Time is Money.Do you know your actual cost?

philipward · November 4, 2009

Here is my question to all of you shooting weddings on a regular basis.What is the ratio of shooting time to digital post production. EG: one hour shooting equals two hours PP or whatever. I know there will be exceptions but what is the average for you?.Or do you have a different business model?.

missy_kay · November 4, 2009

I do it differently and probably an awful way. But I take my last years earnings which was only 30k and if I make more than $500 a week(which is what I made after taxes), then I say it's worth my time. lol. :::runs and hides:::

William Michael · November 4, 2009

A very interesting question, it has been asked before in a few different forms so you could do a search.

"Time is Money. Do you know your actual cost?" Pretty much, yes.

Here is my question to all of you shooting weddings on a regular basis. What is the ratio of shooting time to digital post production? About 1:1

[what is your] business model?. - For weddings I exported my Digital Post Production to an expert in that area. She turned around a Wedding for the Preview within a day (8 hours). I could quantify and allocate that cost precisely, to the cent.

WW

c._f. · November 4, 2009

Generally, once I get rid of garbage, I send the images to the lab for proof return. So it takes me about an hour to go through 500-600 images.

If I'm doing correction, then it isn't a cheapy wedding, it is probably my costumers who are paying for me to give them product I see with my evil eye :)

Adam

wedding-photography-denver · November 4, 2009

I use about the same time in PP as in shooting.

pete_s. · November 4, 2009

I've spent a lot of time tweaking this so 6 hours of shooting is 1 hour of post.

philipward · November 5, 2009

Thank you everybody for your great response.Having returned to weddinig photography in the digital age I seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time in PP. Any tips on cutting this down?

tina___cliff_t · November 5, 2009

We spend way to much time going through pictures, and I've concluded its because we just aren't getting it right in camera. Something that would have been devastating had we taken all our photos in film. But then again I think I'm 10 times picker with digital because I CAN tweak the images. I've been told so many times that the photo looks great without anything done, but then I go in a tweak with the saturation, the exposure, etc etc.

William Michael · November 5, 2009

"returned to wedding photography in the digital age . . .inordinate amount of time in PP any tips on cutting this down?"

Outsource it.

WW

neilambrose · November 5, 2009

William, do you find that outsourcing is a viable process? I understand you have someone who does it for you now, but how much are you dependent on her interpretation of the file, as opposed to anyone's interpretation of the file?

Personally, the only time I'm able to outsource work and walk away from it is if I shoot film. I can hand it off to the lab and just wait for the scans and prints to come back.

But I'm not sure I'd be comfortable outsourcing digital post-processing. If all I'm looking for is correctly balanced files with appropriate colour, contrast and density then to be honest I'd probably just shoot JPG. For me the only point of shooting raw is to have scope to do something different to the file than would have been done by the camera. And at that point processing becomes a creative action, not a technical one.

How does it work for you?

BTW - in respect of the original question: I have an hourly rate that includes my time, profit ratio and overhead, and I allow for one hour processing for every two hours of shooting. I price all my jobs on that basis, also adding in any direct costs that may be specific to the assignment.

William Michael · November 5, 2009

Hi Neil,

Yes - it is not just as simple as "Outsource it".

A lot depends on one’s business. . . and other things.

Considering the recent interplay you and I have had on the Masters Series thread I suggest the OP read through that: <a href="../wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo">http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00UrFo</a> as an adjunct to my following answer:

***

Neil wrote: “Personally, the only time I'm able to outsource work and walk away from it is if I shoot film. I can hand it off to the lab and just wait for the scans and prints to come back.”

Yes, we shot film only Weddings until about 2004ish. I was out of the studio for a time and came back to manage a change to nearly all digital shooting. Rightly or wrongly I transposed methodologies we had used in film, remembering 2004 was five years ago – and even though I have been doing this Wedding Photography Stuff as a business for a while, I still have learnt a lot in the last five years.

That said and acknowledging all that I realized since, I think I would have put more emphasis on (my personal learning) of Digital Post Production techniques earlier on.

But I do NOT think I would have changed the business model. I think I still would have sought a very keen and very talented staff member, just to do the digital editing - even if I was just my own business (single shooting one Wedding a weekend) or (as it was) setting up a system for a studio which shot about three to eight Weddings, each weekend (in 2004).

So, I went about searching and found a student who wanted part time work – well she found me actually, because she wanted work in the industry as that was a requirement for completing her course. Most of the highly recognised or “more worthwhile” courses here require “industry hours” to gain the credentials.

