Very poor quality digital wedding pictures - what can I do?

[timothy_gray]

<p>I've taken a look at the attached images and can confirm the following:</p>

<ul>

<li>#1 is definitely scratched, likely the negative which would indicate a problem at the lab.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>#2 has a residue spot on it which appears to be a water stain. Again, the lab is the likeyl culprit.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>#3 the marks on the suit look to be dust; the round bloth at the bottom is more residue.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>#4 is grease - either the negative was improperly handled or the scanner bed was dirty.</li>

</ul>

<p>These are by far the worst wedding photos I have ever seen. I would contact the photographer immediately. If this had been my wedding, these would be completely unacceptable. While 1-3 appear to be lab-related issues, the photographer should have been forthright with you regarding these flaws.</p>

<p>You are lucky in that you have both the negatives and prints. Indeed, these can be retouched and the defects removed, although I would recommend consulting the photographer first, or if the photographer is unable/unwilling to resolve the issue, consulting a professional lab in your area about re-scanning and retouching the negatives.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[tomwatt]

<p>As many others have commented, all is not lost, but some of this is a royal pain (not near the pain that not having wedding photos at all would be).<br>

- Scratches... how many of the critical shots show the big scratches? Hopefully not too many. Presuming the scratch is on the negs, it can be rescanned at hi-res and Photoshop gets to come into play.<br>

- Spots... dark spots and white spots. tsk tsk. Somebody's chemistry and equipment wasn't clean. A rewashing will likely cure most of those.<br>

Don't go to the local drugstore for any of this. Make some decisions about what photos are 'worth it' to you, and have a pro lab handle it. If the expense is more than you can handle at one time, consider having it done a little along.<br>

Nice wedding party, you're a cute couple. Congratulations.</p>

[glenn_stear]

<p>First thing to do is get the photographers contract. Go back to your photographer and get her to redo the scans and any retouching work. I think the problem is a scanner fault, if it's scratched negs(not all prints are scratched) then the problem is serious. You could go for a partial refund as you were 'pretty' happy. My guess is the digital scans are meant to be sent to friends etc. The negs for high quaility re-prints. What I can't understand is why a 'professional' wedding photographer is still using film. Don't anyone come back with film is better, it ain't. Look what a mess was made of Tucker's wedding. 7 weeks to turn around the prints! ridiculous in this digital age. Too late now of course. I hope everything goes well for you Tucker, all the best.</p>

[dennis_fox1]

<p>Bad scans looks like the neg were still in the sleves.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>"Scratches" on scans can often just be dust that was on the negative. Flatbed scanners are especially prone to this. I scan my own negatives at home, and can never seem to keep the dust off.<br /> <br /> If you take them to a reputable lab they shouldn't have an issue producing better scans for you.<br /> <br /> If you want enlargements I highly suggest taking the negative in to have a print made rather than using a digital copy.</p>

[timothy_gray]

<p>Glenn, lots of folks still shoot film, for a variety of reasons, so don't go there.<br>

The real question here is, how could a 'professional' be so careless?</p>

<p> </p>

[mark_davidson1]

<p>As a former lab owner with a LOT of experience processing and scanning film my opinion is to agree with a lot of the previous responses as to the situation.<br>

If you have negs, get them scanned at a pro lab. You may be surprised at what that might cost but I would view the current images as proofs and use them to make your selections. They will also be able to tell you what they can do or not do. The pro lab may also get much better prints from the negs than what I am seeing on the screen.<br>

As for the photographer, they were probably very cheap and went to the cheapest One Hour lab. They most likely have no clue as to how bad their work actually is and I would also guess that they will not be willing to pay for good scans.</p>

<p>BTW, I have seen a dramatic decline in the quality of film processing as film volumes decline. This is attributable to the fewer remaining labs having so little volume that it is much harder to keep chemistry in control. In addition, film is staying on the shelves longer creating a much larger pool of film suffering from handling and age problems.</p>

<p>Pro labs are still doing good film work but they are much harder to find.</p>

<p>Frankly, a pro using film and providing quality results is the exception rather than the rule today.</p>

<p> </p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Lesson: For something as important as a wedding, its easy to find the reputable professionals. Hopefully you will only be married once, so its worth it I think.<br>

You want works of art to look at over the years and to pass onto your grandchildren. I would pick say five of the best negatives and give them to a pro restorer/fine art printer, who can wet scan them, fix them up and give you some gorgeous A3 prints worth framing. Spend the money that you should have done now, and chalk it up to experience.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>All these problems are fixable, luckily. </p>

<p>First off the film hasn't been processed with much care. Most of the marks you see are caused by incomplete drying and washing. They can be removed easily by just by soaking, rewashing and drying the film. Any decent pro-lab can do this for you, or indeed anyone with experience of hand processing film.</p>

<p>The scratches are harder but still fixable. You can have the negatives scanned in any wet-mount process. Again, you just need to ask for this at a pro-lab - you won't find it at your average drug store. The film is sprayed with a white spirit before being placed on the scan plate. This fills in the scratches, and with a high-quality scanner you won't see any scratches in the finished scan. The spirit evaporates off and is non-harmful to the negative.</p>

<p>The poor quality of the images you see here are the result of bad scans. If you have them done to a higher quality they'll be much larger and will be properly color-balanced with the exposures corrected. This will stop them looking so muddy and underexposed.</p>

<p>Film is very forgiving and with some care will give you excellent results. If you find a good pro-lab and ask for the above treatment you can expect some great prints from your negatives, a world away from the disappointing images you're looking at now.</p>

<p> </p>

[markonestudios]

I agree with most of what's been said, except for Glenn's comment. There are indeed those of us who still use film when shooting weddings even in this digital age. As long as you handle your <i>workflow</i> professionally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. But that is a discussion for another day or another forum thread :)

[craig_gillette]

<p>I don't suppose anyone would like to discuss the relevance of copyright law to "fixing" someone else's "work," would they? There seems no doubt that it is natural to be sympathetic to this plight. The work does seem to have been poorly done, etc. It does appear to be "fixable."</p>

<p>But had the OP simply asked (absent scratches, spots, blotches, etc.) how to make better and larger copies and prints from his wedding photos and low res files, the response would have been markedly different. </p>

<p>Having the files and negs doesn't mean one owns the copyright. It's not impossible or even unlikely that a local, competent professional lab would ask to to see that the printing and copying is permitted/licensed by the copyright holder and there is no reason at first glance to not think it's the original photographer, even if they have passed on the negs, etc.</p>

<p>The OP should get clear permission and written evidence that he is licensed to print and/or make copies (good copies and prints this time), that the photographer has transferred ownership of the copyright or that the his original contract shows he has the copyright. That may not necessarily be easy to get depending on the current relationship with the photographer.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Craig--I assume, based on the initial post, that Tucker has permission to make prints, or else why did the photographer give him the negatives and scans? But I suppose you are right to remind Tucker that he might need written permission from the photographer to do so should he be asked for same. There is also no reason to believe the relationship between Tucker and the photographer is a negative one.</p>

[lou korell]

<p>This certainly looks like a case of mishandling of negatives. There are still some very good professional labs and that should be the only type used by a professional wedding photographer. Unfortunately there are many who choose to use cheaper methods and as a result you get the kind of scans that you showed to us. I am sorry you are having to deal with such things.<br>

I would contact the photographer just to let them know what you are seeing. If it were me, I would find a professional full-service photo lab and have them look at your photos/scans/files to determine what they can do to get you some reasonably good images. Then I would get the estimate and pass that on to the photographer letting them know you would like them to cover those charges. One caution - before you can do that you need to review your contract with the photographer to make sure how the liabilities are stated with regards to image quality and expectations. My contracts always specify what the client will get in terms of resolution.<br>

