is it your work?

[mommyof4qteez]

Ok..I have a question for all...there's a few photographers I'm aware of that just take the pics and pay others to edit...I just don't understand how this can be considered "their" complete work?? Anyone else do this & if so, please do explain.....

 

[Big Mike]

If you are paying an employee, it's the "company's" work...and if it's your company, then it's your work. If you hire out the work, then it's just sub contracted...the finished product is still yours.

Now, if we are talking about commercial/retail photography...why does it matter who actually does the work? It's the end product that matters, isn't it?

 

[bhop]

Many of the greatest photographers in history didn't process or print their own film. Guess they were just hacks..

 

[mommyof4qteez]

I just feel that editing is a huge part of what makes your work your art....

 

[KmH]

Ok..I have a question for all...there's a few photographers I'm aware of that just take the pics and pay others to edit...I just don't understand how this can be considered "their" complete work?? Anyone else do this & if so, please do explain.....

There are many basic edits that are made to virtually every professionally made image. It saves the photographer time to pay someone to do those edits.

Even what is recorded in the camera is an edit that was done according to the program written by a bunch of camera software engineers.

The photographer usually includes some very specific editing requirements beyond the basic edits that support the photographers 'style'. A photographer often 'auditions' several image editors before choosing one that can best match that style.

What it really boils down to is business, not the 'purity' of the work produced. By farming out the editing, the photographer can shoot more. By shooting more, revenue can be increased.

Cha-Ching!

 

[bhop]

I just feel that editing is a huge part of what makes your work your art....

I guess that's true in the digital age..

 

[Big Mike]

I just feel that editing is a huge part of what makes your work your art....

I guess that's true in the digital age..

Tell that to Ansel Adams

 

[Derrel]

Let's say an author takes two years, and writes a nice, big, thick, 400-page novel. Then the novel is edited by an editor.

So...does the editor then get credit for writing the book? See how that works?

 

[480sparky]

Did you build your own camera, or do you think Nikon should get some credit for your work?

 

[KmH]

Yep. Nikon, or whatever camera maker, wrote a boat load of software that has a lot to do with how a photo looks SOOC.

 

[texkam]

See "pop music".

 

[mommyof4qteez]

Let's say an author takes two years, and writes a nice, big, thick, 400-page novel. Then the novel is edited by an editor.

So...does the editor then get credit for writing the book? See how that works?

I think there's quite a difference between editing a book and editing a photo....this is my opinion on the subject...it's great to see it from everyone's point of view... thanks

 

[paigew]

I know of a few photographers who send out their photos for basic edits. When they get the files back they will then do any artistic edits.

 

[Canuk]

I see it no different than sending your prints to a lab.
Any pro, or most pro's, that shot film would send it to a lab to have it processed and printed. This is not really much different than today, only a lot of photographers do their own PP, but few do their own printing for most of their pictures.
Unless you do the whole process yourself from capture to printing, isn't someone having some influence on your art?

 

[sm4him]

Let's say an author takes two years, and writes a nice, big, thick, 400-page novel. Then the novel is edited by an editor.

So...does the editor then get credit for writing the book? See how that works?

I think there's quite a difference between editing a book and editing a photo....this is my opinion on the subject...it's great to see it from everyone's point of view... thanks

As someone who makes a living as an editor (words, not photos--well, photos too, but mostly words), I would say they are not as different as you might think.

A good book/article/paper editor will correct the grammar and punctuation, and make changes to the text that ENHANCE but do not ALTER the writer's message. It is sometimes an extremely difficult balancing act, but it is critical to remain true to the writer's original message and style so that the meaning, tone and "mood" of their work is not altered, just enhanced.
A good photo editor would do the same thing--enhance the photo but not change what the original photographer's vision was. And, as a photographer, I may hire someone to do my edits for me to save time (or because they have PS skills that I don't possess and don't want to spend time on)--but I guarantee you that I would not CONTINUE to use that person if I feel that they have altered what my original vision for the photograph was. Their job is to enhance MY photo, not create their own vision FROM my photo.

EDIT: Continuing that same analogy, there is a potential benefit beyond the time savings of having someone else edit your photos. One reason that a writer should not edit their own material is because, when they read it, they KNOW what they meant, and so they read it the way they meant it--having someone else read it is helpful, because the editor may be able to point out places that are confusing or misleading if they aren't understood the way the writer understood them in their head.
Not having a good editor is how you end up with headlines like (my personal all-time favorite): "Grandmother of eight shoots hole in one." The WRITER knew they were talking about a senior citizen's golf game--the editor should have pointed out another way of reading that.

Sometimes, I don't "see" things in my own photo that someone else would--having someone else edit them would give me the chance to have them "checked" by another set of eyes before they get out to the public and someone says, "Hey, does she REALLY have a light pole growing out of her head?"