Hired a fantastic newborn photographer - unimpressed with the results

BlakeC wrote in post #17562560
Not sure what to think of this thread. I feel like we need to see some images.
It sounds like a client who can't be pleased no matter what. It also sounds like a photographer who did a below average job. I've heard this same story from both sides before.

On one hand, it sounds like the photog left you with unrealistic expectations. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that you can't find photos you like out of the 54 given. 54 sounds like a good number. Also, not EVERY single photo is going to be the breath-taking photo you imagined. I think you would be lucky to get 4-5 AMAZING photos out of that with the rest just being good. You don't think ALL of those AMAZING photos on his site are all from the same session do you? Did you point out the photos from the site that you liked before hand? This would give the photog a good idea of your expectations. At the same time, the photog should have asked if there is anything in particular that you really liked. Ask you what made you choose them. He should have also managed your level of expectation.

I always ask clients why they chose me and what photos they really enjoyed and some of them come right out without me asking and tell me the photos they loved. Then I make sure I do some similar shots for them. And sometimes, I have to lower their expectations. For instance, I had a client who said hired me because he REALLY loved a particular fall photo I did with all of the colors. Well, at the time he said that, there were NO leaves and everything was dead in the middle of winter with no snow. So, I had to manage his expectations in that case. Another client said she really loved my macro, so I made sure we spent extra time on here ring shots.

In any case, I believe it is the photog's responsibility to think ahead and manage clients' expectations. It's the photog's job to make YOU happy, but clients should also be reasonable (not saying you aren't). Hard to tell without seeing any photos.

Hands down the best post of an interestingly odd thread that I have been sucked into returning to...

werds wrote in post #17564716
Hands down the best post of an interestingly odd thread that I have been sucked into returning to...

Thanks!

I've seen shots that appeared in focus on the LCD and were most decidedly not in focus when viewed in post. IMO, it's good for composition, nothing else. If I want to check exposure, I trust the histogram WAY more than I would trust a 3 inch LCD screen. The histogram doesn't lie.

This is terrible advice IMO. You feel different about certain photos after revisiting them a second or third time. You are banking on seeing everything you're going to see in that first look, and that's not the way it works. Not to mention you notice things once you're looking at the photo on a 27 inch monitor that there's no possible way of seeing on a 3 inch LCD. It might work for you, but to advise it as a way of working, I think it's irresponsible.

The LCD's are plenty good enough to judge shots on (they can zoom you know )

I've been shooting that way for 3 years now.

You think everything is irresponsible

You can easily do the majority of culling in camera. It really isn't that difficult. It is way more efficient than doing the majority of it afterwards. Keep quality, ditch crap and then there will be maybe 10-15 % you can't decide on which you leave for later. Save 1 hour culling per wedding... 35 weddings a year. That is an extra week of holidays

I guess I would have to see the photos. If you got 7 shots you like and are willing to dish out $1000 for, I'd say that's pretty darn good.

You are admittedly a photographer yourself. When you take pictures, what percentage of yours "take your breath away"? Did you expect every image to knock your socks off?

Every pro posts their best shots - it's called advertising. But every shot isn't the best shot. Sounds like a combination of possible over hyped photog mixed with over hyped expectations perhaps?

Like I said, I would have to see the images.

elrey2375 wrote in post #17564959
I've seen shots that appeared in focus on the LCD and were most decidedly not in focus when viewed in post.

again, zoom in. but this is somewhat irrelevant to whether flugelbinder, or anyone else, could judge someone's images from the LCD. If the image was bad all around but OOF, who cares? it's still bad. If it was good and OOF, but not seen on the LCD, he wouldn't have been using focus as a criteria for judgement.

composition, along side lighting, is generally viewed as the most important thing in photography. If an image's composition can be judged on the LCD than that is half the battle. I think if you would be honest, i think you would also agree that the lighting could be judged on the LCD. Whatever tweaks that are done in post can be easily visualized by someone with even a little bit of experience and creative vision.

exactly. the histogram on the 3 inch LCD.

Are you kidding me? The size of the screen has nothing to do with the accuracy of the histogram. It's reading raw data distribution and has nothing to do with the quality of the screen.

No, just this.

What do you think an EVF is? Oh... it's an LCD

According to your logic anyone shooting mirrorless can't trust what they see which is complete nonsense.

The LCDs are very good. I could deliver weddings SOOC if I wanted to by purely judging exposures from them.

You can also tell bad poses from the back of the screen very easily too.

I shoot wide open on a 50mm F0.95 with an EVF and it really isn't that hard using the zoom function to tell what is in focus and what isn't.

Has the OP heard of any other dissatisfied clients? Can he give a link to this guy's amazing shots and something average that he's done for another client? Look on his website for the names of a few clients and then do a FB search as I'm sure proud parents will upload from the CD the pro gives his clients.