botched photos, bride wants refund

<p>Assuming (for a second) that the images which did not turn out are about 1/3 of the total images from the day - then I would suggest refunding 1/3 of the price paid by the bride.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>It seems that $300 (50%) refund would be fair, satisfy the client, and be a very small price to pay for this very important lesson in wedding photography. Plus, it would go a long way with a judge if you end up in small claims court.</p>

<p>Reputation and integrity are the heart and soul of any business, sit down with the client and explain your situation to her and talk to her about refunding over a period of time so it is not such a strain on your finances. Talk to her about trying improve the photos with processing and see if she will accept a partial refund if you can make some of the pictures satisfactory. Try to be good to her and give her the chance to be generous in return, put yourself in her place for this once in a lifetime event.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>I entirely agree with Dave Redmann. You've gotten a number of answers that all say the same thing. Some form of refund is in order The wedding is a critical part of the day and regardless of the 'reason' it wasn't covered as it should have been. Dave is correct, if you delay this and not offer a 100% refund, you face not only giving the refund but also legal fees and some type of settlement.</p>

<p>If a long time working professional photographer was brought into court to give his/her "expert opinion", they would tear this apart. Substandard camera that is not suitable for this type of shooting, same for the lens, No backup camera in case of equipment failure, not understanding several basic principles and so on. I know I sound harsh and I am but I'm trying to make a point (mostly to your husband). Give them the refund, make them sign off on no future compensation and cut your losses while you still can. Borrow the money if you have to but put this behind you as quickly as possible.</p>

<p>My <em>professional</em> advice. Refund the money. And then stop charging money for something you aren't qualified to do. That probably sounds harsh, but as professionals, we are here to promote photography but that doesn't mean accepting anyone with a camera as a professional. In terms of the partial refund, why? As a professional there is a certain <em>minimum</em> level of expectation. This wasn't met. Not only was it not met, you weren't in a position to even be <em>able</em> to meet the expectation:</p>

<p>Was it camera/sensor failure? I doubt it. Otherwise why would the other images from the day be OK. But lets say it was.... you didn't notice this for the WHOLE ceremony? And as a <em>professional</em> what was your back up?</p>

<p>Low light church? Shocking. Low light church with a slow lens? Not a good idea. Where is your "fast" lens. As a <em>professional </em> you must have something faster than f/4.5? The other rub is that it doesn't look all that low light. We have some decent light coming in from camera right, we have the large stained glass in back, and something is casting a shadow where the pillar is at.</p>

<p>Where is the fill flash? If you aren't going to use fast glass (and usually even if you are), you need fill flash for the type of shot posted. Did the flash not recycle in time? As a <em>professional </em> you need to make sure your gear is up to the task. And since you indicated that most of the shots were like this, I can't see how your flash was ever firing. Was it a problem with the flash? If it was, as a <em>professional, </em>what was your back up?</p>

<p>Bottom line, this wasn't anywhere near a professional job and it shouldn't be labeled as such. I am not qualified to give legal advice, but I can't imagine any judge not ordering a full refund of the monies paid. If nothing else, you represented yourself as being able to do something you clearly couldn't do. Even a guest with a point & shoot is going to capture a better image. So that is my advice. After that, I strongly suggest learning photography. My wife can bake cupcakes but we aren't about to open a bakery. </p>

<p>I am amazed that this happens so often - people who have no business shooting a wedding thinking "wow, what a great way to make money" and "anyone" can do it.</p>

<p><strong>With regard to the question about a refund:</strong> I agree with the OP and not with her husband, a refund is in order – if the B&G will take $300 then that would be a good outcome IMO.</p>

<p><strong>With regard to the time lag:</strong> I agree that it has gone beyond offering fixes to images, or anything other than a refund which the OP says is what the B&G want anyway and it is implied that if this request is satisfied the matter will be ended.</p>

<p><strong>With regard to the EXIF details and the Flash Firing or not:</strong> Opanda Power EXIF Professional; GEXIF VIEW; Windows Properties/Details - all reveal that the Flash Fired, but no strobe return was detected.<br>

All these EXIF reading programmes use DIFFERENT wording to explain this, but what in essence it means is that: <em>The Flash was SET to fire, but there was no detection of it actually firing.</em><br>

Considering the Subjects are walking - the most reasonable and common explanation for this EXIF reading is that the <em>Flash did not recycle in time to fire for this particular shot and the shot was one of a sequence of shots reasonably close in succession.</em></p>

<p><strong>With regard to a red line through each of the Ceremony Images:</strong> I see no evidence of that red line and further I see no evidence of it being edited out, so I conclude that either expert PP has been performed on this particular sample ceremony image or the OP was in error stating that there was a red line on all of the ceremony images.</p>

<p><strong>With respect to there being a camera sensor problem:</strong> given the EXIF data; the apparent EV; the lighting scenario - I can see no evidence of any sensor problem in the sample image; so again I conclude that there has been some expert PP done to address this senor problem or the OP is in error in concluding the posted image is a sample of the sensor problems the camera was having at that time. </p>

<p><strong>In regard to the facts that - some of the Ceremony Images are of worse than the sample image; the Clients are complaining; and the OP is new to the business and is seeking general advice:</strong> My comment is that the OP needs sort out some fundamentals of the business.</p>

<p>The first being to satisfy this particular customer and quickly.</p>

<p>The second, based on the information presented here, is bring the Photography skills to a Professional Standard.</p>

<p>The third is to bring the problem detection and investigative skills to a professional standard because on the face of the one image presented, the OP’s analysis of this problem is way off beam.</p>

<p>If the OP cannot correctly and accurately identify exactly what the problems are then the OP will not be able to correctly remedy these problems.</p>

<p>Not correctly identifying and quickly correcting problems runs the risk of encountering a less forgiving customer, who will not wait out several months before taking more forceful measures, than it seem the B&G have taken in this case and measures others might take could be more costly than $300 or even $600.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>One recommendation I would have is, don't ever send a client a picture that is poor quality. You should know which ones are of poor quality. Only let them see and choose from among your best shots. If you don't have enough to show them then maybe offer a partial refund based on what you have. ALWAYS HAVE A CONTRACT that spells out the limit of your liability and how issues such as this are resolved. Once they have seen your poor shots then your reputation is damaged whether you refund their money or not.</p>

<p>It takes guts to post such a photo and then wonder why the client wanted a refund, red lines or not.</p>

<p>At this point, there is no use in *us* trying to figure out if there was a sensor problem or not. Without access to all the files and other information, there is no way to know what the problem was--whether technical or user related. Consequently, there is no point in berating Lom about whether or not she should or shouldn't be shooting weddings, beyond William W.'s excellent advice--that she should find out what the real problem was, so she won't repeat it (or take steps to have gear fixed) for the sake of her business.</p>

<p>I'm honestly shocked by the lack of sensitivity in some of the replies to the OP's plight.</p>

<p>We're supposed to be helpful, non judgemental, and supportive of our fellow photographers, whatever their level. We all make mistakes, and in view of the OP's sincerity in her desire to make things right, dragging her through the coals will do nothing but send chills through the community and promote stone silence from those who need help the most.</p>

<p>I'll never forget one very pointed lesson from my photography professor in college. Having had a very successful career in portrait and wedding photography, he was now teaching those disciplines. "If you screw up a wedding, the only way to compensate the bride and groom is to pay to restage the wedding ceremony, absorbing all the costs of doing that," he told us. There are a lot of students of Ted Magnuson's, including me, who chose to take our photography interests and careers in other directions after that class. I think I have shot one wedding, free of charge, in the nearly forty years since. I'm not sure if he actually meant his statement literally, but he drove home the point, that with weddings, you have only one shot to do it right, so you better have your act together.</p>

<p>Nadine, I don't understand your latest response. Whether the issue was technical or user related, the OP had no business shooting a wedding without either the knowledge or back up equipment to correct the issue. At what point do we as <em>professionals </em>not admit someone into our professional circle? If I hire a contractor to build me a house and he build me half a house because he couldn't afford the materials/equipment/labor to build the other half am I suppose to just let him off the hook because he has to start somewhere? Is that the message the <em>professional</em> community should be sending out?</p>

<p>Michael C, in regards to lack of sensitivity, you are kidding right? The OP takes money to complete a job she had neither the skill nor the equipment to complete, and it is our lack of sensitivity that surprises you? The OP didn't come her asking fellow enthusiasts how to get a better image. The OP took money to create images that in the end, they didn't create and now wanted <em>professional</em> advice on whether to refund the money. If this had been shot for free for a friend and the OP asked what went wrong or how to improve the image I would have been happy to provide any amount of free advice, including you need a better lens and a flash that can keep up. </p>

<p>So I guess my follow up question is where do we as <em>professionals </em>draw the line. What message do we want to send out into the world that we professionals do take this seriously?</p>

<p>After looking the the original photo and the various PS 'fixes', I have to say the image is not only bad, it is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE and unsalvageable.<br>

You need to give these customers full 100% refund, PLUS a sincere apology for ruining what should have been their most precious memorable moments.<br>

Regardless of your financial situation and your husband's opinion, what is at stake is your personal integrity. You need to take responsibility as a professional business person.<br>

Refund the couple in full, even if it mean selling your equipment to pay for it.</p>

<p>I agree with John Deerfield.</p>

<p>John--we don't know that Lom didn't have back up gear. We don't know if she knew about any problem from looking at the LCD. One cannot assume that she didn't have the knowledge to do the job. One can speculate, but one cannot be sure. Without being there you don't know and I don't know.</p>

<p>Secondly, photo.net is not a 'for professionals only' forum, so 'letting someone into our professional circle' is not a concern here. I know there are professional-only forums, and forums that put out FAQs that basically say, "Don't post here if you aren't a professional wedding photographer." We don't. LOM asked a question--should she give a refund, and how much? The question was answered, by many people, experienced and new, non pro and pro, which is what, I assume, Lom was looking for.</p>

<p>Michael, In all honesty I'm not shocked in any way at the replies. In fact I feel the ones who've suggested that she improve her skills etc are on point. She had courage to post this shot but if you even take a casual cruise through the excellent wedding photos posted on this and many other sites, this isn't very good work. Many people have posted suggestions on improving and how to handle this situation now and so it does not happen again.</p>

<p>Far too many people are putting up a web site and calling themselves "Professional Wedding Photographers" when they don't have the gear, the photographic skills, the technical or software skills to provide quality work. Just because you can take a pretty flower shots does not qualify you to get paid for your photography.</p>

<p>If it sends chills to others and they spend the time to learn this craft properly before charging a dime, so be it. They should take this far more seriously than many do. IMO you are looking at this backwards. This is a once in a lifetime event for most people. They entrust that you know what you are doing. The photos are the most important keepsake and memory of the day they will have. If the shot above is any representation of the work presented, then the bride would be better off gathering the shots from the guests to make an album. The bride hires us to knock her socks off. She looks at our galleries and wants her photos to be better than our previous work. She's spent $10,000, 20,000 or more and has a lot of hopes and dreams wrapped up in what the photographer delivers.<br>

I do lay some blame on the brides who have spent $10,000 on a reception and $600 on a photographer. It's like payinng the ventue $1.25 per plate and expecting anything more than Kraft dinner to be served.<br>

I posted this because of one short phrase you used "whatever their skill level". Seriously, their skill level has to be at the peak of photography. In terms of technical skill, editing skill and artistic skill with the correct equipment to back that up. Certainly there are various levels of wedding photographers in artistic and creative terms but there should be very little difference in technical skill levels in an ideal world. To me that is a point that can not be argued.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It takes guts to post such a photo and then wonder why the client wanted a refund</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The poster is not wondering why the client wants a refund.</p>

<p>No amount of refund will fix this. They are irreplaceable moments in time for the client. That is what makes shooting weddings so nerve wracking to many photographers that refuse to shoot one. Some place down the line, most (not all) wedding photographers have something happen that makes them freak out or feel bad. </p>

<p>I'd suggest exhausting all avenues of fixing the most important ceremony shots, no matter how long it takes you ... or how expensive the post programs are.</p>

<p>Take a look at "Focus Magic" ... it's saved me a couple of times in the past. First enlarge the file at least twice the size of the final before using "Focus Magic" then reduce it back down to final size.</p>

<p>I once had a lab machine mangle a 6X7 neg. strip that had the processional of the Dad escorting the Bride down the aisle. I told the lab to keep the pieces, and I spent days meticulously piecing it all back together, scanning it and retouching it at 3X the final size and never told the client what happened ... she loved the shots. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Suck it up, 100% refund, work the images as best you can, and give them for free. I count myself as a weekend warrior, and I wouldn't dare show couples photos like that except in a grovelling "mea culpa" situation. To have the chutzpah to charge them for it... well I guess that's why they invented the word...</p>

<p>November 2010? Can I buy into your time machine tech? :P</p>

<p>PS - You don't give refunds to "get her off your back", you give them because you were commissioned and paid to do a job, and you screwed up. Face up to your responsibilities and liabilities - $600 for you, a once-in-a-lifetime event for them.</p>

<p>I don't mean to pile on, but you would owe them a full refund at the very least. Anything less would be unethical. It doesn't matter much what caused the problem, really. That looks like a cell phone picture. <br>

I hope there was an uncle with an SLR somewhere at the wedding (there always is, I suppose).</p>

<p>Lom,<br>

Don't lose heart. Every photographer out there has shot a picture like this early in their career. The key is not to show something like this. Doctors will back each other even when there is a dead body, but take a poor picture at a wedding, and you'll never hear the end of it. You charged her a very low amount which seems appropriate for this stage in your career. Do what it takes to make your customer happy, and go on with your life. Study and practice and I bet your next time will go a lot better. Good luck to you. </p>

<p><em>"We're supposed to be helpful, non-judgmental, and supportive of our fellow photographers, whatever their level. We all make mistakes, and in view of the OP's sincerity in her desire to make things right, dragging her through the coals will do nothing but send chills through the community and promote stone silence from those who need help the most...." Michael C.</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Excuse me for being judgmental but I'm pretty consistent in my assertion that people who peddle their photography need to have a level of preparation such that they can deliver a consistent, reliable product. This is generally best obtained via some form of apprenticeship or on the job training. It is after all a wedding, there are no 2nd chances and IMO no room for excuses. Learning the business at the expense of paying clients is not really OK.</p>

<p>Personally I don't find wedding photography that difficult--we've all had a rough moment or two and hopefully Lom will use this as a learning experience and come back stronger than ever.<br>

Give the refund, accept responsibility, do what it takes to make it right. Also, as others have said, if you don't, your reputation will suffer, and at this stage of your career that would be far worse than a one time refund.</p>