You don't need a photographer for that

[John Young]

I reckon this sums up how much some people 'value' photographers

http://petapixel.com/2015/06/25/you-dont-need-a-pro-photographer-for-that/

 

[Jayst84]

Wait, I thought everyone liked to bang on about how getting it right in camera was the important bit...

 

[Pookeyhead]

Wait, I thought everyone liked to bang on about how getting it right in camera was the important bit...

It is. Looks like even "Professionals" don't even think that any more.

 

[Digisatman]

Love the reply back

 

[John Young]

I reckon next time I want some plumping done I will buy him a spanner and call it paid in full for the work

 

[simon ess]

I just know this is going to be seen as a dumb question, but bare with me. (Or is that bear, I'm never sure.)

If there's a potential market for photographers to supply images for the client to edit, why would pros not explore and exploit that market rather than be dismissive of it?

 

[John Young]

I just know this is going to be seen as a dumb question, but bare with me. (Or is that bear, I'm never sure.)

If there's a potential market for photographers to supply images for the client to edit, why would pros not explore and exploit that market rather than be dismissive of it?

Well I may be wrong but it sounded to me that because they supplied the SD card and said they would edit the photos they thought they need not pay anything...... Maybe I read it wrong

 

[simon ess]

There's no mention of payment or otherwise.

 

[John Young]

But even without the payments issue I would not hand my work over to someone else to finish... They could make a mess of them and if someone then asks who took the photos... There's you hard earned reputation gone

 

[simon ess]

Aah, an interesting point.

So would you normally only supply prints?

 

[Steve Smith]

If there's a potential market for photographers to supply images for the client to edit, why would pros not explore and exploit that market rather than be dismissive of it?

Agreed. A successful business is one which supplies something the customer wants. If that's what the customer wants, why not supply it?


Steve.

 

[John Young]

Aah, an interesting point.

So would you normally only supply prints?

Depends on the package they choose - but usually prints in an album and a CD with the prints but not RAW

Agreed. A successful business is one which supplies something the customer wants. If that's what the customer wants, why not supply it?


Steve.

Well for me personally when they book me they book me for my style of work which includes how I process the photos. If they want a different style or want to change the look of the photos then book someone else.

Also I would not be happy putting my name to unfinished work plus for the reason I stated above I would not like my work to end up looking bad and me getting the BAD credit for the work

 

[Jayst84]

If there's a potential market for photographers to supply images for the client to edit, why would pros not explore and exploit that market rather than be dismissive of it?

There is. And professional photographers have been working in that market for decades.

 

[Phil V]

Agreed. A successful business is one which supplies something the customer wants. If that's what the customer wants, why not supply it?
Steve.

Well we need to understand whether this is a sustainable market? Just because someone has requested something that doesn't automatically equate to them being a 'customer'. Both the supplier and potential customer have to agree that what the potential customer thinks they want is in fact what they really want. And then whether their budget matches what the supplier requires to service that request.

Someone walking into a pub and asking for glass of water is entitled to that for free, and most publicans will happily supply that, but if that 'customer' then adds their own gin or cordial, then that's in breach of the 'relationship', and a potential loss of income for the supplier.

In this case, would the 'customer' understand that the product would also include a lot of waste for them to deal with? And would they be happy to spend the necessary time to create the end product. It's reasonable to assume that 90% of the population wouldn't understand that, which restricts a potential market. Also the supplier will factor in their lost extra paid hours doing that work, so the savings wouldn't necessarily be as large as they might appear at first glance. We often hear that busy wedding photographers (for instance) won't book a half day wedding on a mid season Saturday, as that's a potential loss of profit.

 

[Steve Smith]

Well we need to understand whether this is a sustainable market

I have no idea... but if there are enough people who want this sort of service, someone will cater to them.

As long as you are paid a reasonable amount for the time spent, it's not much different to any other trade charged by the hour.


Steve.

 

[Phil V]

I have no idea... but if there are enough people who want this sort of service, someone will cater to them.

As long as you are paid a reasonable amount for the time spent, it's not much different to any other trade charged by the hour.


