I watched another photographer's reaction video on this topic, and people speculated there that the bride started disliking her photos after she got her wedding video, which was done in natural colors. Then she saw the difference and decided that she liked natural tones. I think this whole situation arised from miscommunication. Bride probably didn't know how to articulate that she wanted natural colors. And photographer just assumed that she needed to enhance the makeup in her style, when in reality she just needed to decrease the yellow toning.
I think you have a good point, and then the thing fell off the rails, because if she would have understood that from the beginning that first re-edit might have saved them all the trouble.
@@lukewtcleland it’s the photographers fault for not providing an example of the re-edit for feedback before doing a full second round of edits. Just a complete amateur move, on top of delivering a staggering 2,000 photos - which of course suggests she did a blanket preset and likely didn’t edit photos individually on either round. It’s not the job of the client to be able to speak in accurate color grading terms - that’s for the professional photographer, who need to meet the clients where they are at. The originals were inexcusably muddy - amongst some of the worst work presented in her own portfolio. Plenty of examples with more mild edits than what this bride received. GREAT photos, but amateur culling (try 2-300 photos, not 2000), amateur preset color grading not tailored to the weather conditions, and an amateur workflow for a second round of editing.
@@TheShelbinator3000I don’t think her having 40k followers and an impressive portfolio is “ amateur “ sure it’s not the clients job to tell the photographer what to do. I get that every photographer has a niche style and I’m sure the bride has seen the galleries etc. I do agree with you culling for 2k is a lot of photos. But to each their own and people have different amounts for different packages. Diffused lighting with an overcast sky you can get away with a warm look but she needed to dial It down a bit. They should have communicated amongst each other better. Plus I think it’s hard for the photographer and change that look because in her eyes it looked right.
@@eastcoastiso3523 when I say “amateur” I don’t mean it as some kind of diss. I mean that it is quite clear that there is a lack of a professional approach to not only her workflow but to handling a dissatisfied client. And also, to be frank, the edit is really muddy and heavy-handed - I looked through her portfolio and there are very few examples of such a bad edit (but they do exist). It is painfully obvious she applied a preset that worked on sunnier photos or shots the client liked from her portfolio, to be fair, but which did not translate here. I think it’s very fair to say it is an immature, sloppy color grade. There are LOTS of photographers these days that have high follower counts - 10k, 100k+ - who are young, super talented at capturing moments, and have worked a lot. That does not necessarily mean they have moved past an amateur work flow. In fact, some of them get by for a long time on talent and never professionalize. There’s no way around it - submitting 2k poorly graded finals is unprofessional. She did not take the time to pick the best photos and she didn’t edit each photo individually. She didn’t submit the 2k asking for selects. And then when the bride asked for a re-edit, she charged $ and didn’t provide an example to verify the client was happy with a new treatment before re-blanket editing in a second round.
If someone asks for raw images, i would not send them the camera raw. However, I think it's fair to export the images JPEG or PNG without correction. Essentially, a raw or uncooked image. I would also require the client to agree not to associate me the unprocessed images or their corrected images. In the end, I think event photographers should consider themselves documenting the event versus creating art.
I will also say, I believe initially the bride loved the photos. My opinion is at one of her friends made a comment about how the coloring is different and then that planted a seed in her head and everything exploded from there.
I dont get how photographer didnt understand her edits were way too yellow and orange, and bride wanted true to color instead. To me, those are just lazy edits by photographer. Its much easier to color match every photos by raising white balance to 8000 to 10,000 kelvin. Bride clearly said she wants to look more like her.
I am 100% with the photographer on this. I never give out RAWs, period. But, if I did I would charge for them up front rather than try to collect later after thr customer shares them online with everyone, as we know they will. This customer knew the photographers style before hiring her. She saw several galleries, both the one sent to her and other galleries on the website. I think she showed the photos to a friend or family member who said “I can take better photos on my iPhone” It is situations like this and the overall stress of photographing weddings that made me decide years ago to stop doing weddings. I will happily schedule shoots for portraits and family photos, but weddings are just too much trouble, in my opinion. To much emotion during and after the ceremony, too many opinions of family and friends influence the bride’s opinion after the fact. When a bride loves the photos initially, then hates them a month or year later, she has either had her opinion influenced by others, or just had a case of buyers remorse. Looking at the photos months or years later and not liking the style that you hired the photographer for, is on you. It’s like buying a new car then a year later regretting it because you want all wheel drive now.
I think the part that makes me side more with the photographer is that she said " I sent them the last email saying she's willing to re-edit so that they dont have to purchase the raws" and then the bride took to tiktok before really trying to work with the editing again. We actually had a similar issue with a bride. She actually didnt like her hair and some of the colors on the hanging lights behind her and the grooms suit and shoe color. We are 100% true to color/timeless/ a little bit bright and airy but we're not blowing things out like crazy. So i told her if we had to change her hair in 500 photos we would have to charge, we tried fixing the shoe color but it was impossible since we really didnt know what monitor or how calibrated her monitor was. It looked perfect on ours, so she asked for the raws. We were like take them and God bless your heart. Then she got back to us that the editor she had from Russia or somewhere said that he cant retouch her hair and the colors because we shot it "wrong" at F1.8 and F2.0 we shoot pretty wide open except for family formals but she started to accuse us that we ruined her photos this guys said he couldn't retouch them. I tried to explain that retouching has nothing to do with F stops if the image is sharp and shot correctly, I mean this is full body shot at F1.8 on an 85mm 1.4 and Nikon D780, at that distance they were both super sharp, but after a while she gave up, took the raws and stopped communicating. Never left a bad review so we didnt push our luck. She loved all the photos except for her hair, and the color of some lights, and the shoe color, and suit color lol! Sorry for the long A** comment.
I would definitely say this to such client: Ok, you don't like my style anymore, for what ever reason, fine. If you want different style editing, I will be willing do that and it is going cost you 123... About the RAWs. Remember!!! The bride wants unedited copies, so she can post and edit them. I don think she will go for unedited files with condition that she can't do what she wants with it. So she definitely needs to buy the copyright version.
