Wedding photos possibly ruined - can photoshop or genuine fractals help?

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by toni_eberenz, Jun 3, 2008.

  1. I am so sorry if I am posting this in an improper area. I am not a photographer, but
    I have a question about my wedding photos I just received. I am posting because I
    am seeking out as much advice as possible. I appreciate any insight anyone can
    provide.

    I am going to remove all the detail of the nightmare i have experience with this
    photographer and get right ro my question.

    I was supposed to get a "high res" CD. The images on the CD are only about
    500KB and they have resolution of 800x1200! The photographer told me that I
    need to educate myself as to what interpolation is and that I can make 16x20
    prints from those images with proper interpolation.

    Please advise me on this and tell me how large you think I can print my images.
    Will photoshop work? Do I need to buy Genuine Fractals?

    Thank you so much for your time.

    Toni (& Brendan) Eberenz
     
  2. Hmmm. Does the photographer actually HAVE higher-resolution files? Those sound like files set up for on-screen viewing, not printing.
     
  3. "I was supposed to get a "high res" CD."

    If you were supposed to get high rez files, then I'd ask for them. Why don't you have them? Many photographers do not hand out the high rez originals or if they do, it's an option and usually after an extended period of time and are certain on-line sales/orders have finished. So, I'm kind of suspicious in cases like this until I've heard the photographers side of the story.

    To answer your question, no. You can not make 16x20 prints from such a small file. You can barely make a low quality 4x6 with what you have.

    Genuine Fractals is hardly used any more as the math in Photoshop today is much superior.
     
  4. If the photographer's contract with you specified "high res. files" then, IMO, you should
    be receiving high resolution image files suitable for printing. We provide our clients
    with the full resolution image files which is what I would define as "high res."

    Best of luck in resolving this.

    Rick
     
  5. l_e

    l_e

    Including high resolution files as part of a package is a lot more common than Garrison K realizes. Every photographer is different, if the agreement was to get high resolution files then you should get high resolution files. You should not get low resolutions files and instructions on interpolation. High resolution files should have be larger in file size (MB), have a higher resolution, and higher dpi.
     
  6. "...more common than Garrison K realizes."

    You've read me incorrectly. I know it's common, that's why I'm curious and suspicious to why the OP doesn't have them and is stuck trying to make enlargements out of email sized files.
     
  7. I will fill in more of the story.

    My original contract with my wedding photographer stated that I will get a proof CD (that's all - no specs written). The photographer told me that with this CD I can print out images up to 11x14 no problem.

    When it was FINALLY time to get my pictures (he was really dragging his feet) I noticed over 100 pictures were missing in the proofs. He said to compensate for this he will provide a high res CD (the e-mail actually states that he will provide raw images right from the camera with no editing).

    He became very irrate multiple time that I have dealth with him. To give you an idea of his character he first of all said that all photographers in our county and stupid and wouldn't understand so I can't ask them any questions. I informed him that I called to photographers in Ohio as well as PA, and he said that they just don't know and he used to be stupid like them.

    The final step, after he screamed at my father because my father said "you promised to give us a CD with images that we can print even larger than 16x20 images from", I was also told that I must sign paperwork saying I will not sue him and that I am perfectly happy with all the services or he will not give me anything. He was screaming and yelling at me so I said to everyone there (my family and the photographers son) that I don't want to sign the paperwok and it's not true but that I will to get my wedding photos. I added this part in because talking to him will do nothing. He refused to do anything else for us and told us that we better sign the papers and walk out with a smile.

    Toni Eberenz
     
  8. So what does "high-rez" file mean? I always give 8x12 at 250 dpi when I give my clients their cd of images. However, I was looking through some high-rez files from another photographer recently that were all sized 5x7 at 250 dpi. Is there a standard high-rez file size?

    Toni - Genuine Fractals may help al little, but that file size is hardly a decent 4x6. Alien Skin makes a program called Blowup that is similar to GF. They both should have demo versions so you can see what the finished product will look like. If you have Photoshop it works well also and you may not need GF or Blowup. You can uprez the file and then view at 50% on your monitor to get an idea of what the finished print will look like at that size. How big do you want to go? If you are just looking for 4x6 and maybe a 5x7 it would probably work to some extent. If you are looking for 8x10 or larger, you may be in trouble. Was the wedding shot with digital or was it film and then scanned?

    JT
     
  9. a nikon d1 makes 2000x1300 pixel files. That camera in digital terms is very old. Any
    file smaller than that has been reduced. Or not from an acceptable camera.
     
  10. "(the e-mail actually states that he will provide raw images right from the camera with no editing)."

    Then I wouldn't settle for anything less. It's just a waste of your time and money trying to make prints from these small web based files.

    Did you sign a contract before the wedding?
     
  11. Thank you all for your comments so far.

    I asked him multiple times how he shot our wedding. He told Brendan (myhusband and I) that he shoots in raw when we met with him. He told my parents he shoots in raw. I have emails saying I will get raw files. Yet when I saw him this weekend to get my pictures he said he never tells anybody what camera he uses or what he shoots with.

    He said he never told us that he shoots in raw because he doesn't do that anymore. He said he didn't remember what he shot our wedding with.

    He kept talking down to me and saying that he just takes the pictures then when he puts the memory card into his computer the images come out in that 800x1200 format and that is how he makes ALL of his prints (he has 20x30s in his studio and says they come from that).

    Even I know that you have a choice as to what size you want to import your files from your camera if you use raw. And if he did it in jpg then they have to be larger than that usless he used a terrible camera, and I really don't think he did.
     
  12. "He said he never told us that he shoots in raw because he doesn't do that anymore. He said he didn't remember what he shot our wedding with."

    He's just plain lying to you. You should consider legal action because it sounds like you're not going to get anything from him.

    Maybe he shot your wedding with a piece-of-crap camera instead of whatever he normally uses and he doesn't want to tell you that. Unless he went to the trouble of stripping out the metadata from the image file, it should tell you what model camera was used and much more about how the images were captured.
     
  13. "High res" is a vague term, and specifics obviously would have been better. But I would not begin to consider a file "high res" unless it was at least 2x the size you mentioned in each dimension, i.e. 1600x2400. That would print 8x12 at 200 dpi, and is an absolute bare minimum, IMO.
     
  14. James Taylor - Photos were shot in digital and I would like to be able to print up to 11x14.

    Garrison K. - yes, we did sign a contract before the wedding. That contract was for the proof CD with no specifications written down, but he told us we could easily print 11x14s with that. Then after he lost some of our pictures we corresponded through phone and email about how to compensate for the loss, which is when he said he would give the high res, telling us in email it would be raw from the camera.

    I don't want to release his name until I know what my plan is to get the high resolution files. I am just gathered facts right now, and trying to educate myself as to what people consider "high res" and if the interpolation would even work (although he never said we would get a CD of images that we have to buy a problem and learn how to maniopulate them properly to get good prints - so believe me, I'm really sad and upset).

    I will release all information after I gather facts about wedding photography typical policies and digital images.

    Thank you all so much.
     
  15. Toni, you can download a free utility called Opanda and then open one of your jpg's to find out what kind of camera he used to make the jpg. But if he used the "save for web" method, that strips the exif data, then you're out of luck. Chances are though that exif data is still intact and you can find out.
     
  16. Why not send some files to a good lab and have them make a few 4x6 (should look good) and a few larger formats. I think you can do 8x12" that looks good but it depends on the image subject.

    Peter
     
  17. "...Genuine Fractals is hardly used any more as the math in Photoshop today is much superior."

    Garrison, this is incorrect. Genuine Fractals 5 is amazing compared to the interpolation tools in PS. PS's interpolation is pretty primitive.
     
  18. I would sue if he did not perform to contract. Problem is before the suit is settled, his computer will crash and all work will be lost. You will end up with nothing but appologies.

    So order the prints you want from him and eat the loss.

    Next time beware of whom you make contracts.
     
  19. Do not give any more money to this jerk and do not eat any losses. Sue for either the original raw files as promised, or sue for your money back.
     
  20. First and foremost, file a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. It doesn't matter if he's a member, or if he has an existing file with them. Just file a complaint and that will start the ball rolling -- having the BBB on your side can work wonders, trust me.

    Do NOT pay him a penny more, regardless of what he promises.

