Parents' fury after photographer erases mark for nursery school portrait

Daryl said:
Mistake or not... The kid looked better with out the ribena round her bonce.

Just shows mum what the kid when shes older will doing with heavy make up to cover it.....

What? Was it something I said? Bah humbug!!!!!!!! ;)
Click to expand...

It wasn't Ribena, it was and still is a birthmark.
 
ding76uk said:
In the same way it was and still is a clerical error that was unreservedly apologised for.
Click to expand...

I was responding to a previous poster who referred to it as Ribena
 
Who really cares....? Can't believe anyone is still moaning about this.



Meant to say "Just shows mum what the kid will look like, when shes older will covering with heavy make up"

But it did not come out right.

I'd be well pleased if the tog did it for me kid.


Ignore me.... In a bad mood and wanted to antagonize....

Im gone.
 
Last edited:
Talked to the wife about this again last night and she was of the opinion the no photographer should talk out something like that without first asking for permission.
She has a port wine birthmark that covers half her face and if our daughter had one too she would not want it removed from her either, it is what you are.
No amount of heavy make up will cover it properly, it just makes you look funny with loads of makeup on.

Lesson to be learned from this is always check with a parent before you move any distinguishing features no matter how ugly bad they are or how better you think you can make them.

I feel for the tog as it was a mistake that has been blown all out of proportion, but maybe he should have double checked, just to make sure.

spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
Talked to the wife about this again last night and she was of the opinion the no photographer should talk out something like that without first asking for permission.
Click to expand...

but you do realise that he never intentionally took the mark out. He picked the wrong photo to remove the mark from after receiving an instruction from a customer to remove a mark
 
SpikeK6 said:
I feel for the tog as it was a mistake that has been blown all out of proportion, but maybe he should have double checked, just to make sure.

spike
Click to expand...

Why would he double check? It was an error on one file amongst hundreds or thousands processed that week.

I'm sure he's improved his procedures to ensure it doesn't happen again, but if we all had to double check every instruction in our working lives nothing would ever get done, less mistakes would happen, but even with double checking - human error cannot be eliminated. It can be designed out of processes, lessened, mitigated, but not eliminated.

I appreciate that some people may have strong feelings about this, but it was an honest mistake which kind of makes the OP's question moot.
 
Read my last sentence of my last post Joe, I do know he did it by accident. its been all blown out of proportion, by someone looking to make a quick buck, and I really feel for the tog and hope it does not affect his buisness too much.

spike
 
Phil V said:
Why would he double check? It was an error on one file amongst hundreds or thousands processed that week.
Click to expand...

Because if he had he would not be in the place he is now.
what you are saying is its takes too long to answer some request to double check that is what they want.

I do not know the sort of photography you do but if someone emailed you and asked for something to be removed from a pic you would just go ahead and do it?? specially a birth mark, I not talking a thread from a jumper or a piece of hair over the eye??
spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
Because if he had he would not be in the place he is now.
what you are saying is its takes too long to answer some request to double check that is what they want.

I do not know the sort of photography you do but if someone emailed you and asked for something to be removed from a pic you would just go ahead and do it?? specially a birth mark, I not talking a thread from a jumper or a piece of hair over the eye??
spike
Click to expand...

yes. If somebody phoned me and said

"I want you to remove a mark from my childs face please"

I would go and find their photo and remove it. I wouldn't ring them back afterwards and say

"Are you sure you want this mark removed"

The mistake was just that he went and found the wrong photo. It's great in hindsight to tell someone he should double check that, but a mistake is a mistake. We all make them
 
SpikeK6 said:
I do not know the sort of photography you do but if someone emailed you and asked for something to be removed from a pic you would just go ahead and do it?? specially a birth mark, I not talking a thread from a jumper or a piece of hair over the eye??
spike
Click to expand...

Of course not. I find refusing reasonable customer requests is the best way to build a business. ;)
The point here isn't that the tog misunderstood the client's request, but that he confused two clients and so edited the wrong pic.
There are probably admin changes that could be made to prevent this (linking pic number to a customer ref and getting customer to confirm ref) - but those have probably already now been made.

It is sad that a simple apology for an honest mistake is not being accepted. Sadder still is that other togs are amongst those giving him a kicking!
 
Llamaman said:
The point here isn't that the tog misunderstood the client's request, but that he confused two clients and so edited the wrong pic.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that not everyone has gleaned this from the story :shake:
 
joescrivens said:
It's a shame that not everyone has gleaned this from the story :shake:
Click to expand...

It seems that once again the truth is getting in the way of a good debate. So many are just choosing to avoid the simple truth of the matter.
IT WAS A CLERICAL ERROR:bang:

Or we could just join in:
The photographer should be horsewhipped, he's ruined this family's Christmas.
 
He should be taken outside and shot in front of his family. [/controversy-crossing]
 
Phil V said:
It seems that once again the truth is getting in the way of a good debate. So many are just choosing to avoid the simple truth of the matter.
IT WAS A CLERICAL ERROR:bang:

Or we could just join in:
The photographer should be horsewhipped, he's ruined this family's Christmas.
Click to expand...

i know, i hate it when people don't read the thread properly and you spend half your time correcting them :bang:
 
SpikeK6 said:
Because if he had he would not be in the place he is now.
what you are saying is its takes too long to answer some request to double check that is what they want.

I do not know the sort of photography you do but if someone emailed you and asked for something to be removed from a pic you would just go ahead and do it?? specially a birth mark, I not talking a thread from a jumper or a piece of hair over the eye??
spike
Click to expand...

Actually I'm not even sure that double checking would have got him out of this.

The photographer had in front of him a request to remove the marks on a child's face, presumably with some contact details and (crucially) the wrong file number.
Now if we assume that the parents wouldn't necessarily have been familiar with the file number and the photographer contacts the parents to 'double check'.
The parents (oops wrong customer) would have confirmed their request. Now the photographer could spend loads of time asking searching questions, which just might have raised his suspicions that he was dealing with the wrong file. But, lets say he's processing 1000 images a day and 20 of them have retouching requests - should he spend 2 hrs a day on the phone double and triple checking requests that his customers have made.

This is highly wasteful of his time and rather than giving his customers the impression that he's being careful, would actually raise suspicions that he doesn't have the confidence to run his business.:(

OTOH, a simple process change to ensure that the correct file number is linked to the correct customer, will solve the problem. No time wasted and no inconvenience for the customer.:)

Like I said, it's easy to become fixated on the result of this error, rather than the cause. And the DM article as well as many of the responses to this thread have made that 'mistake'.
 
OK, the mother had a rant, got her name in the tabloids, and embarrassed the photographer. She may even have damaged his reputation, but I think that's debateable. I still wonder if she really expected to make money out of this? The Daily Mail wouldn't pay a row of beans for this dross, she hasn't suffered a loss and I can't think of any reason to pay any other sort of damages/compensation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top