I just got an email from a past bride (wedding was in April, she's had the photos since June) requesting about 40 images to be edited or changed in some way. It's extremely trivial things, like "in this photo the water doesn't look very blue, can you make it look more blue?" or, "in this group family shot you can't see our feet, can you add our feet in?"
The above one made me laugh because the image immediately before that one is a full body shot of the same group of people, where everyone has their eyes open, is smiling and looks great.
There are several which she says are blurry, and after zooming in full size (I give the original size to clients which as we all know is huge) and analyzing forever I've decided she's talking about DOF. Either that or there's something wrong with her screen.
I don't want to be rude to her or make her feel stupid but frankly there's nothing I can really do with about 95% of the changes she is requesting.
It honestly sounds like she wants different pictures from the ones you took, or saw a different photographer's work and is trying to turn yours into theirs after the fact. Move on.
I will touch-up a half dozen or so post-delivery out of kindness and or satisfaction for the client(s) only. Beyond that, it's, "I can't fix every single thing you may find in every image; but for the things I can upon request, it's a per hour charge. What's your budget and how much are you looking to do?" I usually make that charge somewhere around $80-100hr (depending on what they're requesting) and each image request is 15 minutes with a two-hour minimum overall. If some images are extravagant requests, I will count that as one hour.
Regardless, I agree you should meet in person to get a very good idea of exactly what she wants. Take notes. Give your price when she's all done.
A face to face viewing on YOUR monitor is the way to go. We never know what our clients are viewing on.
I had a client just the other day message me saying the photos were "hazy" and she couldn't make out some of the faces in them".....?
I told her that they looked perfect on my end and that it must be her monitor.
She then viewed her disc on her father's apple monitor and she said they looked great on his monitor.
When something like this happens, I usually offer one hour of free editing time. I ask them to make me a detailed list of the edits WITH SPECIFIC PHOTO NAMES for each edit request. Then whatever can't be accomplished within an hour, I tell them I'll present a estimate and price quote for the remaining work to be done. If it is work that I don't think I can do because of technical reasons or won't necessarily look great, then I tell them that upfront when I give the estimate/explanation. Usually, clients will decide the water looks "blue enough" when they see it will cost $50-100 per hour (or whatever your price is).
Alternative benefit to offering one free hour is that (1) the clients really always appreciate you going the extra mile for them like that and (2) for about one hour, I don't mind making some edits. Not a huge time commitment or effort. I include the upload & admin time in the hour, so actual editing time is probably about 45 minutes.
And with this system, I stop getting grumpy by what I perceive as strange, silly, or picky requests and instead just start serving the clients efficiently. Less wasted time on emails back and forth, less wasted time spent trying to interpret their requests on my dime/time.
And btw, only once have I had someone actually want more than the one hour of my time. So, it seems to work pretty efficiently.
lilyphoto wrote:
I just got an email from a past bride (wedding was in April, she's had the photos since June) requesting about 40 images to be edited or changed in some way. It's extremely trivial things, like "in this photo the water doesn't look very blue, can you make it look more blue?" or, "in this group family shot you can't see our feet, can you add our feet in?"
Are these image edit requests for the album or just for the DVD? If it's just for the DVD, sorry only basic edits for the DVD, advanced edits are $x per hour or free when printing at least 16x20 or going in an album.
Group shot where you can't see their feet - question for you, why did you deliver the second image at all if the one before it was better and basically the same? Serious question to think about.
lilyphoto wrote:
There are several which she says are blurry, and after zooming in full size (I give the original size to clients which as we all know is huge) and analyzing forever I've decided she's talking about DOF. Either that or there's something wrong with her screen.
Simply tell her they aren't blurry... That's called depth-of-field to make the subject pop and is actually desirable (for most people) and consistent with the work you show and produce normally (assuming it is). Not broken and isn't fixable even if it was.
TTLKurtis wrote:
Are these image edit requests for the album or just for the DVD? If it's just for the DVD, sorry only basic edits for the DVD, advanced edits are $x per hour or free when printing at least 16x20 or going in an album.
Group shot where you can't see their feet - question for you, why did you deliver the second image at all if the one before it was better and basically the same? Serious question to think about.
Simply tell her they aren't blurry... That's called depth-of-field to make the subject pop and is actually desirable (for most people) and consistent with the work you show and produce normally (assuming it is). Not broken and isn't fixable even if it was.
In regards to the group shot, I deliver a close up (waist up) and full body shot of each family portrait group. I've always done this, didn't even consider that it might be unusual or unnecessary.
Oh, and these are just requests off the DVD, not an album. The bride and groom's parents are friends with my parents, and I think she feels like these requests are no big deal.
"can you add our feet in?" and that is how you know she is clueless, you need to meet with her in person and go through those images to give her an explanation on those shots/images apparently.
Okay yeah so if this is just for DVD the answer is no, come back for the album or prints and I'll make those edits no problem, or we can charge hourly for them. Advanced Photoshop work is not included standard, and in most examples of what she's asking for it's probably not necessary. A phone call or in-person meeting should alleviate any issues.
the simple answer is: what does your contract say?
are you obligated to provide edited images? how does your contract define "edit"? if you're confident that you've met your obligations to this client and owe her no more, simply tell her that, and provide a copy of the supporting documentation.
however...
i'm curious.
why is it unreasonable for a client to want an image where her feet & the feet of her family members are not amputated? (and/or why would you deliver one where they are chopped off?)
why is it unreasonable for a client to expect that the water (which appeared to be blue in real life) would also appear to be blue in her photographs? that she paid good money for... to a supposed professional... who should know how to properly balance exposure & color...
what expectations were established in the initial interview, booking & consult process that would lead this bride to believe that she should expect technically sound, well-composed, professionally-edited images regardless of the method of delivery: DVD, web, print, album?
how can the word "trivial" be applied to any element of one of the most important days of her life... in a location she thoughtfully chose... surrounded by the people who mean the most to her...?
First off, I agree a contractual agreement is the absolute best thing to lay everything out online, including how big the delivered files are going to be and even what resolution and color space. My contract even states that I am in no way responsible for how the images look on their computer screens or home prints if they bought the DVD.
Now, I didn't see any of these images so I can't really say either way if expectations should have been met or not. Regardless, it seems they were not. But did you miss the 2nd sentence that stated there's an identical shot just before the family portrait where it's a full shot? They already have that option. Also, sometimes it's not pleasant for skin tone for water to be blue, especially if you're strongly back lit and shooting available light. When you bring up the mids and tone for pleasant skin it can make water look a bit different in exchange for those proper skin tones. Of course there's other ways to combat this like strobing but what if he didn't want to in favor of natural light? Again, I'm only speculating.
That said, what I normally do is give all the images as done through my normal editing process. Then I'll chose the images for my blog and do another run on those, performing a further toning and fixing anything that may be out of line (even fixing a few fly aways). Then I'll upload those chosen images as well under a folder called blog images. So the bride has full access to those. But it's simply unfeasible to run a business by doing that amount of editing to every image delivered to the bride under normal budget restrictions. If you've gone beyond what your contract states, it's not unreasonable to expect compensation for further alterations of work which would cause your work flow to bleed into another client's time.
However, if there's a few images that you can re-do to make her happy then I'd just do it. But let her know anything beyond that would need to be charged an hourly retouching fee.
ksmahgrts wrote:
the simple answer is: what does your contract say?
are you obligated to provide edited images? how does your contract define "edit"? if you're confident that you've met your obligations to this client and owe her no more, simply tell her that, and provide a copy of the supporting documentation.
however...
i'm curious.
why is it unreasonable for a client to want an image where her feet & the feet of her family members are not amputated? (and/or why would you deliver one where they are chopped off?)
why is it unreasonable for a client to expect that the water (which appeared to be blue in real life) would also appear to be blue in her photographs? that she paid good money for... to a supposed professional... who should know how to properly balance exposure & color...
what expectations were established in the initial interview, booking & consult process that would lead this bride to believe that she should expect technically sound, well-composed, professionally-edited images regardless of the method of delivery: DVD, web, print, album?
how can the word "trivial" be applied to any element of one of the most important days of her life... in a location she thoughtfully chose... surrounded by the people who mean the most to her...?
ksmahgrts wrote:
the simple answer is: what does your contract say?
are you obligated to provide edited images? how does your contract define "edit"? if you're confident that you've met your obligations to this client and owe her no more, simply tell her that, and provide a copy of the supporting documentation.
however...
i'm curious.
why is it unreasonable for a client to want an image where her feet & the feet of her family members are not amputated? (and/or why would you deliver one where they are chopped off?)
why is it unreasonable for a client to expect that the water (which appeared to be blue in real life) would also appear to be blue in her photographs? that she paid good money for... to a supposed professional... who should know how to properly balance exposure & color...
what expectations were established in the initial interview, booking & consult process that would lead this bride to believe that she should expect technically sound, well-composed, professionally-edited images regardless of the method of delivery: DVD, web, print, album?
how can the word "trivial" be applied to any element of one of the most important days of her life... in a location she thoughtfully chose... surrounded by the people who mean the most to her...?
A) My contract states that all images (and lists an average per hour, and says that this is an estimate and varies depending on the structure of the event) will have basic editing. I explain what basic editing is at the consult. I then choose around 100 of my favorites and those get further editing (blemish removal, etc.) and those are the ones you see on my blog.
The client sees examples of both "basic" and "blog" edits. There's really little difference between the two. I don't mention anything about additional editing/rate for such services in my contract.
B) I did deliver an image where no feet/legs were chopped off. As I mentioned to Kurtis, I always deliver one close up (waist up) and one full body shot of each family portrait group. It wasn't like I gave just one poorly composed group shot where everything but the feet was there
C) The water actually isn't blue at all. It's 45 feet below normal right now and is quite green! But, the photos were right at sunset so mainly you just see the light from the sun shining on the water in the pictures.
I feel that am very thorough at the consult on what the client should expect with their images/the entire process. I also feel confident that she received quality photographs equal to all the other images in my portfolio. In fact, I have had numerous requests from the venue and other vendors to share the images because they enjoyed them so much. *shrugs*
She never said she was unhappy with them as a whole, so I am not going to assume that.
ksmahgrts wrote:
the simple answer is: what does your contract say?
are you obligated to provide edited images? how does your contract define "edit"? if you're confident that you've met your obligations to this client and owe her no more, simply tell her that, and provide a copy of the supporting documentation.
however...
i'm curious.
why is it unreasonable for a client to want an image where her feet & the feet of her family members are not amputated? (and/or why would you deliver one where they are chopped off?)
why is it unreasonable for a client to expect that the water (which appeared to be blue in real life) would also appear to be blue in her photographs? that she paid good money for... to a supposed professional... who should know how to properly balance exposure & color...
what expectations were established in the initial interview, booking & consult process that would lead this bride to believe that she should expect technically sound, well-composed, professionally-edited images regardless of the method of delivery: DVD, web, print, album?
how can the word "trivial" be applied to any element of one of the most important days of her life... in a location she thoughtfully chose... surrounded by the people who mean the most to her...?
A bit presumptuous, Maura. Granted, I'm also making some assumptions of my own that the images were edited within normal professional standards.
The request for blue water, for example, well that depends on whether the water was actually 'blue' in real life and whether it was blue from that angle or only from up close looking into it etc... I would not consider it within standard editing procedure to change the color of water or sky etc for a DVD-only wedding. As far as I'm concerned, someone getting DVD only is just putting off ordering an album, whether they ever intend to or not, and that's how I decide where my edits stop.
TTLKurtis wrote:
Are these image edit requests for the album or just for the DVD? If it's just for the DVD, sorry only basic edits for the DVD, advanced edits are $x per hour or free when printing at least 16x20 or going in an album.
Group shot where you can't see their feet - question for you, why did you deliver the second image at all if the one before it was better and basically the same? Serious question to think about.
Simply tell her they aren't blurry... That's called depth-of-field to make the subject pop and is actually desirable (for most people) and consistent with the work you show and produce normally (assuming it is). Not broken and isn't fixable even if it was.
to be clear - i didn't accuse anyone of crappy photography - nor did i make any presumptions - i simply replied with some observations and questions we might consider based on the initial info provided. read the original post again; my feedback is valid.
i've been noticing an increasingly pervasive, troubling theme in the wedding photography community (in both the social media/forum world & in my smaller local networking circles) that immediately pegs the client as some kind of red-flag-high-maintenance-bridezilla-dumbass if s/he dares to question our authority/methods/process/product. even more disturbing is the band-wagon-sheep-mob-mentality responses that vilify the client and vindicate the photographer.
in truth, very few conflicts (in business and in life) are a result of one person being super-duper-awesome and one person being a total boob; more often than not it's OUR COMMUNICATION that lacks clarity, causes confusion, and leads to unnecessary mess.
cineski wrote:
Now, I didn't see any of these images so I can't really say either way if expectations should have been met or not. Regardless, it seems they were not. But did you miss the 2nd sentence that stated there's an identical shot just before the family portrait where it's a full shot?
where do you see that there's an "identical" shot? the OP says, "the image immediately before that one is a full body shot of the same group of people, where everyone has their eyes open, is smiling and looks great."
certainly, subtleties that might not be immediately apparent to us, could make the difference between a 'love it' and a 'hate it' shot for our clients. she likes the composition in one - and the expressions of another. period. why is it ridiculous for her to assume that the OP may have cropped the image in post-processing?
cineski wrote:
Also, sometimes it's not pleasant for skin tone for water to be blue, especially if you're strongly back lit and shooting available light. When you bring up the mids and tone for pleasant skin it can make water look a bit different in exchange for those proper skin tones.
a wedding photographer needs to be prepared to light his/her subjects based on the conditions. if someone isn't skilled or equipped to achieve proper skin tones in a typical outdoor environment, perhaps that person shouldn't offer services for money? again - i'm not saying any of this is true of the OP; it's simply a reaction to your comments about 'available light', etc.
what is true, though, is that in the initial post, the client is made out to be some kind of jackass for making some relatively benign requests in regard to a service she (presumably) paid THOUSANDS for. i'm all for venting amongst friends every now and then, but let's all gain a little perspective, shall we? the client is not the enemy.
and that is how you know she is clueless, you need to meet with her in person and go through those images to give her an explanation on those shots/images apparently.