Hired a Professional - Now need some help with the results

[e.rose]

The slideshow on that web site is rife with photographs that display the same poor use of light seen in yours. Some have been rescued to an extent by the use of image editing software.

I would say you did not do enough due diligence before choosing a photographer. Caveate Emptor (Buyer Beware)

By the way. By posting that link to their web site, that studio has now gotten backlinks directly to your thread here on TPF.

Yeah but they don't look technologically advanced enough to find the backlinks. For those of you interested yahoo.com (in the search area) site:http://(thenyoursite) is the quickest way I know of finding out who is back linked to my sites.

If they use Google analytics... it's as easy as logging into your account...

 

[shootermcgavin]

If they use Google analytics... it's as easy as logging into your account...

I only know how to get site references in google analytics, I think that's what you're talking about. It would've give the actual page only referral from thephotoforum.com, but it's pretty powerful so it may have something similar to google webmaster tools also.

About the wedding thing I'll make it short. 2 Photographers for wedding is good thing, most won't disagree it even is suggested in most google searches. So why get 2 that work together seems to heighten the chances that if bad photos are taken it would be doubled. It's 1 important day of your life why put all your eggs in one basket? Again, contracts bad!!!! Who uses and makes contracts? Lawyers! Enough said.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I talked to one wedding photographer locally to me who said in his contract it states that can't hire another photographer, to me that's ridiculous.

Go shoot a wedding with another photographer constantly in your way, trying to get the same shots you are, distracting your subjects away from your camera and then talk about how ridiculous that clause is. EVERY decent and professional wedding photographer I know has that clause in their contracts and for good reason. The bride and groom can't hire another photographer while the current photographer is still employed by them. After the wedding... before the wedding... if you fire the photographer before the wedding... fine. But not during.

I fail to see how you think that's unreasonable... but that's not what this thread is about, so I'll end my hijacking here.

I apologize to the OP for this quick derailment.

This is completely reasonable. If the people want more then one photographer then they should state this to the main photog and have them hire additional help. Two shooters at a wedding is very handy but someone has to be running the show. You cant have two competing photogs. Thats stupid. But most major services will offer multiple shooters from the agency if that is what you would like.

 

[e.rose]

I talked to one wedding photographer locally to me who said in his contract it states that can't hire another photographer, to me that's ridiculous.

Go shoot a wedding with another photographer constantly in your way, trying to get the same shots you are, distracting your subjects away from your camera and then talk about how ridiculous that clause is. EVERY decent and professional wedding photographer I know has that clause in their contracts and for good reason. The bride and groom can't hire another photographer while the current photographer is still employed by them. After the wedding... before the wedding... if you fire the photographer before the wedding... fine. But not during.

I fail to see how you think that's unreasonable... but that's not what this thread is about, so I'll end my hijacking here.

I apologize to the OP for this quick derailment.

This is completely reasonable. If the people want more then one photographer then they should state this to the main photog and have them hire additional help. Two shooters at a wedding is very handy but someone has to be running the show. You cant have two competing photogs. Thats stupid. But most major services will offer multiple shooters from the agency if that is what you would like.

I'm not sure to which opinion you're stating is reasonable... but I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with more than one photographer... as long as they come from the same company and there is a main photographer and second shooters... because at that point the main photographer can tell the second shooters what he/she needs done and no one is getting in anyone's way, nor are they competing. They're working together. It's hiring two * separate* competing photographers I disagree with.

And to address the "it's only 1 day, why not cover your bases" statement...

I got married.

I had to hire a photographer.

I did my research, I hired one I loved, and because I hired a professional, one with enough of a portfolio to tell me she'd do a wonderful job, I got exactly what I paid for and hired her to do. No regrets.

People need to spend more time than just a few minutes and checking a couple websites if their "once in a lifetime day" is so important to them.

I don't know why you'd spend a couple grand on two competing photographers, when you can spend that entire amount on one and get a fabulous, reliable photographer who has second shooters at their disposal.

 

[kdeerhake]

There was no written contract ( another red flag!). I guess it's really my fault, I could have asked on here for a reference or spent more time looking.

