Woo client trouble

Matt said:
Pete, I've looked at both sets of images on my laptop (crap screen).
The first set are very soft, and the reprocessed set seem to have a dark halo round the subjects.
Click to expand...

They're going to be cutting them out so that wouldn't matter.

I think the main problem here may be down to your technique on the shoot.
I myself would have used a smaller aperture say f8-f11 under the studio lighting.
This would have probably negated the out of focus look the images have.
Click to expand...

Definitley something to remember next time. I guess I was thinking "People, f/2.8"

Personally I wouldn't offer any sort of discount, but would offer to reshoot foc.
Hire a lens if you need to, and use this experience as a learning process.

HTH
Click to expand...

Already offered and they didn't think it was feasable. As for renting a lens, it would cost the price of the lens in a deposit. They got back to me today asking for 45 shots. Seems a bit odd if they were that unhappy.

dazzajl said:
I think they are entitled to expect the images to stand up at 1/1 size, anything else is relying on reducing the shot. Time to start working your images at 100% perhaps. ;)

No hug from me either but I think you've more than earned a :beer:
Click to expand...

Ta :) I will be checking my images at 100% and I will be buying only L glass from now on. While Sigma is great for a hobby lens, I just can't afford to trust it for professional use. I need to know that my equipment will perform. Whether I will is another matter :D
 
Whether I will is another matter
Click to expand...
There is alot of truth in the old saying, "we learn by doing".

We learn far more though by screwing it up. :D
 
dazzajl said:
There is alot of truth in the old saying, "we learn by doing".

We learn far more though by screwing it up. :D
Click to expand...

Yeah. As Batman's Dad said, "Why do we fall down Bruce? So we learn to pick ourselves up."
 
As Robin said.....

'I wanna car, chicks dig the car'


Seriously though pete, I've skim read the posts and from what I can tell, you ****ed up by trying to pass off images that weren't up to scratch. They may have been passable for the usage that you had in mind but ultimately, in a professional environment, that arguement doesn't hold water. I understand that you feel bad about this and why you should feel so but people have certain expectations of you when you sell your services, expectations that must have been created by people they've used previously. I understand that they looked ok on the screen and about the usage they had described for them. But, and it's a big but. You MUST have realised when you started to view the images that they were soft/whatever. That is the point at which you should've called them, said 'sorry, there's a problem with the images and I need to re-shoot'

When I do my bits and pieces for the property marketers I can spend 4 hours or so on a job. If the shots aren't up to spec, the agents won't pay and I don't get paid.Then either me or someone else has to go re-shoot the images, simple as.

It's heartbreaking, I know, I've been there and I'm trying to be supportive, honest. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that a) professional integrity counts for a lot and b) it isn't the end of the world, just a matter of damage limitation.

Don't be dis-heartened, your work is strong but if you're gonna take every single minor setback so hard then it's all gonna end in tears.
 
from a print point of view, if they were using them at A5 or even A4 they'll be absolutley fine for prospectus printing @ 175lpi, I do these sorts of brochures week in week out and you should see some of the crap we get, only reason I can see for their concern is if they were going to use the pics for larger prints and why would they if your brief was for a brochure.

What i would do next time is resize to 300dpi as a tiff which will bring your pic down to roughly A4, then tweak, make a jpeg from these. Think this should work.:shrug:
 
petemc said:
I will be checking my images at 100% and I will be buying only L glass from now on. While Sigma is great for a hobby lens, I just can't afford to trust it for professional use. I need to know that my equipment will perform. Whether I will is another matter :D
Click to expand...

Just for interest Pete. I've been looking at the 24-70 for the weatherproofing but it looks like there's a possibility of even L glass not being up to scratch.

From Photozone.de

Verdict
The Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM L proved to be a worthy representative of the pro grade lens league ... if you can get a good sample. During the last half year three lenses has seen the lab and all exhibited some kind of optical flaws which is disappointing especially for a lens of this price class. Assuming you get a good sample there're really few things to complain about - the relatively high chromatic aberrations at 24mm maybe. Other than that the quality is very high. The build quality is superb with only the reverse zoom extension as a minor downside.

At the end of the day the 24-70mm range is not all that attractive on APS-C DSLRs (39-112mm) and regarding the similar performance of the EF 17-40mm f/4L there may be a few question marks whether the extra bucks are worth the effort. That said it's still a great lens in its range.
 
I was going to run with the masses and post "the images arent right, give them a discount".

Instead ill post the following:

*Get the lens repaired
*Buy some nice L glass
*Buy a laptop for onsite proofing of your work (this is essential)
*Dont beat yourself up too much. Your work is usually very good. One bump in the road is worth nothing, but in terms of experience it is priceless.
 
sorry to jump in on this late. i'm sort of between doing things so i've only had time to scan the thread so forgive me if i'm going over old ground.

being painfully honest and forgive me for sounding harsh but I've looked at the shots and if I was the customer I wouldnt be happy. I dont think the lens has let you down - its doing what most lenses would do at f2.8. All of the shots are soft for that reason. I cant understand why you would use 2.8 - especially when assisted with a flash - a mistake i guess.

I think the 2 things the shoot is missing is the technical side being right but also the shots have no life to them. Its a college...the shots should be used to get the attention of potential students. In most of the shots the students look incredibly self concious. Maybe its the interaction between you and your subject that needs more work.

sorry to sound like an a##ehole but just saying what i see. I've been in the same boat before - engament shoot with a very quiet couple. it was hard work. I put the camera away, had a chat, everybody relaxed, had a joke etc. then after a break the shots improved tenfold.

On a business side to smooth things over demand a reshoot. dont accept no for an answer!
 
There wasn't any time for a reshoot. I offered a few times and they said they couldn't do it. We had a very limited amount of students to work with. We were told 20 and we got about 7. It was the middle of summer so I guess we were lucky to get any. I didn't really interact with the students, one of the people from the company did so that they wouldn't be looking at the camera. They just wanted shots of students looking off into the distance really. The thing is, I'm editing some shots right now from a model shoot that are really sharp at f/2.8 with the flash. I do believe the lens has a problem. I do accept that it was a mistake to use f/2.8. That was due to nerves, a small car accident, and lack of experience. I haven't heard anything from them in the past week so I can only assume they're happy for now.

On the subject of a discount. Would it be better to offer say 20% off this one, or the next as a sweetner for future work?
 
petemc said:
On the subject of a discount. Would it be better to offer say 20% off this one, or the next as a sweetner for future work?
Click to expand...

I would offer discount on this one (due to problems etc) , you shouldn't offer future discounts as that may imply future problems .


The usual IMO disclaimer etc :)
 
Yep its always the way. Nerves etc. Its all too easy to take your eye off the settings when there is so much going on. I'm always rushing myself, when often it actually looks more professional if you slow down, take your time and be thorough. Like taking time to adjust hair, clothes etc. or talk about details like do this with your hands etc....it all helps to give off the illusion (!) that you are 110% in control and you have done the exact thing 1000's of times before.

Just wondering what flash you had and how you used the lightsphere....I have a ls2 and i never use it. I'm always concearned someone will just come out with the comment that it looks like an enormous dildo or an ice cream container!

discounts. It depends if you get the instinct that giving ANY discount will get you work in the future, or whether they will actually pay for the work at all at full price.

If it was me and I thought I was going to get more work in the future I wouldnt charge at all for that shoot. Just blame your gear or something, If you get a reshoot charge fully for that. Maybe ask for more artistic direction from them also beofre the shoot. Look in other college's prosepctuses for similar styles and you'll get it right the 2nd time.
 
Yeah theres really no chance of another shoot. We took about 30 mins setting up the lights, making sure everything was fine. I played with various settings to get everything ok. Its a definite flaw with the viewfinder / lcd display. The test shots looked perfect so I had no reason to adjust the aperture. I guess its times like these where its handy to use a remote capture program on a laptop to double check.

As for the ls2 I use it all the time. I've had many people ask me what it is and where to buy it. I just figure that the results are worth any odd looks I might get. I'm a shy person unless it comes to getting a good shot then I do what it takes.
 
pete, i've come to realise that even when you zoom right in on the viewfinder, if it looks in focus, it could still be out at full size, remember it's only a 1megapixel display (or less I think) so don't rely on it for sharpness. I wouldn't call it a fault, it's just lo-res
 
neos said:
pete, i've come to realise that even when you zoom right in on the viewfinder, if it looks in focus, it could still be out at full size, remember it's only a 1megapixel display (or less I think) so don't rely on it for sharpness. I wouldn't call it a fault, it's just lo-res
Click to expand...

Well yeah its not a *fault* per say but it does make things hard. With my over 30 yr old Topcon I can tell if its in focus or not but with my 2 yr old 10D I just have to hope for the best. Its a little annoying.
 
]yeah, i know what you mean. i must admit i havE problems focussing on the 10D, but i put that down to the AF fidgeting about as it does. I now use both my wide angles on manual focus... and get better results
 
Interesting thread. Just to add my tuppence worth I agree with most of the constructive criticism that has already been given. Using f/2.8 on any lens can be a slight risk as you'll generally find that the sweet spot is going to be around the f/8 or f/11 mark - perfectly appropriate for the kind of work you were doing.

If it's any comfort (probably not!) it's damned hard to get used to focussing through these viewfinders on APS-C sized sensor SLRs compared to 35mm or a full frame DSLR.

Best of luck to you next time - treat this as a learning experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top