# "If they pay me more"...



## ORourkeK (Feb 19, 2019)

I am on a FB group and someone posted a series they did for an engagement shoot. One of the pictures was of the couple in the center of a footbridge, and the photographer was off of the bride on the right side taking the shot. There were plants, trees, people, airplanes, boats, etc. all around the image. It was incredibly distracting. Before I even read the comments I was thinking about all of the things I would crop out to make it look better. Well, someone did comment all of their suggestions advising what they would remove or crop out. The person's response was really surprising to me. They said something along the lines of, "Well, if they want to pay me more to edit all of that out I will". Is this the normal thought process? Am I the crazy person? To me, the products I hand to the customer are my product. I will take the few extra minutes needed in certain photos to make sure it looks as best it can. Literally, a five-minute touch up would have improved the photo greatly. As is, if they didn't include other photos from the same set, I wouldn't have known right away that the people on the bridge were their subject. Thoughts?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 19, 2019)

No, the other person's the crazy one! lol That's an unacceptible photography practice for someone who is aspiring (or in that person's case, pretending??) to be a portrait photographer. 

I'd get out of that group and find something better, unless you just want to be another person with a camera, or another wannabee, or whatever you want to call such people! I think you're better than that. 

I do think it's a mistake to depend on fixing photos to be able to do professional level work. Maybe starting out that might happen more often than not but I think it's better to get good at using a camera and develop skills and and do editing as needed rather than to depend on a lot of time on the computer editing because of poor skill development. It seems like that person has a low level of skills and a lousy work ethic. Don't follow that lead! lol And I don't think you will, you already know that's not the way to go.


----------



## tirediron (Feb 19, 2019)

Yep ^^^  !!!!  If the photographer doesn't have the pride in his work to produce the best images he can, then his future in this industry is bleak indeed.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 19, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> I am on a FB group and someone posted a series they did for an engagement shoot. One of the pictures was of the couple in the center of a footbridge, and the photographer was off of the bride on the right side taking the shot. There were plants, trees, people, airplanes, boats, etc. all around the image. It was incredibly distracting. Before I even read the comments I was thinking about all of the things I would crop out to make it look better.>SNIP>>>>>-



Wow! WHAT A LOUSY outlook that "photographer" shows.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 19, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> ........Is this the normal thought process? .......



It is these days.


----------



## Overread (Feb 20, 2019)

Depends

1) On the one hand a photographer really shouldn't be giving out substandard work that they know is substandard and which they can fix. Every work they send out is potential advertising for them and referrals to other lines of work (esp for something like weddings where the photos will get shown off around a lot after the event and many friends circles of a similar age will often start getting married around the same sort of time).

2) On the other we have no idea how much the photographer is getting paid for this wedding. It might be that their fees are right at the bottom end of the market to the point where spending several hours extra shifts them into earning less (per hour) than shelf stacking down the supermarket. We always say that a photographer must look at their bottom line; must ensure that they cover their costs etc... and this could be one of those situations where the photographer is at that near limit point.

3) We've no idea if the photographer (from the info given above) pitched removal of those elements to the client or an editing package - again it might be their pricing structure to cut prices and then add on extras to make up for it. Could be the clients said no to the editing package and thus the photographer isn't providing the extra work.

4) To my eye the main weakness is that the photographer is letting all these distractions into the scene in the first place. If they are working an area one would hope they've been scouting and studying and finding good spots to get clear nice easy to process photos that look good. However it could be a special location to the couple which limits what the photographer can do again.


There are justifications for both sides depending on the specifics of the situation. There are justifiable arguments but there are also elements such as ignorance, lack of skill, lack of forethought or planing which could also be contributing factors.


Perhaps the line should not be "If they pay me more" but "if I've the sales skill to convince them the value of paying for that service"


----------



## pixmedic (Feb 20, 2019)

if they produced a better finished product, perhaps they would get paid more...


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Feb 20, 2019)

I hope that person doesn't have children depending on their " professional " traits to provide food. Looks like another welfare case in waiting.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 20, 2019)

Not sure if it's this way everywhere, but around here we have a lot of "Mom's with cameras" who flood Facebook with $30 bookings gets you 30 images on CD.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Feb 20, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Not sure if it's this way everywhere, but around here we have a lot of "Mom's with cameras" who flood Facebook with $30 bookings gets you 30 images on CD.



Out of the 2 dozen or so business cards on the employee bulletin board at work, at least 2 are from photographers. If I was young and my head was full of dreams of making my riches as a photographer, I like to think I'd be smart enough to have a real job as the main source of income that could also support the photography endeavor


----------



## CODYMAJ (Feb 20, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> To me, the products I hand to the customer are my product. I will take the few extra minutes needed in certain photos to make sure it looks as best it can.



This is the right mindset. Everyone has a personal brand, and you always want to think of how you want your brand to be perceived. Always put out something you are proud of!


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 20, 2019)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. I am glad I am not the crazy one. I woke up this morning to a post on that site from someone advising that they are trying to get into senior portraits, but they don't have any that they have done already so they don't have a portfolio, but don't worry, they found a bunch of pictures online that they feel fit their style and will use them in their brochure. Yeah, I am leaving that group.


----------



## Designer (Feb 20, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> .. a bunch of pictures online that they feel fit their style ..


Select the "style" before they even start? 

chutzpah


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 20, 2019)

Designer said:


> ORourkeK said:
> 
> 
> > .. a bunch of pictures online that they feel fit their style ..
> ...



Yes! I couldn't believe my eyes. The worst part? I went to go grab the popcorn, considering this should have been a fun read, and when I came back, all of the comments were on board with it. I started with my response when I decided I didn't need the fight and that the FB page just isn't for me.


----------



## CODYMAJ (Feb 20, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> I started with my response when I decided I didn't need the fight and that the FB page just isn't for me.



Good call! Find inspiration, maybe, but selecting a style first seems like naming a song before writing it


----------



## ClickAddict (Feb 20, 2019)

If you feel that a certain pay does not warrant 10 fully edited photos, you dont offer 10 half done poor quality ones.  You offer 5  fully edited photos.  Reduce the quantity, not the quality.  Most can fully grasp that if they pay you more you could take longer and get more photos.  They would not expect your quality to go up with price (Quality of actual album / options yes, but not of the photos themselves) .


----------



## Derrel (Feb 20, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > ORourkeK said:
> ...




Good call.


----------



## ac12 (Feb 22, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> Thanks for the feedback everyone. I am glad I am not the crazy one. I woke up this morning to a post on that site from someone advising that they are trying to get into senior portraits, but they don't have any that they have done already so they don't have a portfolio, but don't worry, they found a bunch of pictures online that they feel fit their style and will use them in their brochure. Yeah, I am leaving that group.



And just how close are the online pics to their style ???
Oh but you said they don't have any pics, so then they really don't have a style, just an idea. 

I personally would not want to be in a group like that for professional purposes.  Just a waste of time and negatively affects your thinking.
IF you want to spend time helping others, then it could be a time sink, IF they are receptive to constructive help.
vs.  "I don't need YOUR help, I'm a pro."


----------



## ac12 (Feb 22, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> I am on a FB group and someone posted a series they did for an engagement shoot. One of the pictures was of the couple in the center of a footbridge, and the photographer was off of the bride on the right side taking the shot. There were plants, trees, people, airplanes, boats, etc. all around the image. It was incredibly distracting. Before I even read the comments I was thinking about all of the things I would crop out to make it look better. Well, someone did comment all of their suggestions advising what they would remove or crop out. The person's response was really surprising to me. They said something along the lines of, "Well, if they want to pay me more to edit all of that out I will". Is this the normal thought process? Am I the crazy person? To me, the products I hand to the customer are my product. I will take the few extra minutes needed in certain photos to make sure it looks as best it can. Literally, a five-minute touch up would have improved the photo greatly. As is, if they didn't include other photos from the same set, I wouldn't have known right away that the people on the bridge were their subject. Thoughts?



I am thinking that there are 2 angles to the pic.

#1 - The couple selected the scene, so the photog has to shoot it, and deal with the distractions in the scene as best he can.
The problem here is a phrase that I've heard too much from non-photographers, "just photoshop it out."
This places a requirement on post processing edit skills and time that the photographer may not have, or may not have to the extent that the photo needs.​#2 - The photog selected a bad scene.  
Though it could also be the best of a bunch of bad options at that location.​
Also as has been said, when couples are going for "lowest bid," they are getting what they are paying for.  Minimum work to produce the deliverable.  Couple this with the above and you have this this situation.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 25, 2019)

ac12 said:


> "I don't need YOUR help, I'm a pro."



