Do You Ever Reject a Client's Idea?

After looking at quite a few wedding sets here, sometimes people post what others may think of as a cheesy or naff photo technique... say selective-colouring, heavy vignettes or HDR.

Quite often the OP's response is 'I'm not a fan either, but it's what the client requested'. Which seems fair enough to me, but do any of you pros actually reject a client's idea if you feel strongly that It wouldn't work very well; or that you simply didn't want that kind of photo in your portfolio.

If somebody asked me to edit images in a distasteful way I wouldn't be very comfortable doing it, but is it rude to recommend against their suggestion? They are paying you after all...

Thoughts?

If something like that happens, I let them know it is not my style. I try to explain to them why I prefer not to do special editing like this, that it is stylistically chosen rather than because I cannot. If someone really wants this done, I think I would though.

Depends on what they request.

I mention when I meet with them I keep the processed look to a minimum and don't really do selective color, HDR, or the vintage-y faded look; because I think they will date very quickly. If they specifically asked for it, I wouldn't do every photo but a few... I probably would. I've never had anyone ask for it, though.

benesotor wrote in post #12600516
After looking at quite a few wedding sets here, sometimes people post what others may think of as a cheesy or naff photo technique... say selective-colouring, heavy vignettes or HDR.

I just wouldn't do it a good example being selective colour. If someone asks me about that in a meeting the answer is simple... "I don't do that".

I get hired for my style, if people want something else then I suggest they find a photographer who normally shoots what they want. Aside from occasionally being asked to put a black and white into colour I have never been asked to change the processing on any of my pictures.

I'll try to dissuade bad processing, and i'll say no to bad ideas on a wedding day on the basis of knowing it won't work and that it'll take a lot of time. Well, maybe not no, but a really strong recommendation not to.

Depends how bad the idea actually is.

By and large, I proceed under the assumption that the client is king.

Though I do indeed consider myself in the camp that selective color is cheesy, I include a couple (literally, like two out of hundreds of photos) in the slideshow on my website and I'll always talk to a few people each year who really love it and ask for it. It's not my style, it's not what I want to be known for, but it takes nothing for me to do a couple for them if they really like it.

Same with something like a jump shot. Definitely not me, I would never suggest it, but some people think it's fun and love it. Once again, maybe two photos appear out of the hundreds in my slideshow because some like it and if they ask, it costs me nothing to do it for them.

The bigger challenge is when they want shots that are simply not good; a setting that they might think makes a pretty picture but it actually doesn't. Here, too, I don't say no. I try to bang out a few as quickly as possible so that they have them and I try not to let it steal too much time so that I can still produce the images that I know will make much better photos. They'll see the difference when they get their pictures, but I'm not inclined to try to explain or discuss it while we're in the throws of their day. I get it done and move on while still ensuring the looks that they hired me for will be there.

Why do y'all bash on selective color?

Aperture1.4 wrote in post #12602975
Why do y'all bash on selective color?

I can't speak for others but I think selective color and anything that deviates far from standard processing will go out of style. I do it sometimes for fun but I but I keep the original picture for years down the road when all this silly processing is dated. In short I view much of this type of processing as a fad.

david lacey wrote in post #12603200
I can't speak for others but I think selective color and anything that deviates far from standard processing will go out of style. I do it sometimes for fun but I but I keep the original picture for years down the road when all this silly processing is dated. In short I view much of this type of processing as a fad.

Not arguing with you, but if the client likes selective coloring, why not do it? You already state that you keep the original for awhile so you'll have the original.

I do agree that some of this will pass but it will be replaced by something new. Photography has changed and will continue to evolve, with certain things coming and going. Selective coloring was one of the first alternate processing methods I saw. Now you have people adding vignettes, desaturating colors doing high contrast. It all changes.

Peacefield wrote in post #12602965
Same with something like a jump shot. Definitely not me, I would never suggest it, but some people think it's fun and love it.

Ah... I'll do this if the client's want it as below. I do try and get it a bit more interesting that a straight up and down shot though. In this case they were three brothers and spent a lot of the shoot playing around as they would have as kids, which was cool.

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #12603298
I do try and get it a bit more interesting that a straight up and down shot though.

Now THAT is an uncommonly cool jump shot. How'd you do it? Were you laying down and they were very close to you while shooting real wide? Or did you pull out the background in processing?

Peacefield wrote in post #12603346
Now THAT is an uncommonly cool jump shot. How'd you do it? Were you laying down and they were very close to you while shooting real wide? Or did you pull out the background in processing?

The subjects are actually flying.

Peacefield wrote in post #12603346
Now THAT is an uncommonly cool jump shot. How'd you do it?

They were jumping off a sand bank at the beach and I was face down in the sand below. I set the focus manually and shot using live view as the camera was on the ground pointing up and I had no chance of looking through the viewfinder. It was shot with the 16-35 at 21mm.

That was the second run through as the first time one of the guys blocked his face with his foot. I didn't have to remove anything in post.

huntersdad wrote in post #12603283
Not arguing with you, but if the client likes selective coloring, why not do it? You already state that you keep the original for awhile so you'll have the original.

Because you take time, effort and more time to develop a style that separates you from the others. When it seems 80% of the facebook photographer's have a selective coloring profile photo, I see nothing wrong with saying and showing you are not part of that crowd. To just simply do what the client wants and let them dictate your photography style is not the best way to build a brand.

Now how you broach the topic is paramount. Use it as a teaching tool with your clients. Help them understand how you shoot and what your vision is. Clients need guiding, they do not need to be told they are wrong. Its an extreme example but if you are selling cars and client comes in says they want a Dodge Neon to tow the 21' boat, do you just smile and say "Yes, I can do that!"? No. But you shouldnt call them an idiot either.

If you are forced, using this specific example, to make a choice between booking a client who demands selective coloring and you not wanting to do it and have guided them away from it, you should probably walk away. Not because of selective coloring but because of the warning signs that this may not be the easiest client to work with.