Refund for Photography?

<p>Like Lyndsay I was expecting something really awful. These are not awful.<br>

They're not the best pictures ever taken and obviously you would expect something more exciting from someone who charges a lot more but I think they are at least as good as anyone could reasonably expect for the money. You have a perfectly competent set of pictures here.</p>

<p>Alec - It is one thing to hotlink to a photographer's site or to a password protected "order online" page on something like Smugmug but this looks like she's put her images into her photobucket account and we don't know if she has the rights to do so. </p>

<p>Hi everyone - I'm so sorry for posting without checking first. Truth is, I have no idea if I have the rights to post those pictures on here. Given that I have such a vague contract and all it really says is that I would get a disc with images that I could then reprint in larger format, I think it best to remove the photobucket pictures so the links above are broken now. If there's anything else I need to do, let me know. I'm new ... and couldn't find a way to edit my original post. :)</p>

<p>MaryBall,</p>

<p>Point taken - but, it's a sad state of affairs if you can't show your own wedding photos to people! Why else would you pay for them!? </p>

<p>I can see Alec's point, it's natural to want to show people your wedding photos, and Shelly has been circumspect in not naming either the planner or the photographer. If a photographer hands over images on disc, then it is invariably for the purpose of the client making their own prints and sharing the images with any aquaintances they choose, and via the WWW.</p>

<p>In any case, we are digressing, and once again I will say that whilst Shelley has had a great deal of support and sympathy as regards her dilemma, the issue seems to be one of managed expectation, and I do not see that the photographer is specifically at fault. However if the wedding planner was rude, as was stated in the opening post, then that is not excusable. She was doubtless defending her husband against what she will have seen as unfair criticism, but could have done a better job of it. As to her attendance at the wedding, it appears Shelley did not gain any such assurance before hand.</p>

<p>Well as one of the few people to see the sample pictures, I don't think they were massively sub-par for CDN$250. At least, not for the £ equivalent, over here. I understand the disappointment but you have to consider the price paid. So I'm with Linsday and John. Obviously it's up to Shelley if she wants to pursue the matter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Josh - OT, but, in another thread you (I think) advised another poster not to post an image that he hadn't taken, but that he <strong>should </strong> hotlink to somewhere it could be seen. Why is your advice to Shelley <strong>not </strong> to hotlink, now?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am fairly sure that I would never have told someone to hotlink to post images that weren't theirs. The rule on photo.net about posting only images you have taken is pretty clear.</p>

<p>If you want to reference another photographer's images, please do it with a link.</p>

<p >Very sorry to hear your tale. Unfortunate indeed. I usually have fun with these kinds of people, putting them in their place. Keeping it civil, or course.</p>

<p ></p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p >If you are ever in the Ottawa area, I would love to offer my services free of charge for an afternoon of shooting. I realize this can't replace your wedding photos, but at least you'll have some respectable photos :)</p>

<p > </p>

<p ></p>

<p ></p>

<p >If you're interested, contact me! <a href="http://www.seyeauphotography.com/">http://www.seyeauphotography.com/</a></p>

<p > </p>

<p >--Ryan</p>

<p>HI Josh - </p>

<p>Clearly I'm missing something:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would never have told someone to hotlink to post images that weren't theirs. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>and:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to reference another photographer's images, please do it with a link.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What's the difference between a link and a hotlink?</p>

 

<p>A link is text that you click on to go to another website. <a href="http://google.com">Like this.</a></p>

<p>A hotlink is inserting an image that is hosted on another website. Like this:<br>

<img src="http://www.brothersroot.com/blog/wp-content/joshphotos/2009/sept09/_jackpoint.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>If you right click on that image and choose "properties" you will see that it is actually hosted on a different website (<a href="http://www.brothersroot.com/blog/?p=973">see here</a> ). I just used HTML (or the little "insert image" button in the text editor) to make it appear here.</p>

<p>Shelly originally hotlinked the other photographer's images into the thread, which isn't allowed. I changed the images to text links, which is allowed.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shelly originally hotlinked the other photographer's images into the thread, which isn't allowed. I changed the images to text links, which is allowed.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Ah - all is clear now. I only saw the post with the links, and thought that's what you were referring to. I didn't realise you had already fixed the problem and that the regular links were ok. Thanks for clarifying. Shelley - I guess that means you can restore the pictures (right everyone?)</p>

<p>Thanks, Alec. I appreciate your candor. Understand that I am aware that I didn't pay too much into the photography portion of my package - I think I just assumed (wrongly) that I would get pictures that were worth framing or possible better/different shots than my guests got with their cameras. A lot of the pictures we got were of poses - "put your hand here, stand there, turn this way, now smile" - and I'm not saying that I don't understand those pics and completely understand that a lot of people want those pics ... but I told him before he started that I didn't want those and not only did he insist on taking up our time doing them anyway but then took up some of the 30 contracted photos by printing and sending them to me in the album. There's a lot of blinking and stuff, too, which I wouldn't have expected in a package of wedding photos. The 3 pictures I posted that Alec got to see did not show that aspect - I didn't want to post all 37 pictures last night. :)</p>

<p>Should I have known that I was going to get this considering what I paid? Call me naive but I really don't think so ... understand that this was my first (and only) wedding and I don't know photography at all, save for being in my sister's wedding in 1994. I was just thinking that the photos of people making weird faces or photos where I (as the bride) am being blocked by other people or bushes etc. would have been weeded out instead of counting against the 30 I was to get.</p>

<p>The disappointment I have is also compounded by her talking me out of hiring a photographer that I could have vetted and could have gotten what I wanted out of, essentially saying that using her photographer would be better because he was doing it at no extra charge "as a favour". I put my trust in her because she knows that area better than I do - obviously I didn't know she considered her husband to be the best possible option for me - and was he really doing this at no extra charge as a "favour"? She told me that usually photographers charge 2-3 times more for Saturday weddings. Hindsight being what it is, shoulda, woulda, coulda ...</p>

<p>Again, I'm just here to get opinions ... so that I can make a decision that makes sense once I see all possible sides of the situation and that's where comments like Alec's and Lindsay's come into play <strong>for</strong> <strong>sure</strong>. As a first time bride-to-be without any experience in this kind of stuff, I hired a wedding planner to be my expert and be the person that I could trust to book the people that make sense for the style of wedding we were having. Trust being the key factor.</p>

<p>My focus is (and always was) to have a long, happy and wonderful marriage with my new husband and that's what the end goal is after it all. :D</p>

<p>It sounds like the wedding planner persuaded you to go short on something you would have paid more for, to suit her own (or her husband's) pocket. But in general, when people think they're getting $750 value for $250, there's always a catch....<br>

Sounds like you got talked out of the opportunity to pay more and get better photos, but ultimately you did agree, ahead of time, to hire a $250 photographer, and that's (more or less) what you got. </p>

<p>Trust me, Alec, I know that now. But the implication is there that we were getting up to a $750 value for whatever we paid in the package (which is not necessarily $250 as that was an estimation on my part based on her pricing schemes). Again, I honestly didn't know the worth of what I was being offered by "normal" photographer standards.</p>

<p>And PS - the planner herself said that the pictures they sent us were terrible - because they couldn't get good ones. So by her own admission, the pictures are sub-standard. For whatever that's worth.</p>

<p>What a horrendous experience! I haven't read through the entire thread, but as both a lawyer and a wedding photographer, I am saddened and dismayed to learn of your story.<br>

I guess if you want to be practical, it all boils down to how hard do you want to fight for a refund of $250. As unprofessional, rude and incompetent as your wedding planner and photographer have been, your legal rights are all going to hinge on their performance of their contract with you.<br>

Hopefully you will be able to put this horrible experience behind you and enjoy your new life together as a new couple.<br>

Kent</p>

<p>Shelley:<br>

Sorry to hear about your experience. As a wedding photographer I try to do the right thing, be fair and give the clients more than they expect. You've had a lot of good advice from this forum. The only thing I could add is to let it go and if you really want to, do a reshoot. And advise your friends to get a professional photographer to shoot their wedding.</p>

<p>Hello Shelley,<br>

I'm not sure what everyone has said in response to you here, so forgive me if i repeat anything someone has said already. But, naturally i'm appauled, of course, by your story. it's really a shame. my suggestion is to report it to the bbb and any other "local business" website or blog that you could note your story on. This way, at the least, other brides can avoid the same situation. If you are not interested in taking legal action, i would just suggest to be persistent. Persistance pays off. Keep calling her demanding a refund, atleast for the photography side of the deal. Although I am a good hearted person, sometimes you have to stoop to "their" level in order to get things done. Threaten her with your actions of spreading the word of how they run their business. That may give you leverage to get a response you're looking for. Good luck to you and on behalf of the good photographers out here, my sincere apologies.</p>

<p>Christina, I appreciate not everyone has time to read a long post, but those of us who saw the images agreed that they were not sub-standard for the price paid (irrespective of the planner rudely implying Shelley and her partner were not photogenic). The album was plastic but once again the budget for the photography was so small that it would be impossible for the photographer to supply anything better. We all know that quality books are hundreds of dollars. Since Shelly has the disc of images she can make up her own book if she wishes or discuss the provision of a better album with the photographer. I don't think that the repeated assertion that Shelly should take legal action is constructive. The unfortunate moral of this story is that if you want stellar images then there is no other option than to hire, and pay for, a known and respected professional with a good record of customer care.</p>