"If they pay me more"...

[ClickAddict]

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]

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

Select the "style" before they even start?

chutzpah

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.

Good call.

 

[ac12]

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]

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]

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

This is how most of them are.

 

[ORourkeK]

#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]

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]

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.

"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]

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.

"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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.