I wish you the best of luck in resolving this issue and hope you get some great pictures for your memories of the day. The one good thing is, no matter what you have from that day, you have a new wife! That's gotta feel great. Stay positive. Enjoy married life!</p>

<p>Lou</p>

[missy_kay]

<p>It's too bad the first photo was shot with a brick background as I find those hardest to fix. Someone might be able to clone away that crease but I'm not sure how it would look?</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>Tucker indicated he knew little or nothing about photography. Many of the images he got apparently are sub-par from a quality standpoint. That suggests that the "pro" may not be up to par either. So I find it at least reasonable to assume that neither are clear on copyright laws nor was the issue of copying, etc., covered in the contract. We can "assume" that he has permission but there's no indication that there is a written contract that covers this. </p>

<p>So, given the support more and more sources are giving to the copyright owner's rights when presented material for copying and printing, it seems likely that a quality "pro" lab is going to seek to determine if they are copying with permission. Does "I assume I have permission to copy or print because I have the files, the prints and the negatives." reach the level of diligence we want our images protected to? That doesn't mean there isn't a history and business of copying and "correcting" and restoring images, it does mean that a verbal assumption doesn't reach to the level of what many might call "best practices." (Or are we cutting "pro labs" slack in an area usually addressed with plenty of righteous indignation when a "discount" source does it?) He should at least be aware that a lab may well ask for documentation that he has the license or rights to make copies and prints.</p>

<p>Which leads to my impression that the relationship may be rocky. "finally received" "some major problems" "but I was expecting" "roughly half have defects" etc. It's been suggested that he contact the photographer about dealing with this, and to contact other professionals/experts. I think it's fair to assume that the relationship could develop some friction if it hasn't already. If any of us got back an order from a source we had relied on and something in the neighborhood of half of the prints, etc., were flawed in some way, I think there'd be a good chance for some friction to develop. He'll need to address the isues with some tact and diplomacy.</p>

<p>If most of the pros here got a contact from a customer who wanted permission to take their product to a real pro lab to fix all the problems, I think your hackles would go up?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Craig--all of your pre-emptive thinking is appropriate. I didn't mean to suggest that Tucker shouldn't be sure to get written permission or make any assumptions. Particularly if he is going to confront the photographer in any way, or make demands for her to correct the negative/scans situation. It just seemed to me to be somewhat premature, considering we don't know what he did or is going to do.</p>

<p>My general way of operating is to give people the benefit of the doubt, which so far, has worked well for me. I try to approach everyone, even 'problem' people, with openness, and to approach any situation with common sense, fairness and a willingness to communicate first before doing anything that could be perceived as negative or defensive.</p>

<p>As for my hackles going up--no, if I was the photographer, my hackles would not go up, because I would have fixed the scan situation before ever giving anything to the couple. In this case, if the photographer had any inkling about the low quality of the scans and of the damaged negatives, I'd think she'd be glad to be 'rid' of the problem and happy that the couple wanted to take the problem off her hands without losing money. But this is all speculation.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I think there's a lesson to be learned here for others who read this post. I suspect maybe you got a low price as this photog was referred by the family. However what ever you saved on the price you will spend more than that getting these negatives fixed up. For others reading this, hire a Pro, check references and pay a fair and reasonable market price and you shouldn't have these problems. This photog probably used a 1hr lab instead of a pro lab. This kind of output is more common these days as this work has been given to kids at CVS instead of pro photo technicians.</p>

<p>That's a bad scratch on the first negative, but if scanned at high res like 4,000 you should be able to have the image retouched in photoshop or Corel with a cloning brush or scratch remover tool. You may need to find a photoshop wizard for this work.</p>

