photographer needs help with bad photos

Since you mention Chicago. In Cook County there is a court a level simpler than Small Claims Court called "Pro Se" Court. Plaintiff can't have an attorney, no juries, $50.00 filing fee. Pretty much a "Judge Judy" kind of thing. This would probably be the approach you want.

 

It might be worth the $50 - $100 to get him served with papers from Pro Se - might shake him up enough to settle.

 

And speaking of Judge Judy - maybe you can get on one of those judge shows - the producers would love it - can you imagine the audience appeal of the young bride cheated by the evil photographer!

Dana,

 

I would check with a lawyer whether his clause disclaiming liability carries any validity. If he's been grossly negligent then you may be able to claim damages beyond the price you paid.

 

Worth checking.

My post was edited to remove text saying that we should reserve judgement until we know

for sure that the photographer in question actually took the photos and that this whole thing

is legitimate.

 

Now the edited version of my post is much more prejudicial. Please remove the rest of it.

 

Thank you.

I think getting any money out of this deal is not going to work. My guess would be the photographer doesn't have any, and will fight for every penny.

 

Maybe you should try to get some enlargements or an album. If he is such a "pro" he will have albums available. Try for $1000.00 or $500 credit with him. If you can find a handful of images you like, say 12 or 15, printed 8x10 in a nice album, maybe that would help.

 

You DO get what you pay for, and $1000 for weddeing coverage is definately on the low end. You would expect in that price range a section or group of photos not turning out so great, but at least 2/3 of the edited images as being acceptable. I'm not talking great, just usable.

 

What percentage of the photos are "acceptable?"

 

That will have a lot to do with how much you should ask him for.

 

Sorry to hear about your experiance. Hopefully you have a handful of some nice ones.

MODERATOR NOTE:

 

Under no circumstances in this forum will we allow posting of a photographers name with regard to a bride complaint. This is not the Knot ;-)

 

 

On the other hand - we should advise Dana with different ideas on how to approach her situation and posts like these are welcome.

 

Dana did the right thing by not posting the photographer's name and then someone pressed her to do so claiming it isn't slander.

 

 

I've deleted all comments including the photographer's name and/or website. It may not be slander but it is not responsible without knowing the whole story.

 

I also think the posted images are terrible but I think we owe it to a fellow photographer to have a chance to do the right think and compensate Dana for the images if there were no other acceptable images of the ceremony etc.. How many of you have made a mistake and compensated the bride and groom or re-shot and ended up with a win win

situation.

 

Give the process a chance to be resolved and Dana - Please do report back in this thread or a new thread on how your situation was resolved!

Paul T. I suspect the shots are OOF because of the slow shutter speed and the lack of enuff flash to freeze the movement. I doubt it has anything to do with the lens.

I agree with David. Almost looks like no flash was used. Some (very few) ceremony locations do not allow any flash, even during the processional. Doubt that was the case, being that the photographer was allowed to stand in the middle of the isle.

Since Mary has spoken up about the rule in this forum about not posting complaints about wedding photographers, I would like to point Dana to the <a href="http://www.photo.net/neighbor/subcategory-index?id=7">Wedding Photographers</a> portion of the Neighbor Section on this site as an outlet for her frustration with <he who must not be named> photographer. Don't let others make the same mistake.

Howdy!

 

The EXIF data indicates that the flash did indeed fire.

 

The reflection off the dress is curious. It indicates that the bride stepped into the field of illumination, which is directly in front of her, very narrow, and vertical.

 

This indicates to me that Photographer X had his flash pointed up and didn't get enough bounce from the ceiling to be effective. A Lightsphere with a cap (or even a bounce card) would have helped immensely.

 

This next part is more of a guess than anything, but it would explain a lot of things if I am right.

 

I have seen two halls that look very much like this one in Idaho, that have the projection displays on the walls and the large sound panel in the back. They are churches which double as video broadcast centers for a very large religious network. (Which Shall Remain Nameless). There are many such halls around the USA.

 

The one thing you don't want in a broadcast studio is stray reflected lighting. Therefore the ceilings at these halls are painted BLACK, which further kills bounce lighting.

 

Paulsky, PIFF

Ignore previous post. I figured out a more reasonable scenario.

 

Photographer starts shooting in landscape mode, with flash pointed at the ceiling, and bounce card out. Standard operating procedure.

 

Photographer rotates camera to portrait mode, but does not change orientation of the flash. He now has a flash which is firing TO THE SIDE of a very large hall.

I agree with David re the focus. And if you read Dana's description, you'll see that he used a flash pointing straight up with a "heavy diffuser" on it. The flash did fire, because you can see flash shadows on the image with the kids in it--the ribbons on the flower girl's basket cast shadows on her dress. And there is a little ghosting around her shoulders and dress details. As you said earlier, he was unprepared for Canon's flash metering's tendency to underexpose, PLUS--a heavy diffuser with bounced flash will not reach the sixteen feet plus you need to shoot a full length shot of two people at f5, ISO 400 (with most powerful shoemounts like a 580EX) at 84mm focal length. A bounce card tilted forward has more reach than a Lightsphere with the dome on, and even the bounce card has a maximum distance of about 12 feet at f5, given one has set the flash (compensated) to give the proper flash exposure. The reflection you mention does not seem to me to be unusual--just looks like overhead lighting typical in many indoor rooms. Ken's reworked image just exaggerated the effect.

Nadine, your overall explanation makes good sense. The light on the dress could easily be from a skylight.

 

But shouldn't there be at least some flash on the processional? 84mm on a full frame 5D isn't really that far. And forgetting to flip the flash to vertical in portrait mode is a very common error, particularly if the photographer was nervous.

 

As for focusing, the 5D with a 580EX can focus in darkness to at least forty feet, as long as it's infrared broadcast lamp is not blocked. Perhaps Photographer X was blocking the beam with his hand. It's very easy to block the beam if you hold the camera by the lens base in the portrait position.

 

I don't know much about the dimensions of the 28-300mm. Is it possible that the lens itself partially or fully blocked the autofocus beam?

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

Paul--there is some flash on the processional. Can't see it much on the bride and father photo, can see it on the kids photo, and can maybe see it on the bridesmaid/groomsman photo in the shadow on the back wall. The reflection on the back wall could be from the flash going off as well. As stated above, with an 85mm lens, I know I have to be at least 16 feet away from a full length subject, more than a bounced flash with diffuser on, full power, can reach at f5, ISO 400, 16-20 feet. You are probably right about the vertical shots and flash orientation, judging from what flash shadows can be seen. However, the fact of the matter appears to be first and foremost, just not enough flash. If there was sufficient flash, you would have side shadows, but the subject would be frozen if in focus.

 

I would say it is impossible to tell if the subjects were in focus, but most of what I see is motion blur.

 

Anyway, it is pointless to speculate about what and how many things this photographer did wrong. The fact is, these images are badly done and nothing we figure out will change that. Maybe if this photographer asked for advice...but otherwise...

First, thank you Mary for cleaning up this thread.<p>

There are many things wrong with the photos, and as stated, trying to speculate about what exactly happened is merely an intellectual excercise at this point.<p>

I would say though, that we could define some guidelines given what we do actually know.....<p>

1. Shooting at 1/20th sec is too slow for a processional. Personally, I would be at 1/60th sec at the slowest (and that's with using flash).<p>

2. If it is a large space with a high ceiling, or dark ceiling, etc. you'll probably need to point the flash more or less directly at the subjects. The FEC probably could have been adjusted to accomodate distances and/or reduced power from a diffusor.<p>

3. In what appears to be pretty dim lighting like the photos shown, ISO 400 is the minimum ISO you should be at. ISO 800 or even 1600 is probably more likely.<p>

4. Also in this type of lighting, your aperture should probably be at f/2.8 or perhaps faster if you are using primes (but you need to be more careful with your focus due to somewhat reduced depth-of-field... depending on distance & focal length). You could probably shoot at f/4 (or even f/5.6 I guess) if you used more flash. But I think the concensus would be to be closer to f/2.8.<p>

5. White Balance should have been handled better. Looks like the images are balanced for a daylight color temp (as though the camera was set to AWB and knew the flash was firing), but that the flash actually hitting the subject was so little relative to the ambient (tungsten) lighting that everything turned out orange.

