Would you pay for these commercial photos?

[jbamg55]

OK so I had a meeting with several professional photographers. This one guy took one of my products away and photographed it for free. The result was the bottom photo titled 'e-mail sample'. I was sold on the image as the photo had a uniform color and good lighting all round.
With this in mind I gave him the job and he spent 2 days with me taking photographs. Yesterday he handed me 3 dvd disks and the results I think are awful. I only think this because I have compared the photos to the photo he took for free and the some professional photos that were taken several years ago by someone else.
I would really appreciate it if anyone with any professional experience could look at the photos and tell me what they think?
Another thing I am really worried about is that if I choose not to accept the photos I will not pay him so I am worried about him suing me. Looking at this situation what do you guys think?

http://i1310.photobucket.com/albums/s648/jbamg55/Photoshoot_zpsded7bc34.jpg

 

[theraven]

They are bright and crisp but the angling of the products and the lighting are terrible! Was there any paperwork involved? If not then he hasn't got a leg to stand on.

 

[Derrel]

What I see in the "old" photos are images of woodworking projects photographed in dull,uninspiring flat lighting. On the "new"side are the same items, photographed so as to make the items appear more three-dimensional, and a bit more "real", and much less "flat". The photos on the right show the use of light as a dimension-giving element of photography, while the "old" photos show light the way newbies shoot it...flat, dull, shadowless, and just "there". So, the question is: do you want photos will dull, flat,even lighting, as on the left, or images that were shot so as to give a feeling of three-dimensionality to the wood projects?

 

[jbamg55]

If thats the case why are his two images different?

What I see in the "old" photos are images of woodworking projects photographed in dull,uninspiring flat lighting. On the "new"side are the same items, photographed so as to make the items appear more three-dimensional, and a bit more "real", and much less "flat". The photos on the right show the use of light as a dimension-giving element of photography, while the "old" photos show light the way newbies shoot it...flat, dull, shadowless, and just "there". So, the question is: do you want photos will dull, flat,even lighting, as on the left, or images that were shot so as to give a feeling of three-dimensionality to the wood projects?

 

[tirediron]

There's a significant difference in the specular highlights of the sample and the actual shoot; looking at all three of the "finished" images, I find the specular highlights to be rather harsher than I would like; almost as if he forgot a baffle in his soft-box or something... If I had to guess, I would say that he was trying to achieve some depth to the images, but only had one light available.

Would I pay for them? No, but then I could shoot them better myself! Should you? As the customer, I wouldn't be happy with the images, but quality can be a very difficult thing to quantify in court.

 

[superchris]

I think all 3 are quite different...
The first i prefer the NEW image, although I would just remove a touch of the light from it.. it is a bit strong.
The second I actually prefer the OLD. The contrast of dark/light on the new image is too heavy on the front
The third image I think the NEW is almost perfect.

Considering these products look like they belong outside/in a garden then having some good light on them makes sence. I'd be interested to see them on a white background. I presume they're on black due to your website design?

 

[amolitor]

The new ones are "better photographs" in some sense. As Derrel points out, they use light to give a better effect of depth and so forth.

I agree with tirediron that the highlights are a bit hot, this is unfortunate, and I think that these would be better photographs is that had been toned down a trifle.

As product photographs the new photographs strike me as terrible. They're fine photos, but they're not doing a good job of showing the craftsmanship, they don't give the customer a sense of what the product will look likein their own back yard. The customer isn't buying these things to put in a studio, they're buying them to use. They want to get a sense of a high quality product, and they want to get a sense of whether it will look nice with their bunnies in it, in their own back yard.

The only point on which the new ones are better, I think, is in lighting the interior of the first one -- we can see the ramp inside, now, where it was mostly invisible before.

I would ask the guy if he can tone down the lighting in post a little. It may be possible to flatten these images out visually, warm up the colors a little to get a better sense of the wood, and get a real improvement.

 

[runnah]

As product photographs the new photographs strike me as terrible.

Exactly. These photos are not selling me on anything. If I am buying wood furniture I want to be able to see grain quality, construction quality and fine details. Also I find that wood stands out better on a white background. with soft lighting.

 

[MLeeK]

What does your contract read?
You need to approach him and show him the major differences from his sample image and his end product and explain that those are VERY different than what you contracted him for and the harsh light on them is entirely unacceptable and do not show the products well at all. Handle it professionally and with courtesy. Keep a record of all communications.

 

[Tony S]

He spent two days with you taking photographs? Didn't he ever let you peek at any of the images as you guys were working? It would be interesting to know what his lighting set up was, this looks like he used a bare flash with no modifiers at all and no reflectors to fill the shadowed sides. I'm looking at these thinking all it would have taken was a simple review of the images early on and adjust the lighting and they would have been much better, your input then as you were working would have been great.

The main thing is that you are not happy with what he produced. Tell him that and why. You may just find out that he also thinks he didn't do the work up to par and might try to reshoot to fix things. For me being up front about business dealings is where it's at, talk to the guy first and try to get what you want. Then if it's impossible to rectify the problem you take action like not paying the balance owed.

 

[fmw]

It is a matter of preference. The old ones are shadowless, probably shot in a tent. The new ones are shot with main and weak fill lights. The new ones have more modeling and more contrast. I don't think either one is right or wrong. It is a matter of preference.

I think the new ones are too contrasty for catalog purposes and I would probably tone them down a little in photoshop. I would have shot them with a stronger fill. Catalog photography has to show what the product looks like as the purchaser will use it. It doesn't have to be "creative." It has to be accurate. I think you like the old ones because they are true catalog shots. The new ones are trying add impact to the product. They do that but that isn't necessary for catalog work. It also is usually undesireable. Photographers always want to add creativity to their images. That's fine as long as he doesn't lose accuracy. Hope I didn't confuse you.

 

[Helen B]

I'd say that the warning signs were in the email sample - there's not much attention paid to lighting, but there was slightly more attention paid to that than the delivered images. The originals are better lit in that more attention has been paid, but they are boring, as has already been stated. The new images are just plain lame and lazy. I wonder why the photographer turned in such bad work. How much are you being asked to pay?