Any rights to negatives?

Cloud0

Okay, well what I meant was digital files. Thanks for your advice. I contacted the MPA, he is a member but on probation as his work has not been assessed. They said he is not allowed to advertise himself as a professional member of the MPA, which means it is false advertising right. They told me to contact a trading standards office for help.

Kim when you have paid a photographer 1100 for a service and goods that are meant to be of a certain quality you expect results, especially because of what they have told you was included, you made the assumption that some essentials were. An anology would be going into an expensive restaurant and ordering a set menu of 3 items. The starter and dessert are made from expensive and high quality ingredients whilst the main course is actually just a microwave meal from a supermarket. What is essential in this is your cutlery and crockery. But they told you they have the right to decide and think you should eat off the floor. How would you feel? Just like the link Lirin provided where the couple took the photogtapher to court, they still kept their pictures. Why? because that's all they have to remember their wedding day

Equaliser123

Cloud0 wrote: »

Okay, well what I meant was digital files. Thanks for your advice. I contacted the MPA, he is a member but on probation as his work has not been assessed. They said he is not allowed to advertise himself as a professional member of the MPA, which means it is false advertising right. They told me to contact a trading standards office for help.

Trouble is being a member or otherwise of the MPA is not a guarantee as to the quality of the work.

Also, he will say that as a probabtionary member he thought he could advertise. Trading Standards will be their usual useless selves.

Lirin

You have no rights over the files, but you do over the service/quality provided.

epsilondraconis

Playing Devil's advocate on a number of points:

1. The photographer may have got somewhat annoyed on the day if friends and family were taking photos and getting in the way of his shots. Although he may not be the best photographer in the world, he was simply trying to do the job he has been paid to do. Obviously if he doesn't get the best photographs from the day, the bride and groom will wonder why. You've already said that a guest got very goods photos with their digital SLR camera. The reason they got good photos is because they have a good camera and they were taking lots of pictures (and it seems getting in the way of the main photographer).

2. The fact that the photgrapher(s) was sitting around when you were at the restaurant may be because at some points during the day, it is nice that people aren't always having their photographs taken. Sometimes you want to give people time to be more relaxed and thus when you resume taking photographs, you may get some better shots. At the moment you have a negative perception of the photographer and so the perception was that he was lazy. It seems that when he was taking photographs in prior to the restaurant he was rude because he wanted to get the best shots (so at this point he wasn't lazy), and then all of a sudden he became lazy at the restaurant.

3. Regarding the 'negatives', as you know you don't get negatives from a digital camera. It seems to me that the bride's mother just didn't fully understand what she was getting when the initial discussions took place on the phone. It is very rare to get the digital files for all of the photos unless you pay extra. If you do a search of other photographers, you will find that this is the case.

It's clearly not possible for anyone on this forum to judge the photgrapher or the photos because none of us were there; however all I'd say is that it seems that you are going to create a lot of difficulty for the photographer purely because you are not getting the original digital files (when as people have said, you don't tend to get them anyway). It seems that some of the reasonsibility is on the person tht organised the photographer to ensure they knew what they were getting, especially as it was for such an important event as a wedding.

Cloud0

Epsilon,

So what you are trying to say when you hire a photographer is they are allowed to lay hands on your family and guests and literally, shove them aside. This is okay with you? They were standing beside, not in front of him.
A good camera does not equal to good pictures, unless it's on automatic but even then the focus and exposures are different from when you customise it for a certain picture is it not? Otherwise why do people bother hiring a photographer when you can just buy a good camera and invite someone along to take pictures? Also, that guest did not take "lots" of pictures.

The main photographer is also the main videographer, his wife and a trainee was also present (I am assuming that they are all photographers because in turn, they all took pictures, and that the trainee was a trainee, because the main photographer shouted at him a few times). I do understand that photographers take a break and resume after when they see a potential good picture, that they also need to take breaks to eat and use the restroom. My perception of him wasn't that he was lazy, it was more of he wasn't professional. It's like you paid for a bottle of wine, but what you receive is grape juice that has gone bad.

Like I said before what I meant by negatives is the digital files. What was agreed over the phone is for £1100
8 hours of filming, 100 print outs (no albums/frames), and 2 DVDs in which what my sister thought when my mum told her what was included, is that 1 dvd would be the digital files. By all means if the pictures were breath taking, paying more is an option


Most of other photographers that I have come acrossed, included them. If they weren't already booked I wouldn't be here today asking for advice. When they need someone to step aside, they ask. You may think I am trying to be a little devil, but if this happened to your sibling or someone dear to you you'd be different

epsilondraconis

Cloud0, I'm not trying to stoke up an argument.

Cloud0 wrote: »

Epsilon,

So what you are trying to say when you hire a photographer is they are allowed to lay hands on your family and guests and literally, shove them aside. This is okay with you?

I think I'll just give up now. All I was trying to do was get you to look at it from the perspective of the photographer.

If the photographer was that bad on the day, did anyone say anything to him at the time?

If he did lay hands on someone and literally shove someone out of the way then that it technically assault for which they could be prosecuted.

I'm not going to post on this thread anymore because you are beginning to make accusations about the photographer that could potentially cause you problems further down the line. You have also named the photographer's website in your post, which is very unwise.

I really do recommend that you remove the photographer's website link from your post. I think it's fine to have a discussion and ask for the opinions of people based upon a photographer when the identity of the photographer is unknown; however I believe you have overstepped the mark.

I don't want to be involved in a discussion that could affect someone's livelihood. Although you are obviously very angry about this whole matter, please try to take a step back and think about the implications of your statements and determine how best to approach the photographer with your complaint.

I hope it all works out for you I really do. Please don't think I was trying to get you even more angry about the situation. As I say I was actually trying to get you to take a step back and look at it from the photographer's point of view; however I appear to have made the situation worse.

As I say, please remove the link to the photographer's website.

Good luck...

rrf494g

goods or services should be "fit for purpose". If the service was not so provided, ask for your money back or go to the small claims court.

barvid

> A good camera does not equal to good pictures, unless it's on automatic

Really?!

When we got married, we did NOT get the digital files. This is because the photographer makes some of his money through the prints that you select. If you just take a DVD of files and print them on your home printer, where's the benefit to him? We paid more for the so-called "negatives" and were happy to do so.

You say "2 DVDs in which what my sister thought when my mum told her what was included, is that 1 dvd would be the digital files". When I finally worked out what that meant, it says your sister THOUGHT one DVD would be digital files but your sister was wrong. No one actually told you the DVD would have digital files on; you just assumed.

heretolearn_2

No, it's not usual for the originals to be provided, unless you specifically pay for them under the contract. Your contract included 100 prints.

If you want further prints, you'll have to pay extra for them, or extra for the rights to the originals.

The fee you pay photographers covers their attendence and a certain amount of photos included. It isn't just a one-off payment for everything. After all, you could just print out everyone's photos yourself and then the photographer doesn't earn what they should, that's why you pay extra for the original files. They've given you quite a low quote for that.

The quality is a different matter, likewise claiming membership of a body when he isn't entitled to.

Cloud0

No one wanted to ruin the day...the only person that told him to be less of an antagonistic was his wife.

I posted the link (in which i have removed) because I wanted you to take a glimpse of his work (without acknowledging that this could possibly cause implications) ....to see what I see. My impression of him, they were simply just so. I failed to take first person persepective of this particular photographer because I have met other photographers whom are so wonderful both in person and in work.

Once again thanks everyone for the advice