Steve.

Of course you are right, the reason I tried to keep it fairly abstract was to agree in principal.

However as someone who knows a little about this industry, my guess is that the 'customer' has no idea what they're asking for and no idea what the photographer would need to be paid to make it worthwhile. These type of customers see photographers as 'camera operators', and it's not likely to be a worthwhile proposition.

 

[Liam Brewster]

Well we need to understand whether this is a sustainable market? Just because someone has requested something that doesn't automatically equate to them being a 'customer'. Both the supplier and potential customer have to agree that what the potential customer thinks they want is in fact what they really want. And then whether their budget matches what the supplier requires to service that request.

Someone walking into a pub and asking for glass of water is entitled to that for free, and most publicans will happily supply that, but if that 'customer' then adds their own gin or cordial, then that's in breach of the 'relationship', and a potential loss of income for the supplier.

In this case, would the 'customer' understand that the product would also include a lot of waste for them to deal with? And would they be happy to spend the necessary time to create the end product. It's reasonable to assume that 90% of the population wouldn't understand that, which restricts a potential market. Also the supplier will factor in their lost extra paid hours doing that work, so the savings wouldn't necessarily be as large as they might appear at first glance. We often hear that busy wedding photographers (for instance) won't book a half day wedding on a mid season Saturday, as that's a potential loss of profit.

this has hit the nail on the head for me!! couldnt put it any better

 

[Pookeyhead]

I just know this is going to be seen as a dumb question, but bare with me. (Or is that bear, I'm never sure.)

If there's a potential market for photographers to supply images for the client to edit, why would pros not explore and exploit that market rather than be dismissive of it?

Because msny pros these days struggle to get stuff right on camera, and would be embarrassed to show their raw files to anyone.

 

[TheBigYin]

Because msny pros these days struggle to get stuff right on camera, and would be embarrassed to show their raw files to anyone.

There is that... wasn't quite as many places to hide when the client asked for 5x4 or 10x8 transparencies ready for drum scanning

 

[Phil V]

Is it cos I is old that I don't think this applies to me?

Because msny pros these days struggle to get stuff right on camera.

Whilst I still think this does...

... and would be embarrassed to show their raw files to anyone.

Whilst not 'embarassed' I struggle to see there'll be loads of customers that could take my Raw files and work out what I was aiming for. Would they understand I shoot daylight wb so I have a fixed start point? Would they understand that I sometimes shoot extra bits of background to stitch for a panoramic shot, or the shot of them in the dark with the lighting missing so I can easily paint out my softbox and stand from their images?

 

[Serendipitous Sid]

Because msny pros these days struggle to get stuff right on camera, and would be embarrassed to show their raw files to anyone.

Not sure I agree with that, but it's a fact that many pros have always struggled to get it right in camera. Just talk to anybody who worked in a commercial darkroom when we all shot fillum ...

 

[Pookeyhead]

There is that... wasn't quite as many places to hide when the client asked for 5x4 or 10x8 transparencies ready for drum scanning

I had clients I worked for regularly who I handed over un-processed film to. No one believes me these days when I tell them that

It's interesting... but not really important though. Technology marches on. Like I always say, it's refreshing to have photography be so easy these days. All that separates the wheat from the chaff now, is imagination.

 

[Musicman]

I had clients I worked for regularly who I handed over un-processed film to. No one believes me these days when I tell them that

Standard fare for news photographers, wasn't it?

Most of Capa's shots of the D Day landings were lost in a lab accident in London while he was still in the field.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Standard fare for news photographers, wasn't it?

Almost certainly yes.

 

[Phil V]

Standard fare for news photographers, wasn't it?
...

Right up until it became common practice for them to process the film and wire in their images. With those technology limitations came the photographer only sending a few shots they thought might be used. That's carried on into the completely digital age.

But it's a red herring. There's a huge difference between handing over files to an imaging professional to cull and edit (whether news editorial or advertising) and sending files to a customer who almost certainly doesn't understand that it's not a finished product and those jobs need doing.

 

[YoshiK1]

Haha I laughed! I sort of disagree though. You can tell someone who just point and shoots from someone who is educated in photography. I'd have provided the service they asked for but at the same time I wouldn't see the sense in them not learning how to photograph themselves if they're able to do the other portion of it (post-processing).

 

[Jayst84]

I'd have provided the service they asked for but at the same time I wouldn't see the sense in them not learning how to photograph themselves if they're able to do the other portion of it (post-processing).

Many photographers don't do any post work on their images. Just like many/most/all retouchers don't shoot the stuff. Different jobs, different skills.

 

[YoshiK1]

Many photographers don't do any post work on their images. Just like many/most/all retouchers don't shoot the stuff. Different jobs, different skills.

I can understand that and it's fair enough but from my perspective and if it were me in their shoes I'd save the cash in the long run by doing both myself.

 

[big soft moose]

It is. Looks like even "Professionals" don't even think that any more.

how many raws have you taken that don't need post processing ?

its a bit like claiming that film doesnt need to be developed because you got it right in camera

 

[Musicman]

its a bit like claiming that film doesnt need to be developed because you got it right in camera

I think you just described Garry Winogrand

 

[sk66]

The issue is, because it is a "client" and not a "professional" requesting the files to process there's a 70+% chance the resulting images will be crap (over/under edited), there's a 90+% chance the results won't be representative of what you would deliver, and there's a similar chance that you will get "credit" for it.

Plus, the approach is indicative of a complete lack of understanding about copyright. You can be quite certain they think they will "own the images" and that they are in no way willing to pay reasonably for that right should you correct them.

 

[Pookeyhead]

how many raws have you taken that don't need post processing ?

its a bit like claiming that film doesnt need to be developed because you got it right in camera

Quite a few.

It's nothing like the analogy you use at all. Film needs CHEMICAL processing to realise the latent image, of course. The correct analogy would be liking that chemical process to the digital conversion of the data into visible pixels on the screen. Beyond that is where YOUR analogy begins: Processing as you mean it here is the equivalent to the printing of a slide or negative. While there are a few things you can do during the chemical process to alter the image (c41 to E6 or vice versa being the most common) most other manipulation of the analogue image was done post-process... just like it still is.

So yeah... quite a few Pete. If all I want is an accurate record of something, I will not process at all beyond white balance. If I did, it would no longer be accurate.

You speak as if there's no use for a straight from camera image

 

[big soft moose]

Quite a few.

It's nothing like the analogy you use at all. Film needs CHEMICAL processing to realise the latent image, of course. The correct analogy would be liking that chemical process to the digital conversion of the data into visible pixels on the screen. Beyond that is where YOUR analogy begins: Processing as you mean it here is the equivalent to the printing of a slide or negative. While there are a few things you can do during the chemical process to alter the image (c41 to E6 or vice versa being the most common) most other manipulation of the analogue image was done post-process... just like it still is.

So yeah... quite a few Pete. If all I want is an accurate record of something, I will not process at all beyond white balance. If I did, it would no longer be accurate.

You speak as if there's no use for a straight from camera image

so you don't change W/B on a raw by post processing ? what do you use, magic ?

my analogy was spot on RAW files need to be developed whether thats W/B and sharpness tweaks or more indepth work - if you want to use it straight out of camera use jpeg (where its processed by the camera - a bit like using a polaroid)

 

[Pookeyhead]

so you don't change W/B on a raw by post processing ? what do you use, magic ?

You could use the correct white balance setting on the camera if you really wanted to, so no magic necessary Pete.. it's just the same as loading up the correct film back in the day. Besides, clicking once on a grey card is hardly processing. The image would still be a faithful accurate recording of reality - more so in fact, as it would be colour balanced.

my analogy was spot on RAW files need to be developed whether thats W/B and sharpness tweaks or more indepth work

Err.. no they don't. I can just load 'em up in ACR, and save them out of a TIFF. I don't have to do ANY of that if I don't want to. Why do I need to do "in depth" work? LOL WB isn't processing of a raw file, as WB is not fixed anyway.

