Is anyone defending the photographer giving a ball park figure which is a third of the price he ultimately intends to charge? Because this is what is at issue, here.
In deference to the OP, this isn't about pro vs amateur tog pricing, it's about "bait and switch" sales practices, which are against the 2008 Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.
Part of the issue is not enough info from the OP.
He states he asked for a quote (which he hasn't informed us as for what) and was given £150. Until we find out what that quote was for, the photographer can't be accused of anything - especially criminal practices.
The op is quite happy to pay for piece of photo paper that costs 20p to print for £20 (100% mark up) why not the same thinking for the canvas?
I suspect it is purely down to what he can afford and nothing to do with being ripped off.
Last edited: