botched photos, bride wants refund

<p>While some of the replies stung I know they are all honest and true, and I thank everyone who took the time to offer their opinions and suggestions. Everyone has been very helpful.</p>

<p>I am not "just someone who has a camera" and thinks, "Oh, I can be a photographer too!" I have always loved photography, I have been shooting natural-light weddings and portrait sessions for four years. I have never had an unhappy client, until now. It is true that I have very little experience shooting in low-light settings, and was admittedly [and obviously] not prepared to take on this type of work. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So I guess my follow up question is where do we as <em>professionals </em>draw the line</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to get involved in this. A real pro charges money to give you the right answers. Hence all the seminars about how to become a wedding photographer.(LOL)<br />I agree with John, charging money makes you a pro. The couple hiring a $600 photographer, they got what they paid for. I hope they will spread the word, but I doubt it. They'll only blame the photographer and not their own cheap shopping. This is common when I browse several bridal forums where I live.<br />Don't know what you've done with this image when it came straight out of the camera, but shooting shutter priority in this kind of situations with a pop up flash and a kit f4.5 lens will put you into trouble. Moreover there is something wrong with the digital data of this image, although it opened in PS5 it gave an error in C1pro. Also the ISO says 0 in exif data.<br />I wonder if you would pay the car repair man, if he did such a bad job. There's you answer.</p><div></div>

<p>Just learn, give a full refund and a serious apology, and move on. As you learn, bring a 2nd or 3rd photographer - it is the only ethical way to back up as you ramp up.<br>

Don't look for excuses. Use mistakes like this to learn.</p>

<p>A refund to the bride is minuscule to the harm caused to her. Her fault was not to query your experience.</p>

<p>For what it is worth., the red line has started me thinking. It seems that I remember reading about something similar being caused by radio frequency interference. In the article I remember it was from a cheap radio controlled flash trigger that mounts to the camera hot shoe. If you were not using such a thing then maybe it was some other type of electronic interference (ie. a wireless microphone, certain types of lights) Just a thought.</p>

<p>I am sorry to hear you are in a bad spot. If you take some time you can improve some of the images, I played with this in Photoshop CS3. Might take several minutes per photo. At the least you want to make sure the B&G have a good number of photos that are better than what was posted and this one could be cleaned up a bit. Sharpen, edge sharpen, brightness, gama, contrast color tweaks. Without starting a Nikon - Canon war, and I know Nikon's can take some great shots, maybe the next camera to consider is a Canon.</p><div></div>

<p>Brand of camera has nothing to do with this Mark. </p>

<p>Having read this thread and tried to digest the salient points I'm shocked at the overall picture forming here.<br>

My impression is the Bride & Groom have been (as happens time & time again) been blissfully naive in hiring a tog, on what at face value looks to have been based on cost. Did our Tog have worked examples to use as marketing? I’ll come back to business model and commercial protection later.<br>

Similarly I feel the togs have been naïve and displayed a lack of recognition to the issues at hand. $600.00 a turn for 210 images, printed I assume? Do you expect to keep a roof over your head and food on the table? But to hand over 526/900 is not good and certainly erodes the exercise as a commercial enterprise.<br>

In this respect I can understand the savaging others have felt this issue has warranted, especially time served professionals…this gives nobody a good name.<br>

Weddings, as has been pointed out are highly emotive subject, especially when it goes wrong. There are technical measures and business practices that should be adopted to protect you (the tog) from commercial harm and ensure the client gets the quality life long keep sake to take them back to the day over and over again.<br>

This is a bit long winded, but I hope some people may gain from reading it. I hope this is not another example of (as I’ve seen so many times through the years) a few good photo’s and the photographer is convinced they could make money. DSLRs with the Auto functions that 9/10 times keep you out of trouble, can land you in bigger trouble when you start getting clever!<br>