Remember the time old saying, " If you want something done right, do it yourself."

After seeing what gear you have listed in your signature I am wondering why you didnt just set up your own gear on a tripod and shoot this yourself using a trigger. Couldnt have been any worse and you wouldnt have been out anything. Plus you have L glass. You that thing son!

I wanted a stress free environment where I didn't have to worry about it. Also I'm too much of an amateur to give this a try, but again I'm confident my results couldn't have been any worse than what we received.

By the way. By posting that link to their web site, that studio has now gotten backlinks directly to your thread here on TPF.

I doubt they even know what that is! If so, I was considering sending them the link.

They don't look that sharp to me, although the shots on the boat would be hard to make good the way the light was so harsh. The one under the trees would look a lot better with a high pass. I personally don't think RAW files are that big of a deal giving out especially if you're not doing any liquify or effects that people may get mad about which I highly doubt happened in these shots cuz they barely look touched up at all. Also white is a hard color to shoot, did the photographer tell you that before hand. I don't even do photography as a money making venture and I tell everyone its best to wear solids. I think the one by the trees would've looked great in B&W but with white shirts on they might get lost in the background. Hopefully you will get something worked out with your photos.

*Another Red Flag* I know white is hard to shoot and I asked the photographer, Bill if he was okay with everyone wearing white. He replied to go ahead and wear whatever we wanted and white was not a problem for him. Wow, I'm sounding dumber and dumber as we go! lol

 

[kdeerhake]

Yeah I'm cool with fixing the crooked horizon with a jpeg, but I really wanted the raws to try to help out the exposure issues.

$150 for one hour.

Johnson Photography Custom photography and framing specialists. We offer custom portrait sessions at very reasonable and affordable pricing. Explore photography without Boundaries. Custom picture and art framing in the Sandusky Ohio area is also avai
Now that I'm re-looking at their website I do see some photos that I do not like. Also not to knock other brands, but I'm used to seeing Nikon or Canons. He was shooting with an Olympus?

The site is not great but the photos you got were not even close to that. Did Bill take these photos? That is the only person I see getting any type of credit on the site. The fact that he was using olympus is not really the problem. You can still get decent quality from one of their motors. But you got skrewed. Mid day or not these were way below the par for what they advertise. This is especially low quality for someone that charges $150 an hour. Next time find a hipster kid off the street.

I thought the $150 was about the going rate for someone who knew what they were doing, and I just made a bad selection. Yes it was Bill the owner who I spoke with and was the shooter. Very nice guy, just wasn't able to perform on that day for whatever reason

 

[Robin Usagani]

150 is dirt cheap if you get the files.

 

[CCericola]

Hi kdeerhake,

I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. I would definitely ask for a refund or discount if you are not happy with the results. If they are out of focus then having the raw file will not matter. I truly hope you and your family have another opportunity to take another photo. If you are looking for someone in the Clearwater area I recommend Marley Lindley (www.beautifulweddingsphotography.com) She is not only a PPA member, but she is CPP so she went through the trouble to become certified. She has a lot of family portrait examples near the water and even wearing all white.

 

[shootermcgavin]

Go shoot a wedding with another photographer constantly in your way, trying to get the same shots you are, distracting your subjects away from your camera and then talk about how ridiculous that clause is. EVERY decent and professional wedding photographer I know has that clause in their contracts and for good reason. The bride and groom can't hire another photographer while the current photographer is still employed by them. After the wedding... before the wedding... if you fire the photographer before the wedding... fine. But not during.

I fail to see how you think that's unreasonable... but that's not what this thread is about, so I'll end my hijacking here.

I apologize to the OP for this quick derailment.

This is completely reasonable. If the people want more then one photographer then they should state this to the main photog and have them hire additional help. Two shooters at a wedding is very handy but someone has to be running the show. You cant have two competing photogs. Thats stupid. But most major services will offer multiple shooters from the agency if that is what you would like.