This is how most of them are.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 25, 2019)

ac12 said:


> #1 - The couple selected the scene, so the photog has to shoot it, and deal with the distractions in the scene as best he can.
> The problem here is a phrase that I've heard too much from non-photographers, "just photoshop it out."
> This places a requirement on post processing edit skills and time that the photographer may not have, or may not have to the extent that the photo needs.​




I think in today's age, post processing skills should be a requirement. I am not talking about reconstructing an entire scene, but a simple 5 minute removal of distractions from a photo can change evereything. With the tools we have within PS, it really isn't that difficult. I will most likely be in the minority with this, but oh well. It may be my youth and ignorance to the professional scene. Perhaps as I wiggle my way deeper into the world of professional photography I will start to think differently. 

PS: I agree 100 percent that it is up to us to pick the best scenes with the least amount of distractions. My comment above is for the scenerios where the subject insists on a scene with distractions and a bad background.​


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 25, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> ne, but a simple 5 minute removal of distractions from a photo can change evereything. With the tools we have within PS, it really isn't that difficult



Food for thought. As an amateur an extra 5 mins on a single image isn't  much. As a professional multiply that by a 100 images and you've just worked a full day for nothing.


----------



## ClickAddict (Feb 25, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> ORourkeK said:
> 
> 
> > ne, but a simple 5 minute removal of distractions from a photo can change evereything. With the tools we have within PS, it really isn't that difficult
> ...




"for nothing"   that's the mentality that is the issue.  It's not for nothing.  It's for better quality.  Using the same logic, why edit photos at all?  Why take the extra time lighting properly?   It's all part of the product you are delivering.  Quality photos.  There becomes a point where it does reach a "too much time investment for little product improvement" but that all comes down to the quality you consider to be minimal for your business.

As a professional you base your pay for a job on not just shoot time but entire Cost of Doing Business.  which certainly includes Edit time even in it's most basic calculations.


----------



## ac12 (Feb 25, 2019)

ClickAddict said:


> smoke665 said:
> 
> 
> > ORourkeK said:
> ...



That is if the gig will support the extra cost.
And if they are no surprises, like
We want the pictures over there.​
In a "lowest bid" situation, like what I've read about for some weddings, you are shaving your costs down to get the gig.
Extra unplanned edit time eats into your profit.

With an unknown site, I would to a physical site recon with the client, to nail down and discuss the shots.  But how many people (photog and client) would take the time do that?  This is extra time that you have to budget for in your bid.


----------



## ClickAddict (Feb 25, 2019)

Any business that does not have a profit margin that can handle typical unforeseen issues (And extra edits is certainly within probable issues) is not pricing well.
Stores price based on typical theft
Product sales price based on potential returns /defects
Photographers should price based on potential edits. / damaged equipment over the years.....
If you cant make a bid that leaves profit and room for extra edits you will not succeed as a business (Well you can afford to it from time to time if there is also a chance  to get into certain markets and generate more profitable business but those should be the exception, not the rule)  If after all your expenses (including value for your time) you end up spending more than your bid will bring you in, then you are not running a Professional photography business, you are enjoying (hopefully) a fun hobby (And nothing wrong with that.)
If fighting for the lowest bid makes it non profitable, that job is simply not for you.  (Everyone has a  budget for their photography and every business has a target market. Neither one encompasses everybody)


----------



## ClickAddict (Feb 25, 2019)

Bugatti makes an amazing car.  I know it's worth the extra $$.  My budget is for something "a bit" less.  They are certainly not lowering their price to compete against the cars I typically buy.  They are also not making a cheap car (less edited photo) to try and stay within my budget cause it would ruin their image.
Photography is no different.  If you put out crappier photos than you usually can produce in order to save time and fall to a lower price range, good luck in trying to win the customers that are willing to pay more after they've seen those results.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 25, 2019)

ClickAddict said:


> not just shoot time but entire Cost of Doing Business. which certainly includes Edit time even in it's most basic



The extra edit time I was speaking of was that caused by not paying attention that could be minimized or eliminated from the shot before you click the shutter. Every business has certain costs associated with the service/product they provide. They don't include time to recover from errors that shouldn't have occurred in the first place.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 25, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Food for thought. As an amateur an extra 5 mins on a single image isn't  much. As a professional multiply that by a 100 images and you've just worked a full day for nothing.