<strong>Contract aquiral:</strong><br>

Besides word of mouth, when it comes to marketing yourself, have the depth of experience relevant to your field, if this means working as a free third shooter for a while to build experience, capability and understanding in your subject DO IT! This is school time that will stand you in stead for the future and allows you to build a folio of competent shots to use as marketing.<br>

Once you are looking at charging a fee for your services, you’re professional and must adopt a very different attitude to your work.<br>

In this case to promise 30 shots per hour is commercial suicide, especially when technique and use of equipment is evidently poor, Over seven hours this builds a phenomenal work load to post produce! If you were using film you’d blow your fee on materials, think about it!<br>

When bringing a customer on board, have the confidence to show worked examples for the client to decide if your shooting style, artistic flair and overall presentation skills are what they want. Have pre-planned packages which can within reason be tailored to suit the client’s pocket. That way they know what to expect for the money paid. They have seen your work and agreed a cost for X amount of images. Albums, framed prints etc. these are extras that can be picked up later when they have funds or they can be tailored into ‘premium’ packages.<br>

<strong>Practice:</strong><br>

Budget in a pre-wedding shoot. This could be a dressed rehearsal, it could be an engagement shoot or just an informal shoot. This lets you get to know your client a little better and the process of showing the images from that shoot allows you to gauge future issues re expectation etc. The client also gets used to your direction.<br>

<strong>The Big day:</strong><br>

Be early, if possible go the day before and spy out locations, views and any possible issues…be ready just to shoot, shoot, shoot on the day.<br>

Depending on what you have agreed make sure you are the one driving the timescale, this should be sorted out at the hiring stage. Make sure you have the time to do the job justice. Make sure your client appreciates this.<br>

Less is more. Have a selection of stock shots that you know work and you can control.( We fall back to the advanced site visit here) If the bride & groom have their own ideas listen and where practical incorporate…but don’t make impossible work for yourself unless they have the budget & time. Leave time to review on the hoof and especially during and at the end of your stock shots…make sure you have the shot in the bag! Holding things up for 5 minutes to re-do a shot is not good but better than going away empty handed. On this basis no Bride & Groom would be put out! Just don’t let it happen more than once…you’ll start to look stupid very quickly if you have to re-take every second pose!<br>

Second shooter, this is your safety. During the stock shots you have two barrels on the subjects. While you’re reviewing, etc. No. 2 is getting the fill shots, candid pics etc. Both should have two cameras (good ones!) Your third shooter should you be so blessed can step in here, plus corral guess for the group shots etc. Hold reflectors, remote flash…it’s another pair of eager hands ready to help and learn…use them!<br>

<strong>The after:</strong><br>

Allow time to do an initial post production to sort the wheat from the chaff. Have a simple, clean and secure website. Post the images to the site and have the B&G and guests look and see your work. A shop front on this to allow guests to order prints etc. is a good money spinner.<br>

Once the B&G have picked their pre-agreed quota, meet and go through the options. Sell on, you have bread to put on the table but don’t scare them off!<br>

Leave the webpage running for 18 months, longer if you can afford the server space. This should be behind a secure login to allow guests and the family access but keep the nosy out. The site should be configured to prevent copying of images, the thumbnails should be adequately sized to allow a good impression to be gained but to be of little or no use if downloaded. Water mark (and brutally) anything larger! <br>

This goes smoothly you have a happy customer. It is staged so if there is a problem you have a cut off where you can cut and run should you be unlucky and get a bad client. Or similarly the client should they feel you’re not up to muster. Once committed it’s your professional duty to deliver…that’s why you’re being paid!<br>

<strong>Finally</strong>. Never give away your images! Beyond the agreed images/products to be supplied on the fee these are your income, you hold the copyright (Model release!) If the client wants a copy of all the images…they have to pay as an extra unless agreed when being hired…and only release the Wheat delete the chaff…always bury the dead and deep!<br>

This was our experience in 2009, it was a good one. I like to think myself as a competent amateur and no more! I would never (at the moment) contemplate doing a wedding shoot, I’ve done free candids and I was nervous about those. I don’t feel confident enough or posses the skill to deliver a pro job.<br>

We were fortunate to have a friend on the outer edges of our social circle who has gone pro and is doing a fine job of it too. We paid the going rate for what we could afford, we knew who we were hiring, we know they would cost and we knew they could deliver, we were happy...we did get a bit extra but it was their call, we didn’t ask. The link below is the photographer we used, I give this as an example and if you're in Scotland and planning a wedding, know somebody planning a wedding...I highly recommend them.<br>

www.portra.it<br>

<strong>Lom T</strong>, sadly it sounds you’ve both been found wanting. I’m guessing but the clients’ friends and family may have put pressure on them to chase you because of the quality issue. Left to their own devices they may have accepted that they got what they paid for. If you’re offering a budget package, you keep the shots simple, fast and the number low. If I was in your shoes, at $600.00 it’s about a dozen shots in an album plus a print of the B&G’s choosing (cost the sizes and decide what isn’t going to eat your profit) Arrival, ceremony and leaving the ceremony as Husband & wife…1.5 - 2hrs work tops. You’ll get 2 or 3 of those in in one day if you’re lucky with timings.<br>

I’d make a full refund. You and your Husband have to sit down, re-assess your business strategy and address the issues of equipment, skill and ability to deliver. You may well be more than capable, satisfy yourselves this has wings and move on.<br>

Good luck to you both.</p>

<blockquote>

 

<p>Brand of camera has nothing to do with this Mark.</p>

 

<a name="00XOSJ"></a></blockquote>

<blockquote><br /></blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<p>+2</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Brand of camera has nothing to do with this Mark.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I went to a wedding a few years ago as a guest. The person they hired had an older SLR xyz camera and some sort of little fixed lens digi is all. I talked to him a little while the bride was getting ready,someone told him that I collected cameras. I had a negative feeling about him. I had some cameras in the car that I brought that had some rolls that I planned on finishing during the reception/party so I went and got one out before the wedding started. I think it was the Automat? The guy was good at setting up the subjects but with the crappy camera he was using, with an on camera flash I sort of 'boosted' a few shots from the sidelines. I used the Rolleiflex, a ZI Nettar 6x6 folder and an SLR of some kind { don't remember which one?} I had them developed and printed and got some fairly good results, not excellent, but good. Sometime later the bride called me and asked if I had any pics of the wedding, that the guy they hired fell through,nothing worth keeping, really disappointed. I had maybe 8 or 10 that had possibilities. I sent my negs back to the lab where they cleaned them up in photoshop or whatever, they saved the important one real well. The guy didn't want paid till after the wedding and offered to help me pay for the cost of editing. They also got some photos that other guest took so it wasn't all bad.</p>

<p>+3 on brand of camera.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well others have said enough and given enough advice so I won't offer anymore advice. I took a look at the shot you uploaded and managed to get it a bit sharper but then it becomes much more noisey. Anyhow here it is...</p>

<p>Ok pic is here</p><div></div>

<p>Yeah, it seems pretty hopeless. Thank you to everyone who tried to mess with it a bit. The black and white came out pretty good, but that was a big thing for her, she wanted them in color. I've tried editing them from scratch at least a dozen times. I just can't get it to look good. I can eliminate the red line but the grain is just awful.</p>

<p>"get her off my back" was perhaps the wrong choice of words. I do want to make this right. I feel bad that this learning experience happened at the expense of her wedding photos.</p>

<p>Here you here is one more. I applied some noise reduction to the previous image I uploaded and it cleaned up quite nicely.</p><div></div>

<p>Lom if you can post a full sized photo or file somewhere I am sure there are some here that would like to give it a try just as a learning experience. I also found on the Nikon facebook page that the red line through the image is pretty common on the D40 and one instance of the D80 so you are not alone in that regard. Hope everything works out.</p>

