Unhappy Bride - First time complaint

<p>Hi everyone. First of all my background: I've shot about 3 weddings on my own and assisted in about 5 different weddings, both video and stills. I wouldn't say I'm new to weddings and I also wouldn't say I'm a veteran but I know what makes a great photo. I also work in school photography doing class group photos and portraits so I work with people quite a bit.<br /><br />Anyways, I did a wedding recently and the whole process until proofing was a dream. Bride and Groom were nice and the day went pretty smooth for a wedding day. The bride listed to me maybe 2-5 shots she wanted that I got and delivered.<br /><br />Now she calls me after sending her the proof gallery saying that she's not happy with the photos and that in some photos she doesn't like the way she looks or is smiling. <br />There was a complaint by the husband saying that the motorcycle shot isn't too great because the bikes weren't straight??<br>

(by the way I only had about 15 minutes to shoot that prior to them leaving the event, not to mention me having to go back to the brides place to get shots of her getting into her hire car. I told the groom that he needed to wait for my call before leaving so I can go ahead of him to get shots of him arriving on the motorbikes, and surprise he left without my call and I was lucky to catch them just as they arrived at the ceremony getting off their bikes, so I asked them to quickly get back on for the shot which I got) <br>

She also complained telling me that the shots of her first dance are too dark and "can barely see them". But I looked at the images and even though it is dark due to the mood lighting, it's not like you can't see their faces. There's even a shot I took of them looking at the camera smiling during the dance in which she replied saying "Oh I don't like how I look there"<br /><br />I'm going to have a meeting with them today to discuss what they want to do about the photos they disliked and how I can improve on them.<br /><br />I've got it specified in my contract that I am in no way liable to guarantee certain shots will be taken or liable for the finished product or incomplete coverage due to tardiness or time restrictions placed on the photographer during the day.<br /><br />I don't know if I just wanted to vent on here or if anyone can give me some advice on how to deal with brides like this. I really don't want to refund them if they request it and even if they do, what options do I have? Can I then refuse to give them the photos unless they pay for my time?<br /><br />The way I see it, I did not fail as a photographer. I turned up on time, did my hours, shots the photos with correct lighting and focus and delivered the images requested. Their opinions on what makes a great photo or how they look is purely subjective to me. In the end of the day, they booked me for my certain style or look as shown on my website, so it's not like they are getting compeltly different styled photos.<br />

<p>Well you do realize that this post is here for eternity and in google if anyone ever searches your name.</p>

<p>Read all the bridezilla threads here, there are lots of them to scan thru for advice, good and bad.<br>

For your prices the photos look decent, hard to really tell with web size images.</p>

<p>Well the bikes will only look straight from one position that you stand in as the owners line them up as you direct them. Takes a few minutes to do that.<br>

The dance photos look ok to me, the ambient lighting is preferrable to "deer in the headlamps" straight on flash ones. Nothing you can do about facial expressions, they are what the subjects were wearing at the time. :) You possibly could have moved around some more, but without seeing the venu. . . . . . . . .</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I see, well, one common problem when you are learning to work w/ OC lighting is that you forget to set an adequate (or proper) shutter speed, so the properly (over) exposed pics of the 1st dance have significant motion blur (even though they are standing, posing). I probably would have recommended simplifying it a bit, and simply bouncing an on camera flash off the ceiling to get some decent 'standard' shots before getting fancy with it. The rest are very dark. They also have motion blur. ...Sure, the lack of lighting is to blame, but you should always be prepared to blind them with your flash, <em>especially</em> during a critical portion. </p>

<p>Frankly, those 1st dance pics are below standard (IM-Professional-O), and <em>I</em> would be panicking if that was what I ended up with. Keep in mind that, in many cases, the<strong> faces</strong> (exposure, focus, color) are the ONLY important part of a wedding picture. The rest of the image is the scene. <em>However</em>, I <em>didn't</em> look at your website, and if these images are in line w/ your portfolio, then you are obviously correct - and they got what you were prepared to deliver.</p>

<p>As far as the motorcycles go, it is<em> your job</em> to <em>see things</em> when shooting portraits or set scenes that a non-photog would have missed. While you may have been time crunched (always plan on it), having those wicked cool looking bikes lined up, or in a 'star' or <em>something</em> (at a cool angle even?) would have made wicked good portfolio material - My wife used to say that what gets put into a wedding says a lot about the picture potential. These folks were clearly looking at it from the right perspective. I'd say you missed an opportunity, especially given the that the bikes were a decorative element of the wedding, but can't can't really fault you for it, afterall, you are very inexperienced. Blame the time if you want, but if you continue to do weddings, you'll grow to understand that if the client put thought into something (anything!) they want magazine quality pics of it - here, they did not get that!</p>

<p>As far as the bride goes, while the lighting was harsh, and her makeup was a smidge below the standards, and the two made things worse squared. I think I probably would have tried softening her face, adjusting the color (to give it a more pleasant feel, and evening it, and even desaturating as needed). There is certainly more you could have done <em>in post</em>, but little to be done on site (other than avoiding angles which show double chins - brides aren't (as my daughters say) big fans of that).</p>

<p>Overall, I would say that while you did not <em>fail</em>, you certainly did not succeed either. Chalk it up to experience, style, choices, timing, lighting, whatever. But I would go in to the meeting ready to eat some humble pie. Also be willing to go back and try to rework everything they ask for! At no charge!</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but one more thing:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The way I see it, I did not fail as a photographer. I turned up on time, did my hours, shots the photos with correct lighting and focus and delivered the images requested. Their opinions on what makes a great photo or how they look is purely subjective to me. In the end of the day, they booked me for my certain style or look as shown on my website, so it's not like they are getting compeltly different styled photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> This job is <em>not</em> about showing up on time, doing your hours, getting reasonable exposure and focus, then going home. Sure, those are critical <em>elements</em>, but are only a <em>part</em> (and not even a very big one) of the job. The<em> job</em> is about<em> making clients happy. If that is <strong>not</strong> your goal, you are in the wrong business. </em>Overall, your post smacks of an attitude that is going to end <em>you</em> up in hot water. A screw up, or marginal results, are often acceptable by a client when the photog has a good attitude, is remorseful, and willing to go back and do <em>everything in their power</em> to try to make it right. Remember, next week, you go shoot another wedding, for them these images represent the culmination of months of planning, and thousands upon thousands of dollars <em>to start with</em>. If you walk in with a rock star attitude however, while you are walking out, she'll be crying, and he'll be calling an attorney - and rightly so. <em><br /></em><br>

While <em>technically</em>, they did book you with perhaps a certain vision of what you would provide, that fallback is only reasonable if you can point to the image and say "this is what I did, why I did it, and how I did it." To rely on prior incompetence, as an excuse for current incompetence is not a good starting point. The attitude that their pictures are 'good enough' is even more worrying to me, and, should you retain that view, I'd not expect your venture to end in success.<br>

This looks to have been a well executed wedding, with care and attention taken to the details, staging, and presentation. The pictures, for the most part, are 'good enough' (with some obvious exceptions, like the first dance) but overall, clearly demonstrate a lack of attention to detail, training, and experience (on the part of the photog). OTOH, you were <em>there</em>, <em>did your hours</em>, and, for the most part, got the exposure and focus near enough. So, <em>technically</em>, your obligations have been,<em> mostly</em>, met... How you<em> deal</em> with your errors is likely to predict how this story is going to end.</p>

<p>I am certainly curious how much you charged them. If you charged them a pittance, then that should have raised a red flag, and they should be expected to shoulder some of the responsibility. Given your experience, you should have charged them a pittance. So how much did they pay for 'good enough', and somebody who managed to show up on time, and press the shutter button for the appropriate length of time?</p>

<p>...hmmmm, maybe I'm being a bit harsh.... Maybe I'm completely wrong. Am I? </p>

As a pretty experieced photographer, I have to first agree with the bride and groom with their complaints. They are well justified in my opinion. Frankly you got lucky here.

