Really bad quality photo's

[alacrity]

I just received the photo's of my son from his childcare, done by a 'professional'. I am an amateur, but I could have taken pictures better. I suppose anyone can get business cards and call them self a photographer right?

[kiwi]

Right, in fact, you can even make your own

My question to you, what are you going to do about it though ?

[PH005]

If you have paid money for the pictures then I think you have every right to take the matter up with the " photographer ". Like any service you pay for, you should not settle for poor quality . Best of luck.

[LJG]

Right, in fact, you can even make your own

My question to you, what are you going to do about it though ?

Didn't you post up some job advertisements the other day Kiwi which is probably where this person came from?

[NatalieM]

Wouldn't it depend on what kind of 'bad quality'? Boring and bland is subjective, I think you can only really complain if they are out of focus or heads cut off and so on.

Anyone can sell photos, after all.

[Longshots]

I am an amateur, but I could have taken pictures better. I suppose anyone can get business cards and call them self a photographer right?

Well yes.

If there was a case of hitting the nail on the head that would be it.

I am an amateur, but I could have taken pictures better.

While I dont doubt your view, and havent seen any example of what you feel unhappy about, the questions back to you are:
1) Really could you ? Think about how many people you would have been shooting, the distractions, the bedlam, the speed required to get all complete in a set amount of time; and finally one factor would have been cost - how much were they ?
and
2) While not intending to cause any offence, the easiest thing in the world these days, is for someone to say "I could have done better". Actually doing it, may be entirely different, under the pressure of the actual event. But if you can, then clearly there is a market if you wanted to change where you seek your income from.

Its worth adding that IMHO, the childcare, school photography, is so competitive, that its often a financial risk for any photographic supplier to get involved (ie few charge anything to shoot - sometimes even paying the school or childcare centre), and rely on the large print sales/low print prices formula.

In the end that produces you get what you pay for product.

And finally, recently someone asked me for advice if they should go into full time photography. I took a careful look at their work, and drew the opinion that they should not, and substantiated that opinion on the basis that they required more control of their craft. Some think that opinion is a negative one. I maintain its a positive, because if you deliver work thats not above what an amateur can produce, then this is exactly the type of negative publicity that can be produced. And negative publicity is a tricky thing to turnaround.

[alacrity]

All the photo's are way too dark, then when the flash is used the subject has bright shiney reflections off his forehead. They look like happy snaps taken in the park when I first got my camera and was learning how to use it. The printing looks like is has been done at a local KMart store. I am just disappointed because my daughters Kinder Photo's were taken by a fantastic photographer, Liz Arcus, and I expected something atleast half decent for my son.

[Raven]

Such a shame and I can understand your disappointment because my son's kinder photos were done terribly also but I decided to get them anyway because I've never seen him look so happy and photogenic (he's either scowling at me or sticks a tongue out ).

[atky]

(The printing looks like is has been done at a local KMart store) This I find strange I've had prints done at Kmart and you know what they were great. I did all the PP on them took the files there printed 12" X 18" nothing wrong with them for the price, unless you are paying hundreds of dollars for prints the HP printers at Kmart are fine.
Just to qualify that I did get some prints done first as a trial just to be sure they were good enough and they were and still are.
Not defending the photog or his or her pore skills and I don't know how much you paid for prints but I suspect it was only tens of dollars.
The photographer was probably lucky to make wages for his work, I'm suspecting you are expecting more than was paid for, and I bet some of his customers got great shots for the money.

[CapnBloodbeard]

No real surprise - I'm currently job hunting, and all the ads for 'school photographers' also say 'no photographic experience required' (I also used to work with somebody who got into this job) - they're trained in some basics but that's it.

I remember when I got my football team photos years ago, not only were their blown highlights everywhere but there was posterisation on all the faces - no kidding!

Personally I don't think it's too much to ask for this sort of work to be technically correct - exposure's easy to get right (or fix later). As for the flash reflection off the forehead - what causes that - direct flash?

Printing quality - these guys are probably just going for whatever's cheaper. If they're a big company they may have their own minilab printer, otherwise I'd say they'd just outsource the work to the cheapest place (snapfish anybody?).

[TOM]

I suppose anyone can get business cards and call them self a photographer right?

but what about his/her portfolio?.........you did look at it right? if the results differ dramatically from the quality that you viewed prior to hiring, then you may have some recourse, however if you just hired off the business card then......'caveat emptor' I'm afraid.

[matilda]

were you not given preview photo's first?

the reason i ask is, cause my daughters kinda photo's we got the contact sheet (on paper - the at home photo paper kind). and we were under no obligation to the photo's.

I've looked into doing the kinda photo's myself, but have decided against it.

[Rod038]

I can understand how disappointed you would be. I think you should speak to the Child Care Centre as they may have had other complaints. I guess at least they may not use this photographer again. Whether they took good photos of other children at the centre has nothing to do with it. You paid what ever was charged and weren't happy with your photos so you should follow it up.

Tom, I do not think the op hired the photographer them self but that the Child Care Centre arranged it.

[kiwi]

Absolutely, if you receive inferior quality product or service do complain

[Dan Cripps]

How were the photos proofed before purchase and how much did you pay?

[farquar]

I entered the industry via this kind of work and soon discovered that everyone who shoots in child carer centers has a different approach.

I would spend a whole week at the centre (sometimes 2 weeks depending on the size) and only shoot children whose parents had responded by returning an 'expression of interest' form in the weeks prior. After compiling a list of children who I was to photograph (inc. what days they were in etc) everyday I had a plan as to where I would spend my time. Some children are there full time, some 2 days per week, some every second morning, and some only 1/2 a day a week. Some are 6 weeks old, others are 4 Years and most are everything in-between.

The centers expectations were that I would not interfere with the day-to-day goings on within each room. MY expectations were to produce beautiful, technically sound, creative images that captured then children's true personalities.

I'd like to think that you can agree that remaining both technically proficient, creative and unobtrusive, whilst ensuring each child on the list had a good selection of images to chose from (in clean clothes and without a snotty nose / dirty face) within the constraints of the environment and time frame, is indeed a very difficult task.

That said, if you paid for images before you saw them, then I consider that foolish. If you saw a proof then paid for it... well, I think you could guess what I think about that.

On another, previously mentioned note; if you paid bugger all then you should expect bugger all.

Beer man cause it's Saturday night.

[farquar]

It has been suggested that my previous post...

That said, if you paid for images before you saw them, then I consider that foolish.

...could be deemed an offensive personal attack. This was NOT my intention and if received by alacrity in that vein then I apologise. I was merely stating that IMO I don't think it's very smart to purchase portraits before seeing them.

Again, I'm sorry if I have offended anyone.

[MarkChap]

If they operate anything like normal school photo's, you have to pay first.
So you don;t have the luxury of seeing/proofing before buying.

They send an envelope home and you say - I will have x, y and z - put the money in the supplied envelope and send back to school. A couple of weeks after the photos are taken, your purchase turns up

[colinbm]

Like buying pics unseen, it is hard to comment without seeing the goods either.
I don't think price & source are needed to be disclosed.
can we have a peep please ?
Col

[ricktas]

Colin, members cannot put photos up on AP that they do not own copyright to. Also the copyright act is very specific in how items (books, art, photos) can be used for reviews. We could be playing with fire if the thread starter put them up here. So they would be removed to stop any legal threats against AP, me and every member who commented. There is a fine line between review and defamation at times.