Wedding Photographer Was Horrible - Paid $3,000 and She Used the DJ"s Pictures

[jomalia]

My question involves a consumer law issue in the State of: Pennsylvania. My wife and I were just recently married in May and we had a photographer from a company do our wedding pictues. We paid $3,000 for a the photographer. We recently received our images and they are very very bad. Each of us have sisters that are professional photographers in the family so we had them look at the images. They stated that if they were a legit photographer they would know that the images we were given were of poor quailty ( over exposed, cant use flash etc ) She was also late to the ceremony and is using over 100 images from our DJ. ( The DJ's pictures are way better than the actual professional photographer ) After numerous calls to the company and them claiming they had a department research and look a the images and they found that they were great pictures and told the story of our day, they are willing to give us 1 hour of money in return. The company is based in California and I am assuming hires photographers in the area we live. What should I do ? The wife has been crying over this for days!

[jk]

were the images you received actual final prints or were they proofs? Is there a possibility the pictures can be "photoshopped" to improve their quality?



Generally, a party that hires a contractor is expected to perform their due diligence in investigating the work of the contractor prior to engaging them. Did you review a lot of the company's work prior to contracting them?

You need to refer to your contract for dispute resolution.

[jomalia]

The images we received were edited images. You would not believe how bad they are. They used pictures from our DJ. I think that says enough right there. We also did research on the company and they are supposed to be great based on their reviews. We have gone to them to resolve the situation. They state that the images are superb and tell the story of your day. Most of the images arent even hers.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Whether or not the photographs are of adequate quality is at least in part a subjective evaluation - it's hard for us to comment without actually seeing the work. Also, as jk suggests, sometimes even poor work can be significantly improved via computer.

What was the hourly charge? The hour's refund you're being offered is based upon the photographer's being late?

Suing a company across state lines is problematic. How did you find this company and retain them to find a photographer in your state? What does your written contract with the company say about where and how any disputes are to be resolved, and under what state's laws?

[jk]

They used pictures from our DJ. I think that says enough right there.

not really. That is such a simple statement that it is impossible to determine if there is or should be a problem with the fact.

We also did research on the company and they are supposed to be great based on their reviews.

did you look at actual work by them? I can find great reviews for just about anything but since a review is subjective, I often disagree with those reviews because the writer does not have the same criteria as their basis for the review as I or simply has a different opinion than I.

We have gone to them to resolve the situation. They state that the images are superb and tell the story of your day.

Most of the images arent even hers.

I realize you are bothered by this but really, is there a problem (per your contract) with this? Newspapers use images that their photog didn't take all the time. It doesn't mean the paper photogs don't do good work. It simply means the freelancer has a photo that is worth using.

so, what does your contract say to disputes and to the quality of the work?

[PandorasBox]

"Can't use flash" - many churches tell the photographers that they cannot use flash.

[drhaasmn]

As a photographer - I can speak directly to this issue.

If you feel you got bad images, first place to start is your contract - what does it say regarding the quality of images? About refunds or potential refunds?

Next - get ALL of your documentation together - emails, phone calls, etc... Including how you know the "DJ's" images where used.

Attempt to resolve this without going to court. Don't threaten the company - but be firm in your demand - what are you looking for at this point? Full refund? Be prepared to give back all images.
Partial refund? A reshoot is probably out of the question.

If talking to the company doesn't resolve the issue - go to the courthouse and get the papers to file a small claims or conciliation suit. These are typically for under $10,000 (depending on the state) and don't need to involve lawyers. It typically costs a slight fee (under $100.00) to file, which you are allowed to add to the amount you are filing for.

Then - get a court date, and get your witnesses and documentation together. Show up for the court date. If the defendant doesn't show up - then the court has no choice but to find for you. You don't even have to say much at that point - just show that you are there and ready - and if the defendant is not around then you win.

If they do show up - have your witnesses and documentation ready. The judge will ask both sides to speak their tale - then ask for evidence and possibly listen to witnesses / experts. The judge will then conclude things and either issue a ruling on the spot or say "thank you - I will take the matter under consideration " and then dismiss you - in which case you will get an answer in days or weeks.

Piece of cake.

Dave

- - - Updated - - -

oh - and yes - many churches do have rules about flash - but those rules only apply during the ceremony or religious observance. They do not typically apply to formal posed photos before or after the ceremony, during the processional and recessional, nor do they apply to reception halls.

A true pro has the equipment, and the knowledge to be able to handle any lighting situation they encounter.

Dave