Problem with wedding photographer

[CanadianKaren]

Thanks all for confirming that the pictures are crap! Sorry that they got deleted. We were told that we owned the edited pics (which I posted here). We were offered the RAW files, but when we were supposed to get them in the mail, they were all jpgs, and we got told that the RAW files were copyrighted, and it was illegal to give them to us.

Sorry that the pics got deleted. The pics have never been posted online (ie her website) but I may post some on my blog (depends what our lawyer says when I chat with him today). I'm also looking into the Better Business Bureau. In email corespondence our photographer said she would send the RAW files, even asked us what program we had that would open them. Then she talked to the second shooter, and came up with the copyright/illegal line, and has been telling us that ever since.

We are from a small town (3 hours from a city), and contacted probably a dozen photographers prior to hiring the one we did. Photographers in our area are mostly work-at-home people, there are no what I would call "professional" studios. Anyway the photographers we contacted ranged in price from $700 - $1200. The one we went with was $1200, and had the two shooters.

Yes, I am unhappy with the pics, but our photographer could have avoided all of this (lawyers/Better Business Bureau) if she had just given us the RAW files like she said she was going to do.

 

[Braineack]

Yes, I am unhappy with the pics, but our photographer could have avoided all of this (lawyers/Better Business Bureau) if she knew how to use a camera, compose a picture, and position subjects in harsh lighting.

FTFY.

 

[CanadianKaren]

Yes, I am unhappy with the pics, but our photographer could have avoided all of this (lawyers/Better Business Bureau) if she knew how to use a camera.

FTFY.

Yeah that too!

 

[runnah]

Thanks all for confirming that the pictures are crap! Sorry that they got deleted. We were told that we owned the edited pics (which I posted here). We were offered the RAW files, but when we were supposed to get them in the mail, they were all jpgs, and we got told that the RAW files were copyrighted, and it was illegal to give them to us.

Sorry that the pics got deleted. The pics have never been posted online (ie her website) but I may post some on my blog (depends what our lawyer says when I chat with him today). I'm also looking into the Better Business Bureau. In email corespondence our photographer said she would send the RAW files, even asked us what program we had that would open them. Then she talked to the second shooter, and came up with the copyright/illegal line, and has been telling us that ever since.

We are from a small town (3 hours from a city), and contacted probably a dozen photographers prior to hiring the one we did. Photographers in our area are mostly work-at-home people, there are no what I would call "professional" studios. Anyway the photographers we contacted ranged in price from $700 - $1200. The one we went with was $1200, and had the two shooters.

Yes, I am unhappy with the pics, but our photographer could have avoided all of this (lawyers/Better Business Bureau) if she had just given us the RAW files like she said she was going to do.

$1200 isn't super high but also not super low. $1200 should have gotten MUCH better photos.

Also it's not illegal to give out RAW files. It all depends on the contract. If you paid for just the finished product then you can't have the RAWs. If you paid for Right for everything than they are yours.

 

[Overread]

The rules about not being able embedding the photos (NOT HOSTED ON THIS FORUM SERVER) is ridiculous. I rather see the photos on this forum (moderated for NSFW) than clicking on a link. Clicking a link is dangerous.

These days an image itself can have malicious contented added which will spark off when the page its upon is accessed; so its no more dangerous than viewing the image if the user has malicious intent (we remove a fair few hidden image spammers which have malicious images embedded into their posts).

As for our policy on images we have a simple rule that if its not yours you post a link to them, ideally to the original source on the net of the images. This is because we want to keep what is shown on the site as being the posters photos only; further the rule helps avoid ambiguous image posting. We also have it as a courtesy to professionals who might not have signed over distribution rights (not every photographer sells/gives JPEGs and scanners are easily bought and used these days). We are fine if users present a clear notice that they have permission, otherwise they have to be links off-site. IT might be a pain for threads like this, but that is the way the rules are (indeed the strict following of the rule is in part aided and the result of user feedback as users have flagged photos via the report system and also been helpful in informing new members of the rule).

