What is "edited and proofed" images?

Discussion in 'Wedding and Event' started by andrea_chadwick, Jan 25, 2015.

  1. My wedding photographers contract stated that we would receive the "edited and proofed images". At the time I signed the contract, I
    took the term "proofed" to mean the unedited images. The photographer posted her edited images, but when I asked for all images from
    the day, she refused to give (or even let me see) the images stating that "edited and proofed images" is a standard industry term that
    means"proofed images refers to the images being online in your gallery, they call those proof galleries, and edited images implies all
    those images have been edited". To me, what she is providing me are only the edited images, and a proofs are the unedited images. I.
    Am quite irritated that the photographer won't even let me view the images she did not edit. Can anyone provide any input? Thank you!
  2. When I say "edited", in this context, I mean that unsuitable images have been removed, ie: out of focus, blinks, unflattering moments (mouths open, eyes half shut, etc).

    "proofs" means the edited images that have had "global corrections" applied to them, ie: adjustments that affect the entire image (color, tone, sharpness etc), as opposed to "local" adjustments to specific areas within the image, ie: retouching of loose hairs, lint on a jacket, facial smoothing.

    You don't want every exposure that was made. You hired a photographer to slog through the thousands of images made that day and pull out the good ones (and remove the bad ones), so you don't have to. Let them do their job.

    Speaking of which, the post-production of editing and presenting proofs constitutes at least half (at least) half of the work done on a wedding. Final preparations for finished prints for your album, (applying those "local" adjustments and retouching specific areas within each image) will take many additional hours. Be patient... t
  3. I don't do a LOT of weddings but to me, the term, edited and proofed is a bit confusing and what did they mean by they would "give" them to you? On a CD? or show them to you?
    Edited can mean a few things - at least for me, before a client sees the "proofs", I do some amount of basic editing. However, I do not consider those images fully edited as some may need more adjustments which I would make once a print is being ordered or used in an album.
    It IS definitely standard for the photographer not to show you every single image taken. For the most part, anything not shown is likely a duplicate, a blurred or not so sharp image or under or over exposed.
  4. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    It has always been very common that a Professional Wedding Photographer will no show to the Client every image which is made.

    "edited and proofed images".​

    The word "edited" in this phrase is being used in reference to The Wedding Coverage and does NOT mean "working on a particular image", but rather “edited” refers to a culling process to remove unsuitable or unnecessary images.

    “proofed” is an old term from film days.

    “Proofs” were/are a first run of prints which have, as Tom described “global corrections”. It was common for Weddings Professionals to cluster rolls of film to expose them in discrete lighting scenarios - a fresh roll would be started for each. For example a fresh roll of film would be started for the ‘Arrival at Church’ after the ‘Bride at Home’ Portraits had been shot. This allowed for each individual roll of film to be printed “as proofs” with one set of “global corrections” for the whole roll. It was not uncommon for the words “PROOF PRINT” to be across each photograph.

    In the digital era, it doesn’t matter about where we begin and end a roll of film, because the digital files can be easily segmented so that various sets of “global corrections” can be made to each different cluster.

    It is usual that the Client select the images for the album / purchase etc, from the “Proofs” – and then those images selected by the Client(s) are taken and worked on individually – again parts of the old Film term “RETOUCHED and HAND FINISHED PRINTS” has carried over to the Digital Era.

    With Digital Photography and the Internet, instead of providing (physical) “PROOF PRINTS” the three most common methods that I note for the Photographer to provide the “proofs” to the Client for viewing are: an on line gallery; a disc or stick of the Proofs as JPEG Files; or a physical viewing on screen.

    If the proofs are provided to the client on a disc, stick, (as opposed to a physical viewing, for example at the Photographers Studio), then it is usual that the PROOFS are low resolution JPEG Files.

  5. What are proofs?
    sixty years ago, photographers presented clients with proof pictures printed on special paper; images would last for a few
    weeks and then fade. Then for a few decades proofs were made with the same paper and chemistry as the finished prints
    (...). Now proofs are usually in digital form - on a website, CD, DVD, or a projection in the photographer's studio.

    Typically, now, you initially view the images on a computer or television screen. You then order from the screen and have
    photographic prints in your hand a few weeks later.

    Source: http://www.ekfoto.com/question.htm

    Unless specifically stipulated in the contract the photographer is NOT reqired to give you every picture he or she took or
    to give you negatives or computer files that you can later process in a real or digital (computer) darkroom to retouch
    photos or to make additional prints.
  6. Thank you. I appreciate the information. The process has been frustrating because as I have shared the images with my
    guests, they have been coming back asking for images they know we're taken but not included in the digital gallery I
    received. When I've asked the photographer to send the specific images, she explained why they weren't included but
    did not forward the image along. It's disappointing knowing that I don't get to see the only images of me with some of my
    guests, even if our facial expressions might be less than desirable.
  7. There are 300,001 reasons why a photographer shouldn't give out all the images they took.
    1. Reputation. No matter how much we might like to think it isn't so, human beings average out their opinions. In fact many people will more than average out, they will bias towards the negative. One bad experience at a previously good establishment and it ceases to be good.
    If a photographer shows 100 great images and 100 OK images that have some problems then the opinion of those people that view the images will be that the photographer is OK (not great). It doesn't matter how much you say you wont judge them based on the bad images, you will. Even if you managed to separate them in your mind the same won't be true for all those people who are one step away from the transaction (your guests and their friends).
    No photographer who aspires to run a successful business is going to succeed if they have a reputation for producing work that is just OK. What is a matter of disappointment to you is a matter of a damaged reputation for the photographer that can be the difference between being in business or not 5 years from now.
    300,000. As for the other 300,000 reasons - http://petapixel.com/2014/11/23/revisiting-case-wedding-photographer-threatened-300000-lawsuit/ - this photographer did what you want and was threatened with a $300,000 law suit for it.
  8. Andrea - To boil that down, we often do not provide any image that we feel does not meet our, professional, standards. Reputation is only part of that of course.
    I can't count the number of images that were stunningly perfect in every respect - except 1. Those images are ones that the client never saw. I have thousands of images where the focus was slightly off, eyes were closed, the color was cruddy, a weird expression was on a face, etc. My clients never see any of those. I have hundreds of images which are compromising (in some way) of the individuals in them. These don't get sent to the client - when I can detect something off (although I have made mistakes before - which can result in untold drama).
    That you are unhappy with your photog is (probably) making them unhappy. Instead of demanding that they do something that they see as not in their best interests (especially since an irate client is far more likely to pick apart everything you hand them - why would you hand them a pile of ammunition?), simply email and ask for specific images/groupings.
    Say "I've got a list of folks whom you shot grouped together during the (whenever), and they didn't see any of those pictures included, and really want to see them! I'm sure that they didn't get lost or anything, but they'd love to see them regardless of bad expressions or closed eyes or grainy or whatever! It would make me really happy to make them happy! maybe you could take a look and see what you can dig out? Here's the list of the folks, and whom they were with: 1 2 3 4 ... Thanks so much! It would mean so much to me!"
    If it's a good long list, they might just go back through and grab one or two shots from each grouping, which would serve both of your purposes... They could even label the images as 'outakes' or something. I know I've done that before.
  9. If they were shown in an on line gallery and made available for you to view and "share", I'm surprised they were not included in the "edited proofs". That's impolitic, but I don't know if it's actionable... t
  10. "my guests, they have been coming back asking for images they know we're taken"

    Like "eyewitnesses" at a crime scene, wedding guests are not always the most reliable source on what was taken or not taken. I'm not saying they are untruthful or intentionally misleading you. But in the "fog of war" of a wedding, just because a photographer was around and appeared to be shooting this or shooting that doesn't mean that they really shot everything they appeared to be shooting.
  11. No photographer worth his salt will show clients bad images. Just ain't going to happen. I take the term "edited" meaning running the images through LR and "proofed" as meaning the culled images and the ones the client sees.

Share This Page