    Schedule a consultation with an attorney to see what your options are -- and what things may cost should you take this to court.

    Keep a file of all the communication you've had with this photographer -- and take notes after any phone calls.

    Bottom line, you COULD print a 16x20 from an 800x1200ppi image, but it would look horrible. It's possible that this guy just has pretty low standards.

    I'm so sorry for what you're going through.
     
  21. An attorney might be in order now. Make sure you keep copies of all documentation you have received from him.
     
  22. It always amazes me when I hear stories like this. Do these kinds of professionals (people who take pictures with cameras and call themselves professionals) actually exist? It blows my mind that anyone who is dumb enough to try and make a living doing this (kidding) would be further stupid enough to act in this manner.

    The first rule of customer service is that a bad reputation spreads much faster than a good one. That's not even considering any legal action.

    Another good rule is don't underestimate the intelligence of your client... in other words, don't lie to them.

    I think Anne has offered the best advice. I don't know the law well enough to say whether you would be successful in legal action, but it certainly doesn't hurt to find out what your options are.
     
  23. Toni,

    You have consulted with photographers here on photo.net and you know that you can't get large prints with the files you have. Now, consult with a lawyer, whom you have to select carefully. A lawyer may be able to get you the files simply with a letter to the photographer, and if that doesn't work will know what further steps to take. Good luck.
     
  24. very sorry toni.

    i will be blunt.
    you had better be thinking of getting a lawyer and soon before anything happens to the original files that he has. an 800 by 1200 pixel camera is a 1meg camera. right now you would find a hard time even finding a true 1mb camera. the only way you could get a 800x1200 from a camera is that you set it that way on purpose. which for your sake i hope he did not do. if he did have the resolution set for 800x1200 then that would explain a lot about his behavior. the better pics of a higher resolution simply are not there, and he does not have them. I HOPE NOT.

    also, you mentioned emails. you had better have them available. that seems to be the only place that states that you would be getting good high resolution pics.

    by way of comparison my own dslr is a 2000X3000 dslr and this gives a 6mp image. it is possible to enlarge to 20x30inches at that size. i have done this with no problems many times.

    you said that you have a contract that states that you would get a proof cd. unfortuneately that is what you now have. normally at this point you would tell him which pics you want and he would make enlargements of them at whatever size you state. from what you are saying is that your disc is the final one and that is all you get. i would get out the contract and read it very carefully to find out exactly what he is contracted to provide. then compare it with his emails to see if there are differences, especially any emails that he wrote after the signing of the contract. is he refering to the contract in any way after signing emails and with what specs in what he will provide.

    above all do not pay him any more money. take the contract and the printed emails to a lawyer as ask what moves are available to you. also check with the BBB. frankly it just does not sound like he know what he is doing, and has the technical information that he should have.

    with what you have now, the 800x1200 images you can probably get 4x6 and 5x7 out of them. maybe 8x10, you could run a test print to find out. but beyond 8x10(maybe) is just not possible with what you have.
     
  25. Thank you all so much. I am in the process of printing all my e-mails, and finding all material related to the contract that I have. I am also organizing a time line of how everything happened then I will contact a lawyer. Even if lawyer doesn't want to get involved I may still try to take him to small claims court. I have evidence and I have the simple facts about digital images.
     
  26. Here's the deal: I don't know what he charged for whatever you think you are supposed to get, but I can guarantee that any legal fees involving litigation will exceed that number by far!

    An attorney will have to retain an expert (photographer) to define some of the terms that are being tossed about, e.g.high res, proof, whatever, and then have the expert offer an opinion as to whether what you were delivered conforms to those definitions.

    Then the attorney will have to make a demand of the photog, and receive and evaluate the response. Given the cost of attorney time, you'll be running a big number in short order.

    My recommendation would be to have an attorney make up his own definitions and then serve an appropriate demand. That could resolve the whole thing if the letter looks stern enough. Of course, there is still the possibility that the originals were lost in the computer, and there is nothing left that is usable.

    I learned years ago that "nice" doesn't usually pay. In these situations, a little judicious publicity, without crossing the line into defamation or trade libel, sometimes gets results.