Also, I am very big on “Rapport” – I waffle on about that l the time: “Rapport with the Bride”, “Rapport with the Clients” . . . so I find it easy, natural, to want to include someone else to do things FOR me. . . provided they can do it within the parameters of my instruction; desired quality; and overall vision . . . etc.

***

Neil wrote: “But I'm not sure I'd be comfortable outsourcing digital post-processing. If all I'm looking for is correctly balanced files with appropriate colour, contrast and density then to be honest I'd probably just shoot JPG.”

Yes. If we look at my previous posts, on many occasions I have stated similar to: “I shoot JPEG(L) + RAW, with the intention of using the JPEG file straight out of the box. I have found that digital requires a little sharpening. . . RAW provides my insurance . . . etc . . . etc”

And Neil wrote: “For me the only point of shooting raw is to have scope to do something different to the file than would have been done by the camera. And at that point processing becomes a creative action, not a technical one.”

Yes. Here I refer to your Master Series Topic – Please look at my submission to the exercise you set for us.

I transposed what I do and attempted “Reportage Style” . . . BUT you brought more to that Master Series than just “Reportage Style” – if one looks closely it appears to me that you also suggest that Post Production skill and technique is (just as) an important part of your process as seeing the light in camera . . . –

“I prefer to pre-visualise the shot so I know when to ignore the meter reading suggested by the camera and do something different.” (from the Master Series)

Now even though we both tend to use Available Light more often than not – I understood that particular portion of your commentary implied that, whilst you are working you might also be thinking post production as well as light “in scene” and that you emphasize or look at Post Production as part of your personal photographic tool chest.

But on the other hand, if you look at my 9 images and the one extra full frame - my work is basically “just the light” – I use digital Post Production, yes, and I understand the tool, yes, I also understand wet lab work – but it never interested me all that much - I did it because I had to compete my Diploma - though B&W (wet) hand printing does hold some passion for me.

Similarly here – when asked “what would I do” – basically I just cropped it and got rid of what I saw as a red / orange cast (though maybe it was a yellow cast?). And I made a note about my views on “retouching” or “manipulation” too: <a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00UvSy">http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00UvSy</a>

Neil wrote: How does it work for you?

Well in summary a combination of:

> Feeling OK about delegation

> Feeling OK about allowing another’s “talent” to interpret and deliver - correctly

> In respect of “the light” I am actually stricter to the definition of “Reportage Capture”. (? – comments)

Perhaps in a nutshell:

> Developing Rapport, similar to rapport existing when shoots in tandem (Know what I mean?)

WW

anton frid photography · November 5, 2009

Good post. I pretty much agree with most of the views here. It really depends on the wedding. The conditions you faced during the shoot, the locations, the clients etc. I never yet was able to correct images in a batch process. I heard of this fable many times, but cant possibly understand how you can do it when each image is shot a bit differently.

I think it all has to start during the shoot itself. Most people overkill with thousands and thousands of images. That only relates to more time at PC/MAC. One has to realize that more you shoot, more you have to spend time editing it and that also translates into more time for a client who then has to sit and choose the images either with you or on their own.

Which translates into your clients getting back to you with their Top Pics for the album in few months if ever. You might say, what’s the big deal, so they come back whenever, but the issue is that this bottleneck happens pretty quickly and then they all come at the same time asking for you to produce an album for Thanksgiving, when you want to relax and be with your family...

Here is one example i go through...

8hr wedding translates into 1000 images (most photographers shoot twice this) 200 of which i will delete after the event. Maybe even more. 700 will be transferred onto a CD. I will then pick out MY TOP images from the wedding and put it on the separate folder for the bride to view. This def saves a lot of time for my client, although I’m sure they still go through all the images :)

Then, when its time for an album, they or i will select the images and I will begin designing it. I design all of my clients albums. On average its about 80-120 images per album. All of the images have to be corrected prior to being used in the album. I will also use those images for a slideshow presentation and also upload them to online gallery so they can share with friends and family.

Designing, retouching, uploading, transferring, burning CD's, creating CD labels, dealing with album companies, proofing my layout to the clients. correcting the album again...etc def translates into more PC time vs shooting.

i tried outsourcing the design work, but there is so much limitations on how many pictures they can use for a specific album size, and each extra page or side is extra $. Text is extra...not to mention you have to pay for retouching services..its just became to expensive very fast. It just didn’t make sense.