Not if we are running with the idea that, as the pro photographer, we aren't allowing ourselves to take 100 images where 5 minutes worth of work needs to be done. This is with the understanding that "the customers insisted" for an image or two.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 25, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> Not if we are running with the idea that, as the pro photographer, we aren't allowing ourselves to take 100 images where 5 minutes worth of work needs to be done. This is with the understanding that "the customers insisted" for an image or two.



A Pro at anything doesn't allow himself/herself to be manipulated into producing an inferior product. As others have said this is where the "7 P's" come in. Over the years there were many times when I had to redirect a customer. Generally after hearing the reasons why and on being presented with alternatives, they were agreeable. If they weren't it was better to know up front and walk away.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 25, 2019)

I found that too, doing work that wasn't photography related, that it's part of the job to suggest other options. Maybe what a family has in mind is fine, but there may be options they didn't even know about.

I think it's a matter of taking charge and figuring out how to get the photos the client wants in a way that works, if that means changing your vantage point for a background/scenery they want from a perspective that works. 

Get on American Society of Media Photographers - Homepage and look for the 'paperwork share' where working pros share actual jobs/contacts they had. They charge for time 'processing' because obviously you have to at least get the photos off the roll of film or media card and look at the them! But to plan to have to depend on having to edit every single photo you took seems to indicate a need to bring up the skill level; seems better to edit as needed. To me it's like writing, if you have to rewrite every single sentence you write then you probably need to work on your writing skills or you're never going to get done and get anything actually written.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 26, 2019)

ac12 said:


> The couple selected the scene, so the photog has to shoot it...



Really?



smoke665 said:


> A Pro... doesn't allow himself/herself to be manipulated into producing an inferior product.



True!

SO many times, I've heard, "You're the professional.  Tell us what to do."  And then get an argument.  

I know it's hard at times, especially in today's market.  Each of us must decide what we're willing to do and where the line is.  There have been times I rescheduled sittings due to bad clothing choices.  There have been a few (very few) occasions when I refused a session because I wasn't willing to produce certain images (i.e. tots in sexy poses).  Personally, I'm OK with losing those jobs.

BUT...  back to the original concern.  I know I'll be doing basic processing of every image...  crops, color balance, etc.  AND... I will do further work (within reason) at my own discretion.  If EXTENSIVE work is requested by a client, I decide (on an ad hoc basis) if it's due to something I should have done when shooting...  something I should have controlled.  I don't feel I should ask additional payment if I fall short of what I promised.

-Pete


----------



## mrca (Feb 26, 2019)

Why didnt he use shallow dof to eliminate distractions.  Combine that with longer lens with narrower angle of view.  Sounds like a gwc, guy with a camera, who doesnt have a clue.  A pro can get the shot and isnt a blind squirrel hoping to find an acorn.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

It is interesting that people are assuming this person I was speaking of is a man. I think most everyone here is in agreement...

1. It is up to the photographer to educate the subjects 
2. A pro photog will not need to spend a lot of time editing due to properly educating
3. Never give in to a client even if it means the world to them and it is at a spot where they have dreamed of having a picture taken of them their whole life

I think that about sums it up, eh? Ok, number three was half joking, but it is seriously how some of you are making it sound. If you have the opportunity to provide your client with a shot that they have been dreaming of, but are limited due to your skill in photoshop, you are OK with that? In the first scenario I described in this thread, it would have taken minimal effort to clone/path out a few people, a plane in the open sky, and a couple things in the water. You are telling me you would have looked at the scene and said, "gee, too much post-processing, time to educate the clients"??? Again, I am not saying do the entire photoshoot here, it is one shot.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

mrca said:


> Why didnt he use shallow dof to eliminate distractions.  Combine that with longer lens with narrower angle of view.  Sounds like a gwc, guy with a camera, who doesnt have a clue.  A pro can get the shot and isnt a blind squirrel hoping to find an acorn.



