Thankfully the dogs were spared.
January 12, 2018 4:48 PM   Subscribe

This post was deleted for the following reason: This is funny but awfully thin and likely to end kind of nastily, sorry. -- restless_nomad

Okay this is the photographic version of Beast Christ...

But people should know that a "clear, sunny day" is not the kind of day you want for best lighting. You want a consistently, lightly overcast day.

That said, she should have/could have had bounce cards and the like.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:57 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

To me the funniest part is that the aggreived consumer thinks $250 is a lot to spend for professional family portraits.

Yeah, you can find a friend who's a talented amateur, or a dedicated product/fashion/architecture photographer looking for some quick cash on the weekend, for double that. If you're really lucky.

Photography is both craft and art and much harder than advertised to get good results with a frame-able print. Fuck you, pay them.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:58 PM on January 12 [3 favorites]

Oh, the Meyers family. There’s Michael, and there’s...
posted by uncleozzy at 5:00 PM on January 12 [2 favorites]

I'm confused
posted by HotToddy at 5:01 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

On the one hand, if there's no refund here this seems like a no-brainer to win in small-claims court. On the other hand, if you go to small claims court do you not get to keep the pictures? Because I think I'd want to keep the pictures. They're just awful in that so-awful-they're-awesome sort of way.
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:01 PM on January 12

Yeah this would normally cost more than $250, but if this photographer agreed to take $250 and their agreement was not for pictures drawn in with MS Paint, then the photographer has a duty to provide actual pictures of quality at least on par with "I snapped this picture of our vacation on my phone." Sure one could imagine that at that price they would have problems, but this is well beyond "the white balance is off" or "there's a tree growing out of your head."
posted by If only I had a penguin... at 5:06 PM on January 12

“Masking tool” taken literally.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:06 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

I like how apparently they had the originals, and then these "retouched" versions, looked at both, and thought "yep, send them the retouched ones!"
posted by axiom at 5:08 PM on January 12

Glad you included the yesprobablyfake tag. It's really hard to believe that someone could be that incompetent but that consistent.
posted by octothorpe at 5:12 PM on January 12 [1 favorite]

Here is a link to the (very) public Facebook post. It was posted in the twitter replies from the original tweeter, and it's also been shared over 80,000 times on Facebook so I hope this isn't considered doxxing. The profile that it's from seems to be real, though obviously the poster could have done this on her own for some reason.
posted by primalux at 5:16 PM on January 12

The plot thickens - watermark: "Lesa Hill" - Googled the name and...Lesa Hill, Pacific Plastic Surgeon
posted by davebush at 5:17 PM on January 12

« Older Did you get sugar in your eye?   |   I see you. I believe you. Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments