heavy effects like radial blur on proofs?

[islandphoto]

I was wondering if any of you do heavy effects such as (radial blur/cross processing/ heavy gausian blur to give it a dreamy look etc)on your proofs or do you wait for them to pick out which photos they want in their album etc... and then photoshop them? I would hate to do an effect and show that image to the client and they may like the photo but not the effect of it. What do you all do?

[wilky95]

I might do an effect on a photo that realy grabs my attention ( not very often with my poor pictures :rolleyes: ) but usualy I show the couple what effects can be done then give them the 7x5" proofs and see what they would like done to the pictures.

Martin


[

[song4themoon]

If I have an idea for a "extreme" edit, I ALWAYS safe the original as well as the heavily edited one.. the couple can see then both and decide from there

[MrsOpie]

I agree with Song4themoon, if your going to do a heavy edit show them both the original and the edit.

[sapearl]

For me proofs are proofs - that is, I adjust the RAW files for WB, exposure, light, dark etc. to make them the most pleasing "proofs" I can and that's it. If they want something special, or if I feel like it later I may add something, but not at that stage. For me personally it's just not worth and I don't think they care. I'm just in a hurry to produce 400-500 quality 4x6's for the lab anyway.

Now, I may create a sample 8x10 for them using an effect but then it's no longer a proof.;)

[jessiper]

I will do stuff like that on a few photos, but I will include multiple versions. For example, if I do a cross processed pic, or something like that, I will also give/show them the color version (unless it just looks plain horrible in color). I don't want to show them something (a proof) and then completely change it after they order a print of it. I figure it's better to just go over all the images once and get them right the first time, rather than just get them good enough and have to go back over them later.

[GertS]

In case of extreme edits I add to the file name a contraction of the filter / modification.

For example Img_005 as black and white will be Img_005_BW, MM for Monday Morning. This allows several versions of the same file without changing the number.

But I keep the original file always even having the raw file.

[cdifoto]

I figure it's better to just go over all the images once and get them right the first time, rather than just get them good enough and have to go back over them later.

Not me. I'd rather just edit the ones they actually buy. And if you make the proofs ultra pretty they have little reason to come back for an actual enlargement. Scans anyone? ;)

[islandphoto]

thanks for all of the comments. I really appreciate them. I have a tendency to do the effects first and I think that even proofs are a final product in themselves - if that makes any sense. The idea being that they would choose the proof because of how cool it looks after the effect has been done. I honestly don't sell a lot of enlargements as I do include the CD of high-resolution images along with a proof book and they can choose from these proofs what they want for their specialty albums. Maybe I see it a bit differently because of how I work my packages?

[tim]

Proofs are proofs for me, I posted my workflow a while back. I do a bit of processing on a few images for each wedding, but honestly i'd not even consider doing a radial blur for any shot anyway.

[sapearl]

Hi Joanna - cdi makes a good point about a super duper looking proof. If it looks fantastic, that takes away the incentive to purchase additional prints.

As for myself, I'm in the print and album business; these add to my sales. My proofs are an incentive to buy more of "bigger" stuff which is the work flow I've pretty much had since the '70's.

You're more comfortable with providing a high res CD they can print anywhere, and I won't criticize your methodology because that's the kind of workflow that that works for you. But providing that CD is likely a major reason why you don't sell many enlargements. Again, not a criticism but an observation.

............ I honestly don't sell a lot of enlargements as I do include the CD of high-resolution images along with a proof book and they can choose from these proofs what they want for their specialty albums.........

[islandphoto]

I'm completely aware of the lack of sales because I provide the CD. I have factored it into my packaging costs and one of the main reasons why I do this is because I have heavily researched my competition in my area and the majority of wedding photographers here provide this. If I didn't I feel that I would really lose business.:rolleyes:

[sapearl]

That's good. It sounds like you've done a really thorough job of researching what "the other guys" are doing in your market area and have factored that in. As we've discussed before, it's all about having a solid understanding of your market area and then factoring in the necessary costs factors with an eye to the target income you desire.

Now the trick is to add something special and unique that sets you above those other folks and gets you the signed contracts when the client is sitting on the fence ;) . Sounds like you've thought it out pretty well.

I'm completely aware of the lack of sales because I provide the CD. I have factored it into my packaging costs and one of the main reasons why I do this is because I have heavily researched my competition in my area and the majority of wedding photographers here provide this. If I didn't I feel that I would really lose business.:rolleyes: