I just finished post-processing 1,017 images. Many of these (but not all) will be used for marketing and public relations, in print and online. The client is not able to do any post-processing except to crop and resize the pictures.
Since the client doesn’t know which or when images will be used in the coming year, all these photos had to be processed now. About 2,300 images were originally shot and those were edited down to 1,017. Yes, I could’ve edited it down a lot more, but I wanted the client to have a good selection to cover all future possibilities.
The images included: group shots, all of which required some faces to be retouched (i.e. eyes opened, shadows lightened and eyeglass reflections removed); several presentations, where fingerprints had to be removed from the glass-framed items; building exteriors and room interiors, which needed verticals straightened and ground debris removed; food shots in which the food had to be freshened and fixed up; and few hundred pictures of people wearing baseball hats or visors, all of which needed shadows lightened and colours warmed.
Even at a tiny one minute per picture, that would still add up to 1,017 minutes, or 17 hours, of non-stop work. Some pictures required just a quick basic tweak of crop, levels and sharpen. But others required much more work (see previous paragraph).
I spent almost 50 hours on the images. Do the math, and that still works out to an average of only three minutes per image.
Would you work 50 hours (i.e. more than a week) for free? Of course not. Hence the photographer’s charge for “post-processing”.
Some clients understand that images right from the camera are *not* ready-to-go. But many others don’t realize that digital photo files need to be cleaned up and require adjustments to brightness, contrast, colour, sharpening and sometimes even more, especially for portraits. Yes, even pictures from a $6,000 camera still need work.
Is post-processing really necessary?
Depends. How good is good enough when your company image is on the line?
A picture right from the camera is like standing one leg: if all things work out, you can stay upright. Good enough as long as there’s no expectations and no competition.
But a properly processed and finished photograph gives you two solid legs to stand on: quality photography to fully support your marketing needs and business image.
The rule of thumb is that one hour of photography requires two hours of computer time. This is better than the old film and darkroom days.
Digital photography allows for much more control. And today, many clients fully expect to benefit from that control. They want their executive portrait to have magazine cover looks, their office interiors to look like the pictures in an architecture brochure, and their events to appear to be a well-lit stage play. I guess the saying, “image is everything” is the deal today.
Photographers: don’t under-estimate the time required to fully polish your pictures. Even a few minutes per photo can really add up. Don’t be surprised when (not if) you spend more time with your computer than camera. For better or worse, post-processing is part of your job. It is real work and you must charge for it.
Clients: don’t put up with photographers who “dump and run”: dump the raw pictures on a disc for you and then run out the door. Pushing a camera’s shutter button only starts the picture, it doesn’t finish it. Yes, post-processing will cost you money. Yes, your company image is worth it. The public judges a company by its marketing and advertising efforts. Low-quality or amateur photography says what?
––
Just to toot my own horn: last month, I spent a lot of time post-processing a photo which was intended for a company’s web site. The client liked it so much, they had it printed quite large and framed to hang in their boardroom.
Quality photography is not only good for the client’s business, it’s also good for the photographer’s.
Tags: event coverage, post-processing, pricing, value
