i'm a photographer - educate me!!

jkayphotos · #1 11-26-2007, 07:56 PM

time to educate a client

*every* industry wishes their clients were more educated...right?

i'm a wedding photographer. i'm decent at post-processing, and enjoy the advanced editing i do to a selection of photos, but i'm just bored to tears by the basics: culling, white balance, exposure, levels, etc. and while i'm good if you look at any individual photo (and getting better everyday), i don't have the consistency i'd like. and, it takes me forever. unfortunately i don't have high enough volume to hire someone. soooooo, i'm a perfect candidate for outsourcing, right?

so why can i find sooooo few companies that do this!!?? (6 I've counted. shootdotedit.com and mylavalu.com are the most well known, but they have huge waiting lists) is it because that stuff is boring to the retouchers too?

obviously this forum has a lot of professionals, many of whom specialize in making an individual photo perfect. but surely some of you wouldn't mind having a business making a batch of photos look great?

here's what i'm looking for:
Cull 1200-1500 photos down to 700-900
Basic editing on the remaining including:
- white balance/color balance
- exposure
- levels/contrast/saturation - ie, the "pop"
Consistency of editing (photo to photo & event to event)
Attention to my "style" and preferences (ie, how cool or warm i like images, how much contrast, what skin colors should look like)
Turnaround time of 5-10 days (not including shipping)
JPEG conversion
Priced at $200-$500

Additional services available (b/w conversion, facial retouch, exit sign removal, etc) for $30-$50 per hour

Wide price range based on variances in experience, turn around time, and individualized attention. While I would assume the retoucher has a program like LightRoom (for its speed), I really don't care what they use so long as I give RAW and get JPEG (300dpi, highest quality, unsharpened). i do expect the retoucher to have a quality color-calibrated monitor.

so i know it's not the exciting work you normally take on, but why can't I find more companies/individuals doing it? are my expectations off base? am i looking in all the wrong places? is basic editing just too boring?

i thought i'd go to the source to look for answers....here's your chance to educate the client.

thanks so much for listening to my rambling, can't wait to hear your answers!

pixelzombie · #2 11-26-2007, 08:12 PM

i'm sure you'll get plenty of responses, just give it time...

jkayphotos · #3 11-26-2007, 08:23 PM

haha, thanks pixelzombie.

I do hope people take my questions without offense. but i'm perfectly open to whatever answer is out there....even if it's that i'm asking for the unreasonable or that I'm in the wrong forum all together!

Mike · #4 11-27-2007, 08:32 AM

I think that you are too cheap. $500 for 10 eight hour days? I can make more flipping hamburgers, and not have to buy any computers/software etc.

jkayphotos · #5 11-27-2007, 10:19 AM

hi mike, i think you may misunderstand my post. if it only takes me 6-8 hours, it certainly shouldn't take a professional 80 hours.

i don't intend to hire someone to work on my images only full-time for 10 days. i want to subcontract to someone (who may be working on other projects at the same time), and give them up to 10 days to complete the project.

someone skilled at this could complete in 2-4 hours. (yes, those numbers are based on other photographers who have great skills in that department.)

sorry for the miscommunication! hopefully you didn't think it would take you 80 hours to complete the work, though.

grafx · #6 11-27-2007, 10:29 AM

So you need a photo editor as well as a photo retoucher (combined into one)

Sounds mind numbing, but the wage sounds pretty fair. It would work best with someone you could count on to think like you do. Sort of a "mini-jkay".

jadams007 · #7 11-27-2007, 12:26 PM

can you send an image? I'd like to give it a shot

j3@adams-assoc.com

grafx · #8 11-27-2007, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jadams007

can you send an image? I'd like to give it a shot

j3@adams-assoc.com

I don't think he was looking for job applicants from what I read, just opinions or "education" as he calls it. Anyways, I'd keep it in a PM

No, I'm not a Mod, but eager-beavers chafe me at times.

jkayphotos · #9 11-27-2007, 01:59 PM

grafx -

Thanks, that confirms some of my suspicions....and alerts me to the fact that "photo editor" and "photo retoucher" are *not* the same job...am I at the wrong forum all together? 95% of the job would be editing, I guess. "mind numbing" is a pretty accurate description.

jadams007 -

Thanks for the offer, but it would be silly to send over one photo...it's not about editing a single photo to perfection...it's about general correction for a large batch of photos.

I guess I was hoping to learn that this wasn't an uncommon request...I was just using bad terminology or looking in the wrong group of people or something. *sigh*....I'll keep looking.

FYI - there's a huge huge push for "outsourcing" of this kind in the wedding industry (at least in my sector of it) right now. the few companies out there are being overwhelmed (part of the reason i was looking for more options). anyone looking to start a profitable company...it's a relatively untapped market.

