How many of you just do the shoot , no processing?

[EllenC]

I had a potential client ask me to do the shoot (in digital) but then wanted me to turn over all images on a cd unedited to them. They wanted to do the processing. I said no way.

This was for a company calendar. The client was surprised that I said no. She said she's never had a photographer object to their editing his/her work.

Is this something you do or would do?

[ssim]

I had some trouble with this concept when I first starting working with a local advertising agency. They wanted to be able to do the final editing. In the end I do this but as I shoot everything for them in RAW, I do the conversion and some initial adjustments. I upload 16bit TIFF's to their server and they take it from there. Nothing else in the process is different, the pricing is the same whether I would have done all the editing, I still hold the copyright, etc.

I have an ongoing relationship with this firm so we have built up a good relationship with them. In most cases they will send me a mockup of the way the image will look in the advertisement. Not for me to make changes but more out of courtesy.

I would never relinquish my originals to anyone, nor would I give up ownership to the copyright unless the price was right. Up to now I have not had to face either.

In your circumstance what I would suggest is some documentation that would allow them to take copies of the originals and license them for the use that you agree on. If they want exclusive use of the images open ended then your pricing has to reflect that. This can be structured to be a win-win for both parties. There are times however, where it is judicious to walk away if you don't feel right about it.

[Gary_Evans]

Any commercial work we take on is handled like this.

I have good relationships with all our local printers and I know they will make the most of the images with no further input.

Again, copyright remains ours but tbh as what we shoot (packaging and fabric usually) for one off catalogues, the chances of re-orders are nil.

So I pass on the files, and dont have to spend time doing any PP. Bit like when we shot transparancies really

[chtgrubbs]

I'd say it was fine. Many agencies have their own Photoshop wizards who know just how to process the shot so that they get the best results from their printer.

[EllenC]

I'd say it was fine. Many agencies have their own Photoshop wizards who know just how to process the shot so that they get the best results from their printer.

I would be okay with this if I was working with an advertising agency who have professionals that edit but this was not the case. This was a company that just wanted to save money buy doing their own editing.

[TeeJay]

I'd say it was fine. Many agencies have their own Photoshop wizards who know just how to process the shot so that they get the best results from their printer.

Yep. I'd agree. I have a quick run-through removing any mis-shots (surely there aren't any!:rolleyes: ) then the contract states i just hand them over. They have their own style and processing requirements, so in this instance I am more than happy to let them get on with it. Saves my stress levels!

TJ

[DocFrankenstein]

I would be okay with this if I was working with an advertising agency who have professionals that edit but this was not the case. This was a company that just wanted to save money buy doing their own editing.
If they wanted THAT, I'd convert the RAWs to 16 bit tiff with a LINEAR gamma and unclipped shadows.


And then charge them less the processing time. :confused:

[IndyJeff]

I'm sorry Ellen but, I just don't see why you and others I have seen posted about similar situations get so worked up over letting the end user do the processing.
Look at it this way, back in the film days you might be hired to do a shoot and FedEx the undeveloped rolls of film to the client. You had no idea of what you had until you saw the final product.
I see and understand your wanting control but, they are paying for it and if that is what they want then that is what they get. Even if they are just wanting to save a buck or two on PP work. If they screw it up then thats too bad for them they still owe you for the shoot. If you process it and they can't use it because of your processing then guess who won't be getting paid? Yep, you.

Manytimes a magazine, especially, will want the original file untouched. Sure you may know what your doing in PS but, are you calibrated to their ICC Profile? If not you may correct to what looks soooooo good to you and then when they get it there is nothing they can do because you have over blown a color temp in their profile and they can't back it off without residual effects on other colors.

My advice would be to shoot it and be in focus with a correct white balance and let them worry about the rest of it, just collect your check.

[TeeJay]

Look at it this way, back in the film days you might be hired to do a shoot and FedEx the undeveloped rolls of film to the client. You had no idea of what you had until you saw the final product.

That is so true! Now we at least have the benefit of retaining a copy of the un-editted original, so if the client WERE to make a mess of processing, we can at least prove it's not our fault! :o

[primoz]

It depends. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I try not to give unedited photos out when I know people have no idea about pp. But if they insist sure it's their problem.
On the other hand, every at least half serious company doing pp have people who know A LOT more about pp then me, not to mention they have right equipment. So with clients like that, I have no problem giving them unedited photos. And to be honest... same money for less work, so yes why not :)

[Statement]

Personally I hate anyone to see my unprocessed images other than me. It makes me look like ****, and I really am to a certain extent, as I am a beginner. But I am always amazed at how many times I horribly frame or poorly focus a shot, and I really don't want people to see that. I want them to see when I execute shots successfully and process them to the point of looking decent.

[Mark_Cohran]

I've done this a few times. I keep the RAW files they get converted TIFFS or JPGs (depending on what they specify). However, my price doesn't change and I keep all copyrights.

Mark

[EllenC]

Thanks for all your thoughts.

Back in the film days it made me uneasy as well.

I can't imagine turning over a headshot job to the aspiring actor and have them process my images and in turn passing them out all over kingdom come. I realize they paid for the job but if they process poorly it will reflect on me. I simply decline jobs that want that control.

If I am lucky enough to get magazine work or ad work in the future, I won't have a problem with the client editing the images.

For now, the "civilians" will have to let me do it.

[LBaldwin]

For me, coming from film I have done it both ways. It depends on the type of shoot and the stated usage. For advertising and (some non - news) editorial I will relenquish PP to their people with the written understanding that any changes are their responsibility.

For portraits where the subject is the end user, never. I do all my own PP and sell prints or in some cases digital files, with limited usage. I have done all rights buyout for editorial usage (international) but that was because they paid me very very well (low 5 figures).

For a comany calander I may consider it, this way;
1. Potential for resale of the images yes/no
2. Any secondary markets that could be devloped for the images yes/no
3. Potential loss of the client, past / future business potential (actual)
4. Budget the client has in mind. Above CODB + Profit or below

If this is something I can use in my own book, website and or mail pieces this may help. But I prefer to maintain the copyright if I can.

The line about not having other photographers telling her no, is quite likely BS. Typical editors trick.

Les Baldwin

[Woolburr]

I frequently shoot for ad agencies...they just tell me what the basics of the shot they are looking for are....I take a shot of their desired subject and provide them with an unprocessed image...I retain copyright of all my work...but I let them edit to suit their purposes....they pay me well to use the images...and have far better editing personnel and equipment than I have. It is no skin off my teeth if they want to edit the product to suit their needs.

[LBaldwin]

I frequently shoot for ad agencies...they just tell me what the basics of the shot they are looking for are....I take a shot of their desired subject and provide them with an unprocessed image...I retain copyright of all my work...but I let them edit to suit their purposes....they pay me well to use the images...and have far better editing personnel and equipment than I have. It is no skin off my teeth if they want to edit the product to suit their needs.


I agree in your situation, as in mine. In this the client wants to create a calander either with stock or preplanned shots but has not said what the calandar is for so...... without more info from the client we are kinda stuck.

Les