Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
Thread started 16 Dec 2013 (Monday) 10:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Bride Unhappy with Photos: ADVICE PLEASE

 
NewEnglandPhotographer
Goldmember
2,343 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2011
     
Jan 13, 2014 15:52 |  #166

I am not saying the bride is not in the wrong here as well (we still have yet to see the photos), but look at it from this point of view:

It sounds like you are the one who has been HOUNDING the bridge and WC up to this point dragging this on. If you just stopped all communication when the ball was in the bride's court weeks ago to set up an appointment I don't believe this would be an issue anymore. If I were the bride I would be extremely annoyed that this photographer keeps trying to contact me by email, text, and phone calls. You should have just let it be. STOP CONTACTING THEM. You are making it worse. Especially because this may become a legal matter, it is even more important to keep your distance.

I work in a direct customer service position and one of the biggest complaints I receive from customers while "shooting the breeze" with them is how other contractors and service people will call and call and call to set up appointments, get questions answered, or whatever and it actually has the reverse affect because the customer is so annoyed they wont respond back just out of principal. Once the ball is in the customer's court a small reminder in a week or two later is all that should happen. After that, just move on.


Canon 7D | 70-200mm f2.8is II L | 24-70mm f2.8 L | 50mm f1.8 | 28mm f1.8 | Canon 1.4x TC II | 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
stefesphoto
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
40 posts
Joined Nov 2013
     
Jan 13, 2014 16:40 |  #167

ewheeler20 wrote in post #16602655 (external link)
I am not saying the bride is not in the wrong here as well (we still have yet to see the photos), but look at it from this point of view:

It sounds like you are the one who has been HOUNDING the bridge and WC up to this point dragging this on. If you just stopped all communication when the ball was in the bride's court weeks ago to set up an appointment I don't believe this would be an issue anymore. If I were the bride I would be extremely annoyed that this photographer keeps trying to contact me by email, text, and phone calls. You should have just let it be. STOP CONTACTING THEM. You are making it worse. Especially because this may become a legal matter, it is even more important to keep your distance.

I work in a direct customer service position and one of the biggest complaints I receive from customers while "shooting the breeze" with them is how other contractors and service people will call and call and call to set up appointments, get questions answered, or whatever and it actually has the reverse affect because the customer is so annoyed they wont respond back just out of principal. Once the ball is in the customer's court a small reminder in a week or two later is all that should happen. After that, just move on.

This is not the case at all. The only time I've ever emailed or texted was in response to their emaila or texts. Since the bride cancelled our meeting and said she would call back to reschedule, I left it at that and have not contacted her since.

Over the weekend, I received another email from her wedding coordinator out of the blue asking for a $200 refund and saying she edited all my pictures ans the bride would be happy.

After hearing this, I saw that the bride had used my re-edited images. Wanting this to stop all together so it wouldn't drag on until 2015, I let the WC know I would only be communicating with the bride from now on and that she had no right to edit the photos.

I then left the bride a voicemail and a follow up email letting her know this needed to be settled this week or I was moving on. This needed to be done because I could not keep going weeks at a time not hearing from her only to receive an email from her or the WC out of the blue.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CoJM
Member
Avatar
186 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2012
Location: Boston MA
     
Jan 13, 2014 17:20 |  #168

Id really love to see these photo's that are so "horrible" My guess is that you won't see anything more from her, if she is too lazy to meet you she is going to be way to lazy to find a lawyer.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1052
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Jan 13, 2014 17:50 |  #169
bannedPermanent ban

Curious as some of us might be, I don't think it's a good idea for Stefesphoto to be sharing/posting any of these problem photographs through/on any medium. It is not difficult for the bride to end up seeing these threads, and seeing pictures of herself being analysed, criticised or even torn apart by third persons will not only enrage her even more, but might in very deed give her just another loophole to latch on and keep pulling.

I wouldn't even use these images for my own portfolio were I the photographer. Best to back them up to DVD and keep them locked in a drawer.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smacatl
Goldmember
Avatar
1,539 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jan 13, 2014 18:10 |  #170

Alveric wrote in post #16602946 (external link)
Curious as some of us might be, I don't think it's a good idea for Stefesphoto to be sharing/posting any of these problem photographs through/on any medium. It is not difficult for the bride to end up seeing these threads, and seeing pictures of herself being analysed, criticised or even torn apart by third persons will not only enrage her even more, but might in very deed give her just another loophole to latch on and keep pulling.

I wouldn't even use these images for my own portfolio were I the photographer. Best to back them up to DVD and keep them locked in a drawer.

More good advice! Don't post anything that has any chance whatsoever of being traced back or linked to you or Bridezilla.


Smacatl
Premier Member of the OGUS Photo Club (Over-Geared, Under-Skilled) (with Credit to our President & Founder JWCDDS)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jan 14, 2014 18:10 |  #171

smacatl wrote in post #16602057 (external link)
Sorry - bad news here: Michigan is a dual consent state. Both parties must give consent to record telephone conversations. Best not to mention that part of your call.

Good luck with your saga. Hopefully once Bridezilla calms down, she'll realize that it would be best for all parties to move on.

Just a correction here. The Michigan law refers to "eavesdropping" which the state courts have defined as listening to another person's conversation. So, if you are a party to the conversation then it becomes a one-party consent state.

Reference: http://www.dmlp.org …de/michigan-recording-law (external link)


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
P51Mstg
Goldmember
Avatar
1,336 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Mt. Carmel, TN
     
Jan 14, 2014 20:05 |  #172

She isn't taking you to court. Trust me on that one. If she does PM me....

Next, post your versions of a couple pictures, I'm curious to see them (as is everyone else)

Mark H


Too Much Camera Stuff......

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stefesphoto
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
40 posts
Joined Nov 2013
     
Jan 14, 2014 21:09 |  #173

MattPharmD wrote in post #16605910 (external link)
Just a correction here. The Michigan law refers to "eavesdropping" which the state courts have defined as listening to another person's conversation. So, if you are a party to the conversation then it becomes a one-party consent state.

Reference: http://www.dmlp.org …de/michigan-recording-law (external link)

This is was I gathered, too. Thanks for clarifying!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chrisnosleep
Member
88 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Midwest
     
Jan 15, 2014 11:05 |  #174

I'm curious about a couple of things. Do you have the ability to talk to other businesses who were involved with her wedding about how they have been treated by her? I have a feeling you may find some solace after speaking to them. She's obviously a bridezilla, but I'm thinking she's a top 1% bridezilla and she's making waves with everyone she did business with. I'm still a beginner and I've never come close to shooting weddings, but after all the things I've learned from this thread, I'll definitely know what to watch out for.

Lastly, I was watching Entertainment Weekly a few weeks ago and they had a superstar singer on their show talking about her wedding. She was going on about how she expected the photographer to Photoshop her to look better. So I'm wondering if this happens to be a celebrity bridezilla that you photographed. Whatever the case, is this something that many or any brides ever ask about or expect from their wedding photographers?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sirquack
Goldmember
Avatar
2,565 posts
Gallery: 65 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 903
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Des Moines, Iowa
     
Jan 15, 2014 11:51 |  #175

Stefe, thanks for the 3rd party education. Still years away from hanging my shingle for business, but this particular situation resonates with me because of the problems the bride and WC caused themselves.
The bride obviously thinks she looks different than the reality. The WC edited (illegally) photos you had produced to something other than reality and she apparently liked them enough to post the shots. And both she and the WC made efforts to recover money for the shots they already used for their own purposes.
You did the right thing and walked away when it was obvious they were full of beans.


Name is Ron.
Bodies - 6D/5D3/7D2-Gripped
Lenses - Canon 17-40 F4/24-70 F2.8 II/85 F1.8/Canon 70-200 F2.8 II/F4/Sigma 30 DC/Tamron 150-600
Website (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
smacatl
Goldmember
Avatar
1,539 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Jan 15, 2014 13:04 |  #176

MattPharmD wrote in post #16605910 (external link)
Just a correction here. The Michigan law refers to "eavesdropping" which the state courts have defined as listening to another person's conversation. So, if you are a party to the conversation then it becomes a one-party consent state.

Reference: http://www.dmlp.org …de/michigan-recording-law (external link)


Thanks for the clarification and correction.

Either way - I wouldn't publicize the fact that the call was recorded.

And, I would not contact the bride or the wedding coordinator again - let the matter die on your end. If they wish to revive it, deal with it at that point.


Smacatl
Premier Member of the OGUS Photo Club (Over-Geared, Under-Skilled) (with Credit to our President & Founder JWCDDS)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jan 15, 2014 13:05 |  #177

I always try to make brides look better than they really do in life. Same goes for portraits. That's kind of the whole point of it really. If they want reality they have cell phones.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1052
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Jan 15, 2014 13:26 |  #178
bannedPermanent ban

There's a difference between enhancing the appearance of a subject by means of posing and lighting (which is an integral part of our job as photographers) and falsifying such appearance by means of image manipulation on the computer. Yea, I shave and comb my hair before going out, but I cannot change my face, however much I'd like to.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cdifoto
Don't get pissy with me
Avatar
34,090 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Dec 2005
     
Jan 15, 2014 13:41 |  #179

Alveric wrote in post #16608154 (external link)
There's a difference between enhancing the appearance of a subject by means of posing and lighting (which is an integral part of our job as photographers) and falsifying such appearance by means of image manipulation on the computer. Yea, I shave and comb my hair before going out, but I cannot change my face, however much I'd like to.

I can change your face. I'm pretty good at it.

This is not journalism. We get to decide what we want to offer our clients. The money I get makes naysayers' and moral highgrounders' opinions mean very little.


Did you lose Digital Photo Professional (DPP)? Get it here (external link). Cursing at your worse-than-a-map reflector? Check out this vid! (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alveric
Goldmember
Avatar
4,598 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1052
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Canada
     
Jan 15, 2014 13:46 |  #180
bannedPermanent ban

Different approaches, mate. I've been asked by clients if I do Photoshopping, as in if I can make them look what they are not, and my answer is a rotund no. If they don't like it they can take their money elsewhere: my integrity is priceless.


'The success of the second-rate is deplorable in itself; but it is more deplorable in that it very often obscures the genuine masterpiece. If the crowd runs after the false, it must neglect the true.' —Arthur Machen
Why 'The Histogram' Sux (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24,984 views & 1 like for this thread
Bride Unhappy with Photos: ADVICE PLEASE
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos The Business of Photography 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rondimar
1114 guests, 344 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.