This photographer sucks..

[amolitor]

LifeTouch does a surprisingly good job with pictures, considering.

What they do best, though, is negotiate. They are amazing at persuading schools to connect them directly to the parental money pipeline with various exclusive and quasi-exclusive and not-exclusive-but-we-sort-of try to make you think it's exclusive arrangements.

 

[Michael79]

I am pissed, we were able to take photos. We were asked not to leave our seats. From the angle I was at though, I was facing his back.

 

[unpopular]

^^ Yes AFAIK, the school can control the venue this way, and Lifetouch can stipulate that they won't do the job unless there is no photography permitted. Unless it being a public school changes this, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be illegal.

Personally I think lifetouch is getting a little out of touch. If they think that a photographer sitting in the audience is competition, I think that says a lot about the quality they're demanding parents pay for. Their copyright policies are WAY out of touch with most large retailers and their prices are pretty outrageous for what you end up with. I think parents who are looking for inexpensive portraits are better off going to Sears or even Wal-mart.

 

[Michael79]

What is funny, I responded to them stating I was furious. So they emailed back this response.

"Unfortunately, it was a technical malfunction during the upload process. We are currently working with the school to see if it is possible to coordinate a cap and gown portrait day for any graduate that may be interested. We will post that information to the lifetouchevents.com website as soon as possible. Again, we sincerely apologize."

So who knows, maybe some graduates might want to step foot back in the old highschool.

 

[Devinhullphoto]

^^ Yes AFAIK, the school can control the venue this way, and Lifetouch can stipulate that they won't do the job unless there is no photography permitted. Unless it being a public school changes this, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be illegal.

Personally I think lifetouch is getting a little out of touch. If they think that a photographer sitting in the audience is competition, I think that says a lot about the quality they're demanding parents pay for. Their copyright policies are WAY out of touch with most large retailers and their prices are pretty outrageous for what you end up with. I think parents who are looking for inexpensive portraits are better off going to Sears or even Wal-mart.

Lifetouch owns a lot of those studios.

 

[Overread]

I know a lot of schools are imposing general "no photography" bans at events (esp things like plays or concerts) because it allows the audience to watch the event rather than the backs of various phones/tablets/cameras/heads as someone is always aiming to get a shot of their kid. And that is to say nothing of the fact that most cheap cameras only have one "no flash" mode and most people never bother to find it (and if they do it always gives poor results for them so they never use it anyway) - so the kids get bathed in a sea of flashgun light.

 

[e.rose]

Having also worked for Lifetouch... You won't ever catch them using photoshop. At least not that I saw.

Ed-Techs are the ones that work with children with disabilities. I'm not sure a teacher qualifies to do that.

We use it like mad.

You use it? They didn't send it out to the lab??? That's weird...

 

[e.rose]

I work at the Church Difectories branch but we have a print lab and a massive retouching department.

I'm sure you do. I'm talking about what I saw during my time there.

Admit it, you were too busy banging your tin cup on the bars and singing blues to notice much.

Believe it or not, it was a good job.

I didn't like ACTUAL photographers knowing I worked for them while I did, but as far as day jobs went, it was fine. I got paid, I did easy **** all day and I went home. I'd still be there had the Spring season not been too slow... and then I got another job... then another... then moved to Nashville and now work for Apple which beats any day job I've ever had EVVVVVVVER.

 

[Overread]

and now work for Apple which beats any day job I've ever had EVVVVVVVER.

Does this mean we have to change your name to iRose now?

 

[e.rose]

and now work for Apple which beats any day job I've ever had EVVVVVVVER.

Does this mean we have to change your name to iRose now?

...maybe we should... :lmao:

 

[Steve5D]

They offered to reshoot it. That really should be enough...

 

[kathyt]

I'm sure you do. I'm talking about what I saw during my time there.

Admit it, you were too busy banging your tin cup on the bars and singing blues to notice much.

Believe it or not, it was a good job.

I didn't like ACTUAL photographers knowing I worked for them while I did, but as far as day jobs went, it was fine. I got paid, I did easy **** all day and I went home. I'd still be there had the Spring season not been too slow... and then I got another job... then another... then moved to Nashville and now work for Apple which beats any day job I've ever had EVVVVVVVER.

So....which PC do you recommend?

 

[Kolia]

They offered to reshoot it. That really should be enough...

Eventually they did. But not initially, which prompted the whole escalation.

 

[Steve5D]

I just read the article again.

The parents (and I am one) are reacting so beligerently it's funny. It's not "discrimination", it's a poorly composed photo. Period. But that won't grab headlines, so they whine about "discrimination", because that get's people's attention. They're going out of their way to completely disparage the company on the basis of a single photo (where have we seen that before), and it's simply unwarranted.

The photo was re-taken, which was correct response to this. Did it take a while? Yeah, maybe, but that doesn't make the re-shoot wrong.

Now, the $64.00 question: Who here thinks the parents will end up suing Lifetouch? I think they will, and they'll lose, and they'll look stupid.

As they should...

 

[runnah]

Well I think any parent of a child with disabilities is going to be hyper sensitive to anything that could be considered upsetting. But not being in that position I cannot say how I would react.

The photographer in me is outraged, but the parent in me is less so.