I hope I have given the right advice!

unholyangel

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

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.

If the industry have a special meaning of the word then the photographer should've made clear exactly what was included in the package and what wasn't. Since they didn't.....they've left the term ambiguous so as my post above, the interpretation most favourable to the consumer will prevail.

As stated elsewhere, photographer said all editing was included. Not just the basics, not just for x amount of pictures.

You may think its unfair on the photographer, but they're the business aspect so should be more aware of these things. They should have a written contract they get their customers to sign and that written contract should detail exactly what is included so there can be no mistake.

arcon5

Personally I'd interpret editing as touching up, but the photographer in his description of the package seems to make a distinction between editing and touching up so I wouldn't say op was being completely unreasonable to want minor objects removing - but taking major objects or people out would be much more than editing in my view, more of a reconstruction.

The photographer should have made the goal posts much clearer.

pimento

halibut2209 wrote: »

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.

To be fair, unless you were a professional photographer, you wouldn't necessarily know this. That's why most people pay someone who knows their stuff to take their wedding photographs. I would have thought 'all editing' meant just that. /notaphotographer

sgun

Just chill out and have them unedited. Where did they get married? At the local tip? If not, well then that was their day and they should be happy with it, they did choose the venue after all.

mattyprice4004

meritaten wrote: »

Scuse me? but isn't 'editing, Retouching etc' of the photos simply Photoshopping? I can do that on my home computer! and this photographer must surely have the 'Professional' version?

and I was asking whether a 'contract' had been breached!

if you buy a Package which is supposed to include something which the photographer then wants to charge for ................

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Do it yourself then, smartypants?

mikb

nearlyrich wrote: »

A friend of mine is a photographer, one of his wedding couples thought it was simple to turn one of the guests round as they were turning away on one of the pictures... and they couldn't see their face...

Tools ... Image ... Flip ... No? 5 seconds work.

What do you mean, "it doesn't work like that?" :rotfl:

I'm sure Photoshop must have an automatic bin removal tool by now. It's got everything else.

OlliesDad

mikb wrote: »

Tools ... Image ... Flip ... No? 5 seconds work.

What do you mean, "it doesn't work like that?" :rotfl:

Really?? So if somebody has their back to the camera the above technique will change it so they are facing it?? That's amazing!

ValHaller

halibut2209 wrote: »

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

I don't think that, in contract terms, this is all that relevant.

The barebones are that the photographer described package 'X' in these terms:

'All editing, retouching etc of the photos is included in the package price'

And OP's S&DiL have a reciept which states Package 'X'.

Now what OP's S&DiL are looking for might amount to asking for the moon on a stick - I can see where you are coming from. But plainly, it cannot be totally unreasonable requests, because the photographer says she can do it for £15 a throw. So if she can do it for £15, then she can do it for the contracted price - ie inclusive.

halibut2209

That is a pretty good point. Perhaps the photographer should just have said "I can't do that"

But this is all, of course, based on the assumption that 'All editing, retouching etc of the photos is included in the package price' is the entirety of the contract. We only have the OP's word for that.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

halibut2209 wrote: »

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

Blimey, it's no wonder that so many good photographers won't do weddings. It's not the photographer's job to stop people from smoking. They are there to take good quality pictures. What's next? "Oh, the 2nd cousin wasn't smiling. Can you change that?" "Oh, I think I'd prefer to have the mother-in-law wear a red dress. Sort that will you." This is ridiculous

whats the definition of image editing?


apparently its only crop cut paste and hue and proportion.


but the definition of image editing is much more vast than you tend to think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_editing

with the above link and its definition of image editing is it now unreasonable to expect this in your contract if the word free editing is present as part of the package.


you said it yourself "They are there to take good quality pictures" " It's not the photographer's job to stop people from smoking." but it is his/her job to choreograph the photo's for quality assurance, if there people in back ground where your about to take a photo find another angle or location so they aren't there smoking in the background.