Options
Low res, unedited request
This could possibly go in "Mind your own business", but since it's entirely related to people shots, I reckoned it's as (and possibly more) relevant here.
Performer headshot sessions are typically priced as a total package with X number of final, edited, retouched shots included, which the client selects from proofs. I have one higher-priced "unlimited time" session which includes 4 final shots, and a "student special" budget pkg which is limited to about an hour and includes 1 final shot. Extra edited shots can be purchased for an additional fee with either pkg.
I've recently been asked by somebody who took the student special what I would charge for several low-resolution, UNedited shots to use on his website. At one level, I have no problem with that; at another, I'm really uncomfortable letting unedited shots "out there" with my name on them, so they WILL have to be edited, IMO, which of course means time. When he asked at our session I told him exactly that, and that I would have to think about it.
Is it reasonable to charge for these, or should I just be giving them out for people to use as desired? I don't give out proofs on a disk, only upload the on SM with a "proof" watermark. I'm torn - my pkg is extremely well priced (not bottom-feeding, but definitely not NY prices!) and I think I'm giving good value for money (and one of the reasons I can do that is because of pricing "extra" edited shots a la carte), but I also know that a LOT of people are giving out proofs on disk so clients actually do have the unedited shots they can use without further recourse to the 'tog.
Thoughts?
Performer headshot sessions are typically priced as a total package with X number of final, edited, retouched shots included, which the client selects from proofs. I have one higher-priced "unlimited time" session which includes 4 final shots, and a "student special" budget pkg which is limited to about an hour and includes 1 final shot. Extra edited shots can be purchased for an additional fee with either pkg.
I've recently been asked by somebody who took the student special what I would charge for several low-resolution, UNedited shots to use on his website. At one level, I have no problem with that; at another, I'm really uncomfortable letting unedited shots "out there" with my name on them, so they WILL have to be edited, IMO, which of course means time. When he asked at our session I told him exactly that, and that I would have to think about it.
Is it reasonable to charge for these, or should I just be giving them out for people to use as desired? I don't give out proofs on a disk, only upload the on SM with a "proof" watermark. I'm torn - my pkg is extremely well priced (not bottom-feeding, but definitely not NY prices!) and I think I'm giving good value for money (and one of the reasons I can do that is because of pricing "extra" edited shots a la carte), but I also know that a LOT of people are giving out proofs on disk so clients actually do have the unedited shots they can use without further recourse to the 'tog.
Thoughts?
facebook | photo site |
0
Comments
I wonder why he asks for the unedited shots? Wouldn't he be more benefited by the edited shots?
I can see this going both ways; I would personally not give them out for free; If the image gets editing it is your time, effort and skills. You charge for those normally, so why not now? It is also a specific 'service' that he requires. If he goes elsewhere for that (or comes to you for *just that*) he would have to pay as well.
On the other hand, if it is really for his website, and it is one or two shots (that you have already PPed) only that he requires I can see you throwing them in as part of the deal.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
What does it take.... a couple minutes...maybe 5 minutes tops per photo.....so lets say they want 10 edited photos...and it takes an hour. How much can you charge for that?
For me I just edit them all completely and charge a one time fee and provide the photos on a disc....done. They have the photos all edited, they can show them wherever they want. I am done and onto the next shoot, no muss no fuss.
I imagine that is what most of your competition is doing.
I guess there is room for all types of pricing packages out there. Just seems complicated to me and would not be a good generator for word of mouth business.
To answer your question...unedited quickly becomes edited by the customer and yes your name will be associated with them when someone asks who took the pictures. There are a lot of easy quick photo editing programs out there that the students can utilize.
If you do decide to give out unedited "proofs" take your watermark off of them and ask the customer not to associate your name with them to anyone. This might increase your positive word of mouth to future potential customers, more so than having your watermark on unprocessed then customer processed pics that you have no control over how they end up looking.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
This seems like a similar use/request from your client. Face Book can draw referrals, his website not so much.
My recent drama student asked me for the same thing, I did not do as much editing.. I smoothed skin but I didn't pop the eyes, or hand edit blemishes. And I gave her a decent price that I pulled out of the air.. I am hoping to draw more clients from her class than just her boyfriend.
www.CottageInk.smugmug.com
NIKON D700
To clarify, when I say "editing" I mean deep editing and retouching, not basic processing (that is of course done before the proofs are uploaded): skinwork, blemishes, eyes, clothing corrections, any liquifying etc etc.
