Unhappy with Studio photos - thoughts needed

damianmkv

damianmkv

Uh oh, a fruit basket!
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,254
Edit My Images
Yes
Right...assistance needed please. Our family has had some professional pictures taken in a studio and bought a disc with them. These were expensive.

When we viewed the photos in the studio, they all looked pin sharp.

Now that we have the disc, 75% of them are soft. On the disc, there are 92 photos totalling 233mb - so that's an average of 2.x each !! All were taken at f13.

Now I think 2.xMB is too low - do you think that they have compressed them so much it has ruined the quality ? Is this possible, especially regarding the softness

Below is an example

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59954848@N07/8640271317/
Soft ? by damianmkvSoft ?, on Flickr

Help appreciated, thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
damianmkv said:
Right...assistance needed please. Our family has had some professional pictures taken in a studio and bought a disc with them. These were expensive.

When we viewed the photos in the studio, they all looked pin sharp.

Now that we have the disc, 75% of them are soft. On the disc, there are 92 photos totalling 233mb - so that's an average of 2.x each !! All were taken at f13.

Now I think 2.xMB is too low - do you think that they have compressed them so much it has ruined the quality ? Is this possible, especially regarding the softness

Below is an example

http://www.flickr.com/photos/59954848@N07/8640271317/
Soft ? by damianmkv, on Flickr

Help appreciated, thanks
Click to expand...

Go back to the studio and tell them what you think
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Going to speak to them in the morning - I wanted an opinion of the size of the photos on the disc and the photo I put up if possible. They were shot with a d80
 
This example certainly looks soft - and at F13, if correctly focussed should be sharper than this...
 
Well I've just look up and for the D80 it suggests a file size of 7.9mb but given studio files like the one above have a massive amount of the scene that is effectively blank being white I could imagine the files being half that size quite easily, but that wouldn't account for the fact that is clearly OOF so there could well be some compression in there :shrug:
 
Yes, the 7 year old d80 acc to the properties.

Is the softness due to compression ? I'm not familiar enough with how this works and if it can affect sharpness

EDIT - Sorry, Matt, didn't see your reply when I posted.

There are very few photos that I'm happy with - I took one of my son with the wrong settings ( ISO800 in daylight ) that is much sharper than these "professional" ones
 
Last edited:
what is the resolution of each image? 233mb doesn't sound a lot for 92 images.

they do also look soft, hair looks to have very little detail amongst other things. What are you planning to do with the images though? Sharpness isn't the be all and end all if you're mounting images on a wall.

this studio doesn't do much pp on their images either by the look of it.
 
Last edited:
We were hoping to print them - there are 3 sisters and our kids, so this was a present for their grandparents. Now maybe, they'll print ok but does a 1.5mb photo that looks OOF print to 10x8 ? I guess it'll still be OOF..

The largest file is 4.7mb on the disc, so there are plenty at 1.5mb
 
That image is OOF, f13 would be showing signs of diffraction, and 2.xmb is around the norm for a 10mp jpeg depending on what jpeg setting is used.

That images are soft due to user error not because of the jpeg compression

damianmkv said:
Right...assistance needed please. Our family has had some professional pictures taken in a studio and bought a disc with them. These were expensive.

When we viewed the photos in the studio, they all looked pin sharp.

Now that we have the disc, 75% of them are soft. On the disc, there are 92 photos totalling 233mb - so that's an average of 2.x each !! All were taken at f13.

Now I think 2.xMB is too low - do you think that they have compressed them so much it has ruined the quality ? Is this possible, especially regarding the softness
Help appreciated, thanks
Click to expand...
 
Thank you. For the money, I expect the focus to be spot on. Actually, regardless of the money I expect the focus to be spot on.

It's very disappointing..
 
damianmkv said:
We were hoping to print them - there are 3 sisters and our kids, so this was a present for their grandparents. Now maybe, they'll print ok but does a 1.5mb photo that looks OOF print to 10x8 ? I guess it'll still be OOF..
Click to expand...

