awkward client/friend situation

[jandyman]

i have been portfolio building and getting as many people in front of my camera as I can for the next couple of months. I had a friend ask me to shoot some photos of her family reunion. I did the session and gave her images. now she is wanting to see ALL the images (I chose the best of the best) and talking about more photo editing. Since I did the work for nothing I will do more photoshop work for her but for a fee.

my ? is how do you handle the question - I want to see all the photo's? I don't want to show the out of focus and etc.....thanks in advance

 

[Derrel]

You know how to best handle this? You go through the entire take with a slide show application that allows you to click one button, and send bad images to the trash. You TRASH the sub-par stuff, and EMPTY the trash. Then, you use a batch re-naming utility to re-name what is left over, sequentially. Issue solved.

What people see are sequential numbers, with gaps,and then they wonder about the gaps and want to see what it was that you eliminated. So, make it much more difficult for them. Do not make it obvious that 10,15,20 or 100,or however many images have been culled by allowing obvious gaps in the file numbering! What they don't know will not hurt them. And if they make an issue, you can say with honesty, "These are ALL the images I have," and yuo can say that as many times as it takes to let them know that there.Are.No.Additional.Files.Left.To.See. Period.

Keep in mind, people will accept the crappiest photos of people they love. On rarely-seen people, or favorite relatives, or people who do not smile or laugh much and are dour or tactiturn, IF you get a shot of them smiling, or laughing, whatever, it can be 2 feet out of focus and that becomes "a good photo of Uncle Earl!!!!" So, keep that in mind. Same with little kids, and the very old. But if you have shots of well-covered people and some are OOF or blurred, kill-file them. Just. Do. It. And then, re-name the whole shebang.

 

[bratkinson]

Derrel hit it on the head. Don't provide photographs with 'gaps' in the naming sequence.

I got into the habit of renaming all the 'keepers' manually, one at a time, to <some title>-01, -02, etc. The leading zeros are necessary to keep them in sorted sequence if there's more than 9, or 99, etc. Once I got Lightroom several years ago, I found that capability was an optional function during the export process and my life was greatly simplified. Although I sometimes delete files from the 'keeper' list as well, and have to rename them again manually...or re-export from Lightroom.

I'm strictly an amateur, so when I provide photos of a shoot, usually they are prints only, but sometimes a slide-show presentation as well. But in those situations where I'm providing a CD with the finished images, I always make sure they are sequentially numbered. That way, there's no question in their mind "what did the missing photos show"? Answer...over exposed, under exposed, eyes closed, distracted subject(s), poorly framed, too much background clutter, boring, too much of a duplicate, etc. Any of the above 'stock' answers works well.

As the world is cell phone picture addicted, I'd ask your friend if he/she sends every picture she takes with her phone to 'the world'?

And, oh yes...my non-keepers ARE deleted before I import into Lightroom!

 

[sm4him]

I don't know; I don't go to all the trouble of binning the junk and renaming the rest. I just go with "Nope. Not gonna happen."
I basically just explain that there are certain standards I insist on for my photos and I simply do NOT share anything that doesn't pass muster. A singer wouldn't release a CD that included music where they hit "most" of the notes (well, except maybe Brittany Spears or Miley... ); they only release the ones that were spot on.

If they get really, really insistent--and if they are really special to me--I tell them that *I* will make another pass through the pictures and see if there are ANY more that I can let pass through the "acceptable" filter.

I've never buckled and shown them "all" the pictures, and most of the time I think they understand my reasoning. I've really never had anyone get mad at me for insisting on sticking to my standards.

Oh, one other thing: I *also* tell people up front that after the shoot, *I* will go through and select the shots that worked for them to view. I make it clear from the start that they are not going to see every picture.

The more you clarify things on the front end, the fewer problems you'll tend to have on the back end.

 

[sm4him]

As the world is cell phone picture addicted, I'd ask your friend if he/she sends every picture she takes with her phone to 'the world'?

And, oh yes...my non-keepers ARE deleted before I import into Lightroom!

Except that I've *seen* some of what my nieces and their friends post from their phones; I'd say they WOULD, in fact, share any picture they take with the world--whether the world wants it or not.

 

[Designer]

And after the bad ones have been deleted, you won't be lying when you say; "this is all there is".