 

I won't do into details about your photography, but you did OK. Email me if you want me to go into great detail about your work.

<p>No you're probably right but when they did first meet with me they mentioned how all the other photographers were charging almost double or triple what I offered and that they went with me because of the price. I ended up charging $1990 for my time and services (not including the print prices) for 9 hours work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...and that they went with me because of the price</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well there goes the theory that they hired you for your style. Unfortunately, your price is too high to claim that your aren't doing it professionally, as a result, your work needs to be able to stand up to professional standards. Much of it <em>approaches</em> that, but much does not. Most of it could have been done using the 'evil green box' (full auto) mode. As a professional, you are (generally) required to out perform your camera. I'm having trouble seeing where you've done that. </p>

<p>However, in fairness, there are definitely inconsistencies here though. The couple paid enough for an experienced professional, but they seemed to not expect one (for example the posing at the handoff... wow.), OTOH, it could be argued that they expected to get somebody who knew enough to direct them appropriately, which you certainly did NOT do - Rarely is a professional photog in the <em>center</em> of a wedding (you were repeatedly closer<em> than the officiant</em> to the B&G). Given that context, and level of pay, you really need to start kissing some booty. Sorry man, but I've seen numerous $500 CLers whose work is more consistent, and more inspired. The thing is, this kind of wedding would make their portfolio. And With that pay level, you are walking on thin ice. The B&G are (even ticked off) far more accepting of your antics than a judge would be. I'd be playing nice to proactively prevent escalation.</p>

<p>While I agree with every single other person who said your job is not to show up on time (and all that unimportant stuff), I will set myself apart by saying that I fully agree with the bride - the shots are nowhere near good enough. And there are really, many reasons for this (and off-camera flash is not the only one - I could list enough problems with the way you shot this to fill two pages), but I think the most important is that you shot this wedding like a complete and total newbie would - there was no unique perspective, no interesting views (most of the shots were shot by you standing up and not changing your vantage point at all!)</p>

<p>I have no desire to go into the "why" or the "how" of this particular case, but I would advise you to go back to assisting for a lot longer than 5 weddings. You claim to know what makes a good image but clearly, to me at least, you don't. You had SO many amazing elements to play with, so many interesting faces, props and places and you did absolutely nothing with them. If I was the client we'd be heading straight into the courtroom right now...</p>

<p>Nothing you can do about the makeup artist and her / his lack of talent or choice of product - so I'm not sure why Marcus even brought that up. The only thing you can attempt to do in cases of bad makeup is to soften in post and light / move the subject so the makeup flaws don't show. Or in extreme case tell the bride / MUA to redo the application. </p>

<p>The Bike Shots I looked at - all had distracting elements in the background - the one of the men sitting on the bikes had cars parked (car and suv) in the back - which distracted. Move yourself, move the bikes, move the cars... Worse case - open up the aperture to 2.8 and blur the heck out of them. </p>

<p>The one with the guys riding behind the drivers - arriving at the ceremony - same deal - line them up, move them away from the parking lot - or move yourself to get a better angle - and GET THE PEOPLE OUT OF THE BACKGROUND. You have a voice - use it. "HEY - WE'RE TRYING TO DO A PHOTO HERE - MOVE!" </p>

<p>As of the lack of movement / composition / angles / etc... that may or may not be your style. But I would suggest trying to find unique shots that capture the moment of the day...not everything has to be posed or staged. The hand off, if you directed it - don't do that again- and if they did it spontaneously - hope that this is their only wedding, is usually beyond anyone's direction / control. <br>

While you may be covered contractually - you may not be covered from them giving you an okay (at best) or bad review. </p>

 

<p><em>... in some photos she doesn't like the way she looks or is smiling.</em> <br />Shoot more next time. Do something to get people to smile if they aren't.<br>

<br>

Many have a Guest With Camera look to them. You as the professional need to find a better angle. You have access that the others don't have. Get in close, like someone else said, faces are what is important. Many shots have too much uninteresting background. When shooting small children -- get down low, kneel or sit on the ground.<br>

<br>

That being said, they aren't horrible, you didn't accidentally delete half the images. This doesn't rise to the level of liability, you shouldn't offer to refund everything. Work with the bride, offer to reduce the price or throw in some extra prints.</p>

<p>Remind the bride that these are proofs. Tell her that other clients often want all the images, or more images than you feel comfortable showing, so that's what you have done. There are many good shots. I think you can make an acceptable album from these images.</p>

<p>;-) absolutely right, I brought it up as an aspect over which <em>any</em> photog has little-to-no control over on site, but can often mitigate (to some degree) in post.... <em> if</em> the photog chooses to do so. Probably should have written more clearly...</p>

<p>After reviewing the images again, there were numerous ones that had no business at all being included in the final delivery. An example would be 652 (page 12). I mean... really? Including such an image brings into question the photogs judgement in it's entirety.</p>

<p>I'm not as experienced as some here, but here are my observations anyway.</p>

<ol>

<li>Some full length shots seem to be from too high a viewpoint - around 42 inches lens height is about right; others are fine though</li>

<li>Some group shots are cut off at the knee - the usual rule of not cutting joints applies</li>

<li>Some burn out on faces due to harsh lighting - you need to dial down the ambient element & use a bit of fill flash - better for catchlights in eyes too.</li>

<li>Some shots in landscape, when portrait would be better - e.g. 166, 167</li>

<li>Framing seems very tight at times e.g. 201, 202, 232, 237</li>

<li>Some semi-formals have cluttered backgrounds e.g. 287</li>

<li>Some formal poses have relatively weak composition - e.g. 290 has B&G too central - they'd be better on a third on the left giving room for B's dress; again 307 has similar issues.</li>

<li>Some shots might be better with larger apertures - not much evidence of f2 / f2.8 type images really.</li>

<li>In terms of presentation, there seems to be a jumble of formal and informal images. Perhaps if there was a clear divide between the formals & PJ type images this would have helped.</li>

</ol>

<p>Having said all that, you've captured the sense of occasion quite well. So, the two key areas to work on I think are composition and lighting (the two key basics if you think about it).</p>

<p>Price wise A$1990 equates to about £1300. I'd assess the work as what I'd expect from a £250-£400 shoot (say $500).</p>

<p>Good point Marcus - on the MAU.<br>

As for the image you questioned - did you mean image 652 (on page 13) or 562 on page 12? Image 652 is a dance floor shot - very dark - moody - and Image 562 is one of the audience during the toasts. </p>

<p>IMHO - the dance one is of poorer quality than the audience shot. Audience shot I could see - again with a tighter crop - but the dance shot - I get that you wanted the lights but you have a large black mass in the main of the photo... you tried something, it didn't work, delete and move on.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>If you charged two large and did a $500 job, refund her $1500 and use the rest to buy booze and drown your sorrows. :)</p>

<p>I don't do weddings any more but when I did, even being a low-priced guy starting out, I didn't get many complaints. The complaints I did get were enough to convince me that there's not enough money in it for the aggravation. Eighty percent of the time you'll hear nothing back from the couple after you deliver the goods (prints or album or whatnot). The other 20% of the time you'll hear that you charge too much.</p>

<p>Paul, I would suggest that 600+ is too many to deliver to the client. If I were the photog, I would at the most give them 300 shots seeing that you didn't have much of a couple's session except for those around the lighthouse. For example, you gave 10 shots of the groom's speech while I would deliver at the most 4 of those shots.</p>

<p>Others have said that part of your job is to make the client happy. And one way to do that is to give the client impression that you are a pro that's worthy of $2K and you have to deliver shots that makes then think were taken from a pro. In this set you've delivered some pro shots and many average shots. It's like watching a James Bond movie with bloopers included, you won't be too happy knowing that James Bond is mere mortal just the movie is longer.</p>

<p>The other observation I have is your pics are a tad not sharpe enough for some reasons. I echo the popular sentiment here that while you did not fail, you didn't succeed either.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paul I must say that for this being your third wedding, it's a whole lot better than what my third wedding ever looked like (photographing weddings for 9 yrs now.) You've got a lot of great shots and it looks like you captured every important moment (believe me I've been in situations where I missed the first kiss or the cutting of the cake and the bride would be furious. It happens when you are young and inexperienced.) The motorcycle shots look good to me. I think the husband complaining is probably because I bet that motorcycle is his pride and joy... he probably loves it more than his wife and not to sound mean, but after they're together for a few years he'll probably be spending more time with it on the weekends. He'll always be impartial to it. As for the bride's complaint about her smile... well. I will be honest. She doesn't have the prettiest smile. And the sad truth is she's just going to have to accept that she was born that way. Her smile looks somewhat like a frown. I turned some of her "smiling pictures" upside down and they looked more like a smile. This happens when a person sees a feature about themselves that they've never noticed before. Why? Because no one has ever taken that many pictures of them all in one day. So unfortunately that's not something you can correct. Paul just be polite with them. Explain how you did your best and reason with them... I Hope it works out. If it makes you feel better I've dealt with bridezillas who were 300+ lbs and would get upset because they "looked fat" in their pictures. I have dealt with a few who wanted me to "Photoshop" their huge arms or double and yes, triple chins out. I dealt with one who had a ton of tattoos. When she saw her pics she was horrified about how all those tattoos made her look trashy and just to please her I ended up photoshopping a lot of them out.</p>

<p>I think there's a some good shots, but they get lost in the bad. I see a clothes hanger growing out of the brides head in one image, then I see the bride sitting on the bed surrounded by trash which she probably feels that image degrading, then the bikes have trucks in the background parked on the sidewalk and if the image is supposed to be the bikes than only have the bikes don't include cars/trucks. A faster aperture may have helped. Including the bad makes people look for the bad. I think the album recoverable, many times the next image is great like the one the groom looks like he's sleeping and the bride looks as if she'd like to be anywhere else... but the next is the same but he's smiling with all his charm and she's loving the moment. Why was the bad picture included when the next was a winner.</p>

<p>I think you could use more experience. Use tighter apertures... many times I wondered why was what looks like F9 used so I can see trash or other distracting elements in the back when F3.2 would've been perfect to focus on just the bride and trash been blurred out. I personally shoot most weddings at F2.8 - F4 mostly unless the background works with the subject. This is going to be a rare comment for me. You may have the wrong camera. Your images look so much like my old camera it's amazing I struggled immensly taking pictures of people with it and it would always clip their faces or make their skin all one color/tone making editing so difficult and difficult getting good results. Slide one thing over 10% and the image was a disaster. I borrowed a newer model camera known for high dynamic range and was night and day, it collected so many subtle skin tones and variations compared to my old I could edit pictures to my hearts content, it was practically impossible to clip people's skin, and no more of that funny one color skin tone for near an entire face my old camera tended to do as I see in your images. Something to think about... but the bigger things are 1.) Don't include bad images and good of the same. 2.) Use a faster aperture to blur out the background/distracting elements 3.) Pay attention to the backgrounds... many times it's the background that makes the image and I felt it was the background that destroyed the image often in your case (like bride sitting around trash) 4.) It may be your camera that's doing the clipping of people's skin, and giving them that odd one color skin tone I'm seeing so often in those images.</p>

<p>Why do I get the feeling everything was shot at f/16 in program mode.</p>

<p>There were a lot of missed opportunities where a fast telephoto or longish zoom would have thrown out the background and made some wonderful images. I counted about a half dozen images on 14 pages.</p>

<p>F/1.8 prime and F/2.8 zoom is your friend :)</p>

<p>Good points from everyone. I remain convinced that these are reasons not to shoot weddings. Most brides are not as attractive as they want to be; most grooms are just there to get it over with. Blaming the photographer is just blaming the messenger.<br>

My wife and I shoot weddings only by special request, and almost always shoot them together, in a photojournalistic style. We fill each other's gaps nicely. Even with both of us shooting whole days worth of ceremonies, together we've never delivered more than 280 images. If we don't show our bad frames to the client, they never know those frames even existed.<br>

Wedding clients typically do not care about frame rates, file size, noise levels, or resolution charts. They care about the moment. Give me messy files of great moments over f/16 sharpness, and I'll show you a happy new couple.</p>

<p>I can understand why the bride and groom are unhappy. I didn't look through the entire gallery. I looked at some on the front page, and then skipped through to try to find the ones of the dance.</p>

<p>#593 should never have been included in the gallery.</p>

<p>A chain is only as good as its weakest link. You are only as good of a photographer as your worst image. Delete. Delete some more. Ruthlessly edit. If there's even a question of whether a photo is bad, delete it. The couple doesn't need one photo for every 48 seconds.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"The way I see it, I did not fail as a photographer. I turned up on time, did my hours, shots the photos with correct lighting and focus and delivered the images requested."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>When you're charging $221/hr, that's not enough to claim success.</p>

<p>Paul,<br>

There is a lot of advice here if you distill it down. One of the most often disputed areas can be boiled down to expectations. Sometimes a customer will never be happy. And its easier to push back on criticism when you have a thriving business and you can afford to be tough. But not when you are starting out.<br>

My family had one of the biggest wedding and portrait business here but with the change to digital we found that expectations were unrealistic. With film we would shoot maybe four rolls and we did very few happy snaps of things at the reception. We would present proofs of perhaps 50-60 shots and larger prints made from the customers choice.<br>

I also counsel you from making it worse by falling back on your contract. Some of your shots are very nice, some average. As for the bride says her makeup looked bad, well hello, its what is on your face. Major photo shopping should be charged at premium hourly rates.</p>

 

<p>So, usually I wouldn't contribute to stuff like this. But it seems that we've got *really* similar circumstances here; I also shot my 3rd wedding in a place that looks eerily similar to the reception venue you have there (Also, I was in Sydney so same lighting - even though Adelaide based). I know that for the most part, I don't think I charge enough for the amount of effort I put in ($400 for full day, and happy to print photos with the price it costs me to print them at [for the record, camera house platinum is the BEST I've come across and clients are usually ecstatic).</p>

<p>I also delivered a similar number of photos to the clients and printed out 250. So we're on the same page here, however I charged about $300 for this particular wedding, + travel costs (however I had to hire extra gear and the printing costs were from my own pocket at 35c per photo). So I didn't make a lot, but I had a fantastic time and got experience.</p>

<p>I think if I've learnt anything this year it's about striking a balance and if we can learn anything from each other, we both have extreeme cases. You have too much consistency (every photo looks the same), I'm not consistent enough (photos look completely differnet), You use a too larger fstop for most photos (a lot of it looks like f9+) , I use a too lower one (1.2, 1.4...way too low), your photos seem a little posed and staticy, mine seem like I didn't even bother trying to pose them (I'm actually really awkward at that haha!). I use too many headshots (which have emotion), you don't have enough (however you have full bodies...something I don't).</p>

<p>http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.183494971752483.28830.183448675090446&type=3 here's the photos btw (BTW, You weren't in epping were you??) -ignore my church shots- they are bad ><'</p>

<p>Anyway point is, I think you probably should have charged $800-900 shooting fee (For the whole day) + whatever costs for the printing and whatever. Just out of curiousity what lenses do you use while shooting? If I can make a recommendation that everyone will probably hate here, but whatever. Go hire a lens that you've never used before (Or - for 2 days so you can practice the day before), so if you use zooms, go hire a prime and stick it to your back up body. It'll force you to be a little more creative. Another thing that I've found useful is that if you have raw presets for other photos - try sticking them on this wedding and see what happens. Sometimes you come something really special that you wouldn't have thought of otherwise :)<br /> (For post advice, I'd say the photos are too brown / try putting a little more blue in the white balance & remove vingettes for the colours)</p>

<p>Anyway. I hope this helps, we're in the same position here, so I guess good luck!</p>