So are they soft or OOF? There is a difference. Whatever the answer is, you're not happy with the results so go back to the studio.
 
I'm not familiar with the correct terminology - to me they are OOF probably. Is soft in focus but not sharp ? If so, they are OOF.

First point is to talk to them tomorrow I guess and see what they say. We made it clear that they were to be printed and I don't think these would look right
 
The 'original' file (3162 x 1722 @ 1.76m) looks soft, but the smaller ones (below 800 x 436) are sharp as a tack. If it was shot out of focus, shouldn't they really be a little soft too?
Is it possible they shot small jpegs and enlarged them?

Just asking :shrug:
 
Last edited:
This is my quandary and what I don't understand - how could they have looked sharp in the studio ( I guess they had a 32" monitor which should show up OOF quite clearly ) and yet be so poor on disc ?

Maybe it's worth getting a few printed to see ?
 
I wouldn't pay for them. I wouldn't pay even if they were pin sharp. The person who shot that has made absolutely no effort to justify even one penny of their fee.

If you consider chasing this company for a refund, I'm more than willing to place that in a statement as the opinion of a commercial professional.

A 2.5mb image, saved at max settings in photoshop would come from a roughly 5mp camera, so these were either shot on a 15 year old camera, or they are compressed to hell. That doesn't explain a soft image, though. God knows why they were shooting at f13, but that's probably got something do do with it. Especially if they were using a cheap lens.
 
Last edited:
Were they full screen in the studio?
 
can you provide a 100% crop from the files given
eyes is the most important
also it looks like the kids were just told, "hi!....here...OVER Here!!!" /click/.
job done!, see ya!

p.s just found the Original (3162 x 1722) version on your photostream
that's out of focus. i'd be disappointed if I'd taken that in a studio
 
Last edited:
It's a bizarre one but for it simply to be OOF the tog must have had a nightmare as f13 at 48mm from say 7ft there is an effective depth of field of around 3.5 feet. If they put the focus point anywhere on those subjects you'd expect the focus to be fine (assuming of course that autofocus was used).

I think there's more to this but we are all second guessing. It may be an honest mistake so fingers crossed you get it resolved to your satisfaction.
 
Poorly focused/enlarged images won't print sharp - you need a good image to start with.
 
Ok, thoughts confirmed then. So...now I need to know what is reasonable for me to ask for as we have already paid. I guess as it was a present for the grandparents, I need to ask for another sitting to give them a chance ?
 
I know that the D80 was a very good camera in its time but I would expect a professional studio to use something a bit higher spec than a D80 with 18-70 kit lens (as per the Exif info from Flickr).
If I were in your position, I don't think I would find that acceptable.
 
DizMatt said:
can you provide a 100% crop from the files given
eyes is the most important

p.s just found the Original (3162 x 1722) version on your photostream
that's out of focus. i'd be disappointed if I'd taken that in a studio
Click to expand...

I looked at the eyebrows and lashes - neither child has well defined hairs there.
Even as the image was loading, the top of the lad's hair was clearly lacking definition, so it wasn't looking too good at that point already.
 
Last edited:
Ask for a full refund and go to a proper photographer - if the picture you posted is any example, forget about sharpness, the picture is bloody awful - I'd never let anything as bad go out to a client - it's dull and lifeless, the kids look bored witless, dingy "white" background - just dreadful!
 
I do remember sitting there, watching them being taken, thinking that it was an odd lens to use....

Not that I know about but I assume there are considerably better lenses to use for "professionals" ?
 
PJ S said:
I looked at the eyebrows and lashes - neither child had well defined hairs there.
Even as the image was loading, the top of the lad's hair was clearly lacking definition, so it wasn't looking too good at that point.
Click to expand...

This was my first reference point and what I tried to point out to my wife - the eyes should be sharp, therefore so should the lashes and eyebrows. Of all of these images, I'd guess maybe 10-12 are sharp. Maybe another 30 are acceptable but the rest are completely unacceptable to me.
 
the_local_jacko said:
It's a bizarre one but for it simply to be OOF the tog must have had a nightmare as f13 at 48mm from say 7ft there is an effective depth of field of around 3.5 feet. If they put the focus point anywhere on those subjects you'd expect the focus to be fine (assuming of course that autofocus was used).
Click to expand...

JulesP said:
I know that the D80 was a very good camera in its time but I would expect a professional studio to use something a bit higher spec than a D80 with 18-70 kit lens (as per the Exif info from Flickr).
If I were in your position, I don't think I would find that acceptable.
Click to expand...

I find it a bit strange that the photographer would choose to use the kit lens at the long end, and closed down to f13.
I would've thought f11 was even pushing his luck, and f8/f6.4 would've been more likely to have produced the sharpest image corner to corner.
Not to mention a whole EV dialed out, with a slow 1/160 shutter.
ISO upped to 160 instead of 100 or 125?

I wonder if the camera shot in JPEG Large Normal mode?
From DPR specs, that gives a file size of 2.4MB - Fine is double that, 4.8MB
 
Last edited:
London Headshots said:
I wouldn't pay for them. I wouldn't pay even if they were pin sharp. The person who shot that has made absolutely no effort to justify even one penny of their fee.

If you consider chasing this company for a refund, I'm more than willing to place that in a statement as the opinion of a commercial professional.

A 2.5mb image, saved at max settings in photoshop would come from a roughly 5mp camera, so these were either shot on a 15 year old camera, or they are compressed to hell. That doesn't explain a soft image, though. God knows why they were shooting at f13, but that's probably got something do do with it. Especially if they were using a cheap lens.
Click to expand...

Clearly at face value the shown photograph is not of a professional quality. Certainly of there were 92 images then they would have benefitted from a significantly higher edit to remove some of the soft ones.

However, I think if it were me I'd be wanting some more facts before I made such a categorical statement, and offered yourself up as an expert witness. We have no facts on the actual cost of the session, the price of the disk of images, the style of images that the OP desired, and how the quality of these images compares to the photographers portfolio of work. It might well have been a £100 *all* images taken on CD (with no PP).

f/13 may well have been the correct aperture to use in that studio environment, depending on the lens used, and distance to subject, and the desired (should it have been executed correctly) front to back sharpness.

As for the size a lvl 10 save of an 8-bit JPEG from that camera might well render a 2.x mb file.

They may not be to your taste, they may not be to your skill level of execution but without the facts I just don't see how you can denounce them in such a way.

To the OP - the discussion you need to have is with the photographer. At this time only you know how much you paid for these, and how they compare. If you are unhappy you need to speak to them.
 
Sorry, but that picture is diabolically bad. It should never have been allowed off the memory card, and certainly should never ever be put on a disc and sold to a client. Seriously, there is nothing positive to say about that image. I'm shocked and stunned that this photographer could have such low standards and charge for it.

Cheers,
Tony
 
Last edited:
"I just don't see how you can denounce them in such a way" - bloody simple - if the example shown is typical, they are utterly execrable at any price, even without the sharpness problems. (So many basic mistakes)

Yes he needs to talk to the photographer, be polite but very insistent, they are not of professional quality or content, you want your money back.........that simple!
 
meonshore said:
Clearly at face value the shown photograph is not of a professional quality. Certainly of there were 92 images then they would have benefitted from a significantly higher edit to remove some of the soft ones.

However, I think if it were me I'd be wanting some more facts before I made such a categorical statement, and offered yourself up as an expert witness. We have no facts on the actual cost of the session, the price of the disk of images, the style of images that the OP desired, and how the quality of these images compares to the photographers portfolio of work. It might well have been a £100 *all* images taken on CD (with no PP).

f/13 may well have been the correct aperture to use in that studio environment, depending on the lens used, and distance to subject, and the desired (should it have been executed correctly) front to back sharpness.

As for the size a lvl 10 save of an 8-bit JPEG from that camera might well render a 2.x mb file.

They may not be to your taste, they may not be to your skill level of execution but without the facts I just don't see how you can denounce them in such a way.

To the OP - the discussion you need to have is with the photographer. At this time only you know how much you paid for these, and how they compare. If you are unhappy you need to speak to them.
Click to expand...

That's all great, but the pictures are terrible. It doesn't matter if they're in focus, they're diabolically lit. Being able to focus a shot is not an indicator of someone's skill - lighting, however, is.

I own a studio, and I've never had to shoot two people side by side at f13.

As for not knowing the cost of the session, we know it was "expensive".

SO we have out of focus, terribly lit pictures that were "expensive". I think that's grounds to call for a refund. If it's not, it's certainly not grounds to jump to their defence.
 
Expensive = £?

Expensive to you might be a considerably different number to expensive for someone else. I know what I'd charge for a session and a full session of images on a disk (I don't think I'd ever deliver 92 images from a portrait session) and it is 40x what some of the local photographers around me charge. Some people might consider them expensive and me outrageous - but I'm 50% of the price of some of my peers in Hampshire.

Again - you may have shot it differently - but he didn't hire you.

I'm not defending the photographs - what I am saying is that if they were £100 all in then what can you expect ?

This forum regularly has statements like:

- Everyone has to start somewhere
- If you want it badly enough then you should go for it
- There is nothing wrong with a kit lens if you stop it down

Fact is this photographer appears to be of the skill level which many of us are lambasted for when we tell them to stop charging and get their basic skills under control first. The market, and this forum, can't have it both ways.
 
meonshore said:
Expensive = £?

Expensive to you might be a considerably different number to expensive for someone else. I know what I'd charge for a session and a full session of images on a disk (I don't think I'd ever deliver 92 images from a portrait session) and it is 40x what some of the local photographers around me charge. Some people might consider them expensive and me outrageous - but I'm 50% of the price of some of my peers in Hampshire.

Again - you may have shot it differently - but he didn't hire you.

I'm not defending the photographs - what I am saying is that if they were £100 all in then what can you expect ?

This forum regularly has statements like:

- Everyone has to start somewhere
- If you want it badly enough then you should go for it
- There is nothing wrong with a kit lens if you stop it down

Fact is this photographer appears to be of the skill level which many of us are lambasted for when we tell them to stop charging and get their basic skills under control first. The market, and this forum, can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters what you or I consider expensive, what matters is that the OP considers it expensive.

The pictures are crap. I think you should accept it and stop inexplicably acting as a voice of reason. For no reason.
 
to be fair, that photo is awful.. you could get a better sharper photo using a compact camera so I have to agree this time that wether the photos cost £10 or £2000... its pants
 
I know you mean well Mike, and are playing a bit of devil's advocate, but irrespective of the monetary value attached to the term "expensive", that linked image is by all accounts, fairly dire output from someone claiming to be a professional.

I hear you on the equipment, but let's be frank, it's a kit lens shot at full zoom, in complete manual mode, so the chap had full control over every facet of the settings used to get the shot spot on.
I'll bet you don't use a kit zoom lens in the studio for portraits, do you?

As awkward as it will be, the OP will have to speak to the chap in question, and raise his objections to the photos provided on the CD as being well below expectations and usability.
If the 'tog doesn't agree that they're poor, and suggests what did he expect for only £xxx, then it'll be clear to see where he ranks on the professional scale.
We're hoping it's nothing more than a mistake which should never have happened, but that it has, will be rectified to the OP's satisfaction, and restoring his confidence in recommending or using him again.
 
London Headshots said:
The pictures are crap. I think you should accept it and stop inexplicably acting as a voice of reason. For no reason.
Click to expand...

Yes lets not try to have any balance. We should all go to this guys studio, stamp all over his cameras and then burn it down. It would be the kindest thing to do.

:cuckoo::cuckoo::cuckoo:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top