite slanderous.

As for the aforementioned massive band wagon, I sincerely hope that all of you who throw out the insults like peanut shells can do - and most importantly have done - a better job under similar circumstances. Most of the photos are not awful by any means, but they have some flaws - as do all of my photos. Yes, a completely OOF photo like the processional would be scrapped by me, but the rest could be perfectly usable.

Frankly, I'm very surprised you defend those shots or the "photographer" and, yes, I could do better with my point-and-shoot. Sorry, but that's my take on it. There is no defense for what we saw.

I agree that PP is vital, especially with terrible photography; someone who is good with Photoshop could do amazing work on some of those.

[DunnoWhen]

If you are no photography critic then your opinion is completely moot and should not be given, because it inaccurately skews other viewers' perspectives.

Sorry, but this statement is absolute twaddle!

If someone with no photographic or artistic knowledge is saying that they are less than impressed with these images then, in my opinion, more weight should be given to their opinion, not less.

[egordon99]

If someone with no photographic or artistic knowledge is saying that they are less than impressed with these images then, in my opinion, more weight should be given to their opinion, not less.

Ditto...Usually non-photo people will look at a technically flawed photo and see nothing wrong with it. So if a non-photo person is saying a photo is bad, it must REALLY bad :lol:

[Joelene]

Wow how did I miss that?!

Yes I agree with Yankee.

Even when a disk of "un-edited" images is what the client pays for, the photographer SHOULD have some self respect to delete the GARBAGE to say the least! What I see posted by the op are horrible images. Stuff I would have tossed personally, especially the recessional. I think it is, if nothing else, a self respect thing.

I take pride in my work, I am proud of what I do and I want others to be so as well. Even the 'un - touched" stuff that I give my clients has been given a quick sharpen and possible contrast pump so when they take it to a crappy printer I do have some sort of control over the look.

I hope that made some sort of sense..

[YankeeMom]

Sorry, but this statement is absolute twaddle!

If someone with no photographic or artistic knowledge is saying that they are less than impressed with these images then, in my opinion, more weight should be given to their opinion, not less.

Seriously. I guess brides better pipe down. :rolleyes:

[Joelene]

haha omg.. some of the comments in here today are giving me the giggles!

[sdsviet]

jebus! i have to agree that they arent super horrible (well some are) but in no way these are acceptable either. i myself is tryign to get into the field but i know for a fact that im not good enough to do a full wedding. i remember just shooting as a guest for a good friend of mine and trying not to get in the way of the pro. i was still new to the whole digital thing and only shot film before. i had my 40d and 17-55 with a cpl. when i looked at the images i shot i found that they were all underexposed and that the cpl really made me lost a few stops in exposure. my images coulda been much better but i shot in raw so they were somewhat recoverable. to get to the point is that i in no way think im ready for doing full weddings but my images arent even close to being this bad and they do seem they came straight out of the camera with any PP done to it. if u somehow get raw versions of these, send me a disc and i'll gladly PP them for free. i just feel bad for the bride to recieve these types of pictures on her wedding day. i cant gurantee immaculate images but they will be 10 times better. hehe

[YankeeMom]

jebus! i have to agree that they arent super horrible (well some are) but in no way these are acceptable either. i myself is tryign to get into the field but i know for a fact that im not good enough to do a full wedding. i remember just shooting as a guest for a good friend of mine and trying not to get in the way of the pro. i was still new to the whole digital thing and only shot film before. i had my 40d and 17-55 with a cpl. when i looked at the images i shot i found that they were all underexposed and that the cpl really made me lost a few stops in exposure. my images coulda been much better but i shot in raw so they were somewhat recoverable.

Right -- and the difference between you and the OP is about $1200. :shock:

[DunnoWhen]

Seriously. I guess brides better pipe down. :rolleyes:


I think you might like to read my post again:) I'm advocating for Up not Down.:)

[Joelene]

I think you might like to read my post again:) I'm advocating for Up not Down.:)


I dunno it depends on the Bride...

[sdsviet]

here's what i was talking about. mine u that the pic on the left was much darker in raw and i bumped it about 2 full stops before converting it to that jpg u see there. im still trying to see if i can make this a better photo since i think its one of those specials moments for her and her sisters and she's a very good friend (but that's gonna be for another thread, hehe). this is also one of my worst pictures i took that day.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2672/3694885250_68575c5a16_b.jpg

[mattograph]

In all fairness, the biggest problem I see here is that YOU even got to see some of these photos. Some of these are so bad (white balance, focus) that they should have gotten rejected on the first pass through. That last image you posted -gads!!!

With that said, it appears to me that the shooter gave you every image he made. If I gave you every image I made at an event, well, some of them are bad. If you don't have a few bad ones, you aren't gonna get some really good ones.

So my challenge to you -- post the five BEST shots he/she gave you. They will help us see the total "picture".

[Optiq]

Yikes! A very, very good point that I think has been completely overlooked throughout this entire discussion.



LOL, no I said that in an earlier post (45)!

[Joelene]

sd: a bit under is workable. a bit over is workable. so out of focus that grandma looks like a blob... not good. Your image is a workable image.. you will get the extra noise bringing it up, especially since there is so much red, but it is easily treatable.

Dave, where are you? I want to edit some of those images! PLEEEEASE.

[sdsviet]

sd: a bit under is workable. a bit over is workable. so out of focus that grandma looks like a blob... not good. Your image is a workable image.. you will get the extra noise bringing it up, especially since there is so much red, but it is easily treatable.

Dave, where are you? I want to edit some of those images! PLEEEEASE.

me too!

[Perry Ge]

Wow, my left butt-cheek could take better photos than these.

[Joelene]

Wow, my left butt-cheek could take better photos than these.
This is a talent I must learn!

[RandyMN]

This is a talent I must learn!

Really? Your cheek trip the shutter or does it include a sensor? Maybe turns shades in various levels of light? :lol:

[Joelene]

Really? Your cheek trip the shutter or does it include a sensor? Maybe turns shades in various levels of light? :lol:


ha if anything my cheek would cause horrible lens flare it is so darn white! Blinding everyone with the its reflection! Which is what I need to learn from Perry how to control...

[Perry Ge]

You have to attach a camera to your butt-cheek, duh!

[DennisW1]

The real work for me isn't the shooting, it the work after in PP. So, yes, the untouched images are usually not perfect and every shot gets something done to them that I send to the client. So, giving us these may not reflect truly the skill of the pro, but really, with digital, chimping is a necessary evil and I do it every 10 or so shots because the situation changes and my settings need readjustment. I don't know any pro that doesn't move the dials around when the circumstances change and the LCD isn't showing a good shot. At least zoom in to see if you are in focus and if the WB is good.


yes but....:

Would you actually GIVE those "not perfect" images to your customer? I certainly wouldn't.

The errors seen in many of the samples just seem to reflect a lack of skill both in the operation of the camera and good basic posing and composition. That's where the skill of the shooter is really in question.

I think among the younger crowd the "tilted" shots are becoming more popular but many of the ones shown were just ridiculous to the extreme. They might be nice as experiments that you look at and say "ok, next time I won't do THAT" but not as images you give to your client.

The basics still have to be there, whether it's a RAW image or a JPG. That's what I see lacking in the work shown.

[DennisW1]

LOL, no I said that in an earlier post (45)!

sorry, damn ADD gets to me again......:cry:

[DennisW1]

Wow, my left butt-cheek could take better photos than these.


what? and you shoot videos with the right one.??? :D

[tkbslc]

You have to attach a camera to your butt-cheek, duh!

I guess you could give the remote a good clench to fire off your shots, right?

[DennisW1]

I guess you could give the remote a good clench to fire off your shots, right?


(....looking back to see where this conversation took that sickening left turn.....)

[Perry Ge]

(....looking back to see where this conversation took that sickening left turn.....)

Sorry, my bad :lol:

[JeffreyG]

$1400 can get you any average to good photographer, or it can get you 2 or 3 of me with no album or prints but just retouched photos on DVD disc.

The low contrast is a lack of processing, and much of the flaws in the photos could be resolved with processing. Many photographers' photos look fairly dull straight out of camera and need retouching. Out of focus subjects are surprisingly common during difficult occasions such as the ceremony - I get many OOF shots and some in focus simply because I have to depend on AI servo to get it right and it's not always spot-on. Joe Buissink supposedly shoots at ISO1600 all the time, ALL the time. We miss things in the background sometimes, and some things in the foreground; nobody's perfect. You can't expect to make out any of the faces in a big group photo when viewed at 500 pixels wide; it would have to be much larger. I went through the angles phase and still do it occasionally; sometimes it's used to great benefit by turning the boring horizontals and verticals of an image into more interesting diagonals - though usually not approaching 45 degrees of angle.

Sure they didn't do a perfect job, but when she picks a "no retouching" disc of original photos, they are probably not going to be great. They weren't given a chance to be processed so all could see their true potential. If the meddling family member decides to cloud the perception of the bride and make her hate her own photos, then who is the real cause of dissatisfaction here? The original poster is nitpicking in many (though not all) of the image critiques, and getting a massive band wagon of people who agree about how bad the flaws are; I would hate to think of my clients' family members doing this to my work, it's quite slanderous.

As for the aforementioned massive band wagon, I sincerely hope that all of you who throw out the insults like peanut shells can do - and most importantly have done - a better job under similar circumstances. Most of the photos are not awful by any means, but they have some flaws - as do all of my photos. Yes, a completely OOF photo like the processional would be scrapped by me, but the rest could be perfectly usable.


I just don't know where you are coming from Form. The first two sets posted by the OP for the most part looks like stuff I would chuck in the recycle bin as unprocessed RAWs. For sure they would not be seen by anyone, especially not a client!

Even the fixable ones (the 1st for instance) I would straighten the dang shot bare minimum before I handed it to a customer.

If you think these are all fixable to something that should go to a client then you must have steller PP skills. Several of the first two sets look to be unfixable to me.

[YankeeMom]

I think you might like to read my post again:) I'm advocating for Up not Down.:)

Right, I was agreeing with you on Form's assertion that the opinons of non-pros don't count. Brides are non-pros and they certainly have an opinion that counts. $$ :D

[DennisW1]

Sorry, my bad :lol:


ya, but it WAS funny.!

[bjordan]

A friend of mine in the wedding business (a decorator) once told me that the one thing that you can't afford to go cheap on is your photographer. The memories of the cake, flowers, etc. are forgotten, laughed off, or get better with time - but not the photos.

I would definitely complain to the photographer, in person, with examples in hand to illustrate your complaints. First, I'd also have exactly in mind what kind of solutions I can accept.

1. Discount? How much?

2. Reshoot?

3. Pay for proffessional PP on x# of RAW images? I have an aquaintance I'd trust who runs a business (http://www.theweddingeditors.com)doing exactly this as a sideline to her photography (http://grinnellphoto.com/). Look around for a good service and make them pay for it.

4. Be ready to tell them exactly what you'll do if they don't make it right: Give the business a well-written bad review on certain websites, report to BBB, bring a small claims lawsuit... etc.

I hope to hear how this turns out.

[cnsconnor84]

In the OP he said the disc was supposed to include photos that were not "touched-up". I don't know about you guys but when I think of touch-ups I think of pixel editing. I think it goes unsaid that if they were shot RAW they should at least be processed correctly.

I recently shot my first wedding on 5/24/09 and they came out far better than this. I would also like to see what the father thinks are the 10 best. Showing the worst of someone's work doesn't really give an accurate picture of how the assignment turned out. Though I must say that those photos would have been in the bin before I burnt the bride a disc.

[photoguy6405]

Haven't read all the responses yet, but I find this whole thing interesting. Several months ago I posted a link to a wedding photographer who did alot of stuff like this... overexposure, too many extreme tilts, and so on. I was surprised at how many people defended the photog as that being their technique and how their work was "current" and "trendy" and "their style" and how many clients actually like that stuff, and so on.

[bjordan]

Haven't read all the responses yet, but I find this whole thing interesting. Several months ago I posted a link to a wedding photographer who did alot of stuff like this... overexposure, too many extreme tilts, and so on. I was surprised at how many people defended the photog as that being their technique and how their work was "current" and "trendy" and "their style" and how many clients actually like that stuff, and so on.

Cool. Hey, if anyone wants a wedding lomographer, I'm available at $100/hr plus travel expenses. I guarantee poor exposures, tilted horizons, OOF, fubar colors... the works. :cool:

[Jacobredphoto]

Cool. Hey, if anyone wants a wedding lomographer, I'm available at $100/hr plus travel expenses. I guarantee poor exposures, tilted horizons, OOF, fubar colors... the works. :cool:

LMFAO. I never considered myself a wedding photographer but I can probably pull off bad exposures, tilted pictures, blurriness and everything for 100 bucks an hour. bw!

[Joelene]

Then everyone can hire me for $300.00 / hour to fully edit and reconstruct bjordan and Jacobredphoto's images , as well as a reshoot. travel and accommodations extra AND you buy me coffee in the morning.

[rdenney]

Some things I haven't seen discussed:

1. What happened with all that flare? It looks like an ultra-cheap first-generation hyperzoom from the 90's (Tamtokma 28-300 or some such). Give this "pro" a 28/2.8 prime for his or her Digital Rebel.

2. I recommend "P", just like His Kenness. And I think even His Kenness could have done better, except that the images would all be reversed. "P" would have worked FAR better to get decent exposures.

3. Where's the flash? How can someone not use a flash when the situation is dark enough to need ISO of 1600 or higher? Nutz. I would have used my 550EX with a stroboframe to put the flash about a foot above the camera, with a Lumiquest diffuser. There are many other ways to achieve the same result. Use one of them.

4. The only time an ISO of 1600 or higher is acceptable is for an image during the ceremony, when no flash is allowed. At all other times, 400 should be plenty. If there isn't enough available light, then bring a flash. Then, it will be available.

5. People, when you photograph the bride, remember that Daddy paid a zillion bucks for the dress, and Mom probably earned lifelong enmity arguing with her daughter about it. A lot is invested in that dress. You had better show it in all its glory.

6. A good photograph is dictated first and foremost by three things: Where you point the camera, what you include in the picture, and when you push the button. Getting the exposure right won't help if you get those three things wrong. I see pictures of buildings with (is that the B&G) maybe standing under one corner of it. I see pictures that look like the shutter fired as the photographer dropped the camera.

7. 882 pictures? Holy COW! I used to show up at a wedding with two pro-packs of Vericolor 120 film. That's 120 images. I typically delivered 119 or 120 proofs (read: I didn't miss many shots, and I never bracketed, either). My camera had no meter and no automation. I had to cock the shutter separately from winding the film, and I had to change film every 12 pictures. I would think that with nearly 900 pictures, the monkeys could have randomly typed War and Peace at least a few times.

8. The purpose of this thread is not to tell the OP what to do. That ship has left port already. The purpose is to make sure none of us are responsible for such a problem in the future, either by what jobs we accept that we shouldn't or what advice we give.

9. Arnold Jacobs, the tuba player for the Chicago Symphony from 1944 to 1988, studied under great teachers (Fritz Reiner, Leopold Stokowski) at the Curtis Institute, perhaps around 1931. He practiced the hard stuff at home, and only stuff he could nail in his studio at the conservatory where those luminaries might hear him. Why? He never wanted anyone other than himself to hear anything but his very best work. Never, ever, ever show a client a substandard image. One characteristic pros must possess: The ability to know excellence when they see it. That's probably the thing non-pros lack more than anything.

Rick "who's seen worse, but it's been a while" Denney

[Methodical]

Wow is all I can say...Wow. I didn't get a chance to read thru the entire thread but again...wow.

[Dave Shively]

Boy, I did not mean to stir up all this. I was just trying to show all what kind of service I got. I really appreciate all of you comment and advice. It really helps out very much. I don't have time right now but latter tonight I will post what I believe to be the best shots. This way you can all get a feel for the whole picture, so to speak.

Dave

[Mike]

Wow, what an awful set of photos. I've only just stumbled across this thread but to the OP, I really feel bad for you. They are not photos to be proud of.

I probably would have chucked 80% of those pics on my first cull after a wedding and before starting PP. I would have got rid of half of the rest during PP.

Right, I was agreeing with you on Form's assertion that the opinons of non-pros don't count. Brides are non-pros and they certainly have an opinion that counts. $$ :D

Absolutely. Once I finish PPing a wedding I sit my wife down and let her look through the shots - she can spot things from a bride's perspective that usually results in me binning another half a dozen shots from what I would have considered my final selection.

[johnstoy]

Reflecting back on my previous response/comment... I think this photog. should only have included the very best captures from this entire set of over 800 images... Obviously, only a select few dozen will be used...

Maybe, (with fingers crossed) there are enough representative pics to justify some of the payment fee... However, if post processing isn't the answer to salvaging this photo session... Than some form of refund should be agreed/settled on.

[Mintie]

The original poster is nitpicking in many (though not all) of the image critiques, and getting a massive band wagon of people who agree about how bad the flaws are; I would hate to think of my clients' family members doing this to my work, it's quite slanderous.

As for the aforementioned massive band wagon, I sincerely hope that all of you who throw out the insults like peanut shells can do - and most importantly have done - a better job under similar circumstances. Most of the photos are not awful by any means, but they have some flaws - as do all of my photos. Yes, a completely OOF photo like the processional would be scrapped by me, but the rest could be perfectly usable.

"Slanderous"??! Are you serious? "Nitpicking"! You must be joking. A couple he posted were completely out of focus. Others were not straight, and some had completely blown highlights. It honestly looked like the photographer had never handled a camera before. "Not awful by any means"!?? Oh yes, sorry. The overly angled shot of the couple by the door with the photographer reflected in the window is a piece of art.

I find it fascinating that you, an obviously professional wedding photographer, finds it necessary to defend such rubbish. Surely, you can see that this sort of tripe is just dumbing down your profession and giving it a bad name.

And yes, I threw out an insult "like a peanut shell" but yes I have done a better job. I'm not a professional wedding photographer but on the few occasions I have been asked to take pictures for friends, I have at least edited out OOF shots and done a few minutes post processing so what I gave them was not completely embarrassing garbage.

[Quilty]

I have seen many, many photographers who market work like this and the girls eat it up. Having been married in April, I looked at a LOT of photographers that girls on my wedding boards used, and I was appalled at how bad so many of the photos were - photos that were defended here (via the post that photoguy made) as being "artistic" and a "style". Yet, when someone is complaining about paying for those very "techniques" folks are willing to rip a photographer to shreds.

It can't be both - either they're horrific shots that exhibit no talent or else they're artistic and cutting edge. So I'm curious to know where most of you think this "style" falls.

I have been shocked and dismayed at what passes for wedding photography these days. I attended a wedding on Saturday which was shot by the uncle of the groom, who had spent 30 years making wedding photography his business. He took at most 100 shots (he was shooting digi, not film - I checked) and his camera was put away before the dancing even started. He did not take a single candid photo ...

Photography went to hell when digital came out and everyone decided that they are "just as good" as a pro who's had years of training. As a profession, photographers didn't know what to do with that, and have more or less stood aside thinking that eventually people would realize these hacks have no talent and no skills ... unfortunately, they've slapped an "artistic" label on the worst of the worst and called it wonderful. It's truly sad.

[amonline]

Holy crap. Time for a lawyer. No kidding. These are absolutely horrible. My 11 year old son takes better images with his coolpix. Seriously. So sad to hear this happened. Before I even saw the images, the ISO1600 told me enough. Dear God. And what the hell's with the 45 degree tilts?!?

[Mosca]

We've seen 13 photos out of 882. While I'm sure Dave is unhappy with the entire body of work... we've seen 13 shots. Out of 882.

1.5%.

Let's see the best. Let's see them after they've been worked. No one can argue that the photos shown are terrible, but Dave, you yourself wrote that you intentionally showed the worst in order to make your case stronger. The shots we've seen are less than 2% of the total.

And 1600 ISO on my 40D is different from 1600 ISO on a 5D Mk2. Just sayin'.

[Karl Johnston]

psst: I think those were the best!

[rdenney]

It can't be both - either they're horrific shots that exhibit no talent or else they're artistic and cutting edge. So I'm curious to know where most of you think this "style" falls.

Some photographers artfully tilt the image. When they do, it adds motion and gesture to the image. This one looks like the camera made a picture on its way to the floor after the photographer dropped it.

And some photographers use the occasional bit of soft focus to good effect, giving the image a romantic mood. These pictures, with their cold tones and blown highlights, look more like the photographer was using an ultra cheap lens after having smeared the front element with fingerprints.

The difference is copying an effect for the sake of the effect, or having the eye to achieve the result of the effect (motion and gesture, or a romantic mood). That's the difference between style and fad.

Those who don't have that eye can still be competent, but they need to know their limitations. This photographer did not. Boring straight-on pictures with the dial set on P and a flash on the camera would have been a better choice.

But there's another point in what you say: The bride is usually not the customer. This is a critical point, and the OP has already demonstrated it. The bride's mother is the customer. She's the one who will buy enlargements for all the relatives. She's the one who will pay for an extra album for her own enjoyment. She's the one who will rip the photographer to shreds if the results are unworthy.

For couples who are grownups and paying their own way, it's different. But for brides in their early 20's, the parents are usually footing the bill.

And when the bride is 42 instead of 22, she'll prefer those boring straight-on pictures instead of the faddish tilted shots that don't show her shoes. If the photographer with real style throws in a few tilted shots, and does so with the proper eye, it won't look dated 20 years on.

You'll pardon my harshness: I'd rather be a hack that a pretend hack.

Rick "thinking most hacks do it to themselves" Denney

[Mintie]

We've seen 13 photos out of 882. While I'm sure Dave is unhappy with the entire body of work... we've seen 13 shots. Out of 882.

1.5%.

Let's see the best. Let's see them after they've been worked. No one can argue that the photos shown are terrible, but Dave, you yourself wrote that you intentionally showed the worst in order to make your case stronger. The shots we've seen are less than 2% of the total.

And 1600 ISO on my 40D is different from 1600 ISO on a 5D Mk2. Just sayin'.

Yeh, but the fact that the "photographer" gave the OP those shots is part of the issue isn't it? As I've said, I'm not a professional wedding photographer but even when shooting for a friend I would weed out the complete crap before passing over a CD. At least have some basic standard.

I mean did the photographer give the OP the CF card straight out of the camera?

[Dave Shively]

Mosca, Just to give you an idea of what I am dealing with. There are 54 photos just like these two taken at the same location, but with different people in them.