Zoomer, I just followed the pricing model that I've experienced as a client when I've had my own headshots done, and that other headshot photographers seem to use - I figured it made sense to use the business model that others have. Given the zillions of shots performers prefer to have from which to choose 4 or 5 images to use, it makes sense. It's actually worked well for me so far, since people have chosen the less expensive package and then purchased extra edited shots a la carte (which ultimately costs them more than if they'd gone for the inclusive package!).
Keep the comments coming, folks - this is very helpful and giving me lots to think about.
Just curious, how long does it take you to do what you call deep editing to a photo of average complexity?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
ETA:
As an example, here's a before and after. This one was pretty low maintenance (and thank goodness the bg problems could be solved with cropping!), but it still took at least 15-20 minutes or so. I think I slightly overdid the skin on this one; I may go back and tweak it down a little further. This one also hasn't been checked on my 2nd monitor, so if the contrast is slightly off, that's why (that's the final editing step for me, which I do before I upload them for the client). I still need to clone in the catchlight to the CR eye too (his eyes aren't quite the same, so they reflected the light differently).
SOOC
Edited
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
major retouching would be a side lit shot in a bridal portait of a bride with bad skin that is underexposed and white balance is all over the place and I have to clone out something in the BG.
But one thing I don't mention is if I have to hem and haw about a shot. If I know what I want the end product to look like..then it is off to the races. But sometimes I don't know where a shot will take me..I may try a bunch stuff to salvage a shot but then just go BW at the end. But that is limited to 1 in 50 shots maybe.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
No matter what the client or anyone says..............the image will reflect on you and your photography skills.
Charge what you will, but I would council to let only those images loose that represent you well.
Sam
PS: Since I shoot RAW everything needs to be processes to one extent or another.
I would never EVER give out raw images!! I'm even reluctant to post the SOOC shot I used as an exmaple above
I don't think letting them out unedited is really an option at this stage of my development (maybe once I'm so good SOOC that it's not as big a deal and I feel they're at 90% before editing, something I don't think I"ve reached yet!); it's trying to figure out what's reasonable to charge for low-rez, "edit lite" photos.
You apparently have a price structure that gives a break for students already. Sounds like you're "paying it forward" and good on ya.
I would not (and honestly never have) release an image that wasn't ready for prime time. I am afraid to dilute my brand. I get the distinct impression you feel the same way. Your client is negotiating. If you want to give him (her) a freebie, that's your choice, but I would not release a sub-par image.
And now you have my $.02
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Trudy, I've kind of done the same thing you did - I've offered him have the lo-res "edit lite" shots for a flat rate. We'll see if he bites or if he's just been haggling...
Thanks for all the input, guys - much appreciated. While the photo stuff is still very much a sideline for me and secondary to my performing career, I do want to keep things professional, and also lay the groundwork for the future should this be something I do more of.
interesting. that appears to be a lot of work. I would like to try something if you are game..can you post X2 or O size of the SOOC image? I want to spend a max 5 min on it in LR to see if I can replicate your or at least come close to your work.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
If you could process an image in 5 min or 1 hour with the same result..what would you choose? I think that worth a rat's patoot?
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Suppose I can produce, for $X, a product that no one else can (or does) produce. Suppose this produce strikes you as something you would pay $Y for. What difference does it make to you, the consumer, if I develop a process that allows me to produce it for 1/10th X? I submit it makes ZERO difference to your decision whether to buy it, unless you're irrational.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
The fact that you modeled your packaging after other photographers in your area is a good gauge for fair pricing as far as I'm concerned.
And I wouldn't blame anyone who was serious about what they do for not releasing "unproduced product", it's just not a good idea.
As for workflows, I am forever looking at ways to reduce PP time and I'm finding the U Point technology to be the wave of the future. No more creating layers with PS and the time involved in doing so. CS5 has made some great leaps with "conent aware" fill as well.
I'm all for getting the best possible results SOOC but in a real world.......
Of course shooting RAW is always going take time...I'll have to time myself the next time I'm PPing but I figure less tha five minutes unless I'm doing more than the norm such as those suggestions made on the recent thread I started.
I am with Qarik, if I start to hem and haw on a photo I just delete it or increase the exposure and black and white it.
