Home › Forums › Am I a Fauxtog? › very unhappy.
- This topic has 27 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 6 months ago by KarynLee.
November 24, 2012 at 8:43 am #4756penguinParticipant
oh and the ones you have all seen are the best. most of them have hard shadows on faces. sun directly on the subject…etc, etc.November 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm #4758soaringturkeysParticipant
But the client shouldn’t have that much control in the matter.
I charge $3500 on average and I would be pissed if the client thought that my photos are only worth $3000.
She paid $150 worth of professional works, she got given $150 worth of photos.November 24, 2012 at 3:03 pm #4759cameraclickerParticipant
We have not looked at 4 CD’s or DVD’s worth of images. The ones at the link look reasonably in focus, although some look like post processing blur was added. Facebook is not the place to judge the finer points of image quality. Most digital cameras have a low pass filter over the sensor. Even if focus is perfect, the images do not appear that sharp until sharpening has been applied during post processing. Post processing can take a fair image and make it look good. It can take a good image and make it look great. Of course, if not done well, it can take a good image and make it look bad. The same page has some children’s images and another wedding. They don’t inspire me but they are not offensive either. If you got the original images, see if you can find a good retoucher to edit the ones you like best.
Letting the camera do most of the work sounds good to me. I let my cameras do a lot of the work too. Cameras have a lot of manual options: manual exposure, manual flash, manual focus. They also have a lot of automated functions, and you can mix and match. Auto-focus can focus faster and more accurately than I can at least 99% of the time, so I use auto-focus a lot. I use manual focus for macro work and when I am shooting through and the auto-focus is confused by the nearer objects. The rest of the time auto-focus can do a better job than I can so I configure it and let it do its thing.
Manual exposure is a similar sort of thing. I use it mostly when using flash, or when I know I want something the camera’s metering was not designed to provide. The rest of the time, I mostly use aperture priority and just set the aperture and ISO. Shutter speed can take care of itself. I can see shutter speed in the viewfinder so if it is way off where I think it should be, I take control, otherwise I let the camera do it. If you shoot manual exposure and just zero the meter every shot, you might as well let the camera do it, because it can do it faster than you can. Save manual mode for the shots that need it.
Manual flash is similar too. When driving studio strobes, manual prevents the pre-flash from triggering the strobes. But, when doing a single on camera flash image, ETTL is just fine, the camera can work out the details.
In summary, manual mode has its place but the more automated modes are also very good and offer a lot of adjustment possibilities through exposure compensation and flash compensation, so anyone who only shoots in manual mode is wasting the potential provided by carrying around a camera with as much computing power as a notebook computer and is working harder than necessary.November 24, 2012 at 5:30 pm #4760fstopper89Participant
You got what $150 for a wedding was worth, sorry to say. The photos aren’t good but I have seen worse. I agree, none of the questions can really be answered in full without a contract to refer to. I would not and have not done any portraits without being paid in full up front (prints or disk later, if not included in the session fee) sinc this fee covers my time, talent, and the post processing. It the client suddenly decides, after all the work is done, they can’t afford prints or don’t want them, then I would have done all the work for nothing. You have to pay what was agreed upon. Both myself and the client keep signed copies of the contract, should any legal issue ever arise, either one of us can prove services were rendered or not. But bad thinking on not having a contract… Or asking moe questions beforehand.November 24, 2012 at 8:24 pm #4761lolkatParticipant
Did you look at her/his portfolio before hand? If not a professional portfolio, at least some photos they’ve taken in the past? If not, you’ve got no argument. You got exactly what you paid for.November 25, 2012 at 1:49 am #4762jetpixParticipant
Not saying the client has that kind of control. I am looking at this purely as a legal excercise (as a former corporate/contract attorney). I was saying that, were it to come to it, the judge and jury would have that kind of control. and I was laying out the standards that would be used. Since it is not, apparently, coming to that, and since the OP now says 100 was agreed to – the entire discussion seems moot. (Other than to point out the foible of paying 100 for a wedding photographer)November 25, 2012 at 1:27 pm #4770stefParticipant
The focus issues are all from post processing, although it’s both on Facebook and I’m viewing on a mobile so it might look a little sharper.
I really hope the OP doesn’t expect sympathy from anyone. She hired a fauxtographer on purpose, got more than the bargain, and screwed the fauxtog out of 1/3 the price.
This is the type of thing that doesn’t matter what the price is. You could be poor and agree on $150 or rich and agree on $15000. You got what you agreed to pay for, but didn’t hold up your end of the bargain.
And then you complained about it. People like you are why people hate shooting weddings.November 25, 2012 at 7:53 pm #4773creyes8519Participant
I hate when fauxtographers shoot freaking weddings! That is the worst beyond worst type of fauxtographers. Ugh! I’m sorry, but the client wanted photos worth $150.. I’m sure the bride could have gotten her sister or cousin to take the pics with her camera phone and gotten better shots. To the OP: Unfortunately, you are paying for the time of the photographer. The photographer spent X amount of hours at your wedding so should be compensated as such. If I was you, I would pay the full balance of $150 (since that was what was agreed upon) and express your displeasure to the photographer so that hopefully they do not attempt another wedding again.November 25, 2012 at 10:55 pm #4788ccpParticipant
what gets me is that when you flick through the photos on facebook, there appears to be one where you have commented on how beautiful it is?November 26, 2012 at 9:46 am #4803reality checkParticipant
My first thoughts… The OP is a fauxtog trying to make another fauxtog look bad. OR the bride, perfectly happy with the outcome was told by another tog that she used a faux And got her ruffles feathered. Either way, this post was never about whether she should pay or not. It’s all about trying to out someone, and cause some stir and drama within the faux pack in this area. Faux packs are quite brutal. I think once this forum matures, you’ll find it happening quite regularly. Try not to get sucked in like you have.
OP, move on to something else more important in your lifeNovember 26, 2012 at 11:19 pm #4819samantha198822Participant
Wow! OP, I think your photographer had some really good ideas. Life everyone else said..You get what you pay for. I do weddings for couples who are in a bind financially. However, if I were doing them for someone paying real $$$$…I would charge a $1000 up front and then more depending on what they order. I wouldn’t show up for less than a thousand. I hate weddings with a passion.November 27, 2012 at 8:33 am #4836EvilDaystarParticipant
150$ doesn’t even cover my gas and wear and tear on my car! You normally factor in about 50 cents per KM.
Driving 50Km to meet the client to sign the contract: 25$
Driving 50Km back home from meeting the clients: 25$
Driving 50Km to the bride prep location: 25$
Driving 10Km to the ceremony location: 5$
Driving 10Km to the formals: 5$
Driving 10Km to the Reception: 5$
Driving 50Km home after the reception: 25$
Driving 50Km to meet the client to hand over the final product: 25$
Driving 50Km back home: 25$
Total cost just in wear and tear on the car and gas? 165$
Then you have to factor in the cost of runing a business (advertising, insurance, office supplies …), the cost of producing the final product (albums, prints, disk, labels, CD cases …) … where is the photographer making any money?
Anytime I see ridiculous amounts like this, I know it’s just a stay at home mom or a teen with one entry level DSLR … there’s no way any photographer would last charging those rates so obviously, they have no experience.
It was a very bad idea to hire such a low cost photographer … that being said, while the images you linked us aren’t great, I’ve seen far worse (and so have you if you are a memeber on this site). I think, based on the samples you showed us, that you got your money’s worth.
You could always try and sue the photographer but, unless the contract has a clause in there about the type of editing, a seiously doubt a judge will give you a favourable decision.
As far as not paying the photographer? Do YOU want to end up in small claims court for breach of contract?December 3, 2012 at 11:07 am #5055KarynLeeParticipant
My best advice.
Pay the extra $50. Then ask for the files unedited, and send them to an editing service to see if any can be salvaged.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.