Shallow depth of field wouldn't have kept our eyes away from all of the distractions in this one. And I think they intentionally kept everything in focus. This is a bit of an unfair post from me considering I am unable to provide the picture I am speaking of. I agree about the "doesn't have a clue" part though! The entire group felt cult-like. It was a bit scary.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> A Pro at anything doesn't allow himself/herself to be manipulated into producing an inferior product. As others have said this is where the "7 P's" come in. Over the years there were many times when I had to redirect a customer. Generally after hearing the reasons why and on being presented with alternatives, they were agreeable. If they weren't it was better to know up front and walk away.



In this example, the product is only inferior because the photographer refused to remove a few things in post. I do understand what you are saying though. Side note, when you and Sharon pop up in a thread together, I know I am in for it  In a good way, of course!


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> if that means changing your vantage point for a background/scenery they want from a perspective that works.



I like this. I do think everyone here is correct when assuming this person could have set up the shot better. I think if I were to restart this thread I would have worded things differently. Perhaps my question this time around would be "Do you allow yourself to take a picture where you know you will have to remove a few items in post?" and then I would have followed it up with "Would you then charge more for the additional editing?".


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 26, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> If you have the opportunity to provide your client with a shot that they have been dreaming of, but are limited due to your skill in photoshop, you are OK with that?



Well...

If the job requires greater skills than I possess, I shouldn't be taking on that job.  Photoshop is just one tool.  Maybe careful planning is what is needed.

-Pete


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

Christie Photo said:


> ORourkeK said:
> 
> 
> > If you have the opportunity to provide your client with a shot that they have been dreaming of, but are limited due to your skill in photoshop, you are OK with that?
> ...



In most scenarios, you won't know what a spot entails until you are on site, no? Are you saying you go out and visit a location before accepting a job? Strictly speaking of portraits here.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 26, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> Are you saying you go out and visit a location before accepting a job? Strictly speaking of portraits here.



Absolutely!  Doesn't everyone?

Why wouldn't you?

-Pete


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

Christie Photo said:


> ORourkeK said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying you go out and visit a location before accepting a job? Strictly speaking of portraits here.
> ...



Interesting. Looking forward to seeing what others say about that. If we continue with just portraits, if you have 5 jobs in one week that are all a couple hours apart, you are traveling to each of these locations before you even take the job? Perhaps this depends on lead time, but I just can't imagine that being true. And if we expand past portraits and start talking about weddings/events, your location may be across the country, or in an entirely different country. Would you still go to the location before accepting the job? This is definitely on the extreme, but I am just trying to think about what happens if you apply this procedure across the board.


----------



## Christie Photo (Feb 26, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> If we continue with just portraits, if you have 5 jobs in one week that are all a couple hours apart, you are traveling to each of these locations before you even take the job?



The times that I've had five portraits on location to shoot in the same week would have been high school senior portraits.  I shoot only in MY locations for this level of service to assure proper lighting.

I've never been lucky enough to book 5 family portraits in one week.  BUT IF I DID, I would certainly stop in and take a look before the session date.  Same with commercial shoots.

My service area for portraits has been within (but not limited to) a 30 minute drive from my studio.

-Pete


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

Stopping in to look at the location before the session date is different from not accepting the job until you see the location. I am impressed that you have been successful with such a limitation placed on yourself. I can't imagine limiting my distance when there are beautiful mountains 1-2 hour(s) in one direction, and oceans 1-2 hour(s) in the other. I like your idea for the senior portraits though. Being extremely familiar with a location must be comforting.


----------



## Fujidave (Feb 26, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> I am on a FB group and someone posted a series they did for an engagement shoot. One of the pictures was of the couple in the center of a footbridge, and the photographer was off of the bride on the right side taking the shot. There were plants, trees, people, airplanes, boats, etc. all around the image. It was incredibly distracting. Before I even read the comments I was thinking about all of the things I would crop out to make it look better. Well, someone did comment all of their suggestions advising what they would remove or crop out. The person's response was really surprising to me. They said something along the lines of, "Well, if they want to pay me more to edit all of that out I will". Is this the normal thought process? Am I the crazy person? To me, the products I hand to the customer are my product. I will take the few extra minutes needed in certain photos to make sure it looks as best it can. Literally, a five-minute touch up would have improved the photo greatly. As is, if they didn't include other photos from the same set, I wouldn't have known right away that the people on the bridge were their subject. Thoughts?



