a TOG question

When you say RAW files, are they actually RAW files?

I shoot with Canon cameras and the file names look like this: 0001.CR2, 0002.CR2 etc - The CR2 bit is the important part. If it says .jpg then technically they aren't RAW files. (That's also if you can see filename extensions on your computer).

Or was it just a shoot and burn deal when they turned up, shot the images and burnt them to disc? If you've received every photo from the day, unedited then you'll be disappointed for sure. Ever wonky, poorly exposed image which all of us togs take sometimes (and leave out or correct) will be there to bring everything down.

Editing I'm £300 per day or you could try mylavalu.com who will edit the images for you.

Thanks Chris

These are the RAW files - we also got the edited jpeg files which are the ones I'm disappointed with. I'll check on the link and get back to you.

In what aspects were you disappointed? Was it the colour, framing, content, expressions etc etc?

Peter

Um..........I think I was expecting miracles lol. No, really........Aisha has done some amazing work which is why we chose her and we were - obviously expecting the same sort of thing. A lot of the pre-wedding/during wedding shots (at least the ones that I have actually seen) were pretty standard shots even I could take - think only a couple looked as of they had actually beed edited. The evening/sunset ones on the boat - well again - a couple of great shots/editing but the rest looked like pretty holiday snaps.

It's difficult to put into words exactly how I feel except to say that when I booked her I did expect the 'magic' and not Aunt Josephines holiday snaps (not that I have an Aunt Josephine ?). I never expected fab ones of me as am the least photogenic person in the universe but even so.....

Oh, and it isn't just me- my lovely wedding planner who has known (and used her) for years is also very disappointed.

Kats, were there any reasons that might have influenced a "below par" wedding expectation?

Did the wedding run late? Were you ready at the agreed time? "IF" you were late did this affect the shots of the groom, his family and best man? or did these shots have to be shot after the ceremony?

I have no idea, although sometimes these can affect the coverage style which is why I always discuss this with couples before their day. Being late is often deemed to be a brides perogative, although that is for her groom and NOT her photographer....being late will adversely affect your wedding photography coverage....

Of course, I appreciate that this may well not be relative to your photography although it is worth highlighting to other members of this forum...

Is there a link to your photographs?

Peter

Hi Peter

It was a very small wedding with no rounding up of guests etc to worry about. Everyone was on time, TOG has done alot of weddings at this venue and worked with the planner loads. There were no shots of OH before the wedding but that isn't an issue. I think it is just an editing thing. I know it really is no excuse but she was heading over to the UK the day after to do some videoediting course and had a couple of other weddings booked for while she is there (like me she is based in Tanzania) so maybe didn't have the time she usually has.

There's no link but to give you an idea - here are some of her pics from other weddings and then some from ours.

Random:

Our Wedding

I know they are not disasters but just feel they don't have the polished look as the ones above.

The ones you posted of other weddings show no straight forward colour images. They have all been post produced in colour layering or b+w, whereas all of yours are, or look mainly unprocessed. Are these the final images you have or a quick release example of your wedding photography?

Peter - these are the 'edited' ones which is why I'm so p*ssed off. I have just received a replacement disc for the one that was sent before that didn't work so am going to keep my fingers crossed that she has done something with them as I've told her I'm not happy with them. Will keep you posted.

There's quite a contrast between those two sets of images.

The thing is that a lot of togs only show their best stuff online.

I have this all the time when couples show me the stuff they love of mine and I have to pull them back a little bit because their choice of venue, weather and other stuff all play a BIG part in the day. I had a lovely, lovely couple this year get married at Pembroke Lodge and this venue on a sunny day is stunning.....but on the day the weather was grim...everyone barricaded themselves into the seating, turned in amongst themselves for conversation.....it changed everything. You do the best you can regardless.

The above shots apart from being spot colour, (nothing says 2004 like spot colour) are obviously from either a deliberate photoshoot or where time was set aside for a one to one session.

She probably did do special editing on the photos but only to a point and not to the standard that's on her site. If ever someone looks at my stuff I say which ones are special edits and how much they will cost to do. Sounds like she could of qualified you better so you knew better what you were getting.

The easiest way to describe the difference is with the photo of the bride in the hotel room. Better lighting, it's obvious there was more space in the room by the low camera angle they could use in relation to the high position (and use of flash) with your one. If it was overseas (which it looks like it was) equipment might of been limited too. The third image along of yours, the ceremony area looks as though all the shadows have been pulled to rescue it from high contrast. (There's so much processing you don't see but I do).

So I'm not defending anyone here. But it doesn't look like your wedding was in a country manor and the first set of images are high end expensive venue stuff. It could be argued that it doesn't matter where the photos take place but in reality it matters a lot. As does the attitude of the couple and those surrounding the tog.

Hi Chris - fair comments - both weddings were in zanzibar in similar locations. It's got nothing to do with the equipment - I know she spends a fortune getting it from Dubai and the UK.

Interesting about the spot colour - didn't realise it was a 1994 trend but confess I do quite like it.

So to sum it up, you're saying that she is (sort of) misrepresenting her services if these shots take special editing......hmmmmmmm interesting. Thanks

Hi fellow Zanz bride

Sorry you don't like your photos. How many have you got? Sala gave us DVDs of approx 900 edited photos, which makes it SO hard to choose from for album purposes. I think we have cut it down to about 400 stored on the computer! Then again, she wasn't cheap, as you know. Annnyway - what I was going to say is that some of our photos are stunning. Absolutely amazing lighting effects and look really arty. Others are more snapshot style, and hardly any were posed. The arty ones made it all worth the money, but we have a lot that, as you say, a friendly aunty could have taken (we did want casual photos though, not too styled). What is very interesting is that Sala was using 2 cameras, and we have almost identical pics at some stages taken with different cameras that look SOOO different. Certain lights at certain times of day seemed to suit different cameras better. The fact she was shooting with 2 really helped. We were definitely encouraged to be in certain places at certain times as well, to make the most of the light. Maybe your tog didn't get all the right shots at the right time?

FWIW, I wouldn't compare your photos to online album samples. If you hadn't seen the online albums, would you be happy with your photos? They look nice to me, and I'm looking forward to seeing more

xx C

ETA for people who aren't aware, we married at the same place, but had completely different photographers.

2004, it went kinda crazy with the advent of digital cameras and processing but got overused and died a death. It's still done well, just not often. A bit like Vintage effects and the like. I don't like spot colour because I believe wedding photos should be timeless. Styles and effects can really date an image long term.

There's special editing and special editing. Unless she said to you, 'you'll get images like this, this and this' then you probably won't get very far unfortunately. This is in contrast to saying they will do special editing for you which isn't the same. It's one of those 'What's considered reasonable' things that ultimately if you don't get anywhere with but press further may end up in a situation where a judge will decide for you.

It'll boil down to what's in the contract and what was a reasonable expectation considering the other variables mentioned previously. (location, venue, blah blah).

Thanks all

Barefoot - Sjani's seen the pics and isn't impressed, apparently this has been an issue before.

Chris/Peter - thanks loads for your advice/comments and suggestions. I have discovered a free 30 day trial of lightroom so am now experimenting - efforts so far.......

Obviously nowhere near as good as a pro but for a bit of fun playing around with them am starting to feel happier.

Did you get my email? as I am quite experienced with Photoshop and would be happy to help ?

LeedsBride - thanks - froget to check that email account now the weddings over. Will be in touch soon x