Artistic License vs. Histogram???

DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grinsPosts: 24Registered Users Big grins
edited October 13, 2014 in Weddings
My daughter recently received digital photos (from her wedding 13 weeks previous). The photographer is very proud of the fact that he uses film which was then processed and scanned to produce the digital photos we received. It was a rainy and cloudy day and I was surprised no flash whatsoever was or reflectors were used in that gloomy weather.

IMHO, the photos that were scanned have an orange cast and they are flat. I took a look at these photos (other photos taken with digital cameras were fine) and again, IMHO, the histograms backed up my initial impression.

I have attached two screenshots from my CS5 version of Camera Raw. One is the original scanned photo with gaps at each end of the histogram, and the other with my corrections for exposure and blacks and after changing the temperature to reduce the orange cast.

The photog insists that he believes the original photos are beautiful and rich in tonal quality and that he gives photos a warmer cast for gloomy days to make them "pop".

Can I get some 2nd and 3rd and 4th opinions? Thanks.

196-WithLowContrastOrangeCast.jpg
196-CameraRawRetouch.jpg
«1

Comments

  • divamumdivamum Major grins Posts: 9,021Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    I have to say, I prefer the photographer's edit - much more appealing, IMO, with greater detail in the gown and other highlights (which, despite the histogram, *appear* to be blown out in hour version, at least at this size). It might print a bit muddy, but on my (calibrated) monitor - which usually displays a bit low contrast, in fact - it looks good to me. ne_nau.gif
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    Thanks for taking the time to comment. I appreciate that.

    My daughter got the brightest white dress fabric made and when I zoom in and sample the dress, the lace is there, and the RGB values are not all 255 (but pretty close).

    One of my concerns was that there was no "edit", that these photos were poorly-scanned from film and the orange cast typical of scanning film (made for printing on photo paper with dyes) was not compensated for correctly. As a "advanced hobbyist", not a professional, I would think the histogram of the scan should be near perfect without color cast, and THEN, the photographer edits THAT. Maybe that happened, maybe it didn't????
  • r3t1awr3ydr3t1awr3yd Lifetime Noob! Posts: 1,000Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    On my monitor at work (not calibrated, I can look again at home), the original picture has a pinkish tone to it. I like how you tried color "correcting" the dress but I don't like how over exposed the second picture is. I found the histogram not to be the be all to end all. This would be one of those instances. Can you post a pic with the original levels on the histogram but custom white balance for her dress with the dropper?

    Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
    Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    r3t1awr3yd wrote: »
    On my monitor at work (not calibrated, I can look again at home), the original picture has a pinkish tone to it. I like how you tried color "correcting" the dress but I don't like how over exposed the second picture is. I found the histogram not to be the be all to end all. This would be one of those instances. Can you post a pic with the original levels on the histogram but custom white balance for her dress with the dropper?

    Regardless of my monitor's calibration, when I sample the sky for example, the RGB values have orange or red influence or cast. Not my imagination or my eyeballs ;) You can use a BW monitor for that matter to fix tones and casts (with Curves in PS). It was a dreary day and I actually expected the gray sky to be blown out, clipped pure white, so that the subjects were not as dreary. I thought a flash fill would have helped the contrast.

    The "pinkish" screenshot shows the original levels on the histogram (of the photo we received). Again, this may have been edited by the photog or not, I don't know. Since software measures the pixels in the photo and not what appears on the monitor, I actually did turn the monitor to BW - I wanted to be objective. So I found the darkest 3x3 area of the photo by moving the Blacks slider and saved that Color Sample and did the same for the brightest area by moving the Exposure slider. For the cast I did use the Temperature slider to remove the cast for the entire photo with a custom White Balance and I admit this would be subjective based on my eye and monitor (but I also used Curves in PS to remove the color cast with the BW monitor).
  • FoquesFoques He who caN Posts: 1,948Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    Original edit works much better for me.
    Arseny - the too honest guy.
    My Site
    My Facebook
  • r3t1awr3ydr3t1awr3yd Lifetime Noob! Posts: 1,000Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    DrMillerKC wrote: »
    Regardless of my monitor's calibration, when I sample the sky for example, the RGB values have orange or red influence or cast. Not my imagination or my eyeballs ;) You can use a BW monitor for that matter to fix tones and casts (with Curves in PS). It was a dreary day and I actually expected the gray sky to be blown out, clipped pure white, so that the subjects were not as dreary. I thought a flash fill would have helped the contrast.