<p>

I think most (or all) of these principles apply to film photography just as they would to digital. So wherever these photos came from, it's safe to say they were shot by someone who sorely lacks some basic understanding of the technical side of photography.

OK I know I'm going against my own suggestion above, but can't resist a couple of comments, Ni. First, I believe someone above said that the white balance was set to manual. Second, a film shooter can very well make a mistaken assumption that shutter drag works the same way with film as it does with digital, but it doesn't quite. What David said above about this photographer's settings probably working out fine with film is true. This is because with film, you normally overexpose slightly (expose for the shadows...), and are probably running your flashes to overexpose as well. What this works out to is less motion blur for the same (apparent) settings for film than digital, because of the deliberate skewing toward overexposure. So to "compensate" for running your flashes to overexpose, you can go slightly slower on your shutter speeds/shutter drag ratio without getting motion blur. With my medium format gear, I often used f8 at 1/15th for processionals, running my flash at least 1/3 to 2/3 stop over without getting any hint of ghosting. This was at ISO 400, Portra film, so using ISO 400 instead of 800 or 1600 isn't a factor, I think. Or changing the shutter speed or aperture. Basically, there wasn't enough flash (for whatever reason) and this photographer's shutter drag ratio was not adjusted for digital. If the flash is the main source of illumination, you can use whatever ISO and f stop your flash can handle for the subject distances. You just have to be sure your shutter drag ratio gives you the motion blur or lack thereof, you desire.

Agree with Nadine. I routinely will shoot these at 1/50th, f 5.6, 400 ISO, with an omnibounce on my 580EX set at a 45 degrees and in a bracket. Easy Peasy.

I tried to fix another of these images, this time doing the upfront editing of the JPG in ACR 4.0 (PS CS3 now allows editing JPGs in Camera Raw).<div></div>

Wow. I would be shamed to deliver photos like this to anyone.

Sorry for leaving you guys hanging! OK, these comments (or answers) begin with the post from Nadine Ohara on 5/10/07 at5:22pm

 

Nadine - there was a lot of motion blur. He stated to me on the phone the day after giving me the cds that he had the camera on the wrong setting and that is why the pics of us walking down the aisle are blurry. But, if you look in the video, you can see people stopping as they are coming down the aisle.

 

He said in an email that he shot a birthday party that same week and it turned out fine and that the mom bought the whole book of images. Well, great for her.

 

El Fang - he was a client at my hospital and came "highly recommended" by another studio in Pasadena that is very, very, very prestigious. I trusted that studio. They told me that they had used him for back up weddings before.

 

I also don't think that $1000 is cheap just for photography with no pictures. At least not in this area.

 

Another thing that I just noticed is that THERE ARE NO PICTURES OF MY MOM AND DAD at the reception! And only one each of Scott's mom and dad. OK, now I'm even more mad.

 

Jaimie - I understand that people can make mistakes. But own up to it. He still has not come forward with any compensation like an album. He only offered to "re-take the photos that I didn't get". Well, that is mostly of the ceremony. So I asked him how he planned to do that b/c it meant renting tuxes, getting the church again, etc. His reply was that he would do the best that he can. I asked him what that meant, and he never answered. He then went on to tell me that he has a loved one battling colon cancer and his finances aren't great. Yet, he is accusing me of slander and going to go to court over it. He is also (now 4 weeks after the wedding, an email, and certified letter from me) claiming that it was a camera malfunction.

