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 Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events 
Thread started 09 Feb 2016 (Tuesday) 01:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Acquaintance of mine is asking if these wedding pictures were OK

 
Targ
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Post edited over 2 years ago by Targ.
     
Feb 09, 2016 01:00 |  #1

He was asking as his Wife is getting sued. She charged $1800.00 for the wedding. Could I get some feed back as well? I thought the photos were OK for an amateur photographer but not really good for professional work.

EDIT:
The photog is not getting sued. The client (Mother) is saying that She does not like the photos and they suspect that the client may be trying to get the fee back.


https://jencphotograph​y.wordpress.com/ (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
FerozeK
Senior Member
Avatar
250 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Apr 2012
Location: JHB, South Africa
     
Feb 09, 2016 01:20 |  #2

What is she being sued for?


Canon EOS 5D | Pentax K10 | Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM EF 16-35 f/4 L IS USM | Canon Speedlite 600EX-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Targ
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
10 posts
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
     
Feb 09, 2016 01:29 |  #3

That the pictures were not good and that it ruined the wedding experience from what I was told.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 286
Joined Nov 2010
Post edited over 2 years ago by memoriesoftomorrow.
     
Feb 09, 2016 01:32 |  #4

FerozeK wrote in post #17891188 (external link)
What is she being sued for?

^^^ This


And... were the photographs delivered consistent with the advertised portfolio that the clients made their decision to hire based upon.

If YES then the clients have no justifiable grounds to sue

If NO then the clients have justifiable grounds to sue

Professional / amateur or whatever else you want to call it, it really boils down to whether or not the clients were misled.

As an aside I'm hoping she had a contract of some sort... the good sort that is.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drmaxx
Senior Member
920 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 177
Joined Jul 2010
     
Feb 09, 2016 02:12 |  #5

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17891195 (external link)
^^^ This

And... were the photographs delivered consistent with the advertised portfolio that the clients made their decision to hire based upon.

If YES then the clients have no justifiable grounds to sue

If NO then the clients have justifiable grounds to sue

Professional / amateur or whatever else you want to call it, it really boils down to whether or not the clients were misled.

As an aside I'm hoping she had a contract of some sort... the good sort that is.

^^^ And THIS :-)
Is she really sued for not delivering professional quality pictures? Or from failing to provide any contractual obligations?


Donate if you love POTN

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,982 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 270
Joined Nov 2011
     
Feb 09, 2016 02:37 |  #6

Pictures in and of themselves are fine IMO. I certainly don't think they merit being sued, unless the photos on her portfolio are that much better and the clients feel they were misled.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,939 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1229
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Feb 09, 2016 03:58 |  #7

The pictures look fine. They aren't $3,000+ wedding photo fine but they are probably worth what was paid for them. The processing seems a little inconsistant. Some colour ones seem very vanilla, while others seem to have some sort of slight processing applied. Makes them seem a little inconsistent as a whole.

Can you actually be sued for "ruining the wedding experience"? They had a wedding, people came, the cake was eaten, so was all the food, the music played and people danced and at the end of it they are still married. Even if they had no photos that doesn't impact on their enjoyment of the day. Sure, sue for your money back if not happy with the product but as for the rest ?


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
geo35
Senior Member
Avatar
518 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 381
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Twin Cities
     
Feb 09, 2016 05:19 |  #8

What Dan said. They aren't $3k photos, but for $1,800 they were just fine, unless - as elrey said - the client felt misled by previously advertised images. I've done well over 400 weddings and I've had two where the client was fishing for some refund money by making ridiculous claims about photo quality after the fact. It takes all kinds to make a world and in any business you have to expect there will be an occasional client who's a jerk.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brad999
Senior Member
420 posts
Likes: 76
Joined Jan 2008
     
Feb 09, 2016 05:23 |  #9

Must be more to the story. Photos tell of a nice story and wedding. Could use colour correction.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
texkam
"Just let me be a stupid photographer."
Avatar
1,205 posts
Likes: 476
Joined Mar 2012
Location: By The Lake in Big D
     
Feb 09, 2016 06:22 |  #10

Probably suing the cake person too.

The pics are acceptable.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lilkngster
Senior Member
721 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Feb 09, 2016 07:53 |  #11

The wedding photos fit in terms of quality and post processing when compared to her posts on FB.

I noticed that most of the links are down on her website and I see a comment dating back to 2011 for a photo that has been pulled. Cannot help but wonder if she had "borrowed" photos and used those in her website to misrepresent her work. Happens a lot and as Peter mentioned, that's where she could run into legal issues. Of course, this could all be related to the ongoing lawsuit, but makes me wonder what she is hiding...

I'm also willing to bet a roll of Ektar 100 that she does not have formal wedding contract.

I hope this does not end up being an expensive lesson in the business of photography for her.


6dII/80d/1dIII|8mm to 400mm|Pro-10/100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
agrandexpression
Senior Member
446 posts
Likes: 135
Joined Apr 2015
     
Feb 09, 2016 08:01 |  #12

I don't see anything egregiously wrong with the photos. I've seen worse quality at that price point. Honestly, I think they're not bad at all...and consistent with her recent work.

Sounds like a bridezilla. I would be surprised if the bride wins based on her claims (or presumed claims), although crazier things have happened....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
neacail
Goldmember
Avatar
1,188 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Likes: 437
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
Post edited over 2 years ago by neacail.
     
Feb 09, 2016 08:04 |  #13

They look okay to me for $1800.

There are some in there that I really like. In others the focus appears soft on the couple's faces (maybe this is a compression or web thing?). The processing is a bit inconstant, but that is an easy fix. It looks like she caught the important moments, and a lot of the "nice to have" images.

I checked the photographer's pricing page, and $2800 is the price quoted for a wedding (9 hours of work), but for that price she's also including 250 (?!?!) edited photos (level of editing is not indicated) and an album. And, it appears that she includes digital rights right off the get go. Even at $2800, there is a decent amount of value (even if the photos themselves aren't really $3k good).

I'm not sure if she is being sued for the full amount she was paid or just a portion of what she was paid, but I think the bride and groom should be ashamed of themselves.


Shelley
Image Editing Okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
5,765 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 2711
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Feb 09, 2016 08:22 |  #14

Those are certainly acceptable and probably better than most. My wedding pictures were not good at all. You get what you pay for and I think people are crazy sue happy nowadays. Very unfortunate. Something else must have happened to make these people bitter enough to sue.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 23/35/50 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,939 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1229
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Feb 09, 2016 08:24 |  #15

OP - get your friend to check the clients FB (if she can) to see if they posted any of the images and what the comments where. Occassionally clients will try to get a discount after the fact by claiming the images aren't good enough - but will be busy posting them on FB and saying what a great day they had. Such use of the images is taken by a court to be a clear indication that the client thinks the images are good enough.

The other key defence (mentioned above) is that the image match the work in her portfolio (assuming it does) and that as such the client knew the quaility of the work she produced.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

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

8,846 views & 19 likes for this thread
Acquaintance of mine is asking if these wedding pictures were OK
FORUMS Photo Sharing & Visual Enjoyment Weddings & Other Family Events 
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 kiwix
913 guests, 369 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.