Hey Luke! Love your comments on this video. I do disagree with some though. Around 36 minutes in you mentioned how the client has to live with these images for the rest of their lives. And that's true, but just because a client wakes up one morning and decides "I've decided I don't like these style, or trend." doesn't entitle them to completely either get something (the RAWs) for free, or continue to get re-edit after re-edit. That's why our photography style and editing style separates us from every other photographer. If you went and bought a new Jeep tomorrow and opted for bright green, because "reasons". then six months later decided, "what was I thinking?" would you expect the dealership to paint your car for free? I understand buyers remorse, I too feel for an unhappy bride, but lets be honest, the photographers style on her website and what she delivered is very consistent. On a side note, I'm wondering how many images do you typically deliver to a client? Watching all these comments on this situation has definitely raised that question for me. I've seen someone say 150-300 for a full wedding day, then we've seen 2000+. Just curious about your workflow. As far as your RAW question, absolutely I would charge for my RAW files, they're my IP, once I give them up, I loose all say in how they're edited/used. Thanks! Have a great weekend!
What I'm really learning from this scenario as a photographer is to really hone in on what's important to the client- so that you can give the best service specifically to them. Ive had mom's express clearly they want their child looking and smiling at the camera, while others want candids for an entire session. Everyone is so different. The fact that she is a makeup artist and did her own makeup for her big day is the largest piece to this puzzle. Meaning she cared deeply how her makeup looked in the photos, something she could have expressed to the photographer prior to the wedding because the correct color representation reflected on the bride's own work. That said, I definitely don't support taking to socials and blasting people. I think this is one of those areas where you don't realize what's really important to you until after that need wasn't met. I feel for both parties.
So glad you watched the podcast with the photographers side. Like I said in other posts, I think TikTok/social media likes to make a villain out of every story…when there is no villain in this story. I don’t completely agree with the price of the raws, but I’m not a photographer. It’s nice to know that some photographers have conflicting arguments when it comes to raws. At the end of the day, it’s a business and I understand that some photographers will put a price on raws and some won’t. Great learning lesson for future clients looking for a photographer.
I was hoping you did a follow-up video, I really like your channel and the last video you did about this I couldn't finish watching it cause it seemed one sided tbh. I did watch that video before your video and knew both sides of this issue. Again, thank you for making this video.
No problem! I would watch the end of the first video (or at least the last like 30 seconds) - as I watched the brides side, I started to understand the whole situation more. That's why I made another one. But glad you came back to see how the follow up did!
When a preset is applied to an image, it changes the tone of the entire image. It's called a global edit. I rarely use presets and when I do, NEVER without a layers mask to control where the preset is applied and full control of the preset's intensity. The golden tone preset in this case, warms things up. It also makes teeth yellow and makes wedding dresses look dingy. It changes color hue as well. Depending on the color, it will change some colors more than others, from pink to peach for example. Knowing how to correctly use a layer mask would fix that. This photographer either didn't know how to use layer masks & opacity sliders to keep the whites - white, and skin tones true, or was too lazy to put in the work - even after the bride offered to pay for the extra edits. At $8,000 for her wedding photography, the photographer should have edited the images the way the bride wanted. I am betting the photographer didn't know how to properly edit these images and just applies a preset to everything. I am with the photographer in the $4,000 for the RAW files. It's only that high because no one would pay it. I would NEVER give up my RAWs.
Trying to understand each side is important. I don’t think the bride’s feelings were unreasonable. I can totally understand “buyers remorse” and even judging your past taste. However, I think it’s asking a lot of photographers to suggest that our photos need to match the taste of some future version of a person. (How impossible is that?!) I myself am drawn to a more natural style, but has my style shifted over my 10 years as a photographer? Hell yes! It’s constantly evolving! Am I the type of person who would like RAWs over my own wedding in order to edit to my evolving taste, also yes! But it’s interesting to hear someone say they never give RAWs also say they don’t like images that they once loved and now feel held hostage. I’m not saying those feelings aren’t entirely valid and relatable. This experience does give opportunity to think and maybe even reconsider the way we do business. Will the new norm be delivering edited galleries and all the RAWs? I guess we’ll see.
I guess I still don't understand why she couldn't (for a substantial fee) do a true-to-colour re-edit. It was obviously important to the bride and wouldn't be difficult. In the re-edits the photographer *did* provide to "enhance her makeup" (what does that mean??), she didn't really change the colour toning at all? She would really just need to work with the WB, HSL and maybe calibration tabs. Her exposure/highlights/tones/curves etc. were all fine and wouldn't need any adjustment. I think the photographer was professional and polite, and I understand that the wider photography community agrees with her stance, but I would have re-edited a handful of images to the bride's liking (to confirm that it is indeed what she'd looking for) and settle a price (or hourly rate) to re-edit the whole gallery in that style. I don't fault her for the high price of the RAW files though, it sounds like that was set out clearly in the contract from the beginning before there was ever a conflict at all, so the bride/groom literally would have agreed to those terms at the outset. I liked the bride's edits of the files better too. They were gorgeous images edited way way too warm. If I was that couple, I'd be trying to figure out a resolution that ended with me with those same images edited more neutrally. I get it. I also get that this is not how the photographer edits, so you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and probably just need to pony up the $4K for RAWs. Edited to add: I do feel compelled to point out that the couple do seem to be intending to torpedo the photographer's career and I can't get behind how they've carried this out.
Totally I agree. The torpedoing the photographer is not a good look. And ultimately, I looks like the couple could have afforded to pay for the RAWS, it doesn't look like they are hurting financially.
Maybe it was after tons of requests from the bride. It was a lot of photos. And if it is not the style you do, you have every right to not do it. You as an artist also have to be happy your work gets out there differently than what your style is.
@@creativebeyondhouse i think you’re so wrong if you think wedding photography is an art OVER a service for a client. Art doesn’t need to try to make people happy. Wedding photography is expressly about making paying clients happy. When you’re providing a service, you do need to sacrifice the artistic side now and again to re-edit for a dissatisfied client - who was willing to pay, by the way. The photographer didn’t provide an example of the re-edit before doing an entire second round. That’s extremely unprofessional. And besides, the art is bad - the shots are good. But the color grade was flat out bad and worse than a lot of what’s in her own portfolio. I’d feel swindled, as the bride.
@@creativebeyondhouse Well you're just flat out wrong you're coming at this wedding industry photography service from the place of an artist first. Nobody puts wedding photography in a museum. Nobody sells wedding prints of the bride and groom to anyone but the immediate family, maybe close friends. Maybe. This is a client-first service that CAN be very artful. But do not make the mistake of judging any of this through the lens of the fine art industry. It is part of the wedding and service photography industries. Don't get it twisted.
As a retired wedding photographer, Hannah has a style that is very clear based on looking at her work on her sites. Most brides look at a lot of sites to see what the bride likes and don't like for their wedding photography, so I not sure why the bride selected Hannah for a real color images. I used to discuss what the bride liked about my style and what it took to create my story book style of images for the wedding album. I also had the bride bring photographs from various online sites and asked what it would take to create these images. Most of these images were from professional model shoots that would take many hours to create. I would tell them that I could recreate this style of images but it would take a lot more than 20 minutes between the wedding and reception, more like a couple of hours depending on requests and number of locations to get the images. If they still wanted this type of images, the required time and support for makeup and etc went into the contract. I only did one sepia wedding and that was back in the 70's when I was using B&W film with a special request from the bride.
judging by the videos the bride makes, it's clear she likes drama, she didn't settle down for what the photographer offered and decided to take it to tiktok instead and use it as content. she was offered different editing style even though it's not the photographer s fault , the bride loved the photos, until 30 days later when the bride needed to make story for tiktok.
I still can't comprehend this philosophy at 21:18 that "obviously, we as photographers, never ever ever ever give out RAWs" Why? I can see charging more, but I don't understand this reluctance to turn over the RAWs to whichever pictures were ultimately delivered to the client.
Because RAWS are huge files to begin and are essentially hard copies that we don't really need our subjects or clients to see. You hire a photographer for their ART, not unfinished work. So if you ever want access to RAWS, make sure that the photog will agree to sell them in the beginning as this is not standard practice.
@@charbar85 Yeah, I hired a photographer once to photograph a business event. I made sure he agreed to give us the RAWs. He had no problem with it - but I agree, you need to get that issue settled up-front.
Well, but we kinda see what the client did with the few raws she got for free…she took them, edited them herself and then used them to compare the photographers work with them and tell everyone how awful the photographers job was.
Funny most people talking about it totally ignoring the beige horror that the bride is even showing in her tiktok & instagram at home when she is complaining and also the photographer is totally in this style ... . In a couple of years, everyone will hate this style. This is something no one can ever win in. No matter what.
You are right about the style issue. Fads don't last, but she did hire her having seen the style, but the bride did not understand what the style was or what she really wanted or was looking at. Choosing less trendy styles last. B/W, light and airy, etc.
Yes 100% charge for raws. But I don't think in this situation it needed to be 3k, esp. when it's this bad already. Take that 1k and just go, make your client happy and let it go. OBV have a contract about the use of raws. In any case, I still 100% believe the bride hired this photog based on her style and ultimately decided it didn't suit what she wanted in the end. Or that she didn't look as good in all of her photos as she thought she would.
I worked ( Too many years in retail ) and this is exactly what clients do to get there way, They will start to build problem on top of problems and fain the Victim . While I understand the photographer had valid points , in this case it would have been better for her to redo the edits with a non-share agreement, and get rid of her. This is a case of I rather still be in business than right. I know a lot of fellow photographers are siding with her, but future brides are looking at this and are having doubts , The photographer is charging $4000 dollars and she can't even get the colour of the dress right.
" I'd rather still be in business that right " I think those are some wise words. Someone needs to print that out and put it on a wall or something! haha thanks for your thoughts!
@@lukewtcleland There was a case a couple of years ago where the clients claimed the photographer was holding there photos hostage , unless they paid an exorbitant price for the album cover . The photographer ultimately won the case in court , and it went all over the internet Because of the public backlash she received and court costs , she had to close down her business.
Here’s the thing, Hannah is selling a feeling with her editing style, we may love it, we may hate it, but it’s her choice. It’s not about are the whites white, or warm, or cool. Plenty of people want her style. I’d highly suggest everyone watch the follow up Vendor podcast. It’s shocking to learn how many more TikTok’s the bride has made now that she’s reached monetization with them.
@@Crimson_Myst Hi David i don't disagree with you , I'm just saying it only takes one difficult client to ruin your business , I have been there. The best thing you can do IMHO of course , is to get the client out of your life and move on. When I grew up if you didn't like a business you told your friends, and your neighbours, now clients can tell the whole world how bad you are.
Good for you for making part 2 cause your last video came off judgemental and one sided before hearing the other side of story. I personally don’t think this photographer is as experienced as her rates are and her editing is mediocre at best. But I’m on her side cause she did everything she’s supposed to do and the bride was just asking way too much and blown everything out of proportion.
People handle RAW pictures differently. I think most photographers don't want "the magic" of their photography being demysthified by showing the client the rather "normal" looking RAW. Some photographers just don't care. Charging extra for RAW files - for those who do that - does two things in my opinion: Firstly the clients KNOW that it is possible BUT that it will cost (a significant amount of money normally... because the photographer does not primarily want to give them away)... so it will put most clients off. Secondly you get a nice BONUS payment from clients that (at least seem to...) have very deep pockets... "free money" I guess... I'd say it depends a bit on your clientel. If you normally take pictures of rich people... why not charge them ;-P If you normally take pictures of lower and middle class people (and many of those probably think AT LEAST twice! before even hiring a professional because it is SOOO expensive! (yeah I myself decided against it for that reason... it just wasn't worth it to me))... well then it might be nicer to find some kind of middleground. Like giving out a certain amount of RAW pictures, but not all of them. Or asking what the couple would find an appropriate pricing... I normally just give them away for free.
I think there was fault on both sides honestly. I think the photographer may have done some batch editing and just preset everything which is a bit bizarre (a green bush being orange is weird, to me). The bride obviously doesn't understand copyright and that she doesn't 'own' the photos, the photographer does. The bride taking this to TikTok was soooo over the top and started from a place of vitriol. 2000 photos, my god, not in a million years! I wouldn't have said "$3000" I would have said, select the Raws you want and it's $X amount per RAW (for all of them it's $3K) Contract, contract, contract...have "re-edit charges" listed in your contract.
A while back I had a client that I photographed their event. We worked together for a prior photoshoot for a golden hour outdoor setting and they loved their images. On the day of the event, the lighting was very different. LED lights everywhere and very dark setting (more like a nightclub event). When I began editing the images, I made sure the photos were beautiful but of course with LED lights of different colors were reflecting on everything’s skin and wardrobe. Once I delivered the images, the client stated she didn’t like the images because she could see the different colors. I attempted to re edit the images to try to desaturate some of these colors but she wasn’t happy. So we came to an agreement of her getting the RAW images (I think I charged a couple of hundred dollars for all of them). I’m so glad this didn’t blow out on the internet like this one because I probably would go into hiding lol. going back to the Sepia Bride story - if I was the photographer, I would have re-edited the images or at least play with the white balance to bring a more natural feel while maintaining the artistic sepia style the bride initially liked. Obviously that’s why she hired the photographer, right? 😉
I feel like the the photographer found one style that looks good most of the time. Because, it did look good in those photos. However, it was a little overcast and instead of adjusting her presets and toning. She just plugged in the formula she already felt worked. A lot of the issues were a little amateur to me. Like you cant tell me any bride wants and ocean backdrop to dissappear to their teeth to be yellow. The photos did not look like the ones the bride already got. So many of the things the photographer says just make her sound amateur. 2k images, not delivering an example of an edit before rediting, not being able to readjust her photos etc.
Still bride's fault. She liked the golden style since the beginning. Time passed and she started disliking the style, she only needed to say to the photographer "can you re-edit the pictures in natural style?" About charging RAW images, YES you do, it is your work and time. The photographer failed in creating a contract when she sold the RAW with copyright.
This happens when someone's photography style is based on a LR preset and client changes their perception of "good look" by 180 degrees. Everything is subjective especially when it comes down to excessive post-processing. The truth is, majority of clients today select their photographer based on specific look and feel rather than true artistic way of capturing the moment. Photography styles are changing all the time...whatever was hot and trendy 10 years ago would be considered today as aesthetically poor. I don't mind some current processing trends but I can guarantee, in 5-10 years from now, these will be seen as totally outdated and somewhat ugly. I don't shoot weddings that often, only for friends and family and I do them exclusively in B&W.
Back in the day, you didn't give out negatives in order to not cannibalize print sales. If it were my client complaining, I would let her have all the raw files she wanted since print rights are typically included!
The conclusion is: If the bride is a makeup artist or photographer, just tell the bride that I'm not interested. As a photographer, sure I saw photos that I dident like of my wedding photos, but did I tell my wife? Of course not, I told her that I like all of them. As long as my wife is, then I'm happy.
I believe it's still the photographer at fault (and part bride for not saying 'cooler') and not understanding the white balance issue. Her shots on this wedding are NOT the same as her portfolio - it is clearly much oranger. Plus, if she knew what the client was saying, it would be a simple cool down adjustment - even if it was slightly under her usual work, it would still be consistent enough, yet she still didn't do that simple change. The whole way she handled it (attitude) as well was not very professional. That said, the bride should definitely not have brought this to public social media.
I'm on the side of the photographer here. It's obviously a case of buyer's remorse. The bride liked her portfolio, which was why she booked her in the first place. She liked and raved about her wedding photos when they came. It's like buying a dress you really like and then crying after a month because for some reason your preference has changed.
What if you no longer have the raws? I've kept all my edited photos since 2008, however, about three months after I send the full gallery I delete the raw photos.
I went and looked at the photographers photos on her website. She has a LOT of pretty pictures and she obviously has a great eye for mood and composition and very often in her photos, for color. However, that being said, there’s no excusing the pictures that the bride shared with us. Those edits on those pictures were abysmal, and after seeing her style, it’s almost like she phoned in her final product. I’m still team bride. She lost me with a non white wedding dress. This photographer should stick to engagement photos on the beach, which suits her style much better than a wedding. I don’t think her colors are a good fit with wedding photography. Orange plants and an orange wedding dress are a non starter.
Dude, I had the same exact opinion the moment I saw this. Looked great when she didn’t have a point of reference of how the person/ scene actually looked in real life.
The bride definitely didn't do this right. If she wanted to just give advice to other future brides she could have just said that she made a mistake choosing the photographer and that if she was choosing now she would choose different. She also could have said she wasn't happy with how it went and gave advice to others what to watch out for but to bash the editing with comparisons...that was uncalled for. She made the photographer look incompetent when it was clearly the result of bad communication.
I think the bride paid the price of her mistake, but the photographer will pay the price of her mistake for the entire of her career, this is internet and it can destroy your career
Photographers need to show before edit and after edit so customers know what type of “style” you put on photos. It’s hard to tell, but not so much in this case, what is natural and what is not. It sounds like the photographer could’ve just applied Lightroom “auto” in batch and be done.
I am more on the brides side because I think the editing is terrible. These will not be timeless images. As you said 10 years from now that heavy warm might be looked at like selective color. And yes charge for raws.
I watched another photographer's reaction video on this topic, and people speculated there that the bride started disliking her photos after she got her wedding video, which was done in natural colors. Then she saw the difference and decided that she liked natural tones. I think this whole situation arised from miscommunication. Bride probably didn't know how to articulate that she wanted natural colors. And photographer just assumed that she needed to enhance the makeup in her style, when in reality she just needed to decrease the yellow toning.
Oh that's interesting! Yeah totally, you make some good points here
I think you have a good point, and then the thing fell off the rails, because if she would have understood that from the beginning that first re-edit might have saved them all the trouble.
@@lukewtcleland it’s the photographers fault for not providing an example of the re-edit for feedback before doing a full second round of edits. Just a complete amateur move, on top of delivering a staggering 2,000 photos - which of course suggests she did a blanket preset and likely didn’t edit photos individually on either round.
It’s not the job of the client to be able to speak in accurate color grading terms - that’s for the professional photographer, who need to meet the clients where they are at.
The originals were inexcusably muddy - amongst some of the worst work presented in her own portfolio. Plenty of examples with more mild edits than what this bride received.
GREAT photos, but amateur culling (try 2-300 photos, not 2000), amateur preset color grading not tailored to the weather conditions, and an amateur workflow for a second round of editing.
@@TheShelbinator3000I don’t think her having 40k followers and an impressive portfolio is “ amateur “ sure it’s not the clients job to tell the photographer what to do. I get that every photographer has a niche style and I’m sure the bride has seen the galleries etc. I do agree with you culling for 2k is a lot of photos. But to each their own and people have different amounts for different packages. Diffused lighting with an overcast sky you can get away with a warm look but she needed to dial
It down a bit. They should have communicated amongst each other better. Plus I think it’s hard for the photographer and change that look because in her eyes it looked right.
@@eastcoastiso3523 when I say “amateur” I don’t mean it as some kind of diss. I mean that it is quite clear that there is a lack of a professional approach to not only her workflow but to handling a dissatisfied client. And also, to be frank, the edit is really muddy and heavy-handed - I looked through her portfolio and there are very few examples of such a bad edit (but they do exist). It is painfully obvious she applied a preset that worked on sunnier photos or shots the client liked from her portfolio, to be fair, but which did not translate here. I think it’s very fair to say it is an immature, sloppy color grade.
There are LOTS of photographers these days that have high follower counts - 10k, 100k+ - who are young, super talented at capturing moments, and have worked a lot. That does not necessarily mean they have moved past an amateur work flow. In fact, some of them get by for a long time on talent and never professionalize.
There’s no way around it - submitting 2k poorly graded finals is unprofessional. She did not take the time to pick the best photos and she didn’t edit each photo individually. She didn’t submit the 2k asking for selects. And then when the bride asked for a re-edit, she charged $ and didn’t provide an example to verify the client was happy with a new treatment before re-blanket editing in a second round.
If someone asks for raw images, i would not send them the camera raw. However, I think it's fair to export the images JPEG or PNG without correction. Essentially, a raw or uncooked image.
I would also require the client to agree not to associate me the unprocessed images or their corrected images.
In the end, I think event photographers should consider themselves documenting the event versus creating art.
I will also say, I believe initially the bride loved the photos. My opinion is at one of her friends made a comment about how the coloring is different and then that planted a seed in her head and everything exploded from there.
a seed definitely exploded! ha
Yessss I feel the same way
I dont get how photographer didnt understand her edits were way too yellow and orange, and bride wanted true to color instead. To me, those are just lazy edits by photographer. Its much easier to color match every photos by raising white balance to 8000 to 10,000 kelvin. Bride clearly said she wants to look more like her.
I am 100% with the photographer on this. I never give out RAWs, period. But, if I did I would charge for them up front rather than try to collect later after thr customer shares them online with everyone, as we know they will. This customer knew the photographers style before hiring her. She saw several galleries, both the one sent to her and other galleries on the website. I think she showed the photos to a friend or family member who said “I can take better photos on my iPhone” It is situations like this and the overall stress of photographing weddings that made me decide years ago to stop doing weddings. I will happily schedule shoots for portraits and family photos, but weddings are just too much trouble, in my opinion. To much emotion during and after the ceremony, too many opinions of family and friends influence the bride’s opinion after the fact. When a bride loves the photos initially, then hates them a month or year later, she has either had her opinion influenced by others, or just had a case of buyers remorse. Looking at the photos months or years later and not liking the style that you hired the photographer for, is on you. It’s like buying a new car then a year later regretting it because you want all wheel drive now.
I think the part that makes me side more with the photographer is that she said " I sent them the last email saying she's willing to re-edit so that they dont have to purchase the raws" and then the bride took to tiktok before really trying to work with the editing again. We actually had a similar issue with a bride. She actually didnt like her hair and some of the colors on the hanging lights behind her and the grooms suit and shoe color. We are 100% true to color/timeless/ a little bit bright and airy but we're not blowing things out like crazy. So i told her if we had to change her hair in 500 photos we would have to charge, we tried fixing the shoe color but it was impossible since we really didnt know what monitor or how calibrated her monitor was. It looked perfect on ours, so she asked for the raws. We were like take them and God bless your heart. Then she got back to us that the editor she had from Russia or somewhere said that he cant retouch her hair and the colors because we shot it "wrong" at F1.8 and F2.0 we shoot pretty wide open except for family formals but she started to accuse us that we ruined her photos this guys said he couldn't retouch them. I tried to explain that retouching has nothing to do with F stops if the image is sharp and shot correctly, I mean this is full body shot at F1.8 on an 85mm 1.4 and Nikon D780, at that distance they were both super sharp, but after a while she gave up, took the raws and stopped communicating. Never left a bad review so we didnt push our luck. She loved all the photos except for her hair, and the color of some lights, and the shoe color, and suit color lol! Sorry for the long A** comment.
I would definitely say this to such client: Ok, you don't like my style anymore, for what ever reason, fine. If you want different style editing, I will be willing do that and it is going cost you 123... About the RAWs. Remember!!! The bride wants unedited copies, so she can post and edit them. I don think she will go for unedited files with condition that she can't do what she wants with it. So she definitely needs to buy the copyright version.
Hey Luke! Love your comments on this video. I do disagree with some though. Around 36 minutes in you mentioned how the client has to live with these images for the rest of their lives. And that's true, but just because a client wakes up one morning and decides "I've decided I don't like these style, or trend." doesn't entitle them to completely either get something (the RAWs) for free, or continue to get re-edit after re-edit. That's why our photography style and editing style separates us from every other photographer. If you went and bought a new Jeep tomorrow and opted for bright green, because "reasons". then six months later decided, "what was I thinking?" would you expect the dealership to paint your car for free? I understand buyers remorse, I too feel for an unhappy bride, but lets be honest, the photographers style on her website and what she delivered is very consistent. On a side note, I'm wondering how many images do you typically deliver to a client? Watching all these comments on this situation has definitely raised that question for me. I've seen someone say 150-300 for a full wedding day, then we've seen 2000+. Just curious about your workflow. As far as your RAW question, absolutely I would charge for my RAW files, they're my IP, once I give them up, I loose all say in how they're edited/used. Thanks! Have a great weekend!
Haha the saga continues. I watched Hannah’s video, and I still think it was a complicated situation, but at the end of the day, I’m still team bride.
definitely a complicated one for sure.
What I'm really learning from this scenario as a photographer is to really hone in on what's important to the client- so that you can give the best service specifically to them. Ive had mom's express clearly they want their child looking and smiling at the camera, while others want candids for an entire session. Everyone is so different. The fact that she is a makeup artist and did her own makeup for her big day is the largest piece to this puzzle. Meaning she cared deeply how her makeup looked in the photos, something she could have expressed to the photographer prior to the wedding because the correct color representation reflected on the bride's own work. That said, I definitely don't support taking to socials and blasting people. I think this is one of those areas where you don't realize what's really important to you until after that need wasn't met. I feel for both parties.
Good points here. Really understanding what the client wants is key I think too.
So glad you watched the podcast with the photographers side. Like I said in other posts, I think TikTok/social media likes to make a villain out of every story…when there is no villain in this story. I don’t completely agree with the price of the raws, but I’m not a photographer. It’s nice to know that some photographers have conflicting arguments when it comes to raws. At the end of the day, it’s a business and I understand that some photographers will put a price on raws and some won’t. Great learning lesson for future clients looking for a photographer.
Sounds like the photographer could have saved herself a lot of headache by just getting Luke’s Light and Airy preset 😂👍
hahahha
I was hoping you did a follow-up video, I really like your channel and the last video you did about this I couldn't finish watching it cause it seemed one sided tbh. I did watch that video before your video and knew both sides of this issue. Again, thank you for making this video.
No problem! I would watch the end of the first video (or at least the last like 30 seconds) - as I watched the brides side, I started to understand the whole situation more. That's why I made another one. But glad you came back to see how the follow up did!
When a preset is applied to an image, it changes the tone of the entire image. It's called a global edit. I rarely use presets and when I do, NEVER without a layers mask to control where the preset is applied and full control of the preset's intensity.
The golden tone preset in this case, warms things up. It also makes teeth yellow and makes wedding dresses look dingy. It changes color hue as well. Depending on the color, it will change some colors more than others, from pink to peach for example. Knowing how to correctly use a layer mask would fix that.
This photographer either didn't know how to use layer masks & opacity sliders to keep the whites - white, and skin tones true, or was too lazy to put in the work - even after the bride offered to pay for the extra edits. At $8,000 for her wedding photography, the photographer should have edited the images the way the bride wanted. I am betting the photographer didn't know how to properly edit these images and just applies a preset to everything.
I am with the photographer in the $4,000 for the RAW files. It's only that high because no one would pay it.
I would NEVER give up my RAWs.
Trying to understand each side is important. I don’t think the bride’s feelings were unreasonable. I can totally understand “buyers remorse” and even judging your past taste. However, I think it’s asking a lot of photographers to suggest that our photos need to match the taste of some future version of a person. (How impossible is that?!) I myself am drawn to a more natural style, but has my style shifted over my 10 years as a photographer? Hell yes! It’s constantly evolving! Am I the type of person who would like RAWs over my own wedding in order to edit to my evolving taste, also yes! But it’s interesting to hear someone say they never give RAWs also say they don’t like images that they once loved and now feel held hostage. I’m not saying those feelings aren’t entirely valid and relatable. This experience does give opportunity to think and maybe even reconsider the way we do business. Will the new norm be delivering edited galleries and all the RAWs? I guess we’ll see.
I guess I still don't understand why she couldn't (for a substantial fee) do a true-to-colour re-edit. It was obviously important to the bride and wouldn't be difficult. In the re-edits the photographer *did* provide to "enhance her makeup" (what does that mean??), she didn't really change the colour toning at all? She would really just need to work with the WB, HSL and maybe calibration tabs. Her exposure/highlights/tones/curves etc. were all fine and wouldn't need any adjustment. I think the photographer was professional and polite, and I understand that the wider photography community agrees with her stance, but I would have re-edited a handful of images to the bride's liking (to confirm that it is indeed what she'd looking for) and settle a price (or hourly rate) to re-edit the whole gallery in that style. I don't fault her for the high price of the RAW files though, it sounds like that was set out clearly in the contract from the beginning before there was ever a conflict at all, so the bride/groom literally would have agreed to those terms at the outset. I liked the bride's edits of the files better too. They were gorgeous images edited way way too warm. If I was that couple, I'd be trying to figure out a resolution that ended with me with those same images edited more neutrally. I get it. I also get that this is not how the photographer edits, so you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and probably just need to pony up the $4K for RAWs. Edited to add: I do feel compelled to point out that the couple do seem to be intending to torpedo the photographer's career and I can't get behind how they've carried this out.
Totally I agree. The torpedoing the photographer is not a good look. And ultimately, I looks like the couple could have afforded to pay for the RAWS, it doesn't look like they are hurting financially.
Maybe it was after tons of requests from the bride. It was a lot of photos. And if it is not the style you do, you have every right to not do it. You as an artist also have to be happy your work gets out there differently than what your style is.
@@creativebeyondhouse i think you’re so wrong if you think wedding photography is an art OVER a service for a client. Art doesn’t need to try to make people happy. Wedding photography is expressly about making paying clients happy. When you’re providing a service, you do need to sacrifice the artistic side now and again to re-edit for a dissatisfied client - who was willing to pay, by the way. The photographer didn’t provide an example of the re-edit before doing an entire second round. That’s extremely unprofessional. And besides, the art is bad - the shots are good. But the color grade was flat out bad and worse than a lot of what’s in her own portfolio. I’d feel swindled, as the bride.
@@TheShelbinator3000 then we agree to disagree.