Thanks for all of your responses!
Jillian

pixel_monkey · #10 11-27-2007, 04:07 PM

What you're looking for is more like a Photoshop production color corrector/technician. According to your posts, the retouchers will need to go through 375 raw files in an hour. Honestly, I don't think an action is able to go through that many raw files in an hour even with a decent system. The images that some retouchers here work on require a day or more to complete. Yes, your line of work would be extremely boring. That's why there are not too many (if there any at all) retouchers are willing to do this type of work.
And here's a little education, no retouchers like to hear from photographers telling them how long an image should get done, because we don't tell them how to shoot.

Peer K · #11 11-27-2007, 04:28 PM

I've done quite a few of these assignments (as a photographer) - i.e. weddings, receptions etc.

What I have learned is that Bridge and the new Camera Raw will get you a *long* way - assuming your images are consistent in e.g. whitebalance (otherwise you'll just have to break them down into smaller portions). This will get you done in the whitebalance, temperature, contrast, saturation, exposure and even the "punch" department and a few more if you know what to do.

However, you also mention skincolor which *can* be a science all by itself - and a time consuming one too - which will require individual editing of each of the photos. But - again assuming your images are consistent - this can easily be automated as well.

A totally non-related point.. Why are you shooting that many photos (if you're talking about 1200-1500 photos of one event)?? I've done quite a few weddings and normally come home with about 50 photos max which end out at about 10 max (and happy customers). But then again I don't shoot weddingreceptions - only the couple.

jkayphotos · #12 11-27-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixel_monkey

What you're looking for is more like a Photoshop production color corrector/technician. According to your posts, the retouchers will need to go through 375 raw files in an hour. Honestly, I don't think an action is able to go through that many raw files in an hour even with a decent system. The images that some retouchers here work on require a day or more to complete. Yes, your line of work would be extremely boring. That's why there are not too many (if there any at all) retouchers are willing to do this type of work.
And here's a little education, no retouchers like to hear from photographers telling them how long an image should get done, because we don't tell them how to shoot.

hi pixel monkey,
i'm so sorry, as I seem to have offended you with my post. i certainly didn't mean to imply i know exactly how long it would take someone to go through the files, simply stating what i've heard is reasonable from others. i know that my production time is about 8 hours to edit in the way i've described...and i know it takes me longer than it should because i sit and reminisce.

but, i did want to convey that these are images that can be batched. ie, using a program like bridge or lightroom, you find a setting that works for one image of a series and you apply it to all. how much time is obviously up to the individual, as i've given a timeline of days to complete.

also, i generally use photoshop to batch my sharpening and resizing to 700-900 images at a time with actions, so i'm pretty confident that it can work on more than 375 images an hour (not relevant to this discussion, just saying it's possible).

again, my apologies for causing offense, it was certainly not my intention. i believe i simply may be addressing the wrong audience here.

Peer K -
Yes! That's exactly what I'm talking about.

As far as skin-tone, I realize it's a very difficult aspect of editing. In general, I just want the white balance and color balance to turn out reasonably natural given the lighting conditions. Not specific color editing on the skin itself. Many photographers are going for the super saturated look (or very warm, or very cool), and people turn interesting colors in the process....it's a style, but it's not my style.

So i'd just ask that the editor be aware of the skin first when addressing white balance/color balance/contrast etc. Unless the event had some weird lighting going on, it shouldn't be a concern most of the time.

As far as why I shoot that many...well, it's just how I shoot.

I am there usually 10-12 hours doing everything from make-up, ceremony, formals, portraits, reception...all the way down to the last dance. I love to get a lot of photos of friends and family just being themselves. I agree, it's not traditional wedding photography. But it's what I love to do.

Good question though!

Thanks again for the responses...I am certainly learning a lot.

Funkimunkey · #13 11-27-2007, 05:06 PM

I'm confused as to why you'd want jpeg files, jpeg is not a lossless format. You should have tiff files or something shouldn't you? I assume they are intended for print?

As for your questions, I find most photographers generally want to do their own retouching (whether they can or not) so it's nice to know that there are people out there that want to hand it over to someone else. Creative Recruitment agencies will be able to put you into contact with retouchers that will work on a freelance basis.

Benny Profane · #14 11-28-2007, 12:23 AM

What's your game, photographer person? You seem to be hip to the software out there, and know what you want, so why are you spending so much time here? Get to work.

jkayphotos · #15 11-28-2007, 02:21 AM

Funkimunkey - Well, jpeg is what the clients expect, what the online hosting company expects, what the album design service expects, etc. And 99.9% of the printing i'll do isn't large enough to bother with a lossless file. so with hundreds of images its just not economical or expedient to deal with tiff. on the odd occasion i need something printed huge (bigger than 20"x30"), i go back to the raw file and recreate it to perfection. that happened only once this year, never last year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

What's your game, photographer person? You seem to be hip to the software out there, and know what you want, so why are you spending so much time here? Get to work.

you got it! i've been doing it on my own for the past two years. i know *how*....but i neglected a lot of important things in my business because i spent so much time editing. if i keep doing it myself, i'll be out of business in another two years.

it's funny, but i was so busy with editing, i couldn't even look for an editor...i started looking as soon as I finished editing my last wedding of the year!