Copies of B&W in color....

<p>Each of my portrait sessions includes a few B&W images. Maybe 10% of their final images are in BW, and I pretty much always include a very similar pose in color.<br>

This month, it seems like every one of my clients are asking for color copies of those images as well. Now, I know it isn't the end of the world, but it does create quite a bit of extra work. I shoot in RAW and de-saturate, play around with my settings until it's perfect, and then edit. So, giving a 'color copy' means starting the exiting process back in camera raw, and basically starting again from scratch.<br>

I'm just curious as to how other's handle it? What is your view on this?<br /><br />When we hire for our family photos, I would never in 100 years ask for them to covert them. I trust them to use their own arthritic abilities & style. <br /><br />What are your views?</p>

<p>*ARTISTIC. <br>

ha. Arthritic? Strange auto-correct!</p>

<p>Nowadays most wedding/portrait photographers are just guns for hire. Especially if they market themselves offering packages specifying sessions working a certain length of time, delivering certain number of edited images on disk, etc. There's no shortage of folks with dSLRs shooting portraits, weddings, etc. Unless your signature style is so unique that it speaks for itself, it makes good business sense to provide whatever the customer wants, within reason. Even the best and most experienced commercial pros occasionally (maybe frequently) encounter art directors and clients who request work that's outside of the photographer's usual style, or what they original discussed.</p>

<p>Editing raw files is generally pretty easy, assuming the original exposure, lighting, etc., was solid. Seems reasonable to edit to provide either color or b&w, whichever the client prefers. Unless you're shooting the Leica M Monochrom. Even then they could ask for a digitally colored or selectively tinted version. If so, either decline or charge for the extra work.</p>

<p>I only shoot weddings, portraits, events, family stuff, etc., as favors and gifts for family and friends. Occasionally I'll do a few for neighbors who are disabled or on fixed low incomes and cannot afford anything else. Even then I'm always willing to provide b&w or color edits, whichever they prefer, as long as the request is reasonable. Lightroom makes it easy enough to do both anyway, so for some photos I'll do both and let them decide. So far, so good, everyone is happy, no complaints, and I have no problem saying no when the request is too time consuming.</p>

<p>And my Fuji X-A1 does excellent in-camera raw conversion, so it takes only a few key presses to do color or b&w. As long as the photo doesn't need anything more than the types of basic adjustments and cropping that can be done in a do-it-yourself kiosk, it doesn't take much effort. Many cameras can output directly to a printer, bypassing computer editing.</p>

<p>Years ago when I shot b&w for weddings and family stuff I used b&w film and made enlargements in my own darkroom. The only way to get color would be to hand tint the prints. Nowadays digital editing makes it easier to do selective coloring and I know of some photographers who used to do hand coloring but have switched to the digital tinting process.</p>

<p>So even simply shooting film isn't really unique enough to say "I only do b&w/color because I only shoot b&w/color film."</p>

<p>I can think of only a tiny handful of portrait photographers whose work is so unique, with such a signature style, that they could decline alternative versions, and might rightly feel entitled to some indignation at being asked to do otherwise. Most of them are working in highly specialize alternative process photography on light sensitive media: film, wet plate collodion, hand coated papers, etc.</p>

<p>The only way I can think of for a digital photographer to minimize such requests is to sell only custom made prints, not edited images on disk. If the photographer's work is good enough and unique enough in style, they might be able to make that work as a business model.</p>

<p>FWIW, whenever I expect to produce different versions of a picture, I try to structure my workflow in such a way that the operations common to all versions come first, then those common to some, then the ones unique to a version. So I do the operations, export as a JPEG, undo as necessary, do the different versions of the operations, export as a JPEG, repeat. For me the main variations are usually about cropping, scaling, and sharpening, but sometimes for other things too.</p>

<p>However, B&W conversion may, depending on your technique / workflow, have to come earlier in the workflow. Most recently I've been using DxO Film Pack 3 as a plug-in to DxO Optics Pro 9.5 to do my B&W conversions integrally with the raw conversion. But even before DxO, I often did certain tweaks in raw conversion as a precursor to converting to B&W.</p>

 

<p>If you use Lightroom, you can just create a virtual copy. Simple as it can be, you have two copies without extra space.</p>

Off the head thought. Tell bridal chorus you will try to to do a couple, maybe suggest get together and select three of those in B and W to go to color and of course charge them for the extra service....not contracted for I presume. Charge sufficient to cover your time and workmanship OR farm it out to some other bloke who loves computer fiddling as a subcontractor is another wild thought..why not? if you are booked up...

I shoot in color JPEG and don't find it too hard to do a fair job converting to B and W.

