morby wrote:
I've always wondered if couples are let down when photographers do a massive amount of editing for their portfolio and blog images and minimal editing for the entire wedding. I would like to put more effort into my blog posts, but I don't want my couples to expect every image to look that way and become disappointed when they receive the disc with the entire wedding. Not to mention those overly worked images would stick out like a sore thumb when scanning through the entire disc. I usually spend about 3 minutes per blog post image and about 30 seconds to 1 minute per image for the entire album. How do all of you approach this? ...Show more →
We tell the customers in contract and in person the images they get are proofs. Proofs are cropped, color corrected and some other minor edits. Whats on my blog involve more extensive editing. Whats in my albums has even more and some photos may be airbrushed and retorted more. I do tell the client they will get those images as well as the regular proofs. if they want more images edited like that then there is a charge.
A few years ago I signed up with Kelby Training for a short time to check out their content and came across a couple of videos where Scott was on location with Jeremy. He seemed like an all right guy and shared some good information about his thought process when building a shot.
I think that he managed to create quite a few interesting images. They may not be what a lot of other photographers are accustomed to creating...and that's a good thing.
I am starting to sound like an old bugger but it really is true when they say history repeats itself.
This style in question is the old folkies wedding photography style – all portraits – all setup shots. This was before everyone jumped on the photojournalistic style so popular today.
In terms of product delivery and editing, the answer provided is totally old school as well.
In the old days, there were print proofs which didn’t have any editing other than what the lab provided, then there was the hand painted retouching done on the selected enlarged prints which the client selected and paid extra for.
That’s why you don’t really want to be a shot and burn photographer – there is only one level service seen by the customer.
You need to offer another level of service so that you can spend more time working on selected images for your portfolio and blog.
That’s where printing or albums come in, they offer you a way to offer another level of service – the selected images for enlarged prints or albums get extra work done on them that is not done on the “proofs”. Proofs get LR batch treatment, enlargements or Album images get non-batch Photoshop treatment. Two levels of products delivered and provides you with an answer to why not every image receives the same level of editing.
paparazzinick wrote:
We tell the customers in contract and in person the images they get are proofs. Proofs are cropped, color corrected and some other minor edits. Whats on my blog involve more extensive editing. Whats in my albums has even more and some photos may be airbrushed and retorted more. I do tell the client they will get those images as well as the regular proofs. if they want more images edited like that then there is a charge.
Great post and that is exactly what we do. Customer gets say 600 proofs from the wedding that are edited to be ready for them to get 4x6 or 5x7 from some local lab to them. They then get kick ass edited photos in the album and on blog posts. If they want all 600 photos to look like a blog post or in the album then they need to pay for for my time. And some do. Most are content with 600 proofs looking good and another 60-80 hand touched images,.
Littleguy wrote:
I am starting to sound like an old bugger but it really is true when they say history repeats itself.
This style in question is the old folkies wedding photography style – all portraits – all setup shots. This was before everyone jumped on the photojournalistic style so popular today.
In terms of product delivery and editing, the answer provided is totally old school as well.
In the old days, there were print proofs which didn’t have any editing other than what the lab provided, then there was the hand painted retouching done on the selected enlarged prints which the client selected and paid extra for.
That’s why you don’t really want to be a shot and burn photographer – there is only one level service seen by the customer.
You need to offer another level of service so that you can spend more time working on selected images for your portfolio and blog.
That’s where printing or albums come in, they offer you a way to offer another level of service – the selected images for enlarged prints or albums get extra work done on them that is not done on the “proofs”. Proofs get LR batch treatment, enlargements or Album images get non-batch Photoshop treatment. Two levels of products delivered and provides you with an answer to why not every image receives the same level of editing.
Littleguy wrote:
I am starting to sound like an old bugger but it really is true when they say history repeats itself.
This style in question is the old folkies wedding photography style – all portraits – all setup shots. This was before everyone jumped on the photojournalistic style so popular today.
In terms of product delivery and editing, the answer provided is totally old school as well.
In the old days, there were print proofs which didn’t have any editing other than what the lab provided, then there was the hand painted retouching done on the selected enlarged prints which the client selected and paid extra for.
That’s why you don’t really want to be a shot and burn photographer – there is only one level service seen by the customer.
You need to offer another level of service so that you can spend more time working on selected images for your portfolio and blog.
That’s where printing or albums come in, they offer you a way to offer another level of service – the selected images for enlarged prints or albums get extra work done on them that is not done on the “proofs”. Proofs get LR batch treatment, enlargements or Album images get non-batch Photoshop treatment. Two levels of products delivered and provides you with an answer to why not every image receives the same level of editing.
That's definitely the approach I take when dealing with albums. About 80-90% of my clients get an album. I have my pricing structured in such a way that I make it kind of an easy decision for them to get an album without hurting my profits. Each one of those album images has extra time spent on it. But when it comes to what's online I spend less time. I think this has helped me overall, because it pushes me to get it right in camera and have a fast workflow. With social media I desire to be proud of all of the photos (because you never know what they might post), so I want I consistency to the entire set.
Take away the VSCO, and users here on FM would probably like these.
Personally, I think the images are great, and I follow Cowart on Facebook. He seems like a great guy who loves what he does. So that's another brownie point in my book.
I like these images. The images look very editorial and stylized so for me the processing doesn't bother me. I think the lighting and posing is wonderful. I find it interesting that so many are quick to dismiss posed photos even when done very well.
Cool... but seriously the VSCO fad is way over the top at this point. He took nice photographs and cheapened them by adding all that processing crap.
The photos did not need any of that IMO.
hardlyboring wrote:
the VSCO fad is way over the top at this point
My first thought whenever I see samples posted of the VCSO 3 processing is that it looks real "trendy". A LOT of people in the industry must be using it right now.
Sergio Mottola wrote:
i was linked to this thread.. its nice and flattering to be compared to jeremy cowart
Except as someone pointed out, no comparison. I wish he would have shown more emotion, etc.
D. Diggler wrote:
My first thought whenever I see samples posted of the VCSO 3 processing is that it looks real "trendy". A LOT of people in the industry must be using it right now.
I can't quite bring myself to spend 90$ on presets. Am I alone?
I have not shot a wedding since October and have been travelling in Asia since our last wedding.
Things I have noticed:
The camera makes no difference
The film makes no difference
VSCO makes no difference
A persons ability to find and connect with the subject matter DOES make a difference. What I found most challenging was just being able to step out of my comfort zone and attempt to take pictures of interesting subjects (mostly people). I failed miserably at this (IMO). There is no camera or software that will help with that. It comes from within. Finding and connecting with people is something that I find really fascinating and also really hard. I have not really been in the loop with all the new "stuff" lately and really it has made no difference with my photography.
I have nothing against VSCO and use it myself (a little bit) but it seems like people are relying on it way to much.
Take a look at Chuck's recent threads.. I find those way more relavent than "how good is VSCO".
... I love the interwebs