I'm not sure to which opinion you're stating is reasonable... but I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with more than one photographer... as long as they come from the same company and there is a main photographer and second shooters... because at that point the main photographer can tell the second shooters what he/she needs done and no one is getting in anyone's way, nor are they competing. They're working together. It's hiring two * separate* competing photographers I disagree with.

And to address the "it's only 1 day, why not cover your bases" statement...

I got married.

I had to hire a photographer.

I did my research, I hired one I loved, and because I hired a professional, one with enough of a portfolio to tell me she'd do a wonderful job, I got exactly what I paid for and hired her to do. No regrets.

People need to spend more time than just a few minutes and checking a couple websites if their "once in a lifetime day" is so important to them.

I don't know why you'd spend a couple grand on two competing photographers, when you can spend that entire amount on one and get a fabulous, reliable photographer who has second shooters at their disposal.

Because it's a day you can not recapture, and regardless if it's the best photographer in the world people make mistakes. They might have a drinking or drug problem, or the mob might be after them or a bunch of more probable everyday events. I would prefer 2 photographers from 2 totally separate companies... I don't see the point of getting two from the same company because essentially you're getting 1 that gets more photos to edit in the end shot by 2 people. I'd like two different eyes and ways of doing things and the ability to choose. A normal size wedding is 500 people, so I've been told, there's plenty of people to shoot so you don't step on each others toes. If you're getting paid why the heck would you care, it sounds childish to me to insist only you or the company you are with can shoot the photos. Plus the majority of companies are one man bands, that's the downside of photography it's hard to duplicate the art you created so you're pretty much stuck with the money you can make unless quality isn't important than you can hire some kid to take pictures and hope he comes back with something good. I don't do weddings and I would never make a contract for any kind of service, I'm just saying how as a consumer I see it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. I may change my mind someday, I have slightly more respect for a photographer wanting to keep his RAW files, but only if he edited them drastically. I would love for someone to tell me hey I want to pay you $150 to shoot photos of us for an hour and give us all the raw data and that is it, editing takes more time than the shoot anyway and less files I'd have to worry about saving just in case.

 

[CCericola]

This is completely reasonable. If the people want more then one photographer then they should state this to the main photog and have them hire additional help. Two shooters at a wedding is very handy but someone has to be running the show. You cant have two competing photogs. Thats stupid. But most major services will offer multiple shooters from the agency if that is what you would like.

I'm not sure to which opinion you're stating is reasonable... but I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with more than one photographer... as long as they come from the same company and there is a main photographer and second shooters... because at that point the main photographer can tell the second shooters what he/she needs done and no one is getting in anyone's way, nor are they competing. They're working together. It's hiring two * separate* competing photographers I disagree with.

And to address the "it's only 1 day, why not cover your bases" statement...

I got married.

I had to hire a photographer.

I did my research, I hired one I loved, and because I hired a professional, one with enough of a portfolio to tell me she'd do a wonderful job, I got exactly what I paid for and hired her to do. No regrets.

People need to spend more time than just a few minutes and checking a couple websites if their "once in a lifetime day" is so important to them.

I don't know why you'd spend a couple grand on two competing photographers, when you can spend that entire amount on one and get a fabulous, reliable photographer who has second shooters at their disposal.

Because it's a day you can not recapture, and regardless if it's the best photographer in the world people make mistakes. They might have a drinking or drug problem, or the mob might be after them or a bunch of more probable everyday events. I would prefer 2 photographers from 2 totally separate companies... I don't see the point of getting two from the same company because essentially you're getting 1 that gets more photos to edit in the end shot by 2 people. I'd like two different eyes and ways of doing things and the ability to choose. A normal size wedding is 500 people, so I've been told, there's plenty of people to shoot so you don't step on each others toes. If you're getting paid why the heck would you care, it sounds childish to me to insist only you or the company you are with can shoot the photos. Plus the majority of companies are one man bands, that's the downside of photography it's hard to duplicate the art you created so you're pretty much stuck with the money you can make unless quality isn't important than you can hire some kid to take pictures and hope he comes back with something good. I don't do weddings and I would never make a contract for any kind of service, I'm just saying how as a consumer I see it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. I may change my mind someday, I have slightly more respect for a photographer wanting to keep his RAW files, but only if he edited them drastically. I would love for someone to tell me hey I want to pay you $150 to shoot photos of us for an hour and give us all the raw data and that is it, editing takes more time than the shoot anyway and less files I'd have to worry about saving just in case.

