Rachel Jay wrote:
I'm still a follower :shrug: Maybe anyone who's obviously a photographer she's blocking. Who knows. Apparently her and her husband have hired a lawyer, and my guess is that's his/her number one damage control strategy... prevent anyone who might be on the photographer's side from seeing what Neely has to say.

Makes perfect since to me. We as photographers are wrong and guilty by association.  

Well, I did tweet and and RT in support of the photographer. 

I do know one thing for sure.  In business today negative tweets should be dealt with pronto and not by blocking.  Smart business act quickly to tweets.  Both positive and negative tweets.

Cherrystone wrote:
I think she's an idiot. 6k wedding, gonna argue about $150- and dance thru the mud instead?
Besides, what album doesn't have a cover?

ALL albums have a cover. The question is, what KIND of cover. You can go with the cheap, leather-style cover with no writing on it, same cover with gold lettering, a photo wrap around it, etc. At WPPI I was amazed at how many different types of album covers you can order...everything from embossed leaves and grass to textured woods and so forth. Options there are limitless, but a basic, no frills cover is always a starting point.

That aside, and while I do sympathize with the photographer having to deal with a bride making up a lot of this story and media reports not getting both sides accurately, I also think she's being a complete fucking idiot when handling this situation. Aside from the stupid $250 "archival" charge, all of this insanity is over a $150 cover on a $6,000 wedding package, and that $150.00 is the retail charge, after the photographer marks it up. The reality is, whatever that cover was, it probably cost the photographer $30-40.

So all of this bickering, all of these blog posts and arguments and news reports and threats of lawsuits and email exchanges and phone calls and stress is over 40 goddamn dollars on a $6,000 client???? This photographer may be talented enough to land a great wedding client but has a few fries short of a Happy Meal if she thinks this is a smart business decision to just not give the bride her album cover and make her happy.

So literally, this entire brouhaha is over less money than a dinner for two at Denny's. This photographer needs to get her head examined. I'm sure the tumor in there is bigger than her brain.

John Horwitz wrote:

Archive = burn to disk - unarchive = put back on the computer. Charging 250 to do this is douchebaggery of the highest magnitude!

Not quite. A Wedding photographer is legally liable for the photos until the final product is delivered (and possibly longer if they offer after-market add-ons). If a bride(zilla) is taking their sweet-*ss time to submit their final book selections, I, as a wedding photographer are buying two hard drives to back up her images. I will pass that on to the customer if I need to do that. I can't keep her photos on my working drive(s) for that long a time. High mega-pixel cameras preclude that option. It is used as an incentive to not take a year to choose your photos. Sometimes, after six months, the couple is already divorced and their photos are abandoned. Who's supposed to pay for the backups? Not me. The bride/groom that takes too long to decide.

martin b wrote:
I have some sympathy with both.  I can't imagine $6000 and you will charge extra for the cover.  When my brother got married last year the photographer did the same thing to him.  The contract was so confusing that my brother thought $4000 was for everything.  He even typed it out.  But when he tried to get the photographer to sign that everything was included the photographer started a song and dance about everything that was also optional.  My brother only had a sour taste in his mouth after dealing with all the nit picking extras that made the cost of photography go to almost $7000. 

This photographer now says she will work with the couple but I am sure she didn't have that attitude through the first round either.  $6000 and you will fight for the $150 cover?

I have 3 wedding packages, 1 half day package and 2 full day packages.  And in all of them, I tell the couple what they're going to get.  Prints, wedding book, etc.  In that contract, I state that they will receive a standard leather cover book.  (and during the consult, let them know they can upgrade to a custom cover for an additional fee.  If they go that route, it's written into their contract and signed.)

I've had some brides come to me wanting a custom cover after their wedding, and they gripe about the fact that they have to pay for it.  Thankfully I can point to the contract where it says standard leather cover which puts an end to the griping.  They either go with the standard leather cover or they upgrade their cover which I do at next to cost. 

And no, I don't budge on charging for an upgraded cover.  It's a bad precedent to set for other clients, first off, and it's costs me a good chunk of change to do a custom cover.  I use a top notch printer, so my fees are pricey enough, and I'm not going to eat the cost because a bride suddenly decided she wanted something for nothing.

It looks like Polito did what I would have done.  And it sucks that Neely decided to escalate things quickly so that she could get her 15 minutes of fame at the expense of someone's livelihood over $150 and a misunderstanding. Polito tried to fix it, but Neely saw her opportunity to get some TV time and found that more valuable.

Barry Kidd Photography wrote:

The issue isn't that an album doesn't come with a cover as everyone has repeated a hundred times.  The issue is that the bride wanted a custom cover rather than a standard cover but only refers to it as just "the cover"  This is misleading.

Yep.

John Horwitz wrote:
Polito is a PIG! 6K for a wedding and she wants to charge 150 for front and back cover - and you wonder why people hate photographers? Adding insult she is going to 'archive' the photographs and then charge 250 to unarchive them...she is indeed a thief.

They paid up front and should get their photos - jesusrollerskatingchristmas - what a prick!

6k isn't an absurd price for wedding photography.  It's a good chunk of change, no doubt, I certainly don't make that...but then again, I'm in a smaller market.  But by the time I meet with my client several times, field phone calls, make itineraries, send directions to the bride, buy equipment for the wedding, shoot the wedding, pay a second photographer, retouch the photos for several days, create books, send out prints, and pay for boutique packaging...well, I'm not going to apologize for the amount I charge.  Especially since I have a limited number of weddings I can shoot a year, ya know, them being weekend based and all.  And living in a virtual Siberia 5 months of the year.

But yes, additional charges for a custom cover.  That's the way it works.  Why should a photographer have to eat the cost, and no small cost at that?

A custom cover can cost me $75-$350 more than my standard cover.  And when my contract says standard cover, and that's been explained to the bride, I'm not going to take an additional $350 out of my paycheck because a bride didn't listen when I went through everything during the consult.

TheNormGallerys wrote:
wedding photographer is WRONG, if it isn't listed in the contact you can't be changing for it!

Eh, I don't know about that.  You obviously need to provide what you say you will provide, but the contract says "storybook album".  Is the couple getting an album?  Yes.  Do they want something more?  It sounds like it, but then again, if Polito is any good at her job I'm sure she discussed specifics of albums at the consult. It's standard fare, and for someone who has shot a ton of weddings and is prevalent in the Dallas wedding industry, I can't image she left that information out.

Just because I don't say "I will not dance around naked at your reception" doesn't mean the couple can make.

Brian Diaz wrote:

I agree.  Even if you sell upgraded album covers, there should be a cover that is included in the base price.  It doesn't have to be a good cover.  You can get one a Michael's for like $10.  Then if someone wants a $150 cover, they can get it as an upgrade.

That said, it looks like the photographer here bent over backward to make the bride happy, but the bride went ahead with a retaliation plan anyway.  Sad.

This is what I do.  I have a standard cover, custom covers cost more.  And I occasionally get brides that sign off for the standard cover, and then a week after their wedding want the upgraded cover for no additional charge.  That way it seems like with this case.

Shot By Adam wrote:
So all of this bickering, all of these blog posts and arguments and news reports and threats of lawsuits and email exchanges and phone calls and stress is over 40 goddamn dollars on a $6,000 client???? This photographer may be talented enough to land a great wedding client but has a few fries short of a Happy Meal if she thinks this is a smart business decision to just not give the bride her album cover and make her happy.

So literally, this entire brouhaha is over less money than a dinner for two at Denny's. This photographer needs to get her head examined. I'm sure the tumor in there is bigger than her brain.

She did tell Neely she would release the photos to her and do the cover when Neely continued to bitch, but instead of taking that offer, Neely took it to the press.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I didn't know that scary cat was gone.     

In the "good old days", you didn't need the extra : : around your

John Horwitz wrote:

Archive = burn to disk - unarchive = put back on the computer. Charging 250 to do this is douchebaggery of the highest magnitude!

Discs?