What is described as deep editing normally takes me 5 minutes or so, it used to take me a long time but after a couple hundred thousand portraits over 7 years I can do it with my eyes shut. If I should have an extreme example that is going to take longer than that I usually just delete them and go on to the next one, this only occurs when I do not take a good photo in the first place.
A lot of the photo editing work people do is really not necessary, people do not see it or notice it and if you should happen to overwork the photo it is very noticeable, less really is more.
When you said Qarik paid you a great compliment because you did a lot more work to the photo than he could notice...this is a good example of my point. All that time was spent on edits that weren't noticeable.....maybe if the before and after photo are side by side the edits could be seen...but that will never happen with your customer.
A huge part of the battle is to take a bright well lit photo with a clean background in the camera.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
However, I'm not sure I'm entirely overdoing it. For instance, what if one of these shots gets submitted for a concert the performer is doing, and the promoters decide to blow it up to poster size? Has defintely happened. At 36x24 or whatever, it WILL show. Once these shots are paid for and leave me, I have no control over how they will be used - can be anything from websites, to programs, to billboards (ok, so the clients I currently shoot are unlikely to get that kind of promotional exposure, but you know what I mean!
FWIW, a link to a very highly-regarded performer-headshot photographer in the UK (although I believe she's actually an American) whose work I really admire. She openly admits to spending about 2 hours per final shot. Just saying...
This is where she mentions editing time:
http://www.clairenewmanwilliams.com/policy.html
Her pricing and general policies:
http://www.clairenewmanwilliams.com/whatget.html (I'd say that her London pricing matches the mid-high end of NYC prices at ~$800 per session - in NY, avg is about $400-600, but can go as high as $1200+. Some folks offer short "special offer" sessions in the $150-300 range too - saturated market caters for just about everybody one way or another.)
2 hours per shot....that is just marketing.
Looks like she used the same lighting set up for each shot.
Black and white is SO easy to edit, and she doesn't sharpen her shots much so that makes it easier still.
If a shot is going to blown up huge, that is a case where you really want to do as little as possible to it, not more.
The bigger it is the easier it is to see the minor flaws introduced via any processing that was done to the skin hair eyes teeth etc.
(quote) FWIW, a link to a very highly-regarded performer-headshot photographer in the UK (although I believe she's actually an American) whose work I really admire. She openly admits to spending about 2 hours per final shot. Just saying...
This is where she mentions editing time:
http://www.clairenewmanwilliams.com/policy.html
Her pricing and general policies:
http://www.clairenewmanwilliams.com/whatget.html (I'd say that her London pricing matches the mid-high end of NYC prices at ~$800 per session - in NY, avg is about $400-600, but can go as high as $1200+. Some folks offer short "special offer" sessions in the $150-300 range too - saturated market caters for just about everybody one way or another.)[/QUOTE]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Interesting discussion all round, though.
Here's a related question, Zoomer: say a shot is going to be blown up big. Client has ok skin - ie no major acne or scars - but enlarged pores, crows feet, crooked lips (perhaps with flaking skin) etc. What does one do? It has to be retouched to conform with people's media-cized, fashion-industry-ized expectations so you can't get round it. Displayed large, those flaws WILL be noticeable .... as will the processing if it isn't done well.
So where's the line? I truly don't know and am throwing this out for discussion. Also, I'm not talking about major morphing and "hardcore" fashion processing, but processing to make people look good, but still fairly natural. These aren't models or Hollywood stars, but ordinary people whose career puts them in the public eye, which already makes it a tricky line to tread.
While this may not be the original question I posed, it is an interesting tangent!
The more "character" a person has the less I will do to the photo because past a certain point it just does not look right. Embrace the flaws. Soften the wrinkles do not remove them. Skin flaking...yeah fix that. Red splotchy skin yeah fix that. Enlarged pores soften that up don't remove it. Crooked lips, leave em.
As for the pro you referenced...my guess is that she is using a one click action to process her pictures for the most part...since they all look pretty much the same.
Set them all up the same with the same lighting, do your one click action, add a little clean up around the edges. The brighter the exposure the less clean up required, black and white makes processing so easy.
Tell people it takes you up to 2 hours to process and go to the bank and cash your checks.