 

Reality is that a wedding photographer is a hired gun not your artist /aesthete alas, part of the production cast of a wedding company and definitely in a 'service industry.' Talk to folks who work in LA in film production..... To oblige is the name of the game from my limited involvement. Make it pay via your rate and contract terms. . Could you let them decide which color shots to be converted, and limit same? Some will be better .Jeff has an approach,- does that sound like the answer....be well and prosper. I am interested in how you work this out. Love to shoot...find the processing a bore. aloha, gs

<p>I bow to those above who have more experience doing portraits (and weddings) than I have (as a rather independent and consequently not wealthy artist-photographer) and who have made some very good suggestions.</p>

<p>The conversion later from RAW to B&W or even jpeg color image to B&W seems to be something you do in some of your work in any case. The post exposure conversion is quite simple as you already know. If the client has purchased color images (prints, etc.) and now later wants B&W, then he or she should be prepared to pay for that. As you regularly do B&W work and this adds extra revenue for you, I fail to see the problem, unless of course you have perceived and realized the work artistically as a color image (compositionally) and are uneasy about the results of B&W conversion (Not in regard to rather simple color to B&W conversion, but rather in view of the effect of the original lighting chosen or of the chromatic balances of various subject colors and their effect on the B&W image, with or without filtering - That may be hard to convince the buyer of, as these are essentially technical side issues proper to color and B&W imaging).</p>

<p>Normally, however, a good chat with the buyer will persuade the latter that the extra work involved requires his or her investment and the result, not initially perceived as a B&W image, may be less than what it would have been if initially perceived as an effective B&W image.</p>

<p>But extra revenue is extra revenue....</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If your clients are taking a pass on the B&W and want color instead, that pretty much answers the question. Give them what they're willing to pay for. Personally, I normally don't do extensive post work on an image until a client has already ordered it, so maybe you might want to consider only showing "proofs" before you tweak anything for either B&W or color.</p>

<p>"<em>Nowadays most wedding/portrait photographers are just guns for hire</em>"</p>

<p>I wouldn't say most, when it comes to weddings you have to take everything you learned about exposure, lighting, composition, posing and put it all together within a fraction of a second and under pressure. you can sit there with your finger on the shutter and mindlessly fire away, but you are not going to sell many pictures that way.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ooops, I understood conversion of RAW file data to B&W and not to color. However it is the same or a similar argument as any additional work requested by a client at post exposure stage has similar limitations and extra work on your part that is billable after your making sure of what your client is ordering and their written authorization of the work.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Nowadays most wedding/portrait photographers are just guns for hire</em>"<br>

I wouldn't say most, when it comes to weddings you have to take everything you learned about exposure, lighting, composition, posing and put it all together within a fraction of a second and under pressure. you can sit there with your finger on the shutter and mindlessly fire away, but you are not going to sell many pictures that way.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That analogy doesn't imply lack of competence in the fundamentals, or trigger happy shooting. The hired gun may be an extremely qualified sniper who needs only one shot. But he doesn't call the shots or choose the targets.</p>

<p>Perhaps a better analogy is the photojournalist working on assignment for a publication. He or she can bring all of his/her skills and artistic vision to the job. But the job is either approved or assigned by an editor, and the product is highly managed by an editor or art director, usually with at least some feedback from the photographer, but not with decisions made solely by the photographer. The editor/art director chooses b&w or color reproduction, which photos will run and how they'll be arranged.</p>

<p>If you market yourself as an artistic photographer with a definite style and vision, who also happens to do portraiture and/or weddings, sure, you'll have a better shot at determining the outcome, including which photos are produced in b&w or color. If I were to engage Terry Richardson or Sally Mann for a portrait session, it's pretty clear which look I'd get. Their styles are well defined, and their work is sought out for those styles. I wouldn't expect Sally to show up with large format film or wet plate collodion gear in tow, and instead hand her my Polaroid or phone cam and ask her to deliver 200-500 edited raw files on disk in a variety of b&w, color and artsy faux-retro styles.</p>

<p>And if I wanted to be surprised, I'd choose someone like Flora Borsi, a chameleon artistic savant <em>(sorry, bad play on words)</em> who has demonstrated a mastery of many styles. I'd encourage her to choose an approach and accept whatever she concocted.</p>

<p>But for photographers who are still defining their artistic styles and businesses, who advertise discounted packages based on increments of time in full hour, half hour or quarter hours, with X-number of edited images on disk specified, that's a whole nuther game. These photographers haven't defined a vision or style, at least not one that is unique enough to dictate the product or to decline to accommodate reasonable requests from customers. The product is the image the customer wants, as they want to see themselves, rather than the unique signature artistic vision of the photographer, in which the sitter is a participant in that photographer's vision.</p>