Wow, The cloud of crystal meth residue in the midwest must be getting thicker.

 

[e.rose]

This is completely reasonable. If the people want more then one photographer then they should state this to the main photog and have them hire additional help. Two shooters at a wedding is very handy but someone has to be running the show. You cant have two competing photogs. Thats stupid. But most major services will offer multiple shooters from the agency if that is what you would like.

I'm not sure to which opinion you're stating is reasonable... but I agree with you. There's nothing wrong with more than one photographer... as long as they come from the same company and there is a main photographer and second shooters... because at that point the main photographer can tell the second shooters what he/she needs done and no one is getting in anyone's way, nor are they competing. They're working together. It's hiring two * separate* competing photographers I disagree with.

And to address the "it's only 1 day, why not cover your bases" statement...

I got married.

I had to hire a photographer.

I did my research, I hired one I loved, and because I hired a professional, one with enough of a portfolio to tell me she'd do a wonderful job, I got exactly what I paid for and hired her to do. No regrets.

People need to spend more time than just a few minutes and checking a couple websites if their "once in a lifetime day" is so important to them.

I don't know why you'd spend a couple grand on two competing photographers, when you can spend that entire amount on one and get a fabulous, reliable photographer who has second shooters at their disposal.

Because it's a day you can not recapture, and regardless if it's the best photographer in the world people make mistakes. They might have a drinking or drug problem, or the mob might be after them or a bunch of more probable everyday events. I would prefer 2 photographers from 2 totally separate companies... I don't see the point of getting two from the same company because essentially you're getting 1 that gets more photos to edit in the end shot by 2 people. I'd like two different eyes and ways of doing things and the ability to choose. A normal size wedding is 500 people, so I've been told, there's plenty of people to shoot so you don't step on each others toes. If you're getting paid why the heck would you care, it sounds childish to me to insist only you or the company you are with can shoot the photos. Plus the majority of companies are one man bands, that's the downside of photography it's hard to duplicate the art you created so you're pretty much stuck with the money you can make unless quality isn't important than you can hire some kid to take pictures and hope he comes back with something good. I don't do weddings and I would never make a contract for any kind of service, I'm just saying how as a consumer I see it and it doesn't make a lot of sense. I may change my mind someday, I have slightly more respect for a photographer wanting to keep his RAW files, but only if he edited them drastically. I would love for someone to tell me hey I want to pay you $150 to shoot photos of us for an hour and give us all the raw data and that is it, editing takes more time than the shoot anyway and less files I'd have to worry about saving just in case.

ooohhOOOHKAY!

Wow, The cloud of crystal meth residue in the midwest must be getting thicker.

Yeah... no kidding.

Also, funny you should mention this as I'm sitting here watching Breaking Bad...

 

[joealcantar]

Holidays are coming up again, do the shot again.
-
Shoot well, Joe

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

I :heart: Breaking Bad. But Weeds was better.

 

[e.rose]

I :heart: Breaking Bad. But Weeds was better.

What?! No way...

I mean don't get me wrong... I LOVED Weeds, but I lost touch with it because I didn't have HBO...

But Breaking Bad is SO much more... INTENSE!

Everything is phenomenal about this show... the acting is fantastic, the writing is fantastic and I love the cinematography.

Weeds was good but... I dunno... it's different than this.

It was good in it's own way.

Although, I'd really like to see the rest of what I missed of that show. It was a damn good show.

 

[kdeerhake]

ccerolia, thank you for the link, I'll look it up for my clearwater needs. This was up in ohio (very small town) which also reduced my choices in photographers.

Joealcantar, that's a nice thought, we are just spread out and it being in Ohio makes holiday shoots outdoors not really a good option. It may be another few years before we can all be together again.





FYI Dexter>breaking bad!