    I'f afraid that all you'll get on Photo.net will be sympathy; nice to have, but not terribly productive.
     
  27. I paid about $2500 for this photographer. That was for the proof CD which we should have been able to print up to 11x14, 40-8x10s, and 1-12x16. He didn't print all of the 8x10s we had requested (he printed 3 versions of 1 picture and a wrong picture that isn't attractive). He didn't do the touch-ups we asked on over half of the pictures. You can see where he did some of the touch-ups and they look like a novice tried to do smoothing in some program. The 12x16 actually looks nice. He claims the 12x16 came straight off teh CD he gave me. He has some computer program that does many steps of interpolation (he claims) and he says he can get any size off of the CD he gave me. These are the other issues I have with him, but most important to me is having a "high res" CD... even if it is just 1200x1800 that would be a big improvement.
     
  28. For the original question: don't expect Genuine Fractals to perform miracles. I tried it,
    and only saw a subtle edge sharpening.
     
  29. The smallest high-resolution file in my opinion would be a print-ready 4x6 at 300 dpi OR 1200x1800. What he gave you is low-resolution.
     
  30. 800x1200 is indeed low resolution suitable for online viewing/proofing, but not for high quality printing at greater than 4x6. Even at that size it would be better (and typical) to have at least 1200x1800).

    The question is, where are the files from the camera? I do not know of any DSLR cameras (at least in Canon's line) that support recording at 1200x800. (I checked Canon XT, 20D, 5D). I think it's very likely that your photographer took pictures in some camera-supported format (ideally RAW but it could also be large/fine JPEG format), and then he used those files as inputs to produce a derived set of 800x1200 files for viewing on a computer (your proofs).

    By far the most important question for you is this: Where are the digital images as they came from his camera? Finding the answer to that question and then getting your hands on those files (if they still exist) is what you need to do. Once you have them, you can hire someone else (for less than the cost of an attorney) to process them into good prints. If you can't get your hands on those files, then you're basically stuck. You know it might not hurt to offer the guy a few hundred bucks for a disk with all the raw files. Hold your nose and eat the loss if you can get your hands on the raw files. Just make sure you're getting what you think you're getting.

    At the same time, you should understand that there are no cameras (of a typical nature, excepting really exotic things) that would allow full-resolution prints of size 16x20. Interpolation would be needed to get to prints of that size, even if the photographer shot with a *very* high-end digital SLR camera.

    Could you post a single file from your disk, which we could look at to see the EXIF information?
     
  31. I am so so so sorry for your horrible experience. Maybe not much help...but word of mouth and the internet are my 2 best friends in business. Use both to let other would be victims know about this photographer (mention names) and your story.
     
  32. When I looked at "Genuine Fractals 5" online one website said that it can increase images up to 1000%? Have any of you tried the 5.0 version? Do you think it would be that good? (I know some have already expressed it may or may not be).
     
  33. As others have said, you need a lawyer. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to sue -- a letter from an attorney demanding fulfillment of the contract with the implication of appropriate legal action if the contract is not fulfilled by a specified date is often all it takes to prompt someone into action. Also, as a matter of terminology, did he promise you RAW files as in a type of file format or "the raw files from the camera" as the files straight out of the camera without any work done on them. RAW is a specific type of file format that usually requires work in Photoshop before it's ready to print and a responsible photographer would not normally hand over a RAW file to a non-photographer. Handing over the "raw files" if they are JPG or TIFF files without retouching, color balancing etc. is more likely what he meant. That's comparable to a videographer saying he will give you the "raw footage" as in footage without editing rather than a finished edited product.
     
  34. There is a small chance that the files were produced with a foveon sensor camera. I believe a sigma or samsung might have had one of these strange items. In which case the fellow might be right: the level of detail in files produced by foveon sensors is apparently up to 3 times that of a normal (bayer) sensor, and should interpolate up quite well.

    However, it's not likely.
     
  35. A quick thought, we don't actually know what the resolution of these files are

    they may be 800x1200 at 900ppi for all we know, do you have photoshop?

    If so, then how big are the images at 300ppi?
     
