Welcome to my world...

<p>I find a lot of my clients like to mangle the images I give them. I'm starting to take it personally. :) I pulled one of these off a facebook page. Can you guess which one?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Try this again:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>And this:</p><div></div>

<p>Don't like that type face you used RT ;)</p>

<p>It sounds like they are happy with the images to the point that they are sharing them, which is high praise. Their aesthetic isn't quite mine... In another field photographers might complain about seeing "Time" or "Newsweek" and a bunch of subheaders dumped over the image but it gets them out there!</p>

<p>This is why I HATE cds!</p>

<p>I think this is something you just have to learn to accept. If you want total control over the presentation of your photos, don't shoot for money. Become an "artist", make your own prints, and hang 'em in galleries. If you shoot weddings, somebody is going to frame one of your photos in a velvet frame; somebody else will put your photos in a scrapbook with little bunnies dancing around the photos; and these days, one out of every three or so of your brides, a few years after the wedding, will end up using your favorite shot of the groom for target practice. Happens outside wedding photography, too. Editors at magazines do horrible things to the work of writers, photographers, artists. In fact, now that I think of it, gallery owners are not reliable models of good taste, either.</p>

<p>As Roger Smith said: The client paid you a compliment. I understand why you cringe but, hey, they liked the photo.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p><em><strong>As Roger Smith said: The client paid you a compliment. I understand why you cringe but, hey, they liked the photo.</strong></em><br>

Oh, I'm not complaining WP. This has been going on in my world for some time so I'm used to it. Frankly, I think "facebookers" are so accustomed to processing every snapshot they take it must just feel like something they need to do.<br>

<em><strong>Don't like that type face you used RT ;)</strong></em><br>

And I didn't leave enough room on the sides. If somebody orders an 8x10 It looks like I'll lose some of that text. :(</p>

<p>My simple solution is to stay off Facebook. I don't have an account and don't intend to get one.</p>

<p>Nadine, it's the clients that are putting the images they "improve" on Facebook.</p>

<p>Social networking sites are a fact of life for a huge percentage of wedding aged people. At the wedding we shot last Saturday, by Sunday morning I had a friend request from the B and the G separately which I accepted, and there was already friend images from their wedding posted. </p>

<p>Hmmmm - Best thing to remember is that beauty is in the eye of the be-holder. </p>

<p>I haven't had that happen to me (yet) just a matter of time I'm sure - but when it does - maybe I'll see it and learn more about what the client (who's paying for my services) really wants. </p>

<p>As photographers - we tend to hate things like colorization - Brides still love it and ask me for it all the time - even though, again - as photographers - we feel it is overdone and went out about 5 years ago. <br>

Maybe we should listen to what the clients want, as opposed to giving them what we think they want. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>If I was upset about clients using my images for facebook and "mangling" the pics, I doubt that I would post photos which personally identifies them on an international online forum and makes them the subject of public ridicule.....</p>

<p>Well said David. As to Facebook....ignore it at your own peril. It's an extremely powerful tool to network and obtain business. Not having Facebook in the equation is the same as people who figured web sites were a waste of time 15 years ago.</p>

<p><strong><em>If I was upset about clients using my images for facebook and "mangling" the pics, I doubt that I would post photos which personally identifies them on an international online forum and makes them the subject of public ridicule.....</em></strong></p>

<p>David, I'm certainly not upset and if anyone here is ridiculing the actual people in the photo I must've missed it. I'm not even sure if the client did this to their pic... for all I know one of their Facebook pals is responsible for the embellishments which I've seen before.</p>

<p><strong><em>Dave H: Maybe we should listen to what the clients want, as opposed to giving them what we think they want.</em></strong><br>

Exactly. I mainly wanted to hear if others have similar experiences (perhaps not to this degree though).</p>

<p>I often wonder if one can learn from client PP but based on what I see is being done that would be a difficult transition for me. One thing I have learned is my clients really (and I mean really) like B&W. Much more than I. And many don't like "tilt". I've seen a few where they have leveled "em out.<br>

So Nadine, to Dave H's point... social networking sites can be revealing but the interpretation of what they reveal can indeed be confusing. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe we should listen to what the clients want, as opposed to giving them what we think they want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might find it's more successful to give them what <em>you </em>want, rather than what they want. That might sound contentious but it's not meant to be. The value of the concept isn't always obvious to everyone and appears to flout conventional wisdom.</p>

