Urgent advize needed on retouches...

photocat · January 4, 2007

Hi you all, I did a shoot of a yoga class with moms and babies. After the shoot, it dawned om me that the room was very ugly and there was a lot of clutter around. What I really should have done was covered up the walls with white sheets, and have all the moms put the stuff on one side, out of sight of the camera...
So now I am retouching... and kind of in an argument with the (cheap) customer (I figured that I could get business out of it, so I only charged her 60 dollar for the shoot), it felt like rubbing each others back...
I have two possibilities, either use the pen tool in photoshop and just cut out the moms straight, or clone, which is a pain too, as the background has different shades of brownish grey, so if you clone, the color changes and you have to clone till you drop...
I am rather fast with the pen tool, it is time consuming too, but hey, it looks clean in my eyes...
Do you guys think the cut outs are acceptable, or are they floating in too much white space?????

What would be more acceptable? The pics have to go up on a website, will be small, the question is whether anyone could get used to just see the moms with the babies in white space... I am a layouter, so normally, cutouts have to touch the borders to "ground" them, if I "ground" them I loose the proportions of the photograph...

Sigh, why don't I take good paying jobs? (The customer did buy digital downloads of the pics, for 200 dollar, so that should make up for the bit of work I am doing...)
We are talking 40 pics that have to be retouched...

Pupator · January 4, 2007

Tell her "you get what you pay for." A $60 shoot gets pictures of the moms and babies, as is. It's not enough money for you to be wasting your time hanging up sheets. They put the clutter all around them, not you. If the client wants to complain about it she can choose to use someone else next time or pay you for the time it takes to do things really well.

You have to decide if $200 is worth your time to extensively edit 40 photos. There's not a chance I'd do it.

And, from a photography standpoint - I like the one with the background better. The all white version is too weird.

photocat · January 4, 2007

And, from a photography standpoint - I like the one with the background better. The all white version is too weird.[/QUOTE]

Grin, thanks... That is what I wanted to hear, guess they will get it with somewhat cluttered backgrounds with just the biggest chips taken out...
I reckon on long term, it will be better if I do a good job with some editing...

Thanks for the comment, it is very much appreciated ;o)))

JimM · January 4, 2007

I like the one with the background better too.

asylumxl · January 4, 2007

you could try a white to grey gradient on the white background one and see if it looks more realistic (starts white from top, grey at bottom)

saurora · January 4, 2007

Hi Cat! I think you are obsessing! The background (at least in this shot) is not that distracting to me. I agree with the others.......leave it as is, you're not being paid for that kind of work!!!!

Sam · January 4, 2007

Ok here is another pet peeve of mine! When you agree to do a job, perform a service etc., you agree to perform. If you find out the job entails more work than you had originally estimated, (through no fault of the client), it’s your problem not the clients. It doesn’t matter if you quoted $60.00,or $200.00. Your obligation is to perform.

Chalk it up to a learning experience, and hopefully the next time you will be able to quote an amount that more accurately reflects the amount of work involved.

Ok I got that off my chest. How about something like this? Done very fast, and crudely.

Sam

drdane · January 4, 2007

Sam has a good point, as do all the others, IMO.

I see a moral, here, and that is to give the client some Cost/Quality options up front and let them choose. Then give them what they chose, assuming you can live with it, however - if you can't, then don't do it.

Sam, I thought of the sky/clouds, too, but the client probably doesn't want a cover for the Yoga Jnl, but rather pics of moms & babies in their yoga studio. My vote would be to clone out the big stuff and let it go at that.

If you want really good shots, it might be best to have some volunteers some in for the shoot, and you can arrange them to best advantage.

pathfinder · January 4, 2007

Seems like we are confusing photography with image editing.

Adjusting WB, exposure, cropping are all typical processing to complete a shoot.

Selecting, removing, extensive cloning fall into the window of Image Editing to me and that was not part of the original contract was it?? I wasn't there so I don't know what the original agreement really was. Just what I think it probably was.

Do most wedding shooters think that moving Uncle Harry from frame 72, to frame 89, and switching Aunt Sally's eyes from frame 52 to frame 89 are what they are including in their services?? Once you start down this path it seems to me that the demands can be endless with the right (or wrong ) client.

I think the background looks like most exercise classes with stuff scattered about. Only on TV do I not see any clutter at the back of the room. Thw white background calls much more attention to itself than the original background to my eye

urbanaries · January 4, 2007

Interesting thread!

To me, a stronger focal point (shallower DOF?) would have solved the issue. For the small reproduction size of web graphics, I'm wondering why you shot more than one mom/baby grouping...two at the most. The color, pose, mood and high key lighting looks most impactful in the front mom/baby group, but all (four) are fairly in focus (with darker, more saturated colors) and that's what's distracting to me...not the clutter in the Bg.

ajroahkni · January 4, 2007

Could you use the original, keep the front mom and her depth of plane in focus (she seems to be ascendent

in form and focus) and then a blur overlaid over the rest to create that "ahhh, yoga is goooood" feeling?

I think that the studio owner would want to have her studio in the photos - even if it is the floor only.

photocat · January 4, 2007

O my goodness, where did all those replies come from????
Lots of interesting points, I guess I should have thought up front that I wanted uncluttered pictures, but I did not... So the basical fault does lie with me, I know now that next time I will be more directional, and tell them that I want the room with all the stuff on one side, as to have as less clutter as possible...

I ended up cloning the big chunks away, but leaving the backgrounds in, so that is taken care of too, I agree that I have to deliver a good job, for both client and myself, I feel much better when I know I did all I could to deliver good pics...

I did not want to shoot with shallow depth of field, as I knew that the group was of importance. I shot most of them with a middle range of 5.6. And with flash. I have a 2.8 lens, but the depth of field is so shallow that I only get one mom or one baby in focus, which was not good for this project.

As one replyer says, it is all a learning process, it has been another good lesson for me, and I am so gratefull for all of you who shed light on this matter. It is always good to hear other bells...

Thanks to everyone who responded to this.

Jigger · January 4, 2007

Woo thats a lot of work to be done.

How did you traced the foreground? Try using the extract tool in PS, that might save you time. I like the photo with a background but if the client want that to be taken out then theres nothing you can do but to give them what they want. Its always about pleasing your clients. Try not using a solid white color on the background, try gradient colors. experiment and present them all. Make diff studies.

Hope you'lll pull that one off.

Urgent advize needed on retouches...

Comments