lostdoggy wrote:
Robert,
there very very few time that I have disagree in your expressive writing. As a matter of fact I've enjoy many of your critiques. But on this one I definitely have to disagree.
50% for picking the scene is way overly generous. He walk by this beautiful scene pick up his camera snap a few shot. How long could he have taken? At best 1/2 hour. As for post processing he took 7 days. If each spend even 2 hours a day for 7 days that would nave been 14 hours. Now if took 1/2 hour to take the shot that would include the composition and exposure. All together that is 14 1/2 hrs for one picture. So as a rough estimate he spend less then 5% of his time taking, composing and expose the picture and over 95% of his time post processing it.
If I had to do that shot for money I think I would've spend at most 2 hours in postprocessing unless the money is rediculously large. Figure about $200/hour seems right.
I think I know where you are going here, but I can't agree.
There is a lot more to landscape photography than simply walking by and snapping a picture. I have heard of people waiting days in one spot to get the right light before they release the shutter. When working with landscapes it's not often you have the control that a studio, macro, or even a sports photographer has.