<p>I agree with Neil. </p>

<p>Do your thing, and either people will hire you or not ... you'll know soon enough what works for you.</p>

<p>As to people mangling images, I don't think it's an indication of what they really want, but more about having fun with a limited set of artistic skills.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Am I the only one who thinks the black/white conversion looks better than the original? I don't mean the vignette or the slightly odd looking text. I mean the image itself. The original looks a little too faded for comfort. Maybe that's what prompted them to do the b/w version?</p>

<p>Marc--I understand what RT is saying. I still stay off Facebook, and if that means my business will die, so be it. Obviously I don't think it will. If I stay off Facebook, I don't see what clients post, is my point. In any case, I don't have the same kind of reaction to what clients do to my images. I really don't care what they do to them. When I turn them over, they are high quality, fairly pure (not processed with actions, etc.) images that I am proud of. If I subsequently see one of my images worked over in ways I personally would abhor, it is OK with me.</p>

 

<p><strong><em>The original looks a little too faded for comfort. Maybe that's what prompted them to do the b/w version?</em></strong></p>

<p>Could be. The cropped image is a part of a 1st dance sequence and the "haze" you're seeing is from a remote flash off to the side. I often include a lot of harsh off-camera flash in my reception shots. I doesn't always work though.</p>

<p> </p>

<div></div>

<p>Facebook is such a weird world for photography.<br>

I only started shooting weddings this year, so it is all I've ever known. However, I've had clients edit my images horrendously(in my opinion, at least). At first, I was not happy about it. How dare they take my carefully thought-out lighting choices, contrast / color post production, and white balance settings designed to produce the best quality product for them and use a web-based editor (or MS Paint for that matter) to turn it into rubbish?<br>

Well... I then took a step back. It's my style that my clients hire, but everyone has a preffered way of looking at their memories, including me. I, as a photographer, vow personally not to do selective saturation in my images because it is not my style, but that does not mean that the clients can't do it themselves. My contract reserves photo usage for self-promotion and portfolio work, but I ultimately hand off a CD to my client for them to do with as they please. That's my business model. Once the files are in their hands, those specific files are theirs. I do ask, however, that if they use a logo'd image, that they do NOT alter it, as it has my branding on it. I do NOT want heavy oval vignettes and cheap type-faces associated with my business. </p>

<p>But if the client wants to mess around on their own time? sure. As long as they're happy and keep coming back to develop the relationship.</p>

<p>Understood Nadine.</p>

<p>I do have a Facebook page and a fair amount of "friends". But frankly, I've seen no real value in it so far.<br>

I keep getting an earful from my second shooter who does glean Facebook value for her family/new born photo business, but it really takes an effort ... and I just don't have the time for some of the idle chit-chat that goes on there. Nice way to keep in touch with friends, but I'm not sure of the value in attracting the level of clients I'm after. </p>

<p>Then again, I may be totally wrong ... which wouldn't be the first time, or the last ... LOL!</p>

<p>I like the re-mix, no Facebook or web-page for me either. Any work I do is hand delivered and face to face the "old fashioned" way.</p>

<p>If you leave the Facebook posting of your photos to your clients, you're risking that they will represent you how they want to represent you, which, as shown above, can be different than how you want to be represented. Why not take matters into your own hands? Create a Facebook fan page for your business and post the photos yourself. Tag the couple(s) and any guest you can identify. Encourage additional tagging. People making nice comments, about photos you've taken, on a page that anyone can look at, is a good thing for your business.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, RT, I feel confident in saying these are edits that likely never would have occurred to you, so it's nice your clients could give you some new ideas. You know, in case you were feeling a bit stale.</p>

<p>I second senor crocodrillo on the proactive use of Facebook. Because the client <em>will </em>post images online, I explain that it is safer if they let me post watermarked, screen-res copies of the photos to Facebook, which can help avoid or reduce unauthorized copying by people they don't know. Then, I post and tag a set of the best photos, and encourage them to tag as well. So far, it seems to have worked well. </p>

<p>Doesn't mean I'll never see a beautifully re-edited version with a hard vignette and a heartwarming, fancy-script tagline, but it helps.</p>

<p>(Shame they forgot the period at the end, there. After getting the commas right, they were so close to perfect.)</p>

<p>I might be less inclined to hate dancing bunnies. Sounds kinda cute. :^)</p>