IMO I think the person is totally out of order, plus I think he will NOT make it as a photographer at all with a horrible and crappy way of thinking.  When I take my vocalists images if I can`t crop out the messy bits, then I take them out in PP.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 26, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> In this example, the product is only inferior because the photographer refused to remove a few things in post



The product was inferior because the photographer was inferior, end of discussion. A professional person would have suggested alternatives, used thier skills to minimize the issue, allowed edit time to correct or refused the job. 

As to pre-planning. If you hire a painter to paint your house would you expect them to first look the house. If you hired a mechanic to fix your car wouldn't they need to look at it first. The list goes on and on so why do you find it odd that a professional photographer would want to look at a location first, unless they already have experience with the location. Pros make it go smooth because they already know what they're doing when they walk on the job.


----------



## Derrel (Feb 26, 2019)

He said/she said situations...never is there a clear-cut disposition of such disagreements when the "facts"  are mere speculations...


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> ORourkeK said:
> 
> 
> > In this example, the product is only inferior because the photographer refused to remove a few things in post
> ...



Pre-planning is not the same as going to the location prior to accepting the Job. I agree that you should know your location prior to a shoot. Back to the original topic, I agree that they were an all-around inferior photog.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

Derrel said:


> He said/she said situations...never is there a clear-cut disposition of such disagreements when the "facts"  are mere speculations...



Yes. I touched this a bit in one of my prior comments. It was an unfair post considering I am unable to provide the photographers POV and the picture itself.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 26, 2019)

I've lost track of what/who exactly we're talking about! And no, I'm not going back to find out... Weren't you thinking that maybe that FB group isn't one you'd stay with anyway? Although I suppose any group could have some people with cameras that are at best misguided.

I think this is getting into specific or unusual situations. In my area typical drive time would be a half hour, maybe 45 minutes (for people like me that live way out!). So if a prospective job was out of that range it would be getting into extra cost for time and travel. Two hours away? that's definitely out of town and again, additional expense if a photographer wants to do that. So in most situations photographers that I know would check out the venue ahead of time (and that's mostly weddings; I don't know offhand of anyone doing that for a portrait session; I think photographers have already been to various potential locations in the area). I suppose you could at least check a place out online and if it involves travel time, schedule (and bill for) time to visit the venue ahead of time. 

I think if you can get a great shot for a client it's a matter of providing a great end result. To do that I think you need to be a darn good photographer, have good camera skills, and know when/how to adjust or edit as needed. I think it's like that with other work, it's a matter of learning the tools of the trade to carry out the skills. You can't do a mediocre job and try to fix it later (well people do, but I think that's poor workmanship to do that on a regular basis). Sometimes it happens that you messed up something and gotta figure out how to fix it, but I don't think you can count on doing that all the time. That to me shows a need for bringing up the skill level.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 26, 2019)

Yes, I have left the group. Thanks for the follow-up. You have explained what I have been trying to say, just more eloquently. I never thought about restricting myself via travel time. Of course, I would expect the cost to be covered by the clients. Is that an arrogant statement? I thought this was pretty standard.


----------



## Grandpa Ron (Feb 26, 2019)

I find "if they paid me more" a very poor excuse.

But I think the one thing people have not considered is perhaps the photographer was quite happy with the photographs or perhaps satisfied enough. More importantly, were his customer's happy with them?

Back in the film days, I learned that most of the wedding photos were taken with grandma's Kodak Holiday camera. They were carried around in a purse and shown to family and friends. The Pro photos were 8 x 10 and sitting in an album on a shelf somewhere.

It is true that a well edited shot will always outshine a poorly edited shot; especially when compared side by side. But, given the multitude of cell phone photos shot at a wedding, I do not the folks really care so much about a well edited shot.

Heck, these days you can even Bokeh out the background for that artistic look.


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 27, 2019)

I guess it depends on the circumstances. In several instances I have been hired to photograph models, but the agency didn't want to pay for editing. So guess what? They didn't get editing. Yes, theres something to be said about "work ethic" and taking pride in the photos we deliver, but time is money and retouching skills are highly specialized and valuable, and that value needs to be respected. If a paying client doesn't see the value in editing, I don't see a reason to deliver edited photos unless said editing was already part of the agreement, or if I love the photo and WANT to edit it.