  36. My intuition on this is that something happened to the original files, and the photographer is trying to get rid of you without having to refund anything. Hence the big cover-up, inaccuracies, etc. It could be something like--he shot in RAW and small JPEG, and uses the small JPEGS for proofing. Subsequently, he lost the RAW files somehow or they are corrupt or at least, not usable for some reason. Or he made the proof files by reduction and since then the RAWs or large JPEGs are gone. In any case, I doubt that you will ever get the RAWs or large JPEGs or he would have given them to you due to the 100 missing images. There is no reason for him to further string you along and every reason for him to give the files to you to 'get rid of you'. I don't think having a lawyer threaten him by way of a scary letter is going to do anything (except enrage him) because he simply does not have the original files. I don't think spending money on a lawyer is worth it, both because it will cost too much in relation to what you spent and because the files don't exist.

    You can try small claims, but that would be to get some money back. Since I don't think the original or hi rez files exist, I don't think you'll get them through small claims. Even in small claims, I would not be so sure you would get money back, since the original contract does not define 'proof files'. You would only have your e-mails, and whether that is enough is a question mark.

    As for the files you do have, I would take one, and make several test prints at 11x14. Use a cheap place to make them because you aren't looking for good color, etc. You just want to evaluate how they blow up. Make one without any touching up, make one with Photoshop interpolation, and make one from the demo software that Genuine Fractals offers. At least you will know how to proceed if you are stuck with these files, and I think you are.

    Another avenue to try is to be brutally frank with him. Tell him you think the original files are gone or unusable and he should just come clean with you and do right by you, which would be to help you get the prints you want. If he has such good interpolation software, he should help you by using it and getting you what you want. Whether to go this route is up to you. However, I'd say you have nothing to lose. Whatever you do, write down everything from now on--who said what, when, etc. If you make any kind of offer or agree on anything, use certified letters and signed documents, not e-mails.
     
  37. I go to a gallery where they also print photos and scanned artwork. The owner uses GF5 on some of my fine art prints when I want them 16x24 or larger. What I do is save my images (generally 8x12's) as TIFF files and he takes it from there. They look fantastic.

    I haven't ever done small sizes like yours, though, but it's worth a try if you know someone with GF5.

    As for the photographer? I think (and it's just the first thing that came into my head) that he lost ALL of the photos, not just 100. And now he's given you the run-around with the CD of small ones he might have had on his computer by trying to convince you that you just need to learn some technicality in order to enlarge for printing. His temper flairs, his rants at "stupid" people, and his trying to bully you into signing a "no sue" paper makes me think this is the deal. He doesn't have any of them.

    Just a thought ...
     
  38. Sorry to hear your story.
    Not knowing any of the facts its difficult to draw conclusions. However, it's clear that 800x1200 pixel files are not high res by anyone's definition. A very modest definition of high res is that an image should be capable of making a 10 inch print at 240 dpi; and many people work on the basis that it should be at least a 16 inch print at 240 dpi. By contrast the images you've received will make no more than a 5 inch print.
    Neither GF nor Blowup will help you much. They can make dramatic enlargements only if the original files contain a lot of detail, but are very limited at lower resolutions. They can make big files really big - but with your files they'd get you from a 5 inch print to perhaps an 8 inch print, but not much further without losing acceptable quality. Despite what he may have told you, it's not possible to make a 20 inch x 30 inch print from a 800 pixel x 1200 pixel image.
    As an aside, I find it hard to credit that the photographer doesn't know which camera he used. Frankly that's difficult to believe. I can look at any picture I've made over the last 10 years and know immediately not only which camera, but even which lens I used. In my experience most photographers are the same.
    Quite apart from which, a competent professional will keep a record of the event with full client and technical information.
     
  39. Forget Genuine Fractals- it's a red herring. You will not be able to print 8x12 or 11x14 that are comparable to the full 6, 8, or 10 megapixel original image with a 1 megapixel image. You just don't have enough data, so forget it.

    It's clear you need to force this fellow to give you what you are owed. Even unretouched raw photos aren't really what you're paying for as someone with skills and the proper software has to process the raw files so that they are printable- paying a third party for this will not be cheap.
    That you aren't even getting that is just ridiculous.

    This is contract law so I'd find a lawyer so that if he has the raw files at least you'll get them.
     
  40. You really need to be discussing the details with an attorney and he/she will almost certainly advise you to not discuss it in an open forum like this, nor to offer up names, details, etc. The attorney will be able to get appropriate technical guidance, if needed as to details, and in ways that don't muddy the legal waters. You don't want "He said..." "She said...." discussions out where they might be misconstrued or where either party might impact their subsequent positions.

    You don't want to stir up a feeding frenzy where photographers of uncertain expertise comment on what is or isn't normal business, the photographer's performance, etc.

    You can usually get a consultation with an attorney for a reasonable sum and if you take the records, contracts and communications, they can get to the details and give you some advice as to how to procede in your area.
     
  41. Just to clarify some points from above in case they are confusing. If you go the legal route, you'll want to understand everything as well as possible

    1. RESOLUTION. dpi (dots per inch) and ppi (pixels per inch) resolutions are not relevant when talking about image files, they refer to the displayed image. The images you've got are 800 X 1200, thats fixed. It is possible in a digital file to specifiy a resolution, but you can specify any resolution you want. The resolution will be inversely proportional to the size the images are displayed at.

    When you print a file you'd ideally like it to be at something like 150-300 dpi. 300 dpi is considered 'photo quality', but in reality this can be unnecessary. For example, if your images are to be viewed at a distance (for a poster perhaps), the resolution can be lower than if viewed close.

    Given your image size of 800*1200, if you printed at 150 dpi, that would give you a 5.3 * 8 inch print. An 11X14 would be at about 75 dpi, which is totally unacceptable for a profesional print. If you wanted proof it what is considered acceptable, you might want to just get a few statements from real professionals. I'm sure they'd do it for free.

    2. INTERPOLATION. Is basically a technique for enlarging images without them looking as terrible as they would without it. It CANNOT recover or recreate detail that you simply do not have in the file. Good advice has been given on trial versions of GF etc.
     
  42. OFFER TO HELP - Practically.
    As this is what photo.net is about. If you are unlucky and have no success at all with the photographer, I'd be happy to look at some of your photos. I'm sure others would as well. We could even have a competition to see who did the best job.

    A couple of things come to mind:
    1. Get your photos printed on canvas. I find that this can sometimes recue a low rez photo by adding texture and hiding the flaws.
    2. Get someone to make a painting from the photos. I've no idea how much this would cost, but it might be less than a legal battle. However, I'm certain that a painter can 'interpolate' better than any software.

    Good luck and please get in touch if you want some help with the images.
     
  43. On DPI / PPI
    http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/articles/DPI_resizing.htm
     
  44. Other recourse venues: the Better Business Bureau; the city office that may manage business licenses (where the photographer is located;) the state Attorney General's Office, to file a shoddy business complaint.



    And, of course, you can post a truthful series of messages on the Internet (i.e., Photo Net) about the "curse" of using this photographer in the future.
     
  45. I think Nadine has this one spot on. Bottom line is that this photographer no longer has the files (for whatever reason) - so I don't think you are going to get your big prints.

    Your contract provides proofs to you - usually in print terms these are relatively small - around 6x4-inches - so even though he told you they would print larger you have nothing in writing to back this up. Technically, the images you have been provided with would just about stretch to 6x4 - so it may be a tricky area.

    Even if he has stated in an email to provide you with RAW files, if it turns out he doesn't have them, you're still out of luck. It makes him a jackanory-storyteller but still leaves you without your images.

    No amount of software will change the images that you have to make them significantly bigger whilst retaining quality - the overall size is fixed, the changing of the resolution will give you bigger sizes but at a lesser quality.

    What did you mean where you say 100 of the images are missing? Do you mean he edited them out (he may be able to do this if your contract allows for this or even if it says nothing at all) or lost a whole chunk of them? What does your contract say about that? To my mind, this may be the only area where you have a sensible claim to a refund of some sort if your contract states that you will be provided with all of the images from the wedding shoot.

    Alternatively, if he says he can get prints of a decent size from the proofs you have, and he has 'lost' your full-res images, then I would be challenging him to do this, and tell him that the least he can do is produce a set of prints at a decent size to make up for your loss. If he's a sensible chap who wants to keep his business going and isn't just telling you more porkers then he will surely jump to it.
     
