Wedding Photography Blues

I have been asked to edit a friend's wedding photos as the ones she were given were of poor quality.
They didn't even do a personal review of the photos, just simply dropped of CD of images
She had tried to contact the photographer, but didn't get very far, basically being fobbed off.

When my friend asked about re-edits, she was told that all she had was JPG, the photographer had already trashed the RAW files.

I am posting here to pick the brains of wedding photographers as to 'usual practice', since I have only done one paid wedding and a few engagement shoots

1. Is it normal to trash the RAWS after editing? Apparently the photographer was willing to hand over unedited JPGs, even though she initially shot RAW? (Seems weird to me)

2. Is it the norm to do PP without consulting the bride?

3. What is usual practice when your client is unhappy with your work (in this case, EDITED photos were poor - too much noise, blurry, major blown highlights, B&W conversions that were way too contrasty, poor composition - but I am hesitant to publish samples incase the photographer is on this forum)

Q for Aussies..
3. My friend paid over $3000 for the package? Are there any options apart from going NSW Dept of Fair Trading in order to get (some) money back? She had a contract which also allowed for an engagement shoot and they didn't happen.

thanks

Not a wedding photographer but my thoughts are:

1 - That would be upto the discretion of the photographer. I would image most would keep there RAW files for at least a short period of time after delivery of the goods

2 - I would say yes. You hire a tog based on their portfolio and style which means you would expect them to deliver a similar quality of product meaning that their PP would already be done and customers would only see final product

3 - Dont really have a comment on this although I would image a true professional would do something to appease the customer assuming the complaints have some validity.

4 - There might be a case for refund given that part of the package was never delivered (Engagement shoot) Depending on why it didnt happen. I think there might also be a case if the final product is grossly different than the advertised portfolio they were shown when selecting them.

All of the above is strictly personal opinion and in no way based around any legal knowledge.

pelooyen wrote in post #17563633
When my friend asked about re-edits, she was told that all she had was JPG, the photographer had already trashed the RAW files.

1. Is it normal to trash the RAWS after editing? Apparently the photographer was willing to hand over unedited JPGs, even though she initially shot RAW? (Seems weird to me)

To me this raises a red flag. I have to wonder if there are not two sides to this story.

A photographer who has an uncooperative client may treat a client like this. When they reached the last straw, did they act like this? I neither know the photographer or your friend so I have no reason to take sides, but if the photographer comes very well recommended and all the research on this photographer indicated they could be trusted to do the job, then you need to examine your friend's actions on dealing with the photographer as well as checking out the photographer.

If your friend trusted her once in a lifetime day to a photographer who doesn't have an above reproach reputation, then the answer is why did she choose them?

P.S. Normally I would be for your friend in most cases, but this just seems to be one of those cases for some reason where there are probably two sides to the problem. I highly suspect they still have the Raw files and stated they did away with them just to end the dealing with your friend. It is unlikely any true professional photographer doesn't have the Raw files to every wedding they have shot for at least a year or two.

pelooyen wrote in post #17563633
They didn't even do a personal review of the photos, just simply dropped of CD of images

There is nothing unusual with that. I haven't sat down with any of my clients to do a "personal review". I just send a link to the online gallery and post the disc.

pelooyen wrote in post #17563633
When my friend asked about re-edits, she was told that all she had was JPG, the photographer had already trashed the RAW files.

Some photographers don't store the raws once the job has been completed (some photographers don't shoot raw either). No longer having the raws would not be that unusual.

pelooyen wrote in post #17563633
Apparently the photographer was willing to hand over unedited JPGs, even though she initially shot RAW?

Some photographers won't part with their raws (even if they do still have them).

pelooyen wrote in post #17563633
Is it the norm to do PP without consulting the bride?

I have never consulted with the couple about the post work I do.

pelooyen wrote in post #17563633
What is usual practice when your client is unhappy with your work (in this case, EDITED photos were poor - too much noise, blurry, major blown highlights, B&W conversions that were way too contrasty, poor composition - but I am hesitant to publish samples incase the photographer is on this forum)

If I were you I wouldn't touch the images without written permission to do so from the photographer involved. You open yourself up to a whole world of potential problems if you do.

pelooyen wrote in post #17563633
My friend paid over $3000 for the package? Are there any options apart from going NSW Dept of Fair Trading in order to get (some) money back? She had a contract which also allowed for an engagement shoot and they didn't happen.

