Has anyone here used culling/post services such?

<p>I was reading one of the posts here when a member mentioned <i>[using the services of another business to cull and or for post production]</i> I had no idea such services existed. I currently don't shoot weddings, but would consider this type of work if I had a resource such as this available to me.</p>

<p>Anyone care to share advice or experiences with this type of service, and how you may have incorporated such a service provider into your business model? <i>[EDIT]</i> Thanks!</p>

 

<p><strong>MODERATOR NOTE – Business names and associations were removed from the original post.</p>

<p>This is no reflection on the OP as the inclusion appeared unintentional.</strong>

<p>When we cut over our Studio to Digital, we employed a Digital Photofinisher. She worked a few days per week (at the Studio). This was in the early 2000’s. Our initial DIGITAL workflow almost mirrored our FILM workflow. We kept this for about 2 years. The new Principal of the business has a similar process flow: his Wife (and business partner) rarely shoots though sometimes is a Second Shooter or Photographer’s Assistant – and she does mostly all of the digital Post Processing. It should be noted that this Studio still will employ (sometimes) two, three or four additional Photographers on a busy day: it is not a Sole Proprietor business.</p>

<p>The Wedding and Portrait business has undergone dramatic changes and much to do with labour costs and the pieces of the pie available to any one business, I’d expect here are few W&P Photographers work like this, even if as a Sole Proprietor, they sent their negs out for printing previously.</p>

<p>I have a friend who is a essentially Landscape Photographer - he uses a Professional Digital Photo Refinisher for his work.</p>

<p>Also, a few of the Wedding Photographers I know both here in Australia and elsewhere in the world, supplement their income by doing the Post Processing for W&P Studios, the one’s I know shoot for those Studios also.</p>

<p>But as I mentioned the there seem fewer “W&P Studios” compared to the “Sole Proprietor” and there seems fewer “Sole Proprietors” compared to those who shoot weddings as a declared business and as their second income stream – and fewer of those compared to those who appear as a business but are not a functioning business in the legal and propriety sense.</p>

<p>So therefore I expect that this type of business would cater to the “Sole Proprietor” or the competent “Second Income Stream” Photographer and their selling point would be turn-around time: I would guess the main <em>potential</em> hiccup is not maintaining consistency and enhancing the unique style of the Photographer.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>Moderator:</p>

<p>Yes, I was unsure if it was okay to post the business name mentioned, but I was unaware of such services and only knew of the the one mentioned. Thank you for your consideration.</p>

<p>WIlliam said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So therefore I expect that this type of business would cater to the “Sole Proprietor” or the competent “Second Income Stream” Photographer and their selling point would be turn-around time: I would guess the main <em>potential</em> hiccup is not maintaining consistency and enhancing the unique style of the Photographer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for your comments. I would definitely fall into the latter category as I attempt to accommodate such clients in my spare time. It seems that such a service is both reasonably priced, and would provide enough value to free up a sole proprietor/second-income shooter to solicit further business, and/or continue pursuing his/her day job. Seems like a good fit for someone like me, and I would hope, serve as a practical business model on which to build a fledgling business.</p>

<p>I think it would be a good fit for you, provided you could build a good rapport with an individual.<br>

Personally, I like dealing with people, not businesses.</p>

<p>For example, I'd expect that you have developed various rapports with different directors, editors and journalists at NBC - and <em>as result of your relationship with those people</em> your Video Camera work will shine more when working with some, than with others – maybe only small nuances but a difference will be there if you look deep enough.</p>

<p>In the same regard, with your stills work IF you find a business which allows you to build a rapport with an individual, then their Post Production work will shine more - and of course as a result so will your still Photography, shine.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

<p>William said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think it would be a good fit for you, provided you could build a good rapport with an individual.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks again for your thoughtful comments! Yes, I would hope so.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For example, I'd expect that you have developed various rapports with different directors, editors and journalists at NBC . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Certainly, however, our talent, producers, and (external) publicists are pretty hands-off with the crews, and pretty much know what to expect from us. There are people I work with whose company I enjoy slightly more than others, perhaps, but everyone I work with is very nice, and very professional. That said, I try to deliver the same level of service to each "client," without discrimination. Mainly, because the "client" isn't my producer, it's ultimately our viewers, and the better I shoot, the better the show.</p>

<p>But, television is a bit of an odd bird. In fact, I can't think of a another craft-based trade that's more compartmentalized, and as "mechanized" than modern TV magazine production. It's different than movies. It's different than stills (e.g., editorial). We receive little to no specific editorial direction. In one sense, it's kind of nice--as shooters we have a lot autonomy in our creative decisions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the same regard, with your stills work IF you find a business which allows you to build a rapport with an individual, then their Post Production work will shine more . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, certainly that kind of synergy is the goal! Thanks again for your advice!</p>

<p>I used a service several times last year for weddings. I don't rely on the service for final edits, but they did a great job of culling and color correcting, both of which are a thorn in my side. I also had them do some basic straightening/cropping work. Once they were done with those tasks, they delivered a LR4 catalog back to me, and I did my final edits on the color-corrected keepers. Saved lots of time, and produced better color consistency than I would have achieved myself. I believe it was well worth the $150-$200 it cost, and plan to use them again this season.</p>

<p>I briefly browsed the OP site (before the link was removed) and remembered once seeing similar services offered from India to North American customers. </p>

<p>Given the amount of work $150-$200 is indeed a bargain (for some 1,500 images if memory serves). I wonder if the actual work is outsourced offshore, or perhaps the offshore operations have setup an indigenous presence. </p>

<p>Thanks for your comments, guys! Yes, the company I originally mentioned is a US-based firm, since they offer the option to send an HDD to their US office. Their prices seemed reasonable: $270 for 2,000 RAW or JPG files (exported to JPG), delivered in either an Aperture or Lightroom 3 or 4 library.</p>