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

[dirtlawyer]

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.

[toni_eberenz]

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.

[sfcole]

For the original question: don't expect Genuine Fractals to perform miracles. I tried it,

and only saw a subtle edge sharpening.

[dave_hoffmann]

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.

[kevin_sullivan1]

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?

[rascal64]

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.

[toni_eberenz]

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).

[craig_shearman1]

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.

[lorriman]

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.

[phil_dawson2]

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?

[picturesque]

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.

[jude_mcconkey1]

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 ...

[neilambrose]

<p>Sorry to hear your story.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p>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.</p>

 

<p> 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.</p>

 

<p>Quite apart from which, a competent professional will keep a record of the event with

full client and technical information.</p>

[roger_smith4]

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.

[craig_gillette]

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.

[fergus kane]

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.

[fergus kane]

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.

[fergus kane]

On DPI / PPI

http://www.graphicdesignforum.com/articles/DPI_resizing.htm

[Jerry_]

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.

[jo_dinning]

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.

[erikadams]

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.

[sebastian_wilson]

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.

[thomas_hardy1]

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?

[picturesque]

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.

[advancedphoto]

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.