How much they paid is pretty much irrelevant. Whether the work is consistent with the portfolio etc of the photographer (i.e. consistent with what they signed up to buy) is the relevant part.

As for their contract without seeing it or knowing what it says any advice here would be pure speculation. The only option they have is fair trading which I suggest they do if they get no satisfactory remedy with the photographer.

My advice to you is to stay out of things until that has been done and an agreement / settlement has been come to from using the proper channels.

Nogo wrote in post #17563665
To me this raises a red flag. I have to wonder if there are not two sides to this story.

A photographer who has an uncooperative client may treat a client like this. When they reached the last straw, did they act like this? I neither know the photographer or your friend so I have no reason to take sides, but if the photographer comes very well recommended and all the research on this photographer indicated they could be trusted to do the job, then you need to examine your friend's actions on dealing with the photographer as well as checking out the photographer.

If your friend trusted her once in a lifetime day to a photographer who doesn't have an above reproach reputation, then the answer is why did she choose them?

P.S. Normally I would be for your friend in most cases, but this just seems to be one of those cases for some reason where there are probably two sides to the problem. I highly suspect they still have the Raw files and stated they did away with them just to end the dealing with your friend. It is unlikely any true professional photographer doesn't have the Raw files to every wedding they have shot for at least a year or two.

I'm kinda leaning toward this too.

"I don't want to pay extra for editing, I'll just have my friend edit them"

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #17563701
If I were you I wouldn't touch the images without written permission to do so from the photographer involved. You open yourself up to a whole world of potential problems if you do.

Peter, can you expand on this comment?

I can't think of any obvious legal ramifications from editing the delivered product, unless the contract with the photographer specifically prohibits the client from editing the delivered images. Is such a clause usual in a wedding photography contract? Even so, that is a problem for the client, not the OP.

A wedding photograph is a "commisioned" photograph for private or domestic purpose. In that case - according to Australian copyright law - the client owns the copyright unless the photographer expressly retained the copyright in the contract.
Although for all practical purposes I cannot see the photographer making trouble in this case when Paul would do some post editing he could only make that trouble when he retained the copyright. If there was no proviso in the contract then the copyright is with the client.For more information on Australian copyright: http://www.copyright.o​rg.au …wnership%20of%2​0Copyright

I do not think Fair Trading will be able to do anything about this. Hiring a wedding photographer is a matter of "caveat emptor" (or buyer beware)

Without seeing the images, the contract or the communication between the parties everything is pure speculation as to who owns the copyright, what should have been delivered, what is permissible or not etc.

Some photographers have clauses in about their images being edited. Without sight of the contract we can't say what the case is here.

Not only that but the OP sells work... if the couple uploaded some edited pictures to FB say, attributing them to him it would appear as if he'd used another photographer's images for commercial gain. If he took any payment what so ever that would be the case to.

Bottom line... what does the contract say, what communication has there been between the parties involved and have they followed the proper channels available to them to remedy the situation? All we have so far is a snippet third party account with very little by way of useful information upon which to give advice.

Thank for input.
For the record, I took no payment, it was done as friend.. Secondly, I have instructed my friend not to involve me in any way. If she posts them, she is not to mention me.

I would be ok to share some examples here, with my friends permission, without reference to the photographers name, but as stated, I am cautious as I don't want any legal trouble.

The biggest issue is the quality of the delivered product. It was sub par, even compared to the photographers website, and for over $3000, she should have got better results.
My friend will be lodging a complaint with fair trading.

pelooyen wrote in post #17567203
The biggest issue is the quality of the delivered product. It was sub par, even compared to the photographers website, and for over $3000, she should have got better results.
My friend will be lodging a complaint with fair trading.

If the images were (all) sub par compared to the samples on the website that would be grounds for your friend to take legal action on the basis that the good were not of an acceptable standard/not of the quality advertised. If some of them were up to par but others not then that is more a case of reality vs imagination. The togs portfolio should contain their best work but it is unrealistic to expect every shot to be of equal quality - though maybe the tog would have been better of being more ruthless culling their images.

A second thought - a bad one. Were the images on the togs web site actually taken by them? There have been a depressingly large number of cases of togs using other people's images to misrepresent their abilities.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17567478
A second thought - a bad one. Were the images on the togs web site actually taken by them? There have been a depressingly large number of cases of togs using other people's images to misrepresent their abilities.

That's what came to my mind reading this thread. Sadly, I am seeing it in my area too. I even had someone take one of my photos from Facebook and try and pass it off as theirs.