If you wish to discuss this further please start a thread on the topic with a clear outline in the feedback subsection.

And now back to your discussion on bad wedding photos - or boobies or whatever it is now

 

[cgipson1]

Thanks all for confirming that the pictures are crap! Sorry that they got deleted. We were told that we owned the edited pics (which I posted here). We were offered the RAW files, but when we were supposed to get them in the mail, they were all jpgs, and we got told that the RAW files were copyrighted, and it was illegal to give them to us.

Sorry that the pics got deleted. The pics have never been posted online (ie her website) but I may post some on my blog (depends what our lawyer says when I chat with him today). I'm also looking into the Better Business Bureau. In email corespondence our photographer said she would send the RAW files, even asked us what program we had that would open them. Then she talked to the second shooter, and came up with the copyright/illegal line, and has been telling us that ever since.

We are from a small town (3 hours from a city), and contacted probably a dozen photographers prior to hiring the one we did. Photographers in our area are mostly work-at-home people, there are no what I would call "professional" studios. Anyway the photographers we contacted ranged in price from $700 - $1200. The one we went with was $1200, and had the two shooters.

Yes, I am unhappy with the pics, but our photographer could have avoided all of this (lawyers/Better Business Bureau) if she had just given us the RAW files like she said she was going to do.

The way those were shot, is the issue. Even with the RAW files.. it would take a lot of work (hopefully with a professional editor) to make those images presentable. And as mentioned... it is the contract that determines who gets what.. there is no law against giving out RAW files.

I would have expected charges in the $200-300 dollar range considering the images... (and even that would have been high).. but $1200?? Right out ripoff! A lot of amateurs want to get into shooting weddings because they think it pays well... but they can't take images that justify what they want to charge.

Good luck!

 

[jwbryson1]

I MISSED THE PICS!!! Arggghhh!!! :mrgreen:

 

[Big Mike]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I saw on the most recent page that the photographer and the 2nd are claiming that it's illegal / breech of copyright to give raw files. On it's own, that is false. As others have mentioned, it totally depends on what was agreed upon in the contract.

The photographer automatically owns the rights to the images when they are taken...and they can choose what rights they sell/give to the client. In most cases with wedding photography, if we are selling the files, it would come with limited usage or copy rights. Basically, this would allow the client to make prints of the photos. This may (or may not) allow the clients to post the photos on-line and it may (or may not) allow them to edit/change the photos etc. Just because you have the files on a disc, doesn't mean you are automatically allowed to do anything besides view them.

This is probably why they are reluctant to give any raw files. Raw files aren't really even images yet, they need to be processed/edited to become images. The general consensus among photographers is to never give out your raw files because they are an 'unfinished' product. However, if the images don't meet the expected standard of quality, then allowing someone else to edit the raw files, may be an option....but they rights holder would have to OK that.

From the sounds of it, it was the photos from the 2nd shooter that were the problem? (or were the 1st shooter's photos bad as well?).

If they won't give you raw files (and the right to edit/process them) then I'd push for the hired photographer to get the (raw) files from the 2nd and either edit them herself, or have someone do it...to the standard of her own photos.

The one thing in your favor is that you paid for a service based on the quality of images seen. If the photos are clearly not up to that standard, then you may have a case. (they might have breached the contract by providing sub standard results). But, they may also have a clause in their contract to help protect them in this case.

I do hope that something can be worked out. Wedding photography can be an odd case because it's something you'll (hopefully) purchase once in your lifetime. So there isn't much room for trial and error. If you go to a restaurant and get bad service or bad food, you don't go back....I'm sure you won't hire this photographer for your next wedding, but hopefully you don't have a next wedding.

 

[The_Traveler]

I am unhappy with my boudoir session you just did for me. You did not make my chest bigger.

I can fix that - and no camera is involved.

And as a side note, in those situations, I work on manual with a very slow speed.

