john_taylor24

<p>Thank you John. As for profit, there is none. I put back the monies for the cost of the album, which will be more now, and the rest would go to them. I was paid $1645. $1200 was to go to them (I would have been better off paying a bunch of photographers that were learning - 12 of them $100 each and would have got SOMETHING from it - just venting.) So the rest was for a flushmount 40 side album. I paid the $600 to them, and I still have the other half in my account which I am sure I will need to make my client happy. So, no profit. <br>

I do get discouraged about other photographers. I had been searching for a very long time for a competent backup photographer in my area, and have only ran into people, after digging deep, that they just didn't know what they were doing. I would ask about spot metering, camera settings, etc. and they just didn't have a clue what I was talking about. I was told by one (who booked 45 weddings last year) that he puts it in auto, looks at the settings, then plugs them in using manual. I have never heard of that - why bother shooting manual that way, that is not smart. So I will continue, and I will try to weed out people that aren't honest about their skills and equipment.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone. </p>

 

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3995880">Javier Herrera</a>, I hope you are never injured and forced to hire one. Trust me, the outcome is not good. For the record, I originally hired these people to photograph a wedding I did NOT have a contract for, from a bride who really could care less. I was injured while shooting a prior wedding and had a hand injury involving bones in my wrist area and hand - I got knocked down, cold, from a big drunk guy. Not pretty. I was forced only a few days prior to the wedding to let them shoot the wedding they did, that I had a client contract with, thinking that they would do a better job, since I was injured!! My mistake!! I thought I was doing my clients right by not trying to work with a bad injury and not being able to hand hold a camera. I would argue that a bride would not want you to call her days before her wedding and say, well, I'm hurt, but here's your money back!! Then what?!? Just assume they can find someone at the last minute? I would think that would hurt your reputation even more leaving them high and dry. Everyone that is decent is probably booked. </p>

<p>This was my original question: As a wedding photographer, when you sub-contract out another wedding photographer to shoot a wedding for you because you were hurt, or sick, etc. - what do you do when they<em> lie </em>about the amount of years they have done weddings, their equipment they have and use, etc.? <br>

The bottom line is, I know what I have to do to make my client happy. The question and point of this thread was, what do you do when other photographers lie to you about their equipment and experience and do you have to pay them for a stack of files that are more than poor quality. As far as referrals, they are members of certain groups, and they all seem to be a in a click of some sort, covering for each other. So let's say I have 10 friends, and we all vouch for each other, and most have a great reputation, what would you believe? Let's say most of their clients were just their friends and family, do you think they wouldn't say, "Oh they are wonderful! I was very happy!" Of course they would, they probably did it for free and they are family. I have seen this first hand in my town.</p>

<p>Without a doubt I will have to find someone to be a back up in case I get injured, again. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you to everyone for your help in this matter.<br />Nadine, great advice, thank you. The sad part is they were living houses away and were neighbors, and I thought we were friends. I showed them all kinds of tips and tricks, etc. They were the first people I ever trusted as far as confidence and photography. I was wrong.</p>

<p>John, can I put you in my pocket lol? You are wonderful. Thank you for helping me understand the terms. That really helps me a lot.</p>

<p>Peter, to answer your question, the thumbnails were previews on windows. I have used all 5 of my computers and downloaded all profiles and used CS4, Elements and Lightroom and Noise Ninja. The histogram is showing they are completely under exposed, but not the photos they took outdoors (candid formals.) That would lead me to believe that when the disc was burned it simply generated a preview jpg. The other thing was that when we shoot a wedding, we use on average 70gb of memory, thanks to the new raws from the 5d mark ii being so large, and they handed me less than 8gb of 12 hours, 2 photographers in RAW. I asked about this and they said it was because their cameras weren't as many megapixels as mine. Well even if I used a Rebel XTI I could have more gb used (I agree, anyone can buy a 5d and L lenses, it's knowing how to use them) than 8 gb for 12 hours with 2 of us. I explained that the only time that happens is if they are so poorly underexposed, they are small in file size.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong about dark exposures, I know that as long as it is properly exposed with my meter (in camera) with the correct settings, when I brighten is up and correct it, I barely have any noise. The noise from their photos is so drastically bad because they were so underexposed. That's what I think happened. I did see a few photos they took with each other behind the b and g and in one, one of them had their flash off and on the floor as if they might have been having problems with the flash. I know they shot manual in a lot of the shots for the formals because the lighting was different and the settings stayed the same.</p>

<p>Give me any camera and crappy lens, and I will get you an exposed photograph. They tried to blame it on their camera not being a 5d, low light, etc. but it comes down to not knowing what settings to use, etc. I personally only shoot in manual.</p>

<p>Thank you again everyone for your advice. I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>David, thank you but shooting wide open is an entire different opinion of mine. The photo posted is in a church, very, very dark, wide open at 2.8. Now, if I needed more than 2 people in the shot, that may be different, I change it up and down, but when it's really dark sometimes, I think anyway, you need to shoot wide open. But to each their own. </p>

<p>I agree with you about sub-contracting, but what else are you to do if you are injured or ill and you have to do it? That was kind of the whole point of my thread, what do I do to keep from being scammed? When you know someone, see their work, and rule out all you can, what do you do if someone flat out lies to you about their equipment or skills? I know it happens in the construction business all of the time, but I am asking what else can I do to keep this from happening again, as I need a back up in case I am injured.</p><div></div>

