Very Confused and UPSET!

[jennny_p.]

<p>So here is the deal. I have a client that was very happy with her images, however, her husband is not. It all started with the engagement session that went very well, until they got their images back. He was not happy at all about the bald spot on his head, which I did not even notice. When viewed closer, I noticed he had colored in his missing hair black with something akin to shoe polish. I'm not joking. The reason I never noticed it before was because his hair is... BLACK. He is African-American with dark skin, and the reason I think he is a little upset over the hair issue is because he is paranoid, however, I would never tell him that or his wife who is absolutely very nice and agreeable. He apparently is <em><strong>slightly</strong> </em> balding, but the issue at hand is that he wanted me to go over EVERY picture of him and re-edit back in hair for him. Soooo, thats what I did. But I didn't think about this when the wedding came around of course. GO FIGURE. So the images of him of course were not up to par according to the groom. She was very happy with them however. So now I have to go back and RE-EDIT the files that have already been edited so that the groom is happy. None of this was written into the contract of course: that I would have to edit out the bald spot and scruffiness caused by the black and white files. Yes, that's another issue. He did not like any of his black and white photographs, so now I have to find the files on my external hard drive, re-upload them to my computer after clearing out some of my new weddings, and re-edit his ridiculous photos! And to top it all off, I charged them a flat rate at a very discounted price because I was just getting started out. Now I am going to have to edit three photographers' files to please this GROOM-ZILLA! YES! THREE PHOTOGS! and please also know that I have lost the signed contract, although the couple has another copy signed. Good story, huh? They don't know I've "ahem" misplaced the contract. But my gut tells me I should charge them by the hour for these re-edits. What should I do? Thanks by the way for reading this, and I really appreciate your comments. Sorry to get all worked up here. Oh and I do have the form for my contract, just not the signed version of it.</p><div></div>

[shambrick007]

<p>"I noticed he had colored in his missing hair black with something akin to shoe polish." LOL! ooohhh boy, Homie got issues. I'm not going bald, but I shave my head anyway just to not have to deal w/the hassle - were not any African American barbers in my new neighborhood at the time. <br /> I feel for you (and the Bride) Sister. Good luck!<br>

Oh...and in the future, you may want to re-consider positing an image just in case they or a friend stumble upon this thread.</p>

[my-portfolio]

<p>Lesson learned about the value of your time I suppose and keeping track of your contracts.</p>

[hfd4177]

<p>Thats a tough spot you are in. Without stating in the contract that retouching is additional could cause you some problems. IMHO I would offer to retouch the photos in their wedding album and wedding portrait only and charge them for anything else. I believe that this would be a fair compromise. I suppose you could stand your ground and charge them but at what cost. The bad publicity you would receive for not giving in just is not worth it. As far as what sheldon said about not posting the picture, you should be fine. You are not posting the image to make money or anything like that. Good Luck.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>That is a tough spot. It underscores why I can't do wedding photography anymore<g>. I would send the following to the groom, and include a single retouched image:</p>

<p>Dear [Groom],</p>

<p>I would dearly love to go back and retouch all 2000 images displaying your bald spot, however I am quite certain that in several years, you will look fondly at the images I have taken.</p>

<p>Sincerely,</p>

<p>JB</p>

<p>encl. retouched image.</p><div></div>

[john_h.1]

<p>I had a visiting professor who had the "shoe polish". It wasn't just a bald spot. Almost the entire area of the top half of his head was bald. No big deal except the shoe polish covering. It so pervasive that that there was a horizontal line of it running across his forehead as though it were his hairline. It would get hot during the class and he would start sweating and the shoe polish would melt and long streams of of dark brown sweat would pour down his head. Of course everyone is the class would cringe and figit mortified to say anything but chattering about it endlessly in astonishment afterward. I think it was the worst fashion disaster I have ever seen.</p>

<p>Anyway, he brought it on himself and so is the case here it seems according to this story. Unfortunately, you set yourself up for expectations of all this work when you did not nip this bud in the beginning. You now have a learning experience and should take corrective action in the future and can address when the client needs to pay for post production work in your contract. Securing the contract from loss is another lesson. In any event, you now have a war story of sorts.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>I could see editing prints, but I wouldn't suggest editing each and every proof. </p>

<p>I'd try to meet with them in person rather than dealing with this in email. Explain that I'm happy to edit X number of online images. I'm happy to edit any print that they order. But I am not going to edit all the online proofs without an additional fee for doing so.</p>

<p>Just because the contract doesn't mention an additional fee doesn't mean you're up the creek. It doesn't mention that you'll do unlimited post work for free, either, does it? You need to sit down and come to a meeting of the minds. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

[gia_hillenbrand]

<p>I agree with everyone here.</p>

<p>I had a Bride and Groom zilla once too. Complained about it all, and demanded a refund of the cheapest thing I had ever done. We also had a contract. Btw - emails are also a contract in writing. <br>

Do not sell yourself cheap. Sell yourself expensive. </p>

<p>Do some research for them, and you, and price some retouching at other places for the number of photos he wants done. Tell him your discounted fare, and that should be it.<br>

The one who mentioned the bad publicity is right - although if he tells everyone to treat you this way - they may. If they say "Well what did you want her to retouch...?" GROOM: "I wanted her to grow the heair virtually back onto my head..." Think about how stupid he sounds....So, be the smarter one and run your business. I mean, does this guy know enough people to make it hard on you? I doubt it. The old lady at McDonalds didnt shut McDee's down...and now they have even MORE coffee choices...LOL<br>

Never give up and never sell yourself free.<br>

Discounted in the begining I understand, but your talkng HOURS and DAYS of work...time you would be spending on another paying client.</p>

<p>good luck</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>The old lady at McDonalds didnt shut McDee's down...and now they have even MORE coffee choices...LOL</em><br /><em></em><br />The original judgment, two days of coffee profit, later reduced to a couple hours, did result in McDonald's lowering the temperature of the coffee which was much higher than industry standard. Over 700 people were hospitalized or sought other medical treatment for scalding prior to the "old lady" incident which is why there was punative damages and why it was so high. It may be common sense to look where one is going but when so many people don't look and without railings they will fall down on ledges. That's why businesses have railings despite the costs. Because there's enough people that don't use common sense, and they know they won't and that they will be severely injured, they become liable if they don't make reasonable efforts to prevent that. That's was the legal basis for the McDonald's judgment. They knew their customers were going to continue to require medical treatment because of their practices and ignored efforts to reduce the temperature because the bottom line was more important. The talk show hosts, with a different agenda, that made a big issue about the case didn't tell you about that part and their version went on to be urban legend as we see it still here.</p>

<p>But we digress and this wilful negligence matter isn't a fitting anology as to whether a contractual dispute between two parties will cause harm to the photographer. Indeed, it is the current contractual situation that is the real concern. More specifically is that the OP engaged in a course of conduct in the engagement portion in an area where the contract is apparently silent (wherever it is) handing the client a plausable legal argument that a binding "course of dealing" was established filling in the silent gap in the contract.</p>

<p> </p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Jocelyn -</p>

<p>Since the wording isn't written into the contract (unless of course you have already agreed to do it for nothing via e-mail) then there is no expection of editing / re-editing.</p>

<p>I'd weigh the pro's and con's of doing the editing / re-edits for them based on your relationship with them and desire to maintain that relationship. If you do it for nothing - you may get good publicity / word of mouth from them and possible future work. If you go back and say - No - it will cost you $xxx.xx for the entire thing - then what will that cost you? If the answer is nothing then it's an easy call.</p>

<p>By the way - they now also know that you have misplaced the contract.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[gia_hillenbrand]

<p>John - Seriously?</p>

<p>You read into it that much?</p>

<p>wow - that is anal.</p>

<p>You obviously didnt get the point I was making.</p>

<p>Let us know how it turns out.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>Since the wording isn't written into the contract... ...then there is no expection of editing / re-editing.</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

Contract law is not governed only by the written portions of a contract. One example is where conduct of the parties as to certain situations, where a contract is silent on an issue, establishes the interpretation and constrution of a contract. I'm not saying that would be the outcome here, just that it creates some risk of that happening. The risk would be higher if this were an ongoing service contract and this type of editing became the common practice among the parties. A "course of dealing" is a concept that creates and makes legal expectations that are not written in a contract. The best argument against it here is that its not a 'course' but a one off courtesy event.</p>

<p>Another (where the contract is silent) argument against the client in a situation like this is industry practices. If extra payment is almost always made for such editing where contracts are silent on the issue, that that can bolster the photographers position.</p>

<p>Be careful about claiming that something not written in to a contract means it won't be treated as such. Covering issues more thoroughly in a contract helps prevent these contract construction scenerios from arising later.<br>

<em></em> <br>

<em>You read into it that much? wow - that is anal... ...<em>You obviously didnt get the point I was making.</em></em>

<p><em></em> <br>

Sorry Gia, making a gratutious comment doesn't mean I didn't understand the point being made and certainly doesn't make it "obvious" that I didn't. It merely means that I made a gratuitious comment. Ironically, that makes YOU the one who is reading in to things too much. ;)<br>

<em></em> </p>

 

</p>

[photomark]

Jocelyn: I wonder about the wisdom of posting this here with a photo of your client. You must know that any potential client

is going to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Jocelyn+Bland+photography&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 ">search google for your name</a> and this post will be very near the top

of the search results. I would think twice about hiring someone who publicly posts complaints and photos which a client

has indicated he/she is not happy with. This is not to say I don't agree with your frustration, but a little web savvy would go

a long way in this situation.

[rogerjporter]

<p>I have a little kit in my camera bag with bobby pins, needle and thread, safety pins, etc, i will have to add a circle of fuzzy material to offer to grooms if i notice that he needs it in the future, that is good to know! Maybe i will throw a yamaca in there too, just in case. Lesson learned! Good observation Mark! i have seen that in the past too, where rants come up before personal web sites... could be an issue down the road. </p>

[richard_weisgrau2]

<p>Personally, contract or not, I would charge for the special retouching. The standard is that we normally retouch defects and things like bags under eyes, blemishes, wrinkles, etc. Mostly we soften remove the problem. But you are being asked to make an addition of something that is naturally missing. Changing baldness is not normally the duty of the photographer. The guy has a bald spot. Its natural and very common. He wants his ego patched, and that is not retouching. Its psychiatry. If he wants hair, he ought to go to a hair restorer. Removing stray hair is retouching. Adding in hair where their is not is not. Charge the guy for your time.</p>

[aimee_pieters]

<p>You can't and shouldn't expect your clients to understand what is normal or typical. Your contract and or price list needs to be specific about things like this to avoid unhappy clients. If you clients have used another photographer in the past who included unlimited retouching for example, then to the client, this is normal. Hopefully you have already updated your literature so this doesn't happen again.<br>

I'm not saying that the client is always right, but making them happy is always right...-Aimee</p>

[paul_tavener]

<p>I feel sorry for you. the client from ego hell. He is what he is and you can only photograph what is there, or in his case what's not!<br>

If he wants to be converted into Adonis charge him for it. I pity the bride, he probably spends most of the time looking in the mirror.<br>

Take heart we have all suffered.</p>