Dave

http://inlinethumb30.webshots.com/44829/2043633710100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

http://inlinethumb12.webshots.com/44875/2157557480100293667S600x600Q85.jpg

[mortar]

Dave, the last picture is the only picture I can actually see what the groom looks like. Any of the others he's over exposed or too far away. Still it's not a very good picture.

[YankeeMom]

Holy, backlight! UGH.

Dave, turn "Image Editing OK" on and you might be able to see some ways to salvage some of those.

[fatmantan]

Sorry to read about your situation Dave. These are absolutely shocking!!!

But as has been mentioned, please show us some of the "best" shots that came on the CD/DVD. Looks like they gave you the whole set of images without culling ANY and you are just picking out the really bad ones.

Also, Turn on "Image Editing OK" so we can have a play with them. :)

[amonline]

Unless you get the raws (doubt there are any), why would any of you guys want to bother. I say let the lawyer spend time on the images. ;)

[cpforyou]

I'm not a wedding photographer by any mean, but when I attend a wedding with my CHDK loaded P&S as a guest, even my shots are better than this!

[Joelene]

I want to quote a lot of the recent posts but am just going say a few things.

1. YES, I was what was called a "band wagon jumper" and "tossed peanut shells' and will toss walnut shells, take the damn wheel on the wagon and throw a couple of orange peels at the "photographer" as well! The photographer screwed up. no excuses. period.

Yes it is the Father of the Bride, so far, that is unhappy, but BELIEVE ME when I say that half the time that is almost worse than upsetting the bride. I have been in the industry long enough that no matter how perfect the images are or can be if you can't keep the parents happy AS WELL AS the bride and groom, you have an issue you will need to iron out. Especially if they are flipping the bill!

I have had brides pick up proofs and be so happy they cried, left came back with bouquets of flowers and gift certificates, food lots of stuff. (When I shot film, all brides came in and picked up their album, we went through the proofs together before they went home with it) THEN a week later call and say something like. "Well my mother noticed that there is an exit sign above me in the church. Why didn't you choose a different spot? I am not happy with these, I expect a discount and my money back." and the battle is on.

It happens.

YES each person should hire a photographer whos style they know and like, so there will not be any surprises. There are horror stories of these "artistic tilts' are you kidding me? if you cannot tell if it should be a horizontal or a vertical, and there are Humans in the image, something is wrong. But that is my opinion, some people dig it.. to each thier own, if you like it, don't hire me... oh but wait... YOU WILL SEE THAT I DON'T DO THAT WHEN YOU DO COME TO HIRE ME..then being a smart consumer who likes to look at stuff at a 45 degree angle will go elsewhere to a photographer who "Specializes in tilt photography" yes i have heard that excuse from a local shooter who mucked up a wedding. "She specialized in tilt photography"

Someone said it simply in a previous post, digital cameras has turned everyone into a photographer.. Yes it does upset me a bit when a teenager, who has no self respect, no professionalism at all what so ever, (chalk that up to being young) Dresses like a tramp, and sure doesn't have the body to do so, actually looks like a druggy most of the time with no experience even having a job let alone shooting, owns a tiny little used dslr with a pop up flash and a kit lens is BOOKING WEDDINGS! Seriously how can she have a wedding booked on a date that I don't?! I am a PROFESSIONAL! I am somewhat good at it, I am experienced, I am a BETTER SHOOTER!!! AND!!! AND!!! She charges 1000.00 for each wedding!

Thing is, she is upfront and honest. She says, I don't know what I am doing. You are getting an inexperienced shooter, and these are the type of pictures to expect... no BS. No surprises.. The client is fully aware of what they are paying for. .( Oh and she gives negs, un processed because she has no editing software other than windows paint)

(The OP here, was a bit surprised, dont' you think? They hired someone under the assumption they new what they were doing! They had to have met with the "main" shooter to work the deal they did get, he had to have shown some images that the assistant had shot... unless like I had said before, it was an under the table behind the main guys back..I don't know)

Back to the 19 year old... Yeah that is judgmental of me, to say the least, but when she called me up, introduced herself and asked for my help and guidance, I gladly gave it to her. She has come out with me ( I took her clothes shopping), and is learning.. she is making the effort. And after one outing with me her images are STILL a thousand times better than the ones the OP Posted! And he was a "professional assistant' are you kidding me? what a load of Disney characters!

To all who actually read what I had to say, thank you and I apologize for being so random, for babbling on like an idiot, and for my horrible grammar skills!