 

Ni - yes, I did see his work. Again, like I said earlier in this post, he was recommended by a highly prestigious studio in my area. I met with him in person, saw his portfolio and discussed what a storybook wedding was.

 

Bob - I did get some pictures that are good. But there are 53 pictures of the wedding ceremony and 1 of them is useable.

 

Ni - I do understand your comments about not taking every thing as truth. But I do know that I have video proof that at least some of the time he was shooting with his flash straight up in the air and with a diffuser on it. He was also LOOKING at each shot. We could have easily turned up the lights in the church and it still would have been a beautiful wedding. ALSO, the video is beautiful! There was a camera in the back of the chruch at least 40 feet away from the alter and the other camera was right behind one of the projector screens. Neither had any additional lighting and the video came out just fine. So the church wasn't THAT dark.

 

Mark - I did handle it professionally. I had a lawyer that Scott works with look over the initial letter before I sent it. I'm also not worried about a lawyer in Chicago that the PPA presented to him. I know that they are not going to fly to Houston to fight a small claim. And yes, $1000 is worth the effort b/c he was not up front and honest with us from the beginning.

 

Steve- yes, he has pretty much told me that he doesn't have the money. BUT he just opened a brand new studio in a very rich part of town. Not really feeling sorry for him right now. The funny thing is, that the studio who recommended him AND 3 other people whom I have not met, have stepped forward to offer FREE services in lieu of him not producing what was promised. I have given him plenty of opportunity to make amends. Quite frankly, as rude as he was and rolling his eyes at every shot we wanted makes me not want him to re-shoot anything. If I did, I would definitely have a back up photographer!

 

Debbie - I'm not trying to put him out of business. I only asked him for the $1000 back along with tux rental, flowers, and money for a new photographer. He countered with no money back at all and only that he would retake all of the ceremony pictures. Did he not think that would cost us money? So Scott and I are supposed to get my 3 bridesmaids and groomsmen back in town with tuxes at $200 each? Not including the ring bearer and the flower girl?

 

Andrew - it is funny that you mention Judge Judy! I know a clerk at the small claims court in my area. She told me some of the stuff that I needed and told me not to be surprised if Judge Judy contacted me. She said that they regularly scan new claims for their show. Small claims in Texas is only $85 and up to $5000 for the suit total. You automatically get court fees back if you win.

 

Alec - the lawyer already looked at his contract and is surprised that he hasn't been sued before. Thanks for the information.

 

Greg - actually, in the area I live in $1000 is the going rate for the package that I booked. Again, he was highly recommended by one of the higher end studios with an excellent reputation. (they were booked on my day). The bad thing about getting some enlargements is there isn't a good one of Scott and I. There are only 64 pictures of the reception that was 2.5 hours long. There are no candids of my mom and dad, brother, groomsmen, bridemaids. No pics of Scott's mom and only one of his dad. Of the 64 pics, 11 of them are of Scott and I cutting our cake. Plus, I asked for some compensation in the form of pictures or an album and there was no response to it. Just that he would re-take the ceremony.

 

Greg - he was allowed to use a flash, and take pics at any time during the ceremony. When Scott and i lit the unity candle, he only took one shot (or only gave me one shot) and you can see him in the back of the church on the video, hurrying up to the alter, with his flash pointing straight up in the air.

 

Brett - great, thanks for the information.

 

Paul - about the flash and the bounce - you are right, he did have the flash straight up, and you would have needed a spotlight to bounce off the ceiling in our church as it is about 2 stories high, painted white. The projection screens are two free standing screens that are fixed on the alter. I've included a pic that someone took before the ceremony with my digital rebel. Although, not the best, it is still better that what he produced.

 

Nadine - he didn't use a bounce card on any of these photos. And this photographer says he doesn't need any advice b/c of his experience.

 

Ni - thanks for the info and the breakdown of what works for a wedding.

 

Carissa - my sentiments exacltly.

 

OK, now, you guys have asked to see all of the photos.

 

You can go to www.dotphoto.com

user name is ddphoto

password bad

 

This will give you access to an album with all of the photos as they were giving to me. No photoshop or color correction of any type. None of these photos in this album have been retouched. It will take about an hour for the photos to load so try accessing them after 8pm central standard time.

 

AGAIN, thank you all so much for taking the time and consideration in posting your comments. I promise that even if I didn't address you individually in this post, I have read every comment on this thread.

 

<div></div>

Check out the massive side shadow on the B&G formals. Perhaps a lot of this could have been prevented by bringing up the house lights instead of relying on flash and shutter drag.

 

Side Question: I have had fun doing a few weddings in churches that look much like this in Idaho. They double as broadcast centers for a large religious network, and are scattered all over the United States. Does this church double as a broadcast center? (Just curious).

 

Later,

 

Paulsky

Hi Paulsky - no, you're making me laugh! It doesn't double as a broadcast center!

I've been reading through the posts in this forum and noticed a lot of activity for this one. I was a little surprised that after the request to see all the photos ("OK, now, you guys have asked to see all of the photos."), no one except Paul has responded. I think there are a lot of terrible images and definitely not $1000 worth, but I'm not a pro and just curious why no one else has responded?

Because it's all been said. Seeing all the pictures didn't change anything. Dana's description of them was pretty much what you see -- a bunch of bad to horrible photos.

Ok. Thanks.

Jennifer,

 

Also, some photographers chose to send me private posts so as not to be chastized for their comments.

 

OK, gang, so sorry that I have been gone. I basically blinked and a month has gone by!

 

Here is the latest. Photographer X has sent me an email after 5/10 being the last correspondence from him. It is below: (with names removed):

 

Dana and Scott,

 

 

 

I have a proposal for you.

 

1. A cashier?s check for $500

2. Hi-Res color corrected CD?s of the wedding

3. A set of color corrected 4X5 prints of the wedding (which you will be surprised)

 

 

Also, I need a liability release from you and Scott, signed by both of you, releasing both xxxxxxxx and/or xxxxxxxxxx Photography from any further compensation, or damages, from the photography taken at your wedding on April 14, 2007.

 

I hope you will find this a satisfactory settlement, and we can finally have closure on this matter.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

xxxxxxxxxx

 

cc: PPA

 

Howe and Hutton Law Firm

 

Marvin Zindler

 

 

So for those of you who don't know MArvin Zindler, he is the famous journalists that exposed the "chicken ranch" in Texas years ago. Since then, he has been a people's journalists helping the public against companies that take advantage of them. Esp the elderly. He also does a bit on restaurants and violations. I think it is interesting that he is saying in his email that he cc'd Marvin Zindler. The email doesn't indicate that it was sent to anyone else.

 

Anyway, Scott and I went to the park last week and had our photos redone. So we at least have some very beautiful photos of him and I. It was a major pain to get dressed up again. The photographer is asking to give us $500 but it was $200 for Scott's tux re-rental, $130 to have my dress cleaned 9which I will have to pay again when I have it preserved), $30 for a new bouquet. So that pretty much eats up the $500. As for the 4x5's of the photos, that will surely hide any of the flaws that are easily seen in the 5x7's. I did the calculations - I received 244 pics. 54 of the ceremony and only 1 came out. 64 of the reception with NO candids, 12 pics of Scott and I cutting the cake, 14 blurry pics.

 

So should I take the money and run? It just seems that he is getting off easy. He was so kind as to tell me that he fixed one of the alter pics taken after the ceremony and that I needed to be satisfied by having one. I didn't appreciate him patronizing me. He told me to be happy with my new found photo.net friends who never made mistakes ever. I was quick to tell him that no one on this list EVER said that they never made mistakes, only that they wouldn't have handled this they way that he did.

 

I have all of my paperwork ready to go and file in court. I will tell you that I have contacted a lawyer and she is reviewing his offer (it is a friend and so I'm not being charged).

 

I will keep you guys updated with any new events.

 

Dana