<p>I was referring to 652 (the dancing one). I was just glancing at them, and saw the thumbnail, and it wasn't obvious what the picture was of, so I clicked on it to blow it up.... It <em>still</em> wasn't obvious what the picture was of. It<em> looked</em> like what happens when you bump the shutter while the camera is sitting on the seat next to you -while on spot metering w/ one point AF. one thing(? - not sure what in this case) in focus, and exposed, with the rest over/under exposed, and out of focus. Not sure what the deal is/was, but if this ever went to court, we'd be seeing this as an example of the 'worst of' wedding photography online.</p>

<p>The gallery is no longer visible, so I can no longer peruse at will, but the first dance pictures were one of numerous examples of clearly substandard work. I went ahead and looked at his website (to give a comparison), and I was utterly shocked. <em>Clearly he is <strong>capable</strong> of far superior work</em> than was included in this client's gallery. -to such an extent that if the locations didn't correspond (as well as the name) I would have though they were two <em>different</em> photographers. The website <em>implies</em> that he is capable enough to justify paying as a professional.</p>

<p>If the clients based their booking upon the minimal work (from 2 weddings) visible, he is in for an uphill battle. It was competent, well exposed, and certainly meeting professional standards (for what was visible at least). The gallery was NOT. If<em> I</em> were the client, I would be consulting an attorney were he to refuse to try to work some 'PS magic' (you know clients ;-) ) and produce a reasonable package (even if substantially smaller). Keep in mind that this opinion is <em>from my perspective</em> <strong>as</strong> a wedding photographer. </p>

<p>This is clearly NOT the case of a client pinching pennies, to scrape out a photog from a very tight budget. This looks to be a case of a client who looked at his work, his price, and said (given the DELTA$$ between him and others) for the price this is good work, I like it, let's hire him. As he said (originally) the clients wanted him to make pictures that looked like the pictures on his website. What they got was <strong>NOT</strong> it. The gallery does NOT look like the 2 functions he posted.</p>

<p>IDK, maybe he was sick, had an off day, was drunk, high, (j/k of course ;-) )IDK!?! But he clearly not only failed to meet any professional standard, but also failed to meet <em>his own</em> standard. In most cases that puts him on <em>very very</em> thin ice.</p>

<p>I would love to hear about how the meeting went, but I doubt we'll hear that.</p>

 

<p>Lots of clients tend to look for average or lower pricing these days. The act of price shopping is a separate rational function from what they emotionally expect.</p>

<p>The evaluation process they use is the opposite of what it should be ... they see your best shots, ignore the others, and think/hope/wish all of theirs will be like that.</p>

<p>Getting to a wedding on time, shooting all day, and delivering results in a timely manner is the price of admission for shooting weddings. The quality of the images, (the what, when, where, and how), is what we are getting paid for.</p>

<p>When shooting people, there are certain aesthetic principles that equal a sense of proportion and beauty ... while those basic principles can be violated for creative reasons, they better be intentional and create their own sense of proportion and beauty. For example, the before mentioned shooting at a higher angle can be okay, but is not okay when a wide-angle perspective is employed on so many shots. </p>

<p>Light is light. If you face your subjects into the sun like the Bridesmaids shot, you will get squinty faces with pained looks. This will not magically change into something else. It will stay bad until you change it ... and change it no matter what anyone says, or who grouses about the time. You, and you alone, are in command of using the light.</p>

<p>Crappy make-up is standard at many weddings. These aren't photo savvy Hollywood make-up people doing the work ... and chances are if you are being under-paid so are they. If you do not know how to soft light someone, or at worse, do not have simple post programs to fix it with one click, then this issue will not go away. You will hear it over and over.</p>

<p>Etc., etc., etc.</p>

<p>The concept isn't to use lower pay as a reason for lesser results, it should be to over-deliver for the pay, and then have the proof to get better money for your work. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Paul, I always advise people not to take money until they're competent. This means shooting for free (or for very little) on a low-expectation basis until you are able to consistently produce merchantable images. This is how the vast majority of the best wedding photographers have started out. If you can also assist and then second shoot for a while then so much the better. But I am very confused as to why you have charged the sum you charged this client. If I were her, I wouldn't be very happy either. Taking Marc's point, you have overcharged and under-delivered. You will need to redress that somehow. </p>