More from mark and michelle's wedding

JulieLawsonPhotography

I got a call and an e-mail from the Bride last night. She is totally in love with what she's seen so far...which I'm glad. He lives in Texas and of course, she and her daughter will be moving there. She wants to fly me down there next year to take their anniversary and family pics. I told her that I was completely game! LOL

Here is the link to the gallery. http://julielawsonphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/5825257_nWzgy/1/361583323_wP5tc

This is of the kids and they were really far away. The color version isn't that great so I converted it to black and white and added noise and crisscross brush strokes to make it more artistic. What do you think?

david_h

Hi Julie,

You've done a pretty good job with these in difficult conditions. It's great that your client loves them - that's why we do this eh?

One thought though - I looked at your gallery and it looks as though you still have the original file names. I believe it is really important that you rename the files before you post them anywhere or give them to the client.

Trust me, if there are numbers missing in the sequence, you'll get clients wanting to see those missing images. If you are anything like me, you'll have images that will never see the light of day and we need to keep it that way.

What I do is "edit in". I go through my RAW images in Lightroom and tag the ones I want to show to the clients. These are the only ones that get my attention and are exported to JPG. Next thing I do is use Bridge to sort by capture time and then rename. I give them the clients initials plus 4 digit sequential number. No gaps and nothing else exists - nice and clean.

I don't know about you, but only about 60% of the shots I take make it to the proof gallery. I'm certainly capable of getting poor focus, terrible exposure, crappy composition etc, but I also tend to take small bursts of some of the formals and portaits. This way I can choose the one with nice expressions and dump the rest.

Actually, I lied; I have a second thought. I don't think I like the idea of having more than one version of the same image in the gallery. It either works in colour or b&w - hard to be good in both.

JulieLawsonPhotography

david_h wrote:

Hi Julie,

You've done a pretty good job with these in difficult conditions. It's great that your client loves them - that's why we do this eh?

One thought though - I looked at your gallery and it looks as though you still have the original file names. I believe it is really important that you rename the files before you post them anywhere or give them to the client.

Trust me, if there are numbers missing in the sequence, you'll get clients wanting to see those missing images. If you are anything like me, you'll have images that will never see the light of day and we need to keep it that way.

What I do is "edit in". I go through my RAW images in Lightroom and tag the ones I want to show to the clients. These are the only ones that get my attention and are exported to JPG. Next thing I do is use Bridge to sort by capture time and then rename. I give them the clients initials plus 4 digit sequential number. No gaps and nothing else exists - nice and clean.

I don't know about you, but only about 60% of the shots I take make it to the proof gallery. I'm certainly capable of getting poor focus, terrible exposure, crappy composition etc, but I also tend to take small bursts of some of the formals and portaits. This way I can choose the one with nice expressions and dump the rest.

Actually, I lied; I have a second thought. I don't think I like the idea of having more than one version of the same image in the gallery. It either works in colour or b&w - hard to be good in both.

I intend to fix the names of the files. I intended to do that beforehand and then forgot. (I need to think ahead more) I added several versions of the same image for the bride to choose from. I honestly don't have a lot of photo jobs lined up, yet (i will once fall is in full swing) and so I enjoy playing with different effects. I just want her to pick which one she likes. I think most of them will be in black and white only because she does prefer that and these images will look better in B&W.

I appreciate your comment David.

Scott_Quier

I use another naming convention/workflow. Using Bridge, I get ALL the raws together and use the time of capture (HHMMSS) and, usually, the last name of the new couple. I also apply all the metadata (copyright, etc) to the entire batch.

Now, I can go through and seperate between the keepers and the culls. Because I use the time of capture in the filename, I don't have to worry about changing my mind about tossing an image during PP that I thought was a keeper - there's gaps all through the series and the clients think nothing of it.

If I'm asked about the names and/or the appearant gaps, I just explain about the naming convention and that satisfies them as they already know that I'm not going to deliver some of the shots (I call the missing shots duplicates - don't need to confuse the issue with mentioning the OOF, under/over exposures, etc).

As for photo #2 above, I think that is a marvelous save - looks very interesting.

bham

All I see is red X's.

Scott_Quier

bham wrote:

All I see is red X's.

I just forced a manual re-fresh and all the photos are still there.

Travis

I think the gallery looks great. The primary thing is that if the client loves the results, then that is what primarily matters. The family group shots on the last page are .