  46. I think the claim made by Genuine Fractals of 1000% enlargement of image size is an exaggeration. Maybe you can double the number of pixels, but I have found that this program produces angulated geometric shapes which then comprise the details of the image. You have to zoom in to see it, but IMO it looks bizarre.

    Regarding compensation for your loss, discuss with your lawyer the fact that this photographer has, by apparent neglect, failed to record a landmark event in your life, one that you cannot re-capture. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the damages go beyond failing to provide you with $2500 worth of services.
     
  47. Hi Toni, sory to hear about your story.
    Here's a bizarre idea.
    Nothing to do with the resolution, or how can you "resize" the pictures. Is there any video, or other photographs of your wedding (i.e some friends camera) where there is a picture of the photographer? If there was any, can you see any detail? maybe post a crop of the picture on this site, so we can try to determine what camera did he use.
     
  48. When I got married in 1984, we received a book of proofs from which we were to pick out some for enlargements. There were not hundreds and hundreds like you hear about today.

    Unless I'm missing something, this is all about 100 "missing" images. How many images were actually presented on the proof CD? Were the missing ones of low quality, blurry, closed eyes, out of focus and were edited out? How is it determined they are missing?


    If you have hundreds of images on the proof CD have him print out a few and then examine the quality of the enlargement.

    He maybe has changed his mind about giving away the "negatives" without getting an order for prints over what he considers a few missing shots?

    So how many are present on the low res CD, and do they seem to represent what is usually present in a Wedding photo package?
     
  49. Thomas--the issue is that Toni was to receive a CD of high resolution images (regardless of why), and the files actually received are 1200x800. The photographer refuses to give her anything more high resolution than that, claiming she can get good prints from the 1200x800 files.

    The 100 missing images seems to be a sub-issue which does not affect the above, as the photographer must have acknowledged a fault on his part re the missing images, since he offered the high resolution files as compensation for the missing images.
     
  50. Sorry to hear about your experience.

    I own a lab and my employees could make 4x6, 5x7 and maybe a 6x9 from your files that would be acceptable, beyond that 1200x800 is going to show pixels.
     
  51. Isn't this a case for Judge Judy?
     
  52. Toni,

    I am sorry that you have encountered this situation.

    No doubt you're appreciative of the input about printing the files you received, but the critical issue is that you had a service contract, you paid money for the service and you haven't gotten what you paid for.

    From what you wrote, the photographer seems unwilling fulfill he's end of the bargain.

    I would now prepare for litigation.

    Write the photographer a letter. Demand that he provide you with a CD that matches what you contracted for. Make the letter nice but firm, because a judge may eventually read it, and you don't want to sound unreasonable.

    Send the letter certified mail with signature.

    If he doesn't respond to your satisfaction, file a suit against him in civil court. Depending on the contract amount, you'll most likely be able to take him to small claims court.

    In the mean time assemble all the evidence you have. The contract, any communications you've had with the photographer, the CD he gave you, etc.

    Don't be afraid to assert your rights. You paid good money and you deserve what you paid for it.
     
  53. I'm with Fergus Kane on the OFFER TO HELP, I've fixed a photo or two that were low res by using both photoshop and Corel painter X to turn it into a canvas painting...I'd be happy to offer some of my free time to save a few photos :)

    Best of luck with this!
     
  54. Sorry to hear about this. I suppose the photographer used a proper dslr-camera.
    In that case it's possible he took the pictures using the option RAW+JPG low quality. I suppose you've got the JPG low quality photos. So I'd demand the other (high rez) photos.
     
  55. Well, I suppose you can kick resolution around forever. It seems Toni's photog doesn't know what he's doing. Toni, all you need to read is the contract. If what he failed to deliver is specified in the contract a notice from small claims court may wake him up.
    Why do you need to interpolate or buy software & do work he needed to supply? It seems his resolution was set too low on his camera. This is yet another example of the way to go for weddings is roll film & medium format
     
  56. Thomas Hardy -

    As pointed out by Nadine (thank you), the main issue is the quality of the images on the CD.