OH and I will not "rip another shooter to shreds' unless it is called for. Any shooter who tries to pass this garbage as professional gets a ripping from me. Someone posting these images asking do you like ? Can they be better? what would you do? will get the advice I have to give. I may be a technical idiot, but I am full of advice. :D

NOW.. ON TO THE EDITING! DAVE HAS IMAGE EDITING OK ON! WOOT.
Like i said some are salvageable...here are a couple of 1 minute edits..off the crappy little jpgs posted in the thread...

[Joelene]

1. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3696914548_4ee9de1482.jpg
he still looks like a ghost, this cannot be framed because his foot will be cut off, and even though it is the tiniest of images, I still think it is out of focus!

[Joelene]

2. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2513/3696914480_3b1d5e3e17.jpg
I mentioned before I think this is totally out of focus, when I started to play i realized it is not. Her dress/armpit is tack sharp. her face is slightly off.
With just a sharpen and boost of contrast and colour it looks much better, but slightly over done, in my opinon...

this one http://pic50.picturetrail.com/VOL484/8647643/22252308/368781611.jpg
is just pooched. no fixing. they do look out of focus the door and photographer in the window is sharp, and it looks like his tongue is hanging out..lost cause...

[HMetal]

I just got my daughters wedding photos back from the photographer and I can't tell you how disappointed I am with her results. Almost all are overexposed and just plain bad amateurish photography. Maybe she (the photographer) know something that I don't, but just about all the shots taken were at an ISO of 1600 and many were at a shutter speed of 1/4000th even all the shots outside in the bright sunlight. When shown at 100% all are very grainy. Some are just plain blurry. Here are just a few samples. Is there anything recourse I have with the photographer, after all I can't redo the photos and I will never get the opportunity again? Granted there are a few good ones but not many. Also my daughter did buy a package with all the photos on CD's that are not touched-up, but there are so many things that can't be fixed. I think we paid about $1400 for all this. I have many more examples.

Dave


Wow, Dave. These are awful! They tried all the gimmicks we've seen time and time again and they used them worse than I've ever seen for someone that calls themselves "professional." I'm ashamed this person calls themselves a professional photographer.

What's worse is idiots like this get jobs with people on a shoestring budget (comparatively speaking) while us real pros have to fight for clients at prices suitable to our level of knowledge and experience.

I would definitely not do this person or persons the honor of a recommendation. In fact, I would go to the people who put on the bridal fair and make sure they also know the abysmal quality of this photographer's work. If it makes the fair look bad, they won't support them and I would hope that they would not allow them to participate in future events, if the fair organizers care about their reputation. These fairs like to have the cream of the crop so that potential brides and grooms are recommended the best that's available.

In addition to what people recommended about lawyers, I would also recommend contacting the Better Business Bureau for your area to give the business a bad rating so that future inquiries about them will net the business a big fat FAIL. The more bad calls the BBB gets about them the worse their rating will be. Every report affects the credibility of the business when people go to the BBB for information on the credibility of the business and its quality of work.

Edit: I just noticed you said the photos were done by an assistant. I guess it's time they find a new one or educate them more before they unleash them on a wedding party.

[Mintie]

Holy, backlight! UGH.

Dave, turn "Image Editing OK" on and you might be able to see some ways to salvage some of those.

Backlighting can be good if it's done right; ie; meter for the background light and then use fill flash, but as you say UGH!!

[jackies35]

I truly agree.... Did someone add makeup on the groom??? I am truly upset because he looked so washed out. why is that?


I don't think these images are unmanageable. Like the last edit by John is good. I just wish the groom didn't look like a vampire.

I shoot pro weddings and these are about the worst I've seen from a pro in a while. I feel bad. I'd definitely ask the photographer to give up the RAW or untouched files and see if s pro editor could save them. Definitely say not satisfied and would not recommend to friends if the pro doesn't give up the originals.

[Joelene]

3. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2477/3696134697_9d01c24e0d.jpg
again, a manageable image, however the raccoon eyes here is some what extreme, and the light on her nose really highlights it.

4. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2560/3696134689_ebe607c0ff.jpg
with a big enough file, this image can be cropped / straightened and zoomed it. But it depends on where the focal point is, and how sharp it is on if it will look decent or not... It was hurting my neck looking for the focal point on the original so i gave up..

[jackies35]

If this is true get some money back!! Unless the bride agreed upon the assistant and didn't see her work....

If the assistant photographer doesn't help restore or give back some money, then put her on blast! Show everyone her "bad" work and tell everyone to stay away from this bad wedding photographer.

If I took pictures like this, I will be dead! I will not give out the blurry images or the bad ones.... I thought that was photography 101!!

Ok so it was the photographers assistant and not the photographer, who took the pictures?

