I hope I have given the right advice!

halibut2209

Also, editing does not mean removing people from the shot. Editing is cutting and trimming. Removing things from the frame is an effect. If the person who videos the wedding said they would edit, you wouldn't expect them to remove people digitally. Editing is just that. It is not special effects.

halibut2209

OK, just re-read through. As iammumtoone said, it's not clear what the OP means by "removal"

Are you talking about just cropping a picture, or do you literally mean digitally removing things from a picture?

tinkerbell28

meritaten wrote: »

If I can photoshop an image to exclude 'signs etc' as an amateur - then I would expect a 'professional' to be able to do so.
BUT - my question is 'The Professsional' photographer is now asking £15 per photo to 'edit' - when it clearly states this is part of the package. I don't know how to put it clearer than that! I thought I had made that plain!

If it's really that easy, then what's the fuss about? Get the images and do it yourself. Saves a whole lot of grief, anxiety and anger.

Really I don't understand. Yes I would go as far as to say the wedding photographer is possibly in breach of contract. Then again maybe not.

I wouldn't see removal of signs, bins, people etc as editing. Unless it was just cropping involved. Anything else is changing the picture, the composition of it and is basically effect as has been said not an edit.

So it all depends really on what a judge would decide is an "edit" in a photography and what would be covered and reasonable. If it got that far, which I fear unless you calm down and talk to the photographer calmly and work out a solution. Well it will be your only option to take your chances.

Twiggy_34

meritaten wrote: »

If I can photoshop an image to exclude 'signs etc' as an amateur - then I would expect a 'professional' to be able to do so.
BUT - my question is 'The Professsional' photographer is now asking £15 per photo to 'edit' - when it clearly states this is part of the package. I don't know how to put it clearer than that! I thought I had made that plain!

There have been many valid points made both in the defence of you and your son/DIL for the possible "misinterpretation" and for the photographer in question, but I think that the one thing which has been agreed on meritaten is that it definitely does not "clearly state" that what your DIL is requesting is part of the package. Instead it seems that there is possibly a different understanding of what extent of editing is being considered. Either way it definitely sounds like the photographer needs to clarify what their definition is of this to prevent such a reaction as has been provoked by you, your son & your DIL, and as such, I think it might be reasonable to agree to some kind of compromise as to what work she should reasonably undertake free of charge to keep both parties happy.

As mentioned by another poster, it would be interesting to get your clarification on what you actually mean by removing things from a picture, do you mean cropping/resizing the image to take these things out, or do you mean to leave the pictures as they are but literally edit out the signs/bins etc? They are 2 very different things which require a very different amount of time/dedication, and expertise! I work in IT and do photography as a hobby, but even I haven't yet mastered the art of photoshop and the likes!

unholyangel

Where a term can be interpreted in more than one way, the interpretation most beneficial to the consumer shall prevail.

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

halibut2209

I would reply to that, but am awaiting confirmation from the OP as to what the "editing" involved"

bris

Clearly the OP is asking to much from the photographer, this isn't normal editing like getting the colours right, removing shadows etc this is way beyond that.

The OP to me looks like they want the photos doctored, completely changed from what they are, this will take a lot longer than it would normally.

There is a difference between editing and alteration and lets not forget the copyright of the images belong to the photographer, if they are to be altered the photographer needs to agree, so this goes beyond normal editing.

bod1467

bris wrote: »

and lets not forget the copyright of the images belong to the photographer, if they are to be altered the photographer needs to agree

Booyakasha!

(Provided that the T&Cs don't transfer copyright to the person contracting the photographer).

OlliesDad

halibut2209 wrote: »

So you expect people to be removed from photos for album shots???

I would not expect the photo to be taken until the background was clear of people smoking etc.

I do however agree with the rest of what you are saying, the editing does not mean they will start doctoring the photos.

OP, if you are able to perform the work yourself why don't you ask for the images untouched on a disk? There is normally a premium for this, however it may be cheaper than the £15 per image requested.

tinkerbell28

unholyangel wrote: »

Where a term can be interpreted in more than one way, the interpretation most beneficial to the consumer shall prevail.

Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

Indeed but what op is asking isn't what is regarded as editing in the photography world.

So maybe op should've clarified or has she just expected more than what is the norm. It seems the majority of people here seem to think it's over and beyond...

So what is that phrase about assume?

It's effect, doctoring, alteration. Editing is crop here, crop there, filter change, shadows.

So with all due respect. I wouldn't like to call out her winning in court, as it's not my chance to take.

But as it's easy to do, op should ask for the rights free disc and then do it.