<p>Wow, thank you. My contract with the client states "photographer is limited by the guidelines of the ceremony official or reception site management. The client agrees to accept the technical results of their imposition on the Photographer (no flash during ceremony, church rules, restrictions, etc.) and their guests' flashes and cooperation." So if I understand your post, John, then I would be responsible therefore defaulting to my contract with my client? As far as the contract with the sub-contracted photographers, I used the one from the PPA. On line 5 and 6 it states "Contractor certifies that he or she has business liability insurance and malpractice insurance (or its equivalent) in an amount sufficient to cover any foreseeable damages <em>related to its performance of this contract. </em>Contractor further agrees to defend studio in any action arising out of law or equity and to fully indemnify the Studio for damages related to the Contractor's <em>performance of this contract. </em>Contractor acknowledges that in addition to regular damages related to a failure to perform this contract, Contractor may also be liable to Studio for consequential damages such as <em>lost business opportunities</em>." </p>

<p>Due to my lack of legal knowledge and verbology, I was under the understanding that "successful completion" meant exposed photos of the entire wedding, covering all of the main events, that are printable. It would be one thing if I could get a decent 8x10, but even the 4x6's are really bad. I am thought the assignment part of the contract "Assignment in exchange for adequate and valuable consideration, contractor agrees to complete the following assignment..." would have covered me. Their argument is that they "did it" so it was successful and mine is I can't print them out, so it's not. </p>

<p>And this is the processional, they could use flash by the way...this is the raw unedited, I just cropped the faces off the top.</p>

<p>And this is the first formal, corrected, WHCC called me, it's that bad.</p><div></div>

<p>Another from Ceremony when the groom first saw the bride.</p><div></div>

<p> Here are some key photos.</p><div></div>

<p>Yes, I have insurance. The contract they signed stated that they would get sued, not me, but then I have to prove they were negligent. Here are some key photos.</p>

<p>I have tried just about all of the major vendors, and WHCC is the only one I use.</p>

<p>Thank you Nadine, I think that's exactly what I will do. I will post a photo up in a few hours.</p>

<p>William, thank you. I agree with you, it is our responsibility. That's why I'm really upset about it. All of the work they showed us was fine and of great quality. My main question, is when I am asking what lens do you have, how long have you been doing this, do you know how to shoot in this mode or that (all in person btw) basically because for me to contract you, you would have to have this or that, etc., - and they lied. If they would have said they didn't have it, I would have simply hired somebody else. They didn't have the equipment they said they did. Anyone could rent equipment and show it to me and say it's what they use. We never contract anyone out, but I was in a situation that I had to have a replacement. We obviously would never to it again, but my worry now is if I get hurt, I would have to.<br>

About the conversation, here's the kicker. They were told raw files. So when they handed me the disc, they told me the bride refused to have her photo taken where their light kit was set up. That was my first red flag. Basically they told me a hand full of stories that in 5 years I have never seen or heard of. Then they said that they just didn't have the equipment for the low light - well that's not what they told me when we talked (multiple times.) Well, anyway, when I put in the disc they appeared fine (large thumbnails.) Later that night when I imported them, they all just started going black - back to default. They actually went in and corrected (tried to) each photo so they appeared exposed, etc. when you opened it up. That's what really upset me, they knew. They have not contacted me with a response since then.</p>

 

<p>The clients have only seen what is online for now. I am worried once they see the prints in the next few weeks, they will a lot more upset. I am sure the client will want a refund. The package they contracted came with an album (whcc) and I will have to incur costs to use a flushmount so I can have more control of the prints. It will be cheaper for me to have prints re-printed in a selfmount than to have an album reprinted. The formals are cropped in camera so tight, they won't be able to have any other shape, like an 8x10, etc. I'm sure it will get uglier with my client once they see the print quality. The metadata showed they used a Nikon D50 and D80, and we use 5D's and 50D's and L lenses, so there is a difference in quality than what our client thought they would get.</p>

<p>Hello, I will try to keep this question as short and simple as possible. As a wedding photographer, when you sub-contract out another wedding photographer to shoot a wedding for you because you were hurt, or sick, etc. - what do you do when they<em> lie </em>about the amount of years they have done weddings, their equipment they have and use, etc.? We subcontracted a company that has a great website, we saw 3 albums of their work, their sample online gallery and their blog. We were told by them they had been doing weddings about 5 years, and that they had prime lens, and they were all 2.8, 1.8, etc. We had a contract that stated "payment upon successful completion of this assignment" that they would receive payment in full. The assignment stated 500 raw photos from all day wedding coverage. We were horrified when we received the raw photos. They are so poorly exposed, the histogram was bunched on the left and they were literally, black. They were honestly the worst photos I have ever seen! Once we corrected them, they are barely even printable. They were shooting in a dark hotel, the formals at iso 400, F8 and 1/60th shutter speed. They shot some in auto and TV and we told them to use a prime lens wide open during the ceremony, etc. and it was at f8. The max apt. on the metadata said 6. I know I don't use those settings. We even reviewed lighting and techniques, etc. for 2 hours with them, and they seemed to know what they were doing and voiced no concerns or questions. We thought we did everything right, but what do you do when a photographer lies about their experience, equipment and knowledge and you are stuck with an unhappy client? The photographers want the rest of the payment, stating they shot the wedding, per the contract, it shouldn't matter they didn't turn out.<br>

I don't know what to do?</p>