Unhappy with wedding photos... help!

[MTVision]

That is what I was thinking! And that is one reason I can't imagine they would delete their RAW files... if a re-edit was needed, they would be held responsible for quality, and a re-edited Jpeg wouldn't cut it!

But....the photographer doesn't say they delete the raw file. To someone who knows nothing about photography "once the file is edited and converted to .jpg the raw file is gone" sounds plausible. I probably would've believed it at one point.

 

[Bossy]

Did you sign any contracts? What do they say regarding copyright release?

​

 

[amandajohill]

I did sign a contract and in it, it says: copyright release: included.

 

[MTVision]

I did sign a contract and in it, it says: copyright release: included.

What does the copyright release say though?

 

[amandajohill]

I think I'm getting it with my disc in the mail... so I do not know yet.

 

[MTVision]

I think I'm getting it with my disc in the mail... so I do not know yet.

If I were you - I'd contact a lawyer if the photographer isn't trying to remedy the issue. You can usually get a free consultation to find out what recourse you have. I would wait to have anybody do any type of editing until you have that release. Like I said before, since it's included with the disc it probably just allows you to print. Wal-mart, Costco, etc. will not print photos unless they have a release from the photographer.

Maybe try going to the photographers work to see her face to face and talk to her. If she won't talk to you or work with you then all you can really do is go to a lawyer.

 

[manaheim]

Almost makes me wonder if these things aren't just ploys to drive traffic to a website.

Overall those pictures are fine bordering on decent. As someone mentioned, the focus on the eyes and such is missed and whatnot, but it's far from a hack job.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The poses are cheesy and evidently only 6 people (including the photographer) attended this thing, but in general the photography isn't bad. It's....$1300 worth.

 

[Bossy]

I disagree that its $1300 worth. Its really relative to the area. 1300 in my hometown would've been on the high side. 1300 where I live now is on the low side, but not necessarily junk.

​

 

[Bitter Jeweler]

The OP has no business complaining. The work delivered is commensurate with all the work presented on the photographers website. INCLUDING examples of the "cheesy" posing. She got what she chose, and paid for.

I have a hunch the OP, is one of "those" customers, that is never happy.
I get them them too. You design a ring, show drawings, renderings, the final wax for approval...and I wind up married too it because there is always some issue, something, anything, to complain about. FOREVER.

There is always more than one side of the story, and I'd LOVE to hear the other side of this one.

 

[480sparky50 49]

Almost makes me wonder if these things aren't just ploys to drive traffic to a website.......

To what end, though? Why advertise photography services, even in such a back-handed manner, to photographers?

 

[Trever1t]

Overall those pictures are fine bordering on decent. As someone mentioned, the focus on the eyes and such is missed and whatnot, but it's far from a hack job.

I agree. I don't think they're horrible at all. Some poses are a little cheesy, some focus slightly off but for what you paid I didn't think what I looked at was all that bad. Honestly, I've seen a lot worse for more $ charged. Glad I wasn't your photographer!

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Incredible thread!

 

[Robin Usagani]

A few thoughts...

1. For $1300 consider your self lucky. These are not horrible. They are decent...
2. I have a feeling you spent more money on your dress. You wear it once and you wont wear it again. Should have spent more money on wedding photog.
3. Where are the guests?????

 

[Trever1t]

On that note: How do you handle a disgruntled customer like this? Honestly, I'd be a bit crushed...I put a lot of effort into my sessions.