Danny's suggestion not to spend time on images you haven't sold, some people have a real problem with it. They assume their pictures have to be perfect before anyone sees them.
Who says?
When Heather and I were married, I think our photographer showed us proofs, maybe even contact sheets (yes, it was a while ago!) But we understood we couldn't judge the final prints by the proofs.
I'm not suggesting going back to proofs, but people are spending days enhancing unsold images. Automated procedures sound like a good compromise. Aiming for salable, not perfect.
The key is to set your client's expectations accordingly. These are not finished images, they're "proofs". Your sample albums show them the finished product.
Then you get to go home early. Have a beer. Play with the kids. Catch a movie.
Cheers, Ian
Welcome to the Photojunction team blog
4 comments:
It all depends on what the purpose of your proofs is - if it's to allow customers to select album shots then it makes sense (although you could ask what Photojunction is for in that scenario). However if you include digital files in your package then you have already sold all of the images, so it is necessary to work them all before showing. Even if you don't we as professionals can look at an image and know how good it will look when finished, our customers don't necessarily have that skill. It wasn't a factor in the olden days(!) when Ian & Heather got married (or when Anna and I did for that matter) but the fact is that nowadays the finished product bears much less resemblance to the unworked proof than it did in the film days
Just because we did something in the film days it doesn't make it right. Working your images in Photoshop or whatever tool is pretty much an essential part of differentiating ourselves from Uncle Bob. The client shouldn't know a picture has been worked, just that it looks great.
The real solution is not to stop doing something (working prints) because it is too hard, but to change the way that you work so that it becomes practical. I can edit & finish 3-400 images in a day, and I'm no whiz kid in PS I just have an efficient workflow.
You can have your soap-box back now :-)
True Right Ian!
Yeah, your point is a big problem for most of us, .... just because we can fix something, we do, and then it's just one more little thing, & another, & then another. The next thing we know, we're 30 hours into an initial presentation that is mostly speculative.
After doing some album plans with other photographer's work, I find the different mindset I have when I designing with their work & my own very interesting.
For example; I'm far more inclined to get really lost in tweaking my own images (to the detriment of my invested time), than when I'm working with someone else's work where it is much easier to keep the time efficiency factor operating at a higher level. (They're not my images so I don't feel I have to apologize to the client for the way they look as their creation was never my responsibility)
I think it's probably a "nature of the beast" thing, with most photographers wanting to put their best foot forward, and keeping the whole "no second chance for a first impression" thought, first & foremost in their minds. This is where pride many times overtakes business sense.
Unfortunate, but true. I'm Guilty as charged!
Simply as an exercise I'd like to suggest to those that the issue applies to, ... they try designing some albums with another photographer's work where they're not quite so personally involved with each particular image. An interesting thing happens. It's much easier to edit & keep image counts down, way easier to decide on what is worthy & what is not, & much simpler to boil the story down to it's essence.
Of course I suggest this like we all have the spare time to work on some spare album projects.........."NOT". I just thought my own observations were interesting as I identified with your point made.
Back to your original point....... I think you said it a few years ago in one of your blogs; " Just because you can, doesn't mean you should"
Enough said.
Good point!
Paul.
PAUL JUDSON STOBBE
pjstobbe@uniserve.com
ph 250-923-8847
In a past lifetime (boat building) I worked with a blunt-speaking fish processing manager from Hull (UK) who said that in his line of business you needed a "commercial attitude". You couldn't afford to be perfect. Perfect sent you went broke because people wouldn't pay for it.
Which reflects my only point, really - are we making money here (and living a life)?
So I don't think we disagree, Graeme. I view the proxies your clients see in PJ as "proofs". I'll sign up to your statement that the point is to "change the way that you work so that it becomes practical".
For sure that lines up with our end goal for PJ.
Thanks for posting guys - much appreciated
Ian
Thank you, Ian! That is exactly what I have been moving toward and I have run into absolutely no opposition from clients so far. As Jennifer Bebb says, when clients purchase the files, she advises them over and over that "these are not 'Bebb' prints." Artwork must be purchased. In film days, we didn't offer free retouching because the lab charged us for it airbrishing or other retouching. Now, we can work our fingers to the bone but if the images are printed at the corner store, they will never look as good as if we print them. So, let them have their files for archival purposes but pay us for our work, including quality reprints and albums. Just because they want to save a couple hundred dollars doesn't mean we are required to work for 8USD/hour! I love your thoughts on this Ian and have taken them to heart.
Post a Comment