- if you want to use it straight out of camera use jpeg (where its processed by the camera - a bit like using a polaroid)

Why would I want a compressed JPEG when I can have an uncompressed 16bit file?

Pete... you're talking nonsense.

BTW... its raw, not RAW... it's not an acronym.

 

[big soft moose]

You could use the correct white balance setting on the camera if you really wanted to,

you could, but thats not what you said - you said you didnt do any PP except for the W/B - my point was that if you are using lightroom (or whaterver) to change the W/B then you are doing post processing -

I can just load 'em up in ACR, and save them out of a TIFF. I don't have to do ANY of that if I don't want to. Why do I need to do "in depth" work? LOL

that explains a lot about the 'kwalitee' of your work and why people who do know what they are doing are often critical of its muted tones and lack of sharpness, David you're talking nonsense, - raw files need processing to bring out the best in them - that's not to say that its about polishing a turd or not getting it right in camera, but the raw is not the finished item

Why would I want a compressed JPEG when I can have an uncompressed 16bit file?

why would you want an uncompressed 16 bit file if you aren't going to do any work to it ?

BTW... its raw, not RAW... it's not an acronym.

strictly speaking its usually .CRG or .NEF or similar - raw isnt a file extension either

 

[Pookeyhead]

you could, but thats not what you said - you said you didnt do any PP except for the W/B - my point was that if you are using lightroom (or whaterver) to change the W/B then you are doing post processing -

If you want to be pedantic, yes, but adjusting WB is not making any tonal changes, or altering anything from how it was captured, it's merely correcting for a camera's inability to correctly render a scene. You did the same with colour printing by adjusting filtration on the enlarger. To me, "post processing" is when you start to make creative decisions, altering the appearance and tonal relationships, and essentially creating something that no longer an accurate recording of reality, but a subjective version of it.

that explains a lot about the 'kwalitee' of your work and why people who do know what they are doing are often critical of its muted tones and lack of sharpness,

LOL... who would that be then.. You, Bill and Laudrup? Besides I ignore crit from people who never actually take any photographs. I suppose Bill does, but then again, Bill thought he could assess my sharpness from an 800 pixel wide image

- raw files

That's better

need processing to bring out the best in them

Sometimes, yes. Where have I said I never "process my work"? I usually do. All I'm saying is you don't HAVE to, which was your argument. If I was asked to make a totally accurate record of something... liek flat copying art work, which I actually do a great deal of, I will do NO processing beyond white balancing from a grey card test shot. I just think your definition of processing is different from mine. White balance or applying a lens profile etc. is merely correcting a technical aberration. It has no perceived effect on the accuracy or representation of an image whatsoever. It's debatable if anyone would actually notice it's been done.

why would you want an uncompressed 16 bit file if you aren't going to do any work to it ?

To have a lossless, full quality copy with a colour profile applied ready to print? Why would I want a compressed copy as a master file?

strictly speaking its usually .CRG or .NEF or similar - raw isnt a file extension either

I never said it was a file extension, I said it wasn't an acronym. It's a raw file.. as in raw bacon, raw fish. You don't write "RAW bacon" do you?

 

[Laudrup]

Pookeyhead's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

Pookeyhead portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes.

Pookeyhead doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.

Sure, Pookeyhead deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.

Pookeyehead's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Pookeyhead never is.

Pookeyhead doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.

Pookeyhead never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth.

When Pookeyhead brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Pookeyhead's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

Pookeyhead portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes.

Pookeyhead doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.

Sure, Pookeyhead deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.

Pookeyehead's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Pookeyhead never is.

Pookeyhead doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.

Pookeyhead never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth.

When Pookeyhead brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories.

Laudrup never actually takes any photographs. The end.

 

[Laudrup]

I have, once. I had to delete it because I didn't get it right in the camera. It's too painful to talk about.

 

[Pookeyhead]

I have, once. I had to delete it because I didn't get it right in the camera. It's too painful to talk about.

I bet it was after spending £3000 on a standard lens... LOL