If you can outsource or find a good help ($$$) that will take care of the post processing, then Mazel to you. I personally like the design work, thus im a slave to my craft :)

Now tell me, how much should i charge for this package? :)

neilambrose · November 6, 2009

William, thanks for your considered response to my question.

I guess the essence of your outsourcing is you've got someone who you trust - not only for her processing ability, but also her willingness to communicate with you and adopt your preferences, and to present her work through your eyes. You're quite right to observe that rapport is the ingredient, and I guess, if we were looking at it in darkroom terms, you've got a set-up not unlike a preferred printer who can anticipate your intent and work with it in the printing process.

I'm not in a position where I've found anyone to work with at that level. My grasp on processing is relatively well developed as I was a very early digital user and scanned and processed negatives even back in the mid 90's, so I feel quite involved in the digital production process. And with that familiarity and comfort, my expectations of an outsourced process are perhaps adversely high.

I'm much more willing to outsource film work as I know enough about hand printing to be competent (even fairly good) but not enough to be expert. Which means I know an expert when I see one and recognise the commercial benefits to me of working with them.

I guess this is a close approximation of your position now, albeit with the media reversed.

BTW - in respect of your remarks about being true to the light and its position in reportage: I like to be true to the light in my head, not necessarily the light in the scene. If I'm shooting under weak lights with green cast and awful skin tones, I might in my head visualise it as an effervescent diffuse glow, if printed in b+w. So I interpret it in the same way: instead of flashing the paper, burning in the shadows and bleaching in the light, I just do the digital equivalent. But it does need pre-visualisation, which is where I struggle with outsourcing. It's not such an issue with film as the negative tends to communicate its own message quite clearly, but a raw file offers such a wide array of interpretation that it needs closer management.

William Michael · November 6, 2009

"I guess this is a close approximation of your position now, albeit with the media reversed."

Yes.

If we were to compare and contrast our individual entire “establishments” that is it in a nutshell.

I am learning more about the Digital Darkroom and increasing my skills in that area, but I think, without being too philosophical about this, a lot of the way we each go about these things is intrinsically related to our base personality - or even deeper - what actually makes us “who we are”.

I see the big picture and I also understand all the detail: but if the detail doesn’t hold my interest, I rather delegate that to someone else – but, I will spend endless hours on detail which is fun for me – and sometimes potentially useless to my business - like assessing correct grammar, as one example.

So, if I am set a "Project" (e.g. to cover a Wedding, with Still Photography) I see the whole - but the elements which really stimulate me to the extent that my heart races and I get that metallic taste in my mouth are:

> The meeting the B&G and the Planning

> The making of the images.

> Working close (i.e. close camera work close shooting)

> The interacting / directing the client especially for relaxed formals (Romantic Portraiture)

> Working with Available Light

> The Showing of the images to the Client

So being somewhat self-serving (aka “human”) I am drawn to those elements of the big picture, once the image is nabbed, in camera, and I am "confident" - I kind of loose a lot of the interest in that particular image, until I “get it back from the lab” . . . to show to the B&G.

So, it is easy to see that there are chasms between how we two (Neil and I) go about our work - and that is shown by my output for the "Assignment" and how it differs compared to Neil's, daily output.

***

I anticipated that my “True to the Light / True Reportage” would elicit a response, and it I understand your point of view entirely – and it goes to what makes us different and essentially our outputs or products different. Those differences are so interesting and really, that choice is what is so good for the consumers.

***

Bringing this all back into a broad context of question which was asked – my Time expended for: The Planning Meeting; The Rapport Building; The Image Making; The Direction; (Managing) The “lab” work; The Showing . . . is all accounted for, and costed, in my structure.

Time is the only basic and common unit element, which we Photographers actually sell – that is why I first commented that this is a very interesting question – I think this is a good topic which I feel will be pursued in more detail, later.

Time can be sold quite differently; dependent upon the business’s structure; often it is given away if there is little or no structure – and this is often is the case.

***

Given the amount of detail about various structures in ALL the posts . . . and the interesting contrasts between all those details:

As you are just getting back into wedding work and taking your previous (film) structure into account - What are your initial thoughts about your set-up for digital, Philip?

WW

carroll_video · November 11, 2009

thanks for the post its so imformative it can help my wedding soon...

steve m smith · November 12, 2009

Having returned to weddinig photography in the digital age I seem to be spending an inordinate amount of time in PP. Any tips on cutting this down?

</blockquote>

Use film and a good lab!

Sign In

Time is Money.Do you know your actual cost?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in