@@creativebeyondhouse Well you're just flat out wrong you're coming at this wedding industry photography service from the place of an artist first. Nobody puts wedding photography in a museum. Nobody sells wedding prints of the bride and groom to anyone but the immediate family, maybe close friends. Maybe. This is a client-first service that CAN be very artful. But do not make the mistake of judging any of this through the lens of the fine art industry. It is part of the wedding and service photography industries. Don't get it twisted.
As a retired wedding photographer, Hannah has a style that is very clear based on looking at her work on her sites. Most brides look at a lot of sites to see what the bride likes and don't like for their wedding photography, so I not sure why the bride selected Hannah for a real color images. I used to discuss what the bride liked about my style and what it took to create my story book style of images for the wedding album. I also had the bride bring photographs from various online sites and asked what it would take to create these images. Most of these images were from professional model shoots that would take many hours to create. I would tell them that I could recreate this style of images but it would take a lot more than 20 minutes between the wedding and reception, more like a couple of hours depending on requests and number of locations to get the images. If they still wanted this type of images, the required time and support for makeup and etc went into the contract. I only did one sepia wedding and that was back in the 70's when I was using B&W film with a special request from the bride.
judging by the videos the bride makes, it's clear she likes drama, she didn't settle down for what the photographer offered and decided to take it to tiktok instead and use it as content.
she was offered different editing style even though it's not the photographer s fault , the bride loved the photos, until 30 days later when the bride needed to make story for tiktok.
I still can't comprehend this philosophy at 21:18 that "obviously, we as photographers, never ever ever ever give out RAWs"
Why?
I can see charging more, but I don't understand this reluctance to turn over the RAWs to whichever pictures were ultimately delivered to the client.
Because RAWS are huge files to begin and are essentially hard copies that we don't really need our subjects or clients to see. You hire a photographer for their ART, not unfinished work. So if you ever want access to RAWS, make sure that the photog will agree to sell them in the beginning as this is not standard practice.
Large file sizes and raws look like shit. You didn’t hire a photographer to see their raws
@@charbar85 Yeah, I hired a photographer once to photograph a business event. I made sure he agreed to give us the RAWs. He had no problem with it - but I agree, you need to get that issue settled up-front.
I also kind of agree with you. I don't fully get it why some people are so touchy about RAWs. Like I get it, but I also don't get it.
Well, but we kinda see what the client did with the few raws she got for free…she took them, edited them herself and then used them to compare the photographers work with them and tell everyone how awful the photographers job was.
Funny most people talking about it totally ignoring the beige horror that the bride is even showing in her tiktok & instagram at home when she is complaining and also the photographer is totally in this style ... . In a couple of years, everyone will hate this style.
This is something no one can ever win in. No matter what.
You are right about the style issue. Fads don't last, but she did hire her having seen the style, but the bride did not understand what the style was or what she really wanted or was looking at. Choosing less trendy styles last. B/W, light and airy, etc.
No better way to "date" your photos than falling into instagram trends.
Yes 100% charge for raws. But I don't think in this situation it needed to be 3k, esp. when it's this bad already. Take that 1k and just go, make your client happy and let it go. OBV have a contract about the use of raws.
In any case, I still 100% believe the bride hired this photog based on her style and ultimately decided it didn't suit what she wanted in the end. Or that she didn't look as good in all of her photos as she thought she would.
I think I agree. 1or2k would be more appropriate, and use it as a lesson.
I worked ( Too many years in retail ) and this is exactly what clients do to get there way, They will start to build problem on top of problems and fain the Victim . While I understand the photographer had valid points , in this case it would have been better for her to redo the edits with a non-share agreement, and get rid of her. This is a case of I rather still be in business than right. I know a lot of fellow photographers are siding with her, but future brides are looking at this and are having doubts , The photographer is charging $4000 dollars and she can't even get the colour of the dress right.
" I'd rather still be in business that right " I think those are some wise words. Someone needs to print that out and put it on a wall or something! haha thanks for your thoughts!
@@lukewtcleland There was a case a couple of years ago where the clients claimed the photographer was holding there photos hostage , unless they paid an exorbitant price for the album cover . The photographer ultimately won the case in court , and it went all over the internet Because of the public backlash she received and court costs , she had to close down her business.
Here’s the thing, Hannah is selling a feeling with her editing style, we may love it, we may hate it, but it’s her choice. It’s not about are the whites white, or warm, or cool. Plenty of people want her style.
I’d highly suggest everyone watch the follow up Vendor podcast. It’s shocking to learn how many more TikTok’s the bride has made now that she’s reached monetization with them.
@@Crimson_Myst Hi David i don't disagree with you , I'm just saying it only takes one difficult client to ruin your business , I have been there. The best thing you can do IMHO of course , is to get the client out of your life and move on. When I grew up if you didn't like a business you told your friends, and your neighbours, now clients can tell the whole world how bad you are.
Good for you for making part 2 cause your last video came off judgemental and one sided before hearing the other side of story.
I personally don’t think this photographer is as experienced as her rates are and her editing is mediocre at best. But I’m on her side cause she did everything she’s supposed to do and the bride was just asking way too much and blown everything out of proportion.
Thanks! Totally - I wanted it to be as balanced and I could be.
People handle RAW pictures differently. I think most photographers don't want "the magic" of their photography being demysthified by showing the client the rather "normal" looking RAW. Some photographers just don't care. Charging extra for RAW files - for those who do that - does two things in my opinion: Firstly the clients KNOW that it is possible BUT that it will cost (a significant amount of money normally... because the photographer does not primarily want to give them away)... so it will put most clients off. Secondly you get a nice BONUS payment from clients that (at least seem to...) have very deep pockets... "free money" I guess... I'd say it depends a bit on your clientel. If you normally take pictures of rich people... why not charge them ;-P If you normally take pictures of lower and middle class people (and many of those probably think AT LEAST twice! before even hiring a professional because it is SOOO expensive! (yeah I myself decided against it for that reason... it just wasn't worth it to me))... well then it might be nicer to find some kind of middleground. Like giving out a certain amount of RAW pictures, but not all of them. Or asking what the couple would find an appropriate pricing... I normally just give them away for free.