<p>Sorry I only read the first page of posts...but from what I read you charged $600 for the wedding and now the bride wants a refund because the pictures sucked due to faulty equipment....and you're too broke to give it back.<br>

I guess my view on this is...what do people expect for $600...and it was your first wedding...so really they (Bride/Groom) didn't do their research. I wouldn't refund anything if you don't have the money to give them. If people want to pay $600 for 900 photos...this is what they get. Sorry to sound harsh but everybody and their Uncle thinks they're a photographer now, and the price for legitimate wedding photogs is going into the tank.<br>

I've only shot 4 weddings, mostly because I despise doing so...but I wouldn't do another for less than $2000.</p>

<p>Clint;<br>

<br /> One can have a failure even with the best of equipment and a high priced booking too.<br>

Eons ago at one rig a batch of Kodak 620 films had bad reels; they metal rings came off while shooting; one got light fogging along the entire length of the roll. After figuring what was happening; we had to load and unload in film changing bags; Vericolor in 620 rolls that had a freak failure.<br>

<br /> One can have the lab have an issue if one shoots film; like Marcs comment way above.<br>

<br /> Even further up the thread somebody says to use Canons; but hat if the mirror falls out on ones 5D?</p>

<p>stuff happens; that is why eons ago the "old fart" had a film changing bag; thus it saved the rest of the shoot</p>

<p>Kelly,<br>

Absolutely things happen, things go wrong...which is why a 'professional' wedding photog should carry a second body. Really I don't feel too bad for the bride/groom, you get what you pay for. How is their photographer going to afford carrying a second body when they're only getting $600 for a 12 hr day of shooting AND post processing? Now, if they had spent even $1200 I would feel badly...but right now I don't.<br>

As for the photographer, you're probably lucky you only charged $600 or you would be headed to court. My advice to you is to practice with Engagement sittings first, if you're good at it buy a second body, decent lenses and flash and try again...but NOT for $600! </p>

<p>Clint--we do not know if Lom had a second body or not. Maybe she did. In any case, would YOU notice a thin red line on your LCD in the middle of shooting the processional? I just took out *crud* from about 500 images of a wedding. It was a large piece of rubbish that stuck to my sensor. I didn't notice it and I chimp throughout the day. Probably should chimp closer, but coming from film, I don't spend a lot of time chimping--I just glance at the LCD. I also would probably not have noticed a thin red line on the LCD in the middle of shooting the processional. So the assumptions that Lom *should* have known something was wrong and that Lom did not have a second body, are questionable.</p>

<p>Nadine, I don't see any red line...I just see a poor quality photo with horrible noise.</p>

<p>We have been told there was a thin, red line in the ceremony images. The original image has been removed now, but I would assume that in the original image, the red line was already removed. As for the rest of it, it is absolutely possible that the poor quality is not the result of a technical or gear problem, but a user problem. However, without knowing all the facts, one cannot assume this is the case.</p>

<p>For instance, in my film days, I had a lens for my Mamiya C330 that "stuttered" during an exposure, which caused the image to be motion blurred and overexposed. Now, I knew (and know) how to shoot sharp, well exposed images, and shot accordingly. Yet, the result made it look like I didn't know what I was doing. So I ended up with some wedding images that were poor, through no fault of my own. I also didn't know it was happening when it was happening. I am not defending Lom at all--just saying that without evidence, we cannot conclude that she was at fault. In addition, placing blame is outside the scope of the question.</p>

