November 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm #4734
This is not my photography. I had my wedding and my friend suggested her friend to take photos for my wedding. I could not pay a lot so ( I was stupid) and said okay. I’m not sure if i even want to pay for these images. 🙁
I was given 4 CD’s and none where edited. I’m really bummedNovember 23, 2012 at 3:58 pm #4736nairbynairbMember
If you haven’t paid yet, don’t.
The quality (or lack of) of those photos is definitely not worth any money. Out of focus, poorly edited and generally unappealing photos shouldn’t cost you anything.November 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm #4737
I don’t think that’s how it works. You have to pay. Depending on what you agreed upon, he has delivered a number of photos. Unfortunately arguing personal preference and ‘quality’ of photos is not really that liable in court. Just lesson learnt not to do it again next time.November 23, 2012 at 8:10 pm #4739NightroseMember
Soaringturkeys is pretty much bang on here. If the agreement was verbal, then technically the photographer has kept their end of the bargain by spending the time taking photos on your wedding day and providing four disks of images for you. I do think you should voice your displeasure though if you really aren’t happy with them, and perhaps you can work out a fair payment then. It doesn’t sound like you are paying them a lot anyway?
A written contract should have been signed before the wedding, to cover for eventualities such as these. I’m guessing you didn’t sign anything, which unfortunately means there isn’t a lot you can do legally, I don’t think. Others on the forum might know more about this!November 23, 2012 at 8:35 pm #4741cameraclickerMember
It’s been 6 months since the wedding? Can the photographer do editing? Can someone else? You don’t say how much money is involved, or what the agreement was. Assuming the photos delivered are somewhere near what was promised, you should probably pay. You may be able to negotiate.November 23, 2012 at 10:19 pm #4743NightroseMember
Wow, I didn’t even notice the date! Not paying someone for that length of time is pretty lame….
I’ve been not paid before and it really hurts! Definately now I won’t release photos until I receive payment in advance. But then I have a contract which states this, so clients are happy to pay beforehand knowing they have a serious legal document they can chase me with should I not come up with the goods (not that I would ever dream of doing such a thing, lol).November 23, 2012 at 10:32 pm #4745
i was supposed to pay $150. i paid her $100. im not going to do anything about it. i knew she wasnt a perfessional, my really stupid mistake. everyone thinks im overreacting. i just wanted to see if i was….you live and learn. i thought i should test her but was running out of time and money.November 24, 2012 at 1:07 am #4746GnorkMember
I’m going to be harsh here. She only charged you $150 for a wedding, and you expected great photos? Anyone who puts themselves through the hell that is wedding photography and only charges $150 is not going to deliver quality work. You get what you pay for. No, the photos aren’t good. But you agreed to pay her; you need to pay her the full amount. If you go to a cheap restaurant and order a $6 hamburger, will you refuse to pay for it because they didn’t bring you a filet mignon?November 24, 2012 at 1:49 am #4747Click It And Stick ItMemberNovember 24, 2012 at 2:52 am #4748
Great analogy Gnork.November 24, 2012 at 3:57 am #4749jetpixMember
OK, going out on a limb here –
Actually, I don’t agree that the analogy is spot on. It is not as though she ordered a hamburger and expected steak. She ordered a cheap steak, and got a hamburger (chopped steak) – the question is, does this chopped steak conform to the contract? Until and unless we know what was said, what was presented (did the seller show sample photos from previous weddings? If so, this could be considered a sample model, and thus an express warranty, under UCC 2-313 (2)(c)), it is impossible to determine whether the buyer received the benefit of the bargain. The seller promotes herself as a “professional” – thus giving rise to the question of whether the goods/services conform to the expectation of “professional” quality under UCC 2-313 (2)(a):
“(2) Express warranties by the seller to the immediate buyer are created as follows:
(a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.” *
All of this is to say that the issue here is far more complicated that may be realized at first glance. Until it is known EXACTLY what was said, EXACTLY what was contracted for, it is impossible for anyone to determine the extent of the buyers responsibility to the seller, and vice/versa.
* good, as used in the UCC, is implied to include services rendered.November 24, 2012 at 5:48 am #4751
He gave her 4 Cd’s. It’s hard / near impossible to argue in court that the photos aren’t good enough. Unfortunately personal taste doesn’t really hold very well, especially since she paid so cheaply.
i’m on the side of the fauxtog. He did a horrible job. But noone deserves to be underpaid. He’s put in the hours. and you know what? That’s exactly the quality you pay for.
you can’t expect to come out with something good paying only $150November 24, 2012 at 8:10 am #4753cameraclickerMember
As has been pointed out, we still don’t know what the whole deal was. However, I was at a wedding workshop this summer and the least expensive photographer there charged $1500 because they lived in a very rural part of the province and they felt it was all their customers could afford. Their booking deposit was $150, and all of their fee had to be paid by the wedding day. The other photographers also expected to be paid by the wedding day but they had higher fees and booking deposits. The person who put on the workshop started several years ago and charged $2000 for the first half dozen weddings, then raised her rates.
The hamburger analogy is not too bad. You are lucky if you get what you pay for and if you are paying 10% or less it is not reasonable to expect top quality. The photos are not wonderful, but they are not as bad as many we have all seen. Unless the photographer was holding himself/herself out as an experienced wedding photographer, I think you got a reasonable result for $150.November 24, 2012 at 8:40 am #4754
wait a minute, I never said I was expecting anything like a pro would give me. I was looking at pros that would charge me over 2,000 and i cant spend that on pictures because i have a child with serious medical issues so all of our money goes to her. we discussed how i would like the pictures to look. i told her i did not want the kinds of edits she did but she said she could do different things. i saw some of her other pictures of children ( i know its different from weddings) and they seemed good. the pictures were in focus and pretty good sharpness. we decided of a final price of $100.
I’m not going to sue her or anything like that. I KNEW ( sort of) what i was getting into. i just thought they would at least be in focus…i asked her later if she shot in manual ans she said no..i let the camera do the work. I really wish i would have done more homework and looked around.November 24, 2012 at 8:41 am #4755jetpixMember
It does not devolve into a queston of personal taste. It revolves around what is called the “reasonable person” or the “reasonable expections” test. If the fauxtog held themselves out to be a professional photographer, what would the reasonable person have expected? That is the test that would be used. But again, since we have no idea what the (apparently) oral agreement was, what was said, what was or was not proffered as samples or examples of work, no one here can say whether or not the fauxtog met the requirements of the agreement.
Has the fauxtog contacted the OP about payment? I’d be curious to know. If not, why not?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.