    As for your questions, I have 1300 photos on the CD, of which 75% are duplicates or test shots. The 100 missing images are missing because (as everyone involved acknowledges) there are no photos of my husband and I in the downtown area and near the river in a park which we specially drove to for pictures, being late to the reception so that we could capture these images. They were very unique styles which is something we requested on the first day and one reason we went with this photographer. We had been told we would get these multiple locations and modern style pictures, and now the majority of them are gone.

    The missing ones would have been gorgeous. It is a solid group of photos missing.

    I printed out an image right from the CD as an 8x10 and of course you could see pixels. He claims all the iamges he printed for us were straight from my CD, and we had a 12x16 printed. I feel he is not being honest about his source for our prints, I feel he has the higher res on his computer, which he probably already deleted.

    He can't change his mind when it is written in email and agreed upon verbally and via e-mail. I'm sorry. It is not fair.
     
  57. To answer some other questions brought up.

    I don't want to post pictures or reveal names at this point. My main reason for coming here was to learn other photographers definitions of high res, and how good interpolation can really be. I do appreciate all teh technical help I have gotten, and I do also apprecaite the advice regarding what I should do next. I am taking it all into consideration and trying to make the best decision, facing the facts that I will probably not get the images because the photographer has been so hot tempered and irrational.

    The ppi is 96, but I have been told this isn't really important, that the 800x1200 pixel resolution is the key to getting high quality prints.


    Fergus Kane - I really like your idea about using a canvas, thanks!

    Sebastian - I will see if there are any photos of his with his camera or if he is in the video. That's a great idea.

    I really want to thank those of you that offered to help fix some of the pictures. As I mentioned, I prefer to wait until final decisions are made with my photographer before I begin to seek to help ad reveal more information about everything. But I probably will be asking for help when all of this is over.

    Many others have offered great ideas also, I'm sorry if I didn't address you directly.

    I am very thankful to all of you for taking time to respond. This website has been incredibly helpful! I can't believe how many people have given great input!

    Thank you from both my husband and myself.
     
  58. The bottom line here is that you hired a photographer and they contracted to deliver you useable pictures. If what you have is not going to give you that, it is the photographer's responsibility to figure out how to deliver.
    While the wealth of knowledge and advice in this thread has been great, all of the info is mostly speculation having not seen the actual files in question or having no personal involvement in the situation.
    Your photographer should be the subject matter expert on delivery of acceptable photographs. I would start by telling the photographer you have no clue how to deal with what he gave you and ask them to either give you the files requested or have the prints you desire created for you.
    If you get the run around there is most likely an issue with the pictures that they cannot fix, whether the files are lost, or whatever.
    In that case you are well within your rights to take some legal action.

    There are a lot of people in every business whose practices are less than reputable or less than professional. Unfortunately we cannot always be discriminating or knowledgeable enough to avoid them. I wish you the best of luck in what must be a very frustrating experience.

    Lou
     
  59. Toni,

    I also suspect that he did have the files, but I can't figure out why he's acting this way.

    I'm sorry to say that I have seen this type of behavior in people before.

    Good luck.
     
  60. If possible get the photog to retake the pictures, and maybe even pay for dress hire, etc
     
  61. Short version: That photographer is unprofessional. Owning a camera doesn't make you a photographer, and photographing weddings for pay doesn't make you a professional.

    Any person who yells at a customer/client shouldn't be in business. And certainly won't be for long.
     
  62. High res files is anything 300DPI and or above, if the res is 800 by 600 it will yield perfectly good 6 x 4 images, although this is where the line gets blurry coz :
    a) Photographer is not responsible for the low quality output of a high street printer
    b) unless Photographer has specified the dpi on the contract then 'high res' is 300dpi which it seems you already have.
    c) if the copyright of the images remains with the photographer then he/she can claim that the images on the disc are for computer viewing only and not printing, the copyright argument will back him up. He/she may also argue that should he give you higher res images, it would give you more pixels to play with and thus to 'alter' in post processing.
    d) in a nutshell. you have to rely on his good nature because it sounds like he has given you the definition ( technically) of high res images, but alas he has given the bare minimum.
     
  63. I have been told this isn't really important, that the 800x1200 pixel resolution is the key to getting high quality prints.​
    800 x 1200 pixel resolution is the key to getting low quality prints.
     

Share This Page