An ad that was never used

[Ho72]

Hi all,

Here is an ad I did a few years ago when I thought I had a deal with a local photography studio to do retouching through their business. They did not offer this service, and still don't. The idea was for them to display my ad and other materials or samples in their studio, take in the work, and receive a commission. The deal fell apart and I never became motivated enough to pursue it with anyone else. It seems that where I live that there is not a large segment of people who are willing to pay more than a few dollars to have a picture restored, especially if the work is done on a computer. Oh well...

Thanks for the chance to display it,
Howard

[Sanda]

Hi Howard,
Welcome to Retouch Pro.
I would love to see your ad. do you think you could upload a copy please? If your're having trouble with attatching it please ask and we'll help you.
Sandra

[Ho72]

Ok, let's try this...

[Ho72]

That worked. Apparently the 102400 byte file size limit is optimistic.

[Doug Nelson]

Excellent ad copy. Eyecatching, initially shocking, but quickly humorous. I think you should look for another reason to use it.

[Sanda]

very good, it would make a great first page for a web site too.
as Doug said the humor is a good angle, don't leave it sitting in a shoebox, it's too good for that.

[LQQKER]

Hey Howard,

A good ad should not be overly verbose and should capture ones attention quickly. Your idea is short, humorous, eye-catching and to the point. After all, the idea is to get people to read what you have to offer. The humor seems to be the hook.

As mentioned, a great opening page. It would seem logical to put this into use.

[G. Couch]

Very well designed...the thing that really jumps out at me is the PIXFIX logo. Most people tend to get too cute with their logo...this one is very well designed and professional looking.

The ad looks ready to use in a magazine to me!

[Ed_L]

Very appealing to the eye. As suggested, the humor goes a long way with the ad, as does the very nice work in restoration. I do have a question that has been bothering me for some time. You made the restoration a mirror image, as I have seen done in many other restoration samples. What is the reason for this? That's the only thing that bothers me, and it's probably just *me*! Just wondering if there's a good reason for flipping the image. I agree though, that with an ad like that, you need to find a way to get yourself motivated again. Super work!!

Ed

[gland]

I agree with everyone else that this is a great ad. Maybe some kind of online business might be better for you...

It would be a real shame not to use that ad for something..

[Ho72]

Thank you all for the positive comments. Ed, the restored image in the ad is the original orientation. I flipped the unrestored version for placement in the ad because I liked better. BTW, that restoration was almost automatic... when I looked at the red channel, almost all the spots had healed themselves!

As to whether I'll take another stab at creating a business out of retouching, well, I just don't know. Given the tedious nature of the work, the hours that can be involved, and a populace that seems to think $75 (what I would consider a minimum for most jobs) is a *lot* to pay someone for this sort of work... I'm not sure my heart is in it.

Howard

[Ho72]

Well, my last post seems to have brought discussion here to a screeching halt. Since no one has replied, let me ask a question or two.

Was my price structure and expectation unrealistic? When I said I considered $75 to be a minimum for most jobs, I had in mind the family heirloom photo (not a faded picture of the family dog), in poor to moderately poor condition (no large missing pieces), requiring 4 + hours of reconstruction. Add to this the cost of a LightJet print on Fuji Crystal Archive paper ($5-$18 on average depending on the size of the print) and I think I was giving people a relative bargain. Unfortunately, not many saw it that way. Thus was my idea to associate myself with a studio born.

I think I could do this kind of work sparingly (certainly not several hours a day, every day) if I was being compensated fairly. So, I guess that's my question: What is fair compensation for the work as I've described it?

Thanks

[Bob Walden]

Ho72,

I see nothing wrong with your pricing. The problem I think is more a case of anyone with a computer thinks they can do retouching. And they can. But at what level? I have owned and worked in photo labs most of my life and know from experience that photo retouching is an excellent profit center. Now owners use one or more of their existing employees and teach them the basics. It can be done in house cheaply. Maybe not done well but not a lot of people care about quality or just don't recognise it.

For me doing retouching is personally rewarding and not a way to make a living. For some like Jim Conway, he has the best of both worlds.

Bob

[Ed_L]

HO72,

I think you're the only one who can say what fair compensation is. There is a place for high paying restoration jobs (location might have a big impact on this). But in order to get the higher rates, you will have to be above the rest when it comes to quality work, what you know about older photographic processes, and the way you handle the client's image. Most people are looking for a cheap job, but there are those who will pay for top quality work. In my opinion, if you sell your work cheaply, you can stay very busy, but never make any money.

Let's assume that you have the only known picture (needing restoration) of someone who was very close to you, and they died. You know approximately how much most people charge for restoration work, but suddenly you find one who charges five times what everyone else does. Do you automatically exclude him, or do you find out more about him. My guess is the latter.

Check out some of thomasgeorge's older posts to see how he handles his clients images. He has excellent work ethics, and he won't put your prized photo in a brown lunch bag for packaging.

Ed