[Joelene]

sorry i am totally spamming this thread, after this i will stop, but i just looked at that door shot again, is the photographer really wearing shorts and sneakers? His head is tilted at the same angle as the camera and the image, does he have a twitch?

sorry, i will shut up now.. i have done enough damage....

[HMetal]

Haven't read all the responses yet, but I find this whole thing interesting. Several months ago I posted a link to a wedding photographer who did alot of stuff like this... overexposure, too many extreme tilts, and so on. I was surprised at how many people defended the photog as that being their technique and how their work was "current" and "trendy" and "their style" and how many clients actually like that stuff, and so on.

I always cringe at the word "current." Sure it's hip and it helps you get clients and their $$ (if that's all that's important to you).

Many brides (and their mothers) and grooms like these gimmicks, like the odd tilts and the hand coloring, so much that photographers overuse the effects in such abundance that the only continuity you can expect in an album is the tint.

I know a local photographer here who uses weird tints and tilted framing constantly and her stuff looks the same from client to client (all using the same weird tint) -- which to some degree is good because she has a recognizable style that the clients can expect. However, I don't think these things stand the test of time and she will never be great like the Lovegroves of our industry. Some people don't care to be great though and just want the recommendation of a happy bride. Afterall, that's all that matters to some who are in the business just to make money.

In my humble opinion, timeless photos are well composed, well exposed and are the result of a photographer who has a good eye and quick enough reaction time that they capture the killer shots, are in the right place at the right time and don't overuse gimmicks like tilts and weird tints.

I'm not saying that tilts and some spot colouring is bad, but when it is overused it cheapens the whole set.

[Fade2]

If you are no photography critic then your opinion is completely moot and should not be given, because it inaccurately skews other viewers' perspectives.

So Roger Ebert what makes you think your opinion is so more important than anyone else'?
Please I don't have to be a critic to have an opinion!
And my opinion was these pictures sucked!
Give me a break I'm beginning to think you took these pictures!

[T.D.]

Let's stay on topic and off personal attacks, folks.

I'm thinking this thread has about run its course. I'd be happy if you proved me wrong by keeping the posts relevant, on-topic and not aimed at each other. Thanks. :D

[Fade2]

Let's stay on topic and off personal attacks, folks.

I'm thinking this thread has about run its course. I'd be happy if you proved me wrong by keeping the posts relevant, on-topic and not aimed at each other. Thanks. :D
Sorry if I got off target but I don't like others that act like no one has an opinion but them!

[kenwood33]

So did the OP get a refund?

[RandyMN]

Let's stay on topic and off personal attacks, folks.

I'm thinking this thread has about run its course. I'd be happy if you proved me wrong by keeping the posts relevant, on-topic and not aimed at each other. Thanks. :D

I was hoping maybe it had run it's course since you can only say that the photo's are bad so many times before it gets old.
:)

[photoguy6405]

I always cringe at the word "current." Sure it's hip and it helps you get clients and their $$ (if that's all that's important to you).

Many brides (and their mothers) and grooms like these gimmicks, like the odd tilts and the hand coloring, so much that photographers overuse the effects in such abundance that the only continuity you can expect in an album is the tint.

I know a local photographer here who uses weird tints and tilted framing constantly and her stuff looks the same from client to client (all using the same weird tint) -- which to some degree is good because she has a recognizable style that the clients can expect. However, I don't think these things stand the test of time and she will never be great like the Lovegroves of our industry. Some people don't care to be great though and just want the recommendation of a happy bride. Afterall, that's all that matters to some who are in the business just to make money.

In my humble opinion, timeless photos are well composed, well exposed and are the result of a photographer who has a good eye and quick enough reaction time that they capture the killer shots, are in the right place at the right time and don't overuse gimmicks like tilts and weird tints.

I'm not saying that tilts and some spot colouring is bad, but when it is overused it cheapens the whole set.
I tend to agree. I don't mind the occasional tilt or odd exposure/tint, but the key word is "occasional". I don't understand why some insist on overdoing it. It loses it's effect and regresses to just plain bad photography when overdone. Maybe they falsely believe they're cutting edge. Maybe it's to hide their lack of real skill. I don't know.

[sdsviet]

here's my edits but now that i look at them i think they need some warmth to them. im not very good with editing on people yet since most of my work before were more real estate interiors. i just did them quickly and spent maybe a minute on them. lets hope u have raw versions and we all here can just PP for you if u dont get any compensation back. i just did a quick hack job of cloning out the photog in the window just so she's not too obvious.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2494/3696372163_8c205ddc8c_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3429/3697180070_c07b5d1051_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2490/3697180028_e692646410_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2502/3696372225_47358c5ee5_o.jpg