Luke’s hand movements making the autofocus work overtime 😂
I think I had the wrong focus mode on! LOL
lol. If it was the 1970s I would be slapping the side of the TV to focus.
I think there was fault on both sides honestly. I think the photographer may have done some batch editing and just preset everything which is a bit bizarre (a green bush being orange is weird, to me).
The bride obviously doesn't understand copyright and that she doesn't 'own' the photos, the photographer does. The bride taking this to TikTok was soooo over the top and started from a place of vitriol.
2000 photos, my god, not in a million years!
I wouldn't have said "$3000" I would have said, select the Raws you want and it's $X amount per RAW (for all of them it's $3K)
Contract, contract, contract...have "re-edit charges" listed in your contract.
A while back I had a client that I photographed their event. We worked together for a prior photoshoot for a golden hour outdoor setting and they loved their images. On the day of the event, the lighting was very different. LED lights everywhere and very dark setting (more like a nightclub event). When I began editing the images, I made sure the photos were beautiful but of course with LED lights of different colors were reflecting on everything’s skin and wardrobe. Once I delivered the images, the client stated she didn’t like the images because she could see the different colors. I attempted to re edit the images to try to desaturate some of these colors but she wasn’t happy.
So we came to an agreement of her getting the RAW images (I think I charged a couple of hundred dollars for all of them). I’m so glad this didn’t blow out on the internet like this one because I probably would go into hiding lol. going back to the Sepia Bride story - if I was the photographer, I would have re-edited the images or at least play with the white balance to bring a more natural feel while maintaining the artistic sepia style the bride initially liked. Obviously that’s why she hired the photographer, right? 😉
Thank you for sharing your opinion again. Very good reflection and knowledge. Hannah definitely doesn't deserve it.
Definitely don't think she deserved it as well. thanks for watching!
lol she is sepia tone herself
I feel like the the photographer found one style that looks good most of the time. Because, it did look good in those photos. However, it was a little overcast and instead of adjusting her presets and toning. She just plugged in the formula she already felt worked. A lot of the issues were a little amateur to me. Like you cant tell me any bride wants and ocean backdrop to dissappear to their teeth to be yellow. The photos did not look like the ones the bride already got. So many of the things the photographer says just make her sound amateur. 2k images, not delivering an example of an edit before rediting, not being able to readjust her photos etc.
Still bride's fault. She liked the golden style since the beginning. Time passed and she started disliking the style, she only needed to say to the photographer "can you re-edit the pictures in natural style?" About charging RAW images, YES you do, it is your work and time. The photographer failed in creating a contract when she sold the RAW with copyright.
This happens when someone's photography style is based on a LR preset and client changes their perception of "good look" by 180 degrees. Everything is subjective especially when it comes down to excessive post-processing. The truth is, majority of clients today select their photographer based on specific look and feel rather than true artistic way of capturing the moment. Photography styles are changing all the time...whatever was hot and trendy 10 years ago would be considered today as aesthetically poor. I don't mind some current processing trends but I can guarantee, in 5-10 years from now, these will be seen as totally outdated and somewhat ugly. I don't shoot weddings that often, only for friends and family and I do them exclusively in B&W.
Back in the day, you didn't give out negatives in order to not cannibalize print sales. If it were my client complaining, I would let her have all the raw files she wanted since print rights are typically included!
The conclusion is: If the bride is a makeup artist or photographer, just tell the bride that I'm not interested.
As a photographer, sure I saw photos that I dident like of my wedding photos, but did I tell my wife? Of course not, I told her that I like all of them. As long as my wife is, then I'm happy.
I think you're totally right starting at 17.00!
haha thanks! thanks for watching! :)
I believe it's still the photographer at fault (and part bride for not saying 'cooler') and not understanding the white balance issue. Her shots on this wedding are NOT the same as her portfolio - it is clearly much oranger. Plus, if she knew what the client was saying, it would be a simple cool down adjustment - even if it was slightly under her usual work, it would still be consistent enough, yet she still didn't do that simple change. The whole way she handled it (attitude) as well was not very professional. That said, the bride should definitely not have brought this to public social media.
I'm on the side of the photographer here. It's obviously a case of buyer's remorse. The bride liked her portfolio, which was why she booked her in the first place. She liked and raved about her wedding photos when they came. It's like buying a dress you really like and then crying after a month because for some reason your preference has changed.
What if you no longer have the raws? I've kept all my edited photos since 2008, however, about three months after I send the full gallery I delete the raw photos.
I went and looked at the photographers photos on her website. She has a LOT of pretty pictures and she obviously has a great eye for mood and composition and very often in her photos, for color. However, that being said, there’s no excusing the pictures that the bride shared with us. Those edits on those pictures were abysmal, and after seeing her style, it’s almost like she phoned in her final product. I’m still team bride. She lost me with a non white wedding dress. This photographer should stick to engagement photos on the beach, which suits her style much better than a wedding. I don’t think her colors are a good fit with wedding photography. Orange plants and an orange wedding dress are a non starter.
Dude, I had the same exact opinion the moment I saw this. Looked great when she didn’t have a point of reference of how the person/ scene actually looked in real life.
Right. Context is huge.
The bride definitely didn't do this right. If she wanted to just give advice to other future brides she could have just said that she made a mistake choosing the photographer and that if she was choosing now she would choose different. She also could have said she wasn't happy with how it went and gave advice to others what to watch out for but to bash the editing with comparisons...that was uncalled for. She made the photographer look incompetent when it was clearly the result of bad communication.
I think the bride paid the price of her mistake, but the photographer will pay the price of her mistake for the entire of her career, this is internet and it can destroy your career
Photographers need to show before edit and after edit so customers know what type of “style” you put on photos. It’s hard to tell, but not so much in this case, what is natural and what is not.
It sounds like the photographer could’ve just applied Lightroom “auto” in batch and be done.
I am more on the brides side because I think the editing is terrible. These will not be timeless images. As you said 10 years from now that heavy warm might be looked at like selective color. And yes charge for raws.
It's weird how all these alleged photographers look just like the average inflated lips Tiktoker.
Of course, you charge for your RAWS hell!