Who backs up to discs anymore? If one shoots a lot of weddings that would be a lot of discs -- file management when you shoot a lot of work can be a nightmare.

I can tell you that most portrait photographers charge archival fees after a certain amount of time. Maybe not $250 but they charge something.

It's time.  It's also a way to get clients to order in a timely fashion.

Vito wrote:

Not quite. A Wedding photographer is legally liable for the photos until the final product is delivered (and possibly longer if they offer after-market add-ons). If a bride(zilla) is taking their sweet-*ss time to submit their final book selections, I, as a wedding photographer are buying two hard drives to back up her images. I will pass that on to the customer if I need to do that. I can't keep her photos on my working drive(s) for that long a time. High mega-pixel cameras preclude that option. It is used as an incentive to not take a year to choose your photos. Sometimes, after six months, the couple is already divorced and their photos are abandoned. Who's supposed to pay for the backups? Not me. The bride/groom that takes too long to decide.

exactly.

SOP for wedding photographers and many portrait photographers.

I also know portrait photographers that dump files if someone doesn't place an order within a certain amount of time.

L A F wrote:

I have 3 wedding packages, 1 half day package and 2 full day packages.  And in all of them, I tell the couple what they're going to get.  Prints, wedding book, etc.  In that contract, I state that they will receive a standard leather cover book.  (and during the consult, let them know they can upgrade to a custom cover for an additional fee.  If they go that route, it's written into their contract and signed.)

I've had some brides come to me wanting a custom cover after their wedding, and they gripe about the fact that they have to pay for it.  Thankfully I can point to the contract where it says standard leather cover which puts an end to the griping.  They either go with the standard leather cover or they upgrade their cover which I do at next to cost. 

And no, I don't budge on charging for an upgraded cover.  It's a bad precedent to set for other clients, first off, and it's costs me a good chunk of change to do a custom cover.  I use a top notch printer, so my fees are pricey enough, and I'm not going to eat the cost because a bride suddenly decided she wanted something for nothing.

It looks like Polito did what I would have done.  And it sucks that Neely decided to escalate things quickly so that she could get her 15 minutes of fame at the expense of someone's livelihood over $150 and a misunderstanding. Polito tried to fix it, but Neely saw her opportunity to get some TV time and found that more valuable.

you are right.  I know I should stick to my guns more and not change the price but i am a wus.  When my clients complain a lot i cave in.  I have upgrades and even though I have the bride and groom if possible sign off on the upgrades I still have some that fight me.  I hope I get a better backbone for this.  This year I increased my prices quite a bit just to help make a tiny profit.  Since most of my clients are referral, the price increase seems to jar a lot of my clients.  I explain it is because of our equipment upgrade.

Shot By Adam wrote:
WELL...it looks like the plot thickens a whole lot now. The Photographer is suing for defamation. You can also read the entire legal filing online. No big shock, this couple made a lot of claims and allegations that may be less than accurate.

http://petapixel.com/2015/04/13/photogr … er-fracas/

So who has the brain tumor now?

John Horwitz wrote:

Archive = burn to disk - unarchive = put back on the computer. Charging 250 to do this is douchebaggery of the highest magnitude!

Hey John,

I've got agree with you on that one.  As a wedding photographer myself, I have never charged for a different cover and $250 is a bit steep, in my opinion, to get with your client, select and image and make that the cover image.  I do a review of a client's book with the before sending it off to be published.  I'd rather have a client make flow of design changes than to have them unhappy and badmouth me to potential clients.  Most of my business is word of mouth and every potential client is important to me.  I can't see why anyone would deplete a customer base over what I see as an unreasonable charge.

Just my opinion...

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
I enjoy reading through this thread to see some here doing exactly what some horrible, disgusting, scumbag online trolls did to the photographer: insult and name-call based on incomplete information.....

Indeed, based on the August Court of Appeals ruling, it seems as if the smart thing for the Moldovan's to do would be to try and settle this before it goes to trial. Reading through the decision the Court of Appeals pretty much makes the photographers defamation case.