May sound cynical...but I know how easy that would be to do.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
A performer headshot can't always "embrace the flaws" in quite the way you suggest. Sure, photos have to look like the person - they can't be so artificially manipulated that the person in their current guise isn't recognizable! - but unless you specialise in "character" roles, are really selling a grungy "ugly" look or are 55+ ... you have to look good. Not just "ok", but best-that-the-makeup- artist-lighting-and-post-processing can combine to achieve. Especially in Operaland, where a degree of glamour is still assumed and desired. And, especially for actors, a strong, attractive, connects-with-the-viewer headshot can make the difference between getting the audition or not - it's a HUGE big deal. For singers the photo doesn't play quite such a significant role in getting the audition but - especially for young singers transitioning to professional who don't have much on their resumes yet and are facing obscene competition to be heard in person - it can make a difference. A lot of singers aren't drop-dead gorgeous 20 year old girls. Should their shots get less attention simply because they're not as good-looking to start with? I just can't do that - I feel it's my job to try and make every client look as great as I can *as well as* (prime directive) trying to show off their personality and connecting them with the viewer (usually an artistic director, casting director, or agent).
Here are some photographers in NY who are frequently used by singers. I DO know some of these singers IRL and I can tell you with certainty that the shots have been artfully, but significantly, enhanced with post-processing. Sometimes probably a little more than I like, to be honest, but in some of them, they've just really worked to bring out the best of what was already there. In some cases I saw the proofs (friends' shots) so I know they didn't look anything at all like this SOOC
http://www.rblinkoff.com/#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=13&p=1&a=0&at=0 (his work strikes a nice balance between glamorous and natural, IMO, and he's managed to translate the currently-favoured natural-light-style that actors are using into something which also works well for the more formal clothes and styles that classical musicians often need)
http://www.devoncass.com/ (his is a full-blown glamour look which is over the top for my taste, but some people in the music business absolutely LOVE his work)
http://www.lisakohlerphoto.com/ (not much on her web-page, but if you google her name a TON of shots of singers will come up - she was the go-to opera photographer in the 90s, and a lot of people used their shots from her for years)
http://www.hoebermannstudio.com/headshots/headshots.html (her website portfolio looks like it's mainly her actor shots, but I've seen some that operatic friends had done and from what they said, they were significantly retouched.... although the final results looked supernatural.)
I looked at all their sites. I like the last ones best, pretty consistent work.
The second one had some nice shots but more inconsistent.
One thing I have learned about photography....is that everybody's likes are different, amazingly so sometimes. That is what makes it so fun and never boring
Here are some photographers in NY who are frequently used by singers. I DO know some of these singers IRL and I can tell you with certainty that the shots have been artfully, but significantly, enhanced with post-processing. Sometimes probably a little more than I like, to be honest, but in some of them, they've just really worked to bring out the best of what was already there. In some cases I saw the proofs (friends' shots) so I know they didn't look anything at all like this SOOC
http://www.rblinkoff.com/#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=13&p=1&a=0&at=0 (his work strikes a nice balance between glamorous and natural, IMO, and he's managed to translate the currently-favoured natural-light-style that actors are using into something which also works well for the more formal clothes and styles that classical musicians often need)
http://www.devoncass.com/ (his is a full-blown glamour look which is over the top for my taste, but some people in the music business absolutely LOVE his work)
http://www.lisakohlerphoto.com/ (not much on her web-page, but if you google her name a TON of shots of singers will come up - she was the go-to opera photographer in the 90s, and a lot of people used their shots from her for years)
http://www.hoebermannstudio.com/headshots/headshots.html (her website portfolio looks like it's mainly her actor shots, but I've seen some that operatic friends had done and from what they said, they were significantly retouched.... although the final results looked supernatural.)[/QUOTE]
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Oh, and Zoomer et al - y'all have made me start timing myself
compared to Divas
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
I actually prefer your skinwork to mine except for the scarring on his cheek; I would have taken that out as well. Was that just healing work, or did you do something else? I assume you used the brush in LR for the skin? I wish my computer would let me do that - it's a complete pita as it almost always crashes it and I wind up having to reboot. I gave up on that feature for all but the smallest jobs ages ago - it's just faster to dodge/burn/clone/heal in PS for me.
Anyway, lots for me to think about. I actually LIKE doing the fine editing so except when I'm pressed for time it's not a big deal, but there are occasions when I need to do it faster and this is definitely a good incentive to find more time-efficient workflows.
ETA: Yeah, most of my crops have tilts involved, even when it doesn't look like it. I like a more diagonal comp, but have noticed if I do that in camera I sometimes limit my options and thus frame so that I know I have enough room to rotate and play with the crops in post. Works for me.