<p>The first step is to get all the negatives to a pro photo lab. A place that does nothing but pro photo film developing and digital imaging. Let them clean, rescan and edit the photos. Expect to pay top dollar, but in the end it will be worth it.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>If most of the pros here got a contact from a customer who wanted permission to take their product to a real pro lab to fix all the problems, I think your hackles would go up?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really. Because if I sell someone the negatives then I accept that they're now that person's property. If they want to have them washed, dried and scanned then that's their right and privilege (though I hasten to add that no one would ever need to if they'd got them from me). In any event, if I didn't want them to be able to do those things I'd never have given them the negatives.</p>

<p>And secondly, no part of a client scanning or printing from a negative for their own use would be in any way incompatible with my retaining copyright, any more than if they were to make a back-up of digital images I'd supplied or look at them on a computer. These things fall into the category of intended use.</p>

<p>Incidentally, none of the many pro-labs I've ever been to have asked any questions when I've given them negatives to print or scan. It's implicit and understood that if you have the negatives then you also have the right to use the negatives for the purpose intended - i.e. making prints.</p>

 

[craig_gillette]

<p>The problem isn't that "you" wouldn't have delivered that kind of "product." The problem is the OP's "pro" did and he, not an established pro, is going to have someone to take on the potential liability for acting on the "assumption" that he has permission.</p>

[tucker_watson]

<p>Photo.net has been the most helpful online community I've ever visited, we really appreciate all of the responses (we even received an offer to touch up photos for free!!).<br>

We are still struggling to communicate with the photographer but it appears she is placing the blame on the lab. We will continue working with her and hope to receive some compensation to help recover the photographs.<br>

It looks like we will be visiting a professional lab and have our favorites fixed and blown up. I think we will probably send the rest of them to an online scanning site (maybe scancafe.com) and use Photoshop to fix any remaining defects. <strong>Eventually</strong> , I will post those four same pictures when they are fixed up.</p>

[hal_b]

<p>Wow, there sure are alot of "experts" explaining exactly what the problem is here. I know that the first thing you all did was pull up Photoshop and try to "fix" these pictures. Kudos to those of you who correctly identified water or chemical whatever on the pictures. I would like to also add that picture 1 doesn't really appear to be a scratch. It's more likely wet residue as well. It actually looks like the edge of a large water bubble. I saw this when I misguidedly tried to "wet scan" some negatives once myself. I really screwed that up, and I saw artifacts that looked exactly like what we're seeing on picture 1.</p>

<p>You may not know this, but all modern films have a hardening agent built in to protect the film surface from scratches after developing. Film is very difficult to scratch, unless you are poking it with a nail and trying to carve your name into it. Most fingers, gloves, soft cloths, and tongs will not leave scratches on your film surface. Even if a scratch does show up, it will be much fainter in print than what we are seeing in these scans, and it can be easily corrected by any competent lab technician.</p>

<p>I would like to address a problem that nobody has mentioned up until now: why are we demanding so much out of the DVD? Delivering scans on disc was always a gimmick, but not intended to be anything more than just another toy that people can use to get more copies of their snapshots. The product is still the negatives and the prints, not proofs and digital copies. And I'm sorry, but 5x7s are still in the range of what most would call "snapshots" or "proofs".</p>

<p>Cut this photographer a little slack, will you? The proofs are meant to be enjoyed in the context of a little photo book. After reviewing the proofs you will select your favorite poses or whatever and let the pro lab do their magic. When you want an enlargement are you going to provide the pro lab with your DVD or perhaps one of the 5x7s to copy? Heck no, you'll give them your negatives, because the negatives are great!</p>

<p>I don't see anything in these scans to indicate that there is any damage to the negatives at all or any reason whatsoever to go after your photographer. The poses are good, the exposure and focus are great, and what little defects you see are apparently just chemical residue and can/will be easily cleaned by your photo lab when the time comes to make a real print. You shouldn't even be upset with the 1-hour hacks that scanned and printed these proofs in the first place.</p>

<p>What you might complain about, though, is why did it take 7 weeks to receive these back from the photographer? Did your photog take a hiatus and move to Tibet for a season before having your negatives processed?</p>