 

[nycphotography]

Very simple answer... find someone who does SEO for a living. find out what they would charge to have your facebook page rank first for the term "mytown wedding photography" and "photographers name".

Then CALL (don't write) the fauxtogapher and tell them: "Either I get the the RAW files with a full release of all rights from both you and the second shooter, in the next 24 hours, via FedEx, or I wire this $xxx to Vikraj in India and within 2 months all anyone will see when they Google EITHER "mytown wedding photography" or "photographers name" is your crappy pictures along with the professional opinion of about 20 other photographers as to your lack of qualifications and skill as a photographer and your lack of honor and integrity as a businessman.

Allow me to read you a few choice excerpts some professional photographers have offered as a critique of your work: "Anyway, they were really bad, for anybody who didn't see. Tilted horizons full of people with nasty almost pure black shadows on their faces all squinting uncomfortably at the camera, cropped awkwardly, etc. It looked sort of like a drunk monkey was handed a DSLR set on manual."

FEDEX.
24hours.

Or else."

*click* bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz



.... edited to add "photographers name" and priceless drunk monkey critique. ;-)

 

[Braineack]

There's a lot of cheap wedding photo post-services online, might want to see about having them send the images you'd like reworked to them instead?

quick google search: Pricing and Services for wedding photography post processing and post production services.

 

[Gavjenks]

I understand the feeling, but the simple fact is that many photographers include limitations on distribution in their contracts. Whether or not that was the case here, we do not know until the OP responds. Regardless, it is unlikely the copyright was transferred and the fact that she paid for the images is likely irrelevant.

I'm sorry that some of you find this annoying, and I appreciate that it makes the thread somewhat pointless, HOWEVER, how would you feel if your images were used in a way that you had not authorized, irrespective of the quality of the work (which was very bad indeed).

My wedding clients can share my photos all they want (facebook, google +, forum, etc.). As long as the photo is not commercially used and it is non editorial (if it is for editorial, I want to be aware of it and I should handle it), I will be fine. The OP is not making any money posting the photos here. It is part of running business, some clients are happy some are not. Luckily I do not have a client that is very unhappy with my work and post the photos publicly. If that does happen to me, I will just have to shoot better and make sure that does not happen to me again.

You're operating from an assumption of a rational, honest businessperson, Robin. Which is clearly not relevant to the photographer that this thread is about =P

In the OP, it is stated that the photog has been making crazy claims about RAW files being illegal, changing their minds, etc. It sounds like they are a very poorly informed, and/or unstable individual when it comes to possible litigation or whatever, so it is pretty reasonable in this case for the forum to play it safe. Especially considering that the thread is highly negative and would probably piss them off majorly if they stumbled upon it, making the aforementioned instability worse.

Anyway, they were really bad, for anybody who didn't see. Tilted horizons full of people with nasty almost pure black/white sharp shadows on their faces all squinting uncomfortably at the camera, cropped awkwardly, etc. It looked sort of like a drunk monkey was handed a DSLR set on manual.

 

[Tee]

I thought in Canada the buyer got the copyright? In that case she could post the images.

Either way, send then to "You Are Not A Photigrapher.com" and let the masses see them.

 

[tirediron]

I thought in Canada the buyer got the copyright? In that case she could post the images.

Either way, send then to "You Are Not A Photigrapher.com" and let the masses see them.

Canadian copyright law recently underwent a major revision, primarily in favour of the creator of the IP, and is now very similar to US law.

 

[jaomul]

It is likely true that the photographer does not have to give the raw, I have never heard of anyone even mentioning raw files on their contracts (to be fair I would not have seen much legal paperwork anyway). It seems like the lack of obligation has put this business in a "take the money and run situation", leaving the customer in the lurch. It seems odd that a photographer would not supply the raws, after all most people that take photos do this firstly with editing a secondary necessity.Many even hire editing out. Please keep us informed of how this plays out