----------



## ORourkeK (Feb 27, 2019)

DanOstergren said:


> I guess it depends on the circumstances. In several instances I have been hired to photograph models, but the agency didn't want to pay for editing. So guess what? They didn't get editing. Yes, theres something to be said about "work ethic" and taking pride in the photos we deliver, but time is money and retouching skills are highly specialized and valuable, and that value needs to be respected. If a paying client doesn't see the value in editing, I don't see a reason to deliver edited photos unless said editing was already part of the agreement, or if I love the photo and WANT to edit it.



Thanks for the perspective. I never thought of editing being separate from the process, but your comment about the agency brings up a good point. Do you know if that agency turned around and paid someone else to edit the photos?


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 27, 2019)

ORourkeK said:


> DanOstergren said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it depends on the circumstances. In several instances I have been hired to photograph models, but the agency didn't want to pay for editing. So guess what? They didn't get editing. Yes, theres something to be said about "work ethic" and taking pride in the photos we deliver, but time is money and retouching skills are highly specialized and valuable, and that value needs to be respected. If a paying client doesn't see the value in editing, I don't see a reason to deliver edited photos unless said editing was already part of the agreement, or if I love the photo and WANT to edit it.
> ...


Not to my knowledge, but I wouldn't be upset if they did; perhaps they like another retoucher's style or skill over my own. I know plenty of retouchers who do much better work than I do. One of the models did contact me and paid me to retouch his favorites though. 

It's a very involved process that takes time and care, and in most instances I include editing in my rate or bid without explaining that editing is part of the total. If a potential client asks for cheaper prices, I'll break down the costs for them, and sometimes the editing is sacrificed. I personally don't believe editing should be a crutch and still put a lot of work towards making the images great at the moment of exposure, so I'm confident in my unedited photos. That said, if a photographer isn't putting that sort of care into the exposure itself, saying "if they pay me more I'll do it" probably isn't going to be a good look for them.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 27, 2019)

@DanOstergren having seen many fine examples of your work, I have serious doubts that your images would ever require editing to remove mistakes such as the OP listed. That said, I thought I read somewhere that agencies preferred shots without editing so as to evaluate the model in their raw form.


----------



## CherylL (Feb 27, 2019)

I think it takes awhile to train your eye for distractions in the background.  When I first started on this forum that was mentioned quite a bit to check all 4 corners of your frame before taking a photo.  It took me several years to do this naturally and I still on occasion miss something.  I took photos for a friend's masters degree last year.  We were at a park and I did check the background except about 6 photos had her shoes off to the side.  She had changed from flats to heels once we got to a setting.  It didn't take too long to edit out the shoes, but added time on the normal editing & culling.


----------



## JoeU (Feb 27, 2019)

“A photographer is known by what he shows....”

Any photographer worthy of the title puts his/her best foot forward, period.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 27, 2019)

Elvis has left the group... Maybe you'll find a group that's a better fit. 

I think the time editing is usually part of the contracted work and time. I think that's the thing about creative work, you're getting paid for your talent, time you spent learning and practicing and developing skills, your professional expertise and abillity to work with people and provide finished images in a timely manner, etc. etc. That's what seems to make it harder to price.

I found the same thing Cheryl, that I learned to make my eye move around the viewfinder and look at each corner. Over time it seems I got to the point of being able to take in everything in that rectangle all at once without consciously thinking about it. And you're right about it taking experience, and I think liking it enough to practice practice practice without it being a chore. I've been a photographer forever, and I still like to go out and take pictures, I've never stopped liking it.


----------



## DanOstergren (Feb 28, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @DanOstergren having seen many fine examples of your work, I have serious doubts that your images would ever require editing to remove mistakes such as the OP listed. That said, I thought I read somewhere that agencies preferred shots without editing so as to evaluate the model in their raw form.


 I've worked with many different agencies, and all of them have different expectations. I don't think there is any set rule, except that each of them has preferred that models not have their pores completely wiped away, as many photographers unfortunately love to do. I think preferring unedited images is a myth however, as most agencies use editorial images in their model's books, all of which have received a high end retouching treatment.


----------