<p>I'll give it a shot as well.</p><div></div>

<p>The issue of the thin red line, whilst actually quite interesting to me, is distracting and not relevant the main thrust of the question.<br />Nor is the thin red line significant as the basis of any general advice to the OP, that more Photographic Skill, Technical Knowledge and Business Acumen, than what was shown by the image and the information contained in the Original Post, is required: <strong>if she is to work at a Professional Level.</strong> <br />I mentioned also that I could not see a thin red line <strong><em>in the sample image. </em></strong>And therefore I concluded that possibilities were it could have been removed or that the OP was in error stating that there was a thin Red Line in all the Ceremony images. There are other possibilities also: such as the low res sample posted might not have shown it easily and or if the Flash DID NOT fire - the thin red line or the better definition of it, might be related to the Flash Firing.<br />The point is <strong>we don’t know enough information</strong> about the thin red line and I think that it is reasonable to assume that it would be easy to miss noticing a thin red line when chimping during the Processional, anyway.<br />On the other hand it would be argued and I would argue strongly that:<strong> Underexposure; Lack of Flash Firing; Subject Movement; Poor Focus would be elements of the Image which any and every Professional Wedding Photographer would be 100% attuned to and on full alert for during the Ceremony and especially the short period of time, there is available to shoot the Processional.</strong> This set of images is nearly 100% “One Shot Theory”. In fact a Professional even has “Plan B” set in case there is an absolute catastrophic failure of both the main camera and back up cameras.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>But the point of the question was whether or not to give a refund: <strong>the TWO owners of the business were in disagreement and the post was simply asking – I say "Yes Refund" and the other business partner says "NO Refund" - what do you guys and gals think?</strong><br />The overwhelming majority of the opinion is that a refund is required. And that opinion is canvassed from folk with rock solid Professional Photography Experience and others also: <strong>so in this regard the OP’s Husband has something to think about – remembering that a key point is that the OP wanted to give a refund, albeit after a long discourse with the B&G.</strong></p>

<p>Also many have suggested (or implied) that instead of or as well as a refund there could be some salvagable images and many examples have been posted and also ideas - like many responses on threads here, these suggestions come from a generousity and a willingness to assist.<br /><br />BUT - <strong>Advice regarding the OP stepping up Photographic Knowledge and Skill Levels and other similar issues have been ALREADY Noted and Acknowledged by the OP - and hopefully also noted and acknowledged by her business partner – it seems fruitless to continue making the same point over and over in this regard.</strong></p>

<p>***</p>

<p>In really simple speak: my spin on the big picture is there is very likely a thin red line in many photos, also there are <strong>other issues</strong> including <strong>technical matters,</strong> likely also <strong>equipment issues</strong> and <strong>skill levels</strong> which came into play – but that is a guess – the OP came to resolve an issue basically to settle an issue between her and her Business Partner, who is also her Husband - and these elements bring their own possible stresses which might not (and should not) be disclosed. <br />It is pointless to throw any more "how bad the image was" comments around or debate the thin red line . . . other than to give ideas about what the line might have been, which I note a few have.</p>

<p>I am neither defending the OP; nor defendeing her actions last November; nor the Wedding Image in question.<br /><em>But the OP has my acknowledgement for coming back and admitting liability and her unpreparedness as a “Professional Photographer”. </em><br /><strong>She will gain Respect, if she acts upon the valuable advice given to her here from many generous people.</strong></p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>From the hip...</p>

<p>If its my bad, no questions asked, I would give a full and immediate refund. Even if she hadn't asked for it.</p>

<p>I.e. A few years ago (several actually) I booked a bride and groom sight unseen who came here from Chicago. They only had ONE shot that they really wanted (or at least that is the only one the asked about getting as a must have). The shot was of her tossing the bouquet one way as her hubby tossed the garter the other way. I shot the girls side and my second shot the boys side. Unfortunately, THE shot happened with uncle Bob directly opposite me and his flash (something like an EX550) hit exactly as mine did. The result was a wash of light and nothing much else. When I realized this had happened, I quickly called the bride, apologized profusely and offered a full refund. She would not hear of it and was pleased with everything else she received.</p>

<p>So, yes. As a matter of fact I would offer a complete refund with my sincere apologies.</p>