# Do you show clients unedited photos first, then process them? Or process first?



## KrisHunt (Nov 17, 2011)

I'm about to take on one of my first paying photo jobs. One of the biggest things I'm worried about is what to charge. I'm a graphic designer, and I normally charge $X per hour, so I was planning on charging the same rate for the photo session. But I know I'll probably spend hours in post-processing, too, and I'd like to be paid for the time I spend doing that, too.

Do you generally show the client the unedited photos first, and then do your post-processing to the ones they choose? Or do you choose the ones you think are best, process them, and then show that subset to the client?

The latter sounds like the better option for various reasonsnot the least of which is I don't want the client to know how much retouching was needed to make them look goodbut that would mean I would be billing them to retouch photos they may not choose. Any advice?


----------



## camz (Nov 17, 2011)

Well there's no reason to show your clients something completely unedited, that just won't do you any good.

If you have an established edit or product, you show them that tier and nothing prior.  If they do manage to have with you additional requests ontop of your product, then you're going to have to charge retouching fees or what may have you fees if you haven't already priced the cost into your original tier.  Why? Because once it's out of your hands you don't want anything leaving your company to the risk of bad interpretation especially from unedited photos. Your first hand off to them whould be what's expected of you, which is why they hired you in the first place. Unless offcourse they hired you for unedited work....you got the idea, the latter is better.

Choosing photos for the client is tough. We all have a different eye and clients tend to chose the ones where "they" think they look good.  I swear, it could be the most creative shot, with the best lighting, amazing composition, great post processing, grand backdrop - but if they like their smile better on another photo with just mediocre creativity....guess what they'll probably go for?  My suggestion to you is to cull everything that's decent, perform your tier of editing that meets your requirements and then hand it off to your clients wether it maybe an album, online gallery and some hand their's on a disc(The one with the least control).


----------



## BlairWright (Nov 17, 2011)

Agreed, always process first..


----------



## Futurelight (Nov 17, 2011)

Process first and give them the finished article. NO point in showing them what you have done before as, if a lot of post work is required, it just shows what you lack in ability as a photographer. The ONLY thing that actually matters is the finished article.


----------



## KrisHunt (Nov 17, 2011)

So processing time is generally not billed for, then? I can live with that.


----------



## Futurelight (Nov 17, 2011)

No, processing time is just how YOU as a photographer spend time to make YOUR photos "presentable". I mean, if it weren't that way, so many happy snappa amatuers would be bouncing a thousand shots, getting one "useable" one, charging for forty hours processing time and making a fortune. No skill required. See my point?


----------



## KrisHunt (Nov 17, 2011)

Thank you all for the advice. I know what I'll do now.


----------



## Big Mike (Nov 17, 2011)

Depends on the job.

For example, if you're doing a photo shoot for art director or a hair stylist (for competition entry), then it would probably be easier if you let them pick the shot or shots that they want, before you fully process them.  

But for a wedding or a portrait shoot, you may not want the client to see the unfinished photos.  Or at least, you won't want to give them the task of sorting out the 'keepers' because they may take forever to do it.  Some clients ask to see all the photos, or they ask 'where are the rest' after you deliver the finished photos.  In that case, you tell them that you have used your professional judgement to pick only the best photos of the bunch.  

Part of the problem, is that many photographers don't have the skill to shoot really good photos 'in-camera'.  They need to heavily process their images before they are finished.  If you have solid lighting skills/knowledge and know how to get a good exposure, then your un-edited shots probably look pretty good, and in that case, it may not be a problem to show your clients the images and let them choose their favorites before you  finish them.  

As you know, time is money.  
I know many wedding photographers and the part that weighs them all down, is the processing time they spend editing their photos.  But the better they are at shooting, the less time they spend editing.  A few of them do only minor editing before they show the photos/proofs to the client.  This saves them a lot of time, not having to fully edit shots that the client doesn't want anyway.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 17, 2011)

Post time usually takes longer than the shoot.  I add a digital/computer fee to all my shoots, I base it on the number of days I'm shooting, if I have a 4 day shoot I add 4 days for editing time, it is built into the package fee of the overall shoot.  If I'm doing a quick 1-2 hour shoot and am working with 100-200 images I don't charge anything for post, as the edit time is usually quick.

Never show un-edited images to a client.  As Big Mike said, there are a lot of people that require the time after to fix all the mistakes they made shooting, it takes skill and experience to get it right most of the time in camera.


----------



## MReid (Nov 17, 2011)

How can they pick the photos if they don't know that they are going to look like?
I never show a client an unprocessed photo, it isn't a photo until it is processed.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Nov 18, 2011)

MReid said:


> How can they pick the photos if they don't know that they are going to look like?
> I never show a client an unprocessed photo, it isn't a photo until it is processed.



Sorry.........what?


----------



## IndigoStarsNiagara (Nov 19, 2011)

imagemaker46 said:
			
		

> Sorry.........what?



A photo can be a photo without being processed on PS. 
If it is true though I guess I am not a photographer nor the millions of people who have been doing it before digital cameras.


----------



## IndigoStarsNiagara (Nov 19, 2011)

Why did it not show the 2 previous threads? It only showed the one. Grrrr... One day I'll get this posting thing. Lol


----------



## raider (Nov 20, 2011)

what i'm getting from this is not many people don't know how to use their camera.  and you're charging money -- learn your basic equipment first?


----------