    The "pinkish" screenshot shows the original levels on the histogram (of the photo we received). Again, this may have been edited by the photog or not, I don't know. Since software measures the pixels in the photo and not what appears on the monitor, I actually did turn the monitor to BW - I wanted to be objective. So I found the darkest 3x3 area of the photo by moving the Blacks slider and saved that Color Sample and did the same for the brightest area by moving the Exposure slider. For the cast I did use the Temperature slider to remove the cast for the entire photo with a custom White Balance and I admit this would be subjective based on my eye and monitor (but I also used Curves in PS to remove the color cast with the BW monitor).

    You should totally post a link to the original in here. I kinda want to play with it when I get home lol.

    Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
    Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    r3t1awr3yd wrote: »
    You should totally post a link to the original in here. I kinda want to play with it when I get home lol.
    Here you go (this is what we got, supposedly edited)! I'm tired of the Instagram world where filters are put on perfectly good tonal-balanced photos. I still cannot understand why a bright white gown has to look like it's pink or orange to be "artsy".

    If ALL you do is to open this photo in PS and add a Curves adjustment layer, and for each curve (red, green, blue) move the black and white slides on the bottom to each edge of the histogram, the color cast is basically gone, and the photo has better contrast, all IMHO.

    And BTW, I think it needs to be sharpened and it's a little grainy (that shows up when trying to sharpen it).

    196.jpg
  • SamSam San Jose CA Posts: 7,418Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    If I had to choose between your edit or the photographers I would choose the photographers edit.

    Also I would not consider this to be a high quality image, I don't care what kind of camera or film was used.

    My main complaints would be the grain, overall image softness, and a lack of contrast.

    Sam
  • trooperstroopers Major grins Posts: 317Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    I prefer the photog's version of the photo. Often times I bump up the temperature (or use a warming filter), for an overall warmer feel to the photos. Just my style.

    Are the photos from the digital camera consistent with the overall feel/mood of the film scanned photos? If so, I don't see an "issue".

    Also, often times, I don't use a reflector or flashes for group photos/formals...the wedding day schedule/flow/number of group shots doesn't allow for it.
  • WillCADWillCAD Grinning Buffoon Posts: 722Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    Maybe I'm spoiled by the digital era, but overall the pic looks very soft to me. And it's crooked, tilted to the left about five degrees.
    What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    troopers wrote: »
    I prefer the photog's version of the photo. Often times I bump up the temperature (or use a warming filter), for an overall warmer feel to the photos. Just my style.

    Are the photos from the digital camera consistent with the overall feel/mood of the film scanned photos? If so, I don't see an "issue".

    Actually, no. Only the scanned-from-film photos taken by the photog had this "warmth". His assistants used digital cameras (Nikon D700, Canon EOS Mark III) half of which were edited to B&W but there was NO "warmth" or "style" added to any of the pure digital color photos at all, even when taken of the same subjects from the same location and weather (e.g. porch in dreary weather).
    Also, often times, I don't use a reflector or flashes for group photos/formals...the wedding day schedule/flow/number of group shots doesn't allow for it.

    We actually went to two locations JUST for the photos for 3-4 hours before the ceremony and only the wedding party and parents. Felt like a prop :)
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    WillCAD wrote: »
    Maybe I'm spoiled by the digital era, but overall the pic looks very soft to me. And it's crooked, tilted to the left about five degrees.

    ALL photos taken with handheld cameras. EVERY wedding photo crooked. Not a tripod in sight.

    Thought it was his "style".
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    Just to be clear, I did not have the original unedited scan of the photo to "edit" like the photog did.

    I thought the photo looked dingy and flat with an orange cast. I loaded the photog's edit in Camera Raw just to see the histogram which reads to me, "low contrast", "not enough black or white tones".

    My edit was just to tweak the edited photo's histogram to see what possibly the original, unedited scan might have looked like. I tried to get rid of the warmth by making it cooler with the Temperature slider.

    I did nothing more except to generate a histogram that went from edge to edge without clipping on either end - not something I would necessarily print and frame.
  • trooperstroopers Major grins Posts: 317Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    I would ask the photog to produce consistent photos, whether it be warm or not.

    Wow, 3 to 4 hours pre wedding for group photos/formals...I'm lucky to get 30 mins post ceremony. Even so, I setup a tripod and typically have second photog push the shutter while I pose the group. I strongly prefer formals to be level. I know of photog in the area that shoots everything, I mean everything, with a 15+/- degree tilt.

    Just curious...were the photos equal to his/her portfolio?
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 4, 2014
    troopers wrote: »
    Just curious...were the photos equal to his/her portfolio?

    Yes, and no. The photos in his portfolio are obviously his best, and we loved his composition of up-close photos of the bride and groom which are similar to his portfolio with no cast visible (the subjects took up the entire photo). But it was a stormy, overcast day for the outdoor photos, and all of his portfolio was of bright sunny days. Never expected orange skies though.

    I still think it was just poor lighting on a gloomy day and possibly poor scanning of the film (because the pure digital photos looked great IMHO as far as color, contrast, etc.). I cannot tell about the latter because the photog refuses to provide us with even TWO of the unedited post-scan photos. It's like he has something to hide rather just than tightly controlling his "art".
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 5, 2014
    OK, the wedding was in a new building with bright white siding, and here is a photo the photog delivered to us, and what it actually looks like (after my fixes - and yes, I blew out the lights). Artistic license for a drab orange porch? Please.
    PorchOriginal.jpg
    PorchActual.jpg
  • trooperstroopers Major grins Posts: 317Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 5, 2014
    I'd prefer to shoot on a cloudy day over a sunny day, any day.

    It seems to me that you're not too fond of the warmer tones, and the photog's product isn't consistent.
  • WillCADWillCAD Grinning Buffoon Posts: 722Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 5, 2014
    I like your edit much better.
    What I said when I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time: "The wide ain't wide enough and the zoom don't zoom enough!"
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Wedding Photographer Southern CaliforniaPosts: 3,352Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited August 8, 2014
    Go with the artistic license, IMO. You're pixel-peeping and obsessing over "correct". This is art! I could understand how you might want white to be white in a bridal portrait, but your second edit of the porch looks downright gross!

    The "look" of the image IMO is much more than just an "instagram look". It's film, it's been shot / scanned to look this way, I'd leave it alone.

    Respectfully,
    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 10, 2014
    Glort wrote: »
    You don't like this, something is wrong with that... etc.
    were (sic) the ones that got married and I imagine hired the guy, happy with the pics?
    I'm guessing they were and had none of the complaints you do.

    Well, *I* did pay for the photographer (and videographer, and florist, and…) ;)

    We were all happy and loved about 90% of the photos, especially the "intimate" shots of the B&G. The photog, not so much by anyone in the household.

    And actually, I understand and appreciate your comments. It's basically impossible to please EVERYONE, and there are specific people whom you should aim to please disregarding the opinions of others.

    But, the well was poisoned by the photog because of missed expectations, irresponsive communications, lack of attention to detail, and just plain business sense.

    The B&G expected the photos *by* 10-12 weeks after the event. My daughter saw the photog place "preview" shots of many weddings that happened after her wedding on his Instagram, Facebook, etc. At 10 weeks, my daughter started sending emails, leaving voicemails, about when she might expect even a Preview shot as well the ~750 photos promised. If there were replies, they were 2-3 days later and did not answer any questions.

    At 11 weeks, a single preview photo was posted. A photo bomb of the FOTG making a silly face under the bride's veil. The B&G were unseen. That went over well.

    Next, 351 photos were posted to Dropbox one hour after 12 weeks. Huh, what about the other 400? Where are the photos of everyone at each table we asked for? Where is the picture of the bride's extended family with the B&G? Where are all the assistant's photos?

    After unanswered followup emails and calls, another 300 photos were posted at 13 weeks. Is that the MOTG's nipple showing through her dress? Is that a bright red exit sign over the bride's head as she walks down the aisle (as well as a tripod in the balcony)? Why are some of the photos flat and orange, yet other color photos look normal?

    I understand that artsy-fartsy types may like low contrast photos with a warm orange cast. Not me. And as far as I could tell (e.g. histogram, color sampling, finding that scanned film often has an orange cast), those artsy photos could have all been technical mistakes and not "edits".

    On my behalf, my daughter simply asked the photog for TWO unedited photos of our family with the B&G, so that I could edit, crop, and print two photos that I would want framed in *my* house. And that would have settled whether the "edits" were indeed artful additions.

    The photog REFUSED to even send us TWO photos because it was his "art" and his policy on NOT releasing unedited photos was "set in stone".

    There are some business lessons for wedding photogs in this thread. This industry is ripe for disruption with delivery times over three months, non-responsive customer service, inattention to detail, hiding behind "art", taking money upfront with no hurry in delivering the goods, lack of professionalism, and prideful stubbornness.

    You all better watch out.

    balcony.png
    I think your edits are horrible
    BTW, my "edits" are simply what came out of the camera and the way things looked that day to the human eye, e.g. whites are white and not a dingy orange, skies are not pink, etc.
  • Matthew SavilleMatthew Saville Wedding Photographer Southern CaliforniaPosts: 3,352Registered Users, Retired Mod Major grins
    edited August 11, 2014
    All of that is well and good, in an entirely different discussion, and as you said maybe the photographer "poisoned their own well" in that respect. However, much of what you've mentioned (other than the epic fail of a delivery time) is just par for the course. You can't expect every wedding photog ever to perfectly frame and crop every single photo so that you never seen an exit sign, or someone ELSE'S crap in the background. Many times, there's just nothing you can do about that and you're just not paying for every single photo to receive advanced retouching. That'd cost quite a few hundred dollars extra, if you're going to expect the photog to go through and remove every exit sign or bit of gear from someone else in the background, or every wardrobe issue, etc. etc.

    Sure, I'd do a little extra retouching / advanced editing for a few photos per wedding, and I pride myself in trying very hard to frame shots to avoid crap like exit signs, but I'm just saying that sometimes there's nothing you can do, and that's not a good reason to be upset with the photographer's final product as a whole.

    The issue of the photographer shooting film is still completely separate from all this. If you had wanted "correct" perfection for your family formals, you should have discussed this in advance and requested that they shoot all of the posed formals digitally, and post-process them "correctly". Film is nice for hip looking detail shots and romantic couples' portraits, but maybe it's not the best thing to do family formals on.

    Having said all that, I would still just embrace the colors of those film shots. They look nice and timeless, and your edits make them look cold and clinical. The cooler temp and the magenta tint just don't look right.

    It is, of course, unfortunate that the photographer dropped the ball in general. My apologies for that. However I do believe that this wouldn't have been a problem if you, as the person PAYING for all this and as the person who knows what to look for in a photographer, had invested a little more time in advance to put your foot down about their policies, and request that they offer you XYZ before you sign a contract and fork over the $$$. I can guarantee you that there were probably plenty of photogs in the area who could deliver both the hip, filmic style of intimate portraits and relaxed candid imagery, while capturing important shots in correct, high-quality form on digital and offer a version WITHOUT stylized editing. (This is, after all, the exact business model that the 10-15+ photographers at my studio all follow... ;-)

    =Matt=
    My first thought is always of light.” – Galen Rowell
    My SmugMug PortfolioMy Astro-Landscape Photo BlogDgrin Weddings Forum
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 11, 2014
    Glort wrote: »
    Maybe the OP's Monitor is out compared to everyone elses and he's seeing something a lot different to what we are?
    Maybe it's the rose-colored glasses I wear? And did you just call me a name, e.g. "OP"?

    Anyway, on the scanned photos on two different calibrated desktop monitors, two different laptops, iPhones, iPads, and my 70" LED TV, everyone's skin looks jaundiced. I probably did go overboard on the exposure but it was a dreary, thundery, rainy day (just see my daughter's hair after two hours of posing in that weather), and I wanted to see what the photo would look like on a bright, sunny day.

    BTW, despite paying for a lot of things, I was not asked or overruled on many decisions of style and taste and contracts because I deferred to the bride because it was HER wedding and she knew exactly what she wanted. I'm glad I only have one daughter, but all of these lessons learned are too late for us.

    Still haven't got a post-able preview or final video from the videographer at 14 weeks and counting :(
  • trooperstroopers Major grins Posts: 317Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 11, 2014
    Sounds like the photog needs to attend a business 101 course.
  • r3t1awr3ydr3t1awr3yd Lifetime Noob! Posts: 1,000Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 11, 2014
    DrMillerKC wrote: »
    Maybe it's the rose-colored glasses I wear? And did you just call me a name, e.g. "OP"?

    Anyway, on the scanned photos on two different calibrated desktop monitors, two different laptops, iPhones, iPads, and my 70" LED TV, everyone's skin looks jaundiced. I probably did go overboard on the exposure but it was a dreary, thundery, rainy day (just see my daughter's hair after two hours of posing in that weather), and I wanted to see what the photo would look like on a bright, sunny day.

    BTW, despite paying for a lot of things, I was not asked or overruled on many decisions of style and taste and contracts because I deferred to the bride because it was HER wedding and she knew exactly what she wanted. I'm glad I only have one daughter, but all of these lessons learned are too late for us.

    Still haven't got a post-able preview or final video from the videographer at 14 weeks and counting :(

    OP = Original Poster (that's you lol)

    Did you guys not discuss the delivery times or the style of the pictures before this day?

    Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
    Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
  • DeborahLDeborahL Big grins Posts: 40Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 11, 2014
    I am making the assumption that the screenshot on the top is the "original" and that the screen shot on the bottom is the manipulated version. I like the one on the top better, which, if I understood the post correctly, is a screen shot from your monitor of the photographer's scan of a film print. Whew. That's a lot of steps. Anyway, for what it is worth, I like the top picture better, of the two, but I am not crazy about the top picture. It does, as you say, appear flat.

    As to the "orange" cast in the sky, it looks pinkish to me, and doesn't really bother me too much. I think tweaking the tone to correct the sky had the unintended consequence of washing out the flesh tones in the people and the contrast in the gown.

    I am thinking that there is a way with CS5 to correct the sky without changing the the rest of the picture. Is that not the case?
  • DeborahLDeborahL Big grins Posts: 40Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 11, 2014
    DrMillerKC wrote: »
    Maybe it's the rose-colored glasses I wear? And did you just call me a name, e.g. "OP"?

    Anyway, on the scanned photos on two different calibrated desktop monitors, two different laptops, iPhones, iPads, and my 70" LED TV, everyone's skin looks jaundiced. I probably did go overboard on the exposure but it was a dreary, thundery, rainy day (just see my daughter's hair after two hours of posing in that weather), and I wanted to see what the photo would look like on a bright, sunny day.

    BTW, despite paying for a lot of things, I was not asked or overruled on many decisions of style and taste and contracts because I deferred to the bride because it was HER wedding and she knew exactly what she wanted. I'm glad I only have one daughter, but all of these lessons learned are too late for us.

    Still haven't got a post-able preview or final video from the videographer at 14 weeks and counting :(

    I think "OP" means "Orginal Post"? That is what I get from the context of posts in other threads, including my own.
  • DeborahLDeborahL Big grins Posts: 40Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 11, 2014
    Artistic License vs. Histogram???
    Go with the artistic license, IMO. You're pixel-peeping and obsessing over "correct". This is art! I could understand how you might want white to be white in a bridal portrait, but your second edit of the porch looks downright gross!

    The "look" of the image IMO is much more than just an "instagram look". It's film, it's been shot / scanned to look this way, I'd leave it alone.

    Respectfully,
    =Matt=



    The eye of the beholder, I guess. I like the white whites of the bottom picture.
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 12, 2014
    Glort wrote: »
    You'd be the first I have ever seen anywhere that's taken offense to it
    No insight here. I was adding humor to the discussion.
    have you ever shot weddings professionally
    Of course not. I am an "advanced hobbyist" who has used Photoshop since v1.0 and I have developed a camera app for the Apple iPad with histograms, post-processing filters, etc. that uploads to SmugMug where I have sold hundreds of photos. And besides, I had to support a family ;) - that winky thing means I'm joking.
    did you remove every sign and article in the BG
    TWO photos should have been photoshopped (i.e. of the bride coming down the aisle, no one else), and another one should have never been released to begin with.
    it seems you are taking your annoyance with one thing and trying to transpose it to everything else
    This is a forum for wedding photogs, and not just for technical issues. Yes, I wanted other opinions, supportive or not, and to share the "client" experience.
    either hire someone or go do the main shots again yourself to the standard you require
    Oh, you're trying to be funny. Ha, Ha. Again, we were happy with 90% of the shots.

    BUT, what would make me happy, is a digital copy of every unedited photo that the photog delivered to us (~600, not every photo taken). But, the photog wouldn't even give us two. I just don't know what he's ever going to do with them that is so important that he is happy to leave us in this state, and have us continue to trash his reputation whenever and wherever possible, when we could just be DONE with him forever.
    God help the poor Video guy
    I thought the first draft was fine "as is" except for an audio issue when my daughter read the groom's letter 8 weeks later in our home in her bedroom and the audio levels and ambient noise did not match the rest of the audio recorded that day.
  • r3t1awr3ydr3t1awr3yd Lifetime Noob! Posts: 1,000Registered Users Major grins
    edited August 12, 2014
    DrMillerKC wrote: »
    Oh, you're trying to be funny. Ha, Ha. Again, we were happy with 90% of the shots.

    BUT, what would make me happy, is a digital copy of every unedited photo that the photog delivered to us (~600, not every photo taken). But, the photog wouldn't even give us two. I just don't know what he's ever going to do with them that is so important that he is happy to leave us in this state, and have us continue to trash his reputation whenever and wherever possible, when we could just be DONE with him forever.

    In all seriousness, there's a huge contradiction here.

    If someone was happy with 90% of a body of work, that would be an A- in school. That would be no reason for most people to complain.

    But if you're happy with 90% of his work and you "continue to trash his reputation whenever and wherever possible", that says a lot more than you think it does... about your attitude in this whole ordeal.

    Did you really not see his work before you paid for it? Did you really not talk to him about getting unedited digital copies before you paid for them?

    I WANT to commiserate with you but I'm having a hard time understanding why you're complaining with a 90% approval of his work that you signed a contract and paid for.

    Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
    Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
  • DrMillerKCDrMillerKC Big grins Posts: 24Registered Users Big grins
    edited August 12, 2014
    r3t1awr3yd wrote: »
    In all seriousness, there's a huge contradiction here.

    If someone was happy with 90% of a body of work, that would be an A- in school.

    "Happy" was perhaps the wrong word choice. I should have said most of the photos were "OK", no complaints, but not necessarily impressive nor beyond what ANYONE with a camera could have done and most not even worthy of being printed. We wanted someone to document the event and who was there, and so-so photos make up the bulk of what we received but that is OK. We have also collected about 200 photos taken by guests, a couple worthy of printing, but we wanted those too and were "happy" to have them in the void of 12 weeks of not one professional photo.

    We REALLY, REALLY liked about ten shots, and I REALLY hated about ten shots that I will "fix" and print, and all the others were just "OK".

    Now I had to count. ~30 pics of the boys getting ready, one or two will be printed, but OK, we'll take them. ~90 of the girls getting ready - two frame-worthy, but the rest were OK but not something to even put in an album. Dozens of photos of the empty hall, church, etc. Lots of multiple shots of the same activity. And that's OK, we want them, glad to pay someone to take them, but we are not necessarily "happy" or "unhappy" with them.

    And about 240 out of 650 photos were B&W and we'll never see the color originals???

    The "reputation" thing is the lack of communication, inflexibility, and lack of business acumen. Everything was fine as long as we did not expect photos before 12 weeks, we did not bother him before that, and that we were OK with receiving photos in batches and only after begging for them.

    Clients should NOT have to beg for their photos.

    As I said, my daughter liked his intimate, soft, filmy up-close, portraits of the B&G. That's why he was chosen. And the ones we really like fit that category.

    Who knew that the photos and style would be selected for us by a dictator without any "give and take"? And thinking we would ever think we would want unedited photos was beyond our imagination - at the time.
Sign In or Register to comment.