 

[D-B-J]

And after the bad ones have been deleted, you won't be lying when you say; "this is all there is".

This! Truly, tell them "tough cookies" and do as Derrell mentioned. I NEVER show the client EVERY image I took. Some are utter crap! Especially when I am using off camera flash... The first few of a new pose often are under/over exposed while I'm working to get my flash power correct.

Don't deliver all images. This should be stipulated in your contract.

 

[astroNikon]

My junk never gets out of Lightroom.

 

[dennybeall]

Experience managing retail and service businesses over many years has taught me one important lesson and that's to just say "NO" when it's appropriate.
Trashing the bad ones is a great idea although I've been known to drastically crop or Photoshop a bad shot if there is a person or thing in it that may be wanted or needed to fix another shot. Uncle Harry only smiled in the one shot trashed by Sues phone flash but that went on another picture that needed it.

 

[Designer]

The same goes for us amateurs. Occasionally my DIL will ask for copies "of them all", but it is simply embarrassing to let someone see the really bad stuff.

 

[pgriz]

As the family photog, I do a lot of family events. Once my sister-in-law asked me to see "All" the photos. So I showed her "ALL" the photos. She doesn't ask me any more, but thanks me for the CD that I give out at the end of each event. But I probably wouldn't do this for anyone outside the family.

 

[tirediron]

I don't know; I don't go to all the trouble of binning the junk and renaming the rest. I just go with "Nope. Not gonna happen."
I basically just explain that there are certain standards I insist on for my photos and I simply do NOT share anything that doesn't pass muster. A singer wouldn't release a CD that included music where they hit "most" of the notes (well, except maybe Brittany Spears or Miley... ); they only release the ones that were spot on.

If they get really, really insistent--and if they are really special to me--I tell them that *I* will make another pass through the pictures and see if there are ANY more that I can let pass through the "acceptable" filter.

I've never buckled and shown them "all" the pictures, and most of the time I think they understand my reasoning. I've really never had anyone get mad at me for insisting on sticking to my standards.

Oh, one other thing: I *also* tell people up front that after the shoot, *I* will go through and select the shots that worked for them to view. I make it clear from the start that they are not going to see every picture.

The more you clarify things on the front end, the fewer problems you'll tend to have on the back end.

This^^^^ To the n'th power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[bribrius]

Give them all the bad ones and keep the good ones for your portfolio

 

[KmH]

No doubt, trash photos you can't possibly use.
It is very helpful if your profile includes location information, particularly when posting in the business forums section. Various photography legal considerations vary by state and country.

It seems your intent is to start a photography business, so you should already be using a contract.

The contract would contain clauses that state:
1. Not all images made during a shoot will be of sufficient quality to meet your image quality standards. You have sole discretion in deciding which photographs do, or do not, meet your image quality standards.
2. Your contract should state how many proof photographs your 'client;' will get to see - usually 20-25 per 1 hour of shooting time.
3. Your contract probably needs to have a model release clause. In the USA you need written permission from people in photos you make in private or under controlled conditions to use their likeness for your self-promotion and/or self-publication. The model release protects you (the publisher) and the people in the photos (the model(s)).
4. Your contract needs to include use licensing and reproduction rights information (often called a 'print release'). It is a good business practice to word your use license so it specifically does not allow commercial use of your copyrighted images - without your written permission. It is also a good idea to prohibit your customers from entering your copyrighted photographs in any photograph contest - without your written permission.

Profitable Photography in Digital Age: Strategies for Success

 

[Civchic]

I've seen this question here before and it just boggles me that anyone would ask this of a photographer, be they friend, client, or worst enemy. Two minutes of thought would make most people realize that not every image is worth showing, and especially with group photos several duplicates are taken to get the best shot of everyone.

I'm strictly an amateur basically documenting my family's life. Yesterday my mom and I took my two small children and my nephew to the pumpkin patch. Four hours in the outdoors doing all sorts of fun things! 148 raw files. The next day, after an evening of editing, I'm left with 32 photos, 17 of which I shared for my family, 6 of which I uploaded to my flickr as "good pictures" (for me). A couple of those were only because it was a special moment, not a special photo.

Perhaps it's a holdover from the 24 exposure rolls of film? Those 24 snapshots would be dutifully pasted into the cling-wrap photo album, NO MATTER WHAT. DON'T WASTE IT.