Client Didn't Choose the Best Shot

[lisa_f]

<p>What to do when the client doesn't choose the best shot BY FAR? Gah. I suppose that's what I get for letting her see so many shots.</p>

<p>So I suppose my second question is, how much do you edit down the choices? Only showing the stuff that meets YOUR guidelines? If so, how do you know you didn't throw away a very characteristing "look" or expression of the subject?</p>

<p>Gah.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>Clients will never pick the best shot. I have been doing commercial work for 20 years and all I ever hear from AD's and Designers is that the best idea, the best shot and sometimes even the best photographer for the job is not chosen.</p>

<p>To me, the secret is only show the stuff you want to work with--they will still pick the worst, but at least you didn't get stuck with the stinker!</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I generally select down, but still let them pick from a pretty wide range. It's better than when I had to give people contact sheets, I had a photo published that was so bad I asked them not to give me credit. The subject didn't like it either...</p>

<p>So you live with what they want if you want the business.</p>

[mark_chartrand]

<p>Your job is to satisfy the client. The shot they pick is the best shot. The best shot in their opinion. That is the opinion that counts.</p>

<p>

<p>If you want to make pictures that please only you, you have a couple of choices -- be a photography teacher or do it for a hobby. The one with the money decides which photograph is best. </p>

</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>It's all a matter of preferences and tastes! I have taken photographs (following a customer's direction) I would never have taken (because I thought them to be crap on all levels) and from those they selected the one I liked the least - because, in some level or other, it more closely approached what they had in their mind's eye....</p>

<p>Also, from all the photos I've taken in my life, people tend to like (and purchase) some I would never have thought to rank as the highest...! Go figure...;-))))</p>

<p>As for selection, it all depends on the client. For events I usually show them as many as possible. For custom shoots I usually narrow down significantly and only show them the best (in terms of artistic completeness, technical perfection and so forth - not necessarily taste) but rank my preferences among them...</p>

[starvy]

<p>Hello Lisa,<br>

I do rather stand with Mark on this. You are less of an artist and more of an artisan! You supply a service on demand. You are in trade.<br>

A client might want a specific shot for sentimental reasons. It is his or her big day. To you, it is an opportunity to make money. Technically, you might find that certain pictures demonstrate your technical ability as a photographer rather more to your peers. However, your peers are not paying for your service. It is the client who pays. Your best shots might well get you future assingments if they are shown on your website, however, the client might not feel any emotional attachment to them at all.<br>

I think it is best to less sentimental. You are in it to make money! What they say goes!</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Back when I operated a studio, we used 220 film in 645 format. This produced a 30 shot contact sheet. The clients invariably would choose what we considered an "out take".</p>

<p>Once digital scanning arrived. I would simply offer a CD to the client with only the "goods" on it. This usually gave them at least a dozen shots from which to choose. If they asked about the missing shots they'd recall from the shooting session. We explained them as "blinks".</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>Beauty is in the eye of the checkbook holder.</p>

[marc_batters]

<p>I wonder how many times the "B-side" of a 45, out sold the musician's "A-side" choice?</p>

<p>Paige and Plant never thought "Stairway to Heaven" was anything more than a filler on the flip side of the album.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Long ago I would have the lab make 5x5" proofs of 6x6cm stuff and one would show only the decent proofs; if one showed a contact sheet folks would choose a slighlty better pose but radically less technically; ie focus error.</p>

<p>Today in printing the trend is that customers get CD's from photograpers with everything; great; average, poor, terrible all on one CD.</p>

<p>Then I get asked to try to fix a shot that is screwed up; ie too much clutter; or out of focus.<br>

Most cannot be really fixed; one has no details to work with. Thus one hears about how bad the photographer is. Are your ears burning? :) In a way it is a total lazy amateur slacker thing; ie too much trouble for many to show only the better stuff. Thus you get called names; often 4 letter ones.</p>

<p> Folks really want that slightly better pose to be magically fixed; the one that is blurred. You might as well tattoo that on the wall. They fall in love with the duds and crummy ones. These images might be ok for dinky wallet prints of 4x6's but they want larger prints; but they are blurred.<br>

Long ago it ws considered bad practice to show super duds to clients; today it is quite normal on many CD's. </p>

<p>* A lot* of folks think there is a Harry Potter tool in photoshop; like in CSI that magically makes a blurred image have 100 to 1000 times the details; thus the lay public will try to fix your duds; since they like the better pose. <br>

<br /><br>

Folks get CD's with no clues even of what is technically bad, average or great; you let the customer deal with the jumble.<br>

<br /><br>

That the client did not pick "the best shot" that the photographer choose is typical; it is super common.<br>

<br /><br>

Folks get annoyed with the duds that have great expressions and poses that hold no details; ie blurred. They want the great focus of dull shot #23 combined with the great expression of blurred shot #17. Thus they want a retouching firm to fix this mess; ie combine stuff; use a Harry Potter Hogwarts/CSI wand tool that fixes duds. It is like today many photographers do not care what clients think about them.<br>

<br /><br>

Showing duds has its risks; folks will fall in *LOVE* with them; whether cine or still work.</p>

<p>Place the marginal stuff in a different directory if you must show all ones crap to a client; ie directorys good/average/poor. You want to not have clients want big prints off of blurred duds.<br>

Try some chucking of images<br /></p>

[silverdae]

<p>We edit pretty heavily (edit meaning culling the not-so-great shots), so we are relatively satisfied with anything they choose. This doesn't mean that they are picking the best shot, but it does mean that they aren't picking the super-crappy one because it was edited out. We never show all the images, and we are adamant about letting people know we edited them out because it wasn't up to our standards and it is no longer available. In sales, we (well, most of us) guide them. If they are trying to decide between two images, we try to guide them to the better of the two, especially if you are talking about a wall portrait. This doesn't always work, but I think you would be surprised how far a little nudging can go to move them toward the more suitable of the images. </p>

 

[patricklavoie]

<blockquote>

<p>What to do when the client doesn't choose the best shot BY FAR?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>you simply dont show him at first ; )</p>

[joshroot]

<p>As long as they are happy and the check doesn't bounce, who cares what shot a customer picks? They are the ones paying, they get to pick the shot they like.</p>

[patricklavoie]

<p>depend of the point of view;</p>

<p>if you dont mind producing s*** because this is what you can produce or sell.. up to you.</p>

<p>I prefer producing the best i can do (even on s*** project), and from there selecting the best out of the crap.. then let the client choose from this edit. I dont agree with the "who care if the client pay" because with this attitude you will end up having the same kind of client and never have a hit in the bigger league or in your competition, if you want to of course ; )</p>

<p>So if i can edit Josh comment like this, i think it make better sense ; )</p>

<p><em>who cares what shot a customer picks? They are the ones paying, they get to pick the shot they like...<strong> </strong><strong> out of what YOU consider the best of your shoot. </strong></em></p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Re "who cares what shot a customer picks"</p>

<p>Well; if the paid for product is some prints and a CD; your client may attempt to make larger prints off the blurred shots.</p>

<p>Thus we print shops get to print blurred 8x10's and 11x14's; from images that really should not be printed bigger than wallet or 4x6's.</p>

<p>This happens. They want image #23 the great pose and blurred one "FIXED".</p>

<p>Thus those 11x14's might be good enough for grandma's poor eyes; but look hokey and amateur to the B&G's friends. Thus one has ones poor images on display in folks houses; and the folks with better eyes will comment "I wish the photographer got the focus correct on that great shot" </p>

<p>Folks take the CD from store to store "hoping" that one of us has a magical Harry Potter wand to fix the poor image. Photographers have released sub par images into the wild and folks want TV/CSI magic to fix the poor blured shots; they get frustrated when we have no magic; thus the angst is often at the photographer; who goofed up the "best shots" .</p>

<p>Folks are NOT happy that the best shots were ruined.</p>

[bill_from_new_york_city]

<p>I will the crowd that says only show your best photographys. My clients/models are also representing me as a phorographer when they show a photograph I shot. If bad photos are there in the public and my client says I was the photographer or gives me credit, then people can think of me as photographer whould cannot shot quality work.</p>

<p>Always show your best work because you do not know how it will be shown.</p>

<p>I will admit I have bad photos out there because one my client does not know how to post the photos to their website correctly. But thankfully I not given credit as the photographer.</p>

<p>Bill</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Kelly,</p>

<p>Anyone who is showing blurry or incorrectly exposed shots to clients is an unprofessional fool and deserves whatever they get in terms of having bad examples of work out there.</p>

<p>There is a difference between a shot that you don't think is the best of the bunch and a shot that you screwed up on.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Josh;</p>

<p>The blur can be such that the image is not killer sharp but has enough blur that one cannot print a sharp 8x10 or tack sharp 11x14; *BUT* it is more OK for a 5x7 ; good for a 4x6; total overkill for a web page or wallet print.</p>

<p>Unless the target print size and viewing distance is known there is no real answer to these images with "some blur".</p>

<p>When the client for printing is the grandparents; and 8x10 on the mantle does not need to be technically a sharp masterpiece; it has a larger viewing distance and older viewers with poorer eyes. If the 8x10 is a group shot then folks look at it closely and one needs a radically better image.</p>

<p>The lay public often first chooses by expressions; then chooses the one that has emotional ties that the photographer has zero clues about; ie childhood stuff. The best pose to them is often not one that the photographer thinks it is. </p>

<p>Thus the grey area shots that are not perfect technically are often ones the client wants the prints to be made from. </p>

<p>Blur is not a black and white thing; it is more of a gradual thing.</p>

<p> </p>

[joshroot]

<p>I stand by what I said.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>Mark Chartrand's first paragraph is spot-on.</p>

<p>Truly: if your client loves some particular shot, that <em>is</em> the best shot. Maybe a bit of nudging is allowable, but if they are adament that some particular shot is best, bow out ;)</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>One of my first employers taught me to only edit out shots that make "you" look bad. The client gets to edit out what they think makes them look bad.<br>

Sometimes an awkward look or smile, that we'd dislike, would please a client. You can't think for someone else. So it's best to omit only the blinks, and technical boo boos.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>How much blur; lack of sharpness is "not acceptable" varies by the usage.<br>

<br /> (a) If a client has one single use like a high end glossy magazine cover the culling for duds is easy; one has a single criteria for sharpness/details/blur.<br>

<br /> (b) If the client needs an image to go in a 2 column newspaper that has only a 85 line screen; one has a radically less requirement by a factor of 10 or more.<br>

<br /> What is great for one application can be poor for another.<br>

<br /> Image #45 might technically work well in (a) or (b); but #47 only works in (b) . One has the conflict that the lifeless image #45 fits both; the image #47 with impact and soul fits (b).</p>

<p>Photographers today are less knowledgeable than in past eras; when a loupe and light table had some worth.</p>

<p>Today everybody is an expert . A pro with ego issues will grill a printer about a printers quality; get his panties in knot about dpi/ppi/scanners/megapixels and and often worry about the wrong issue; ie pleasing the end user.</p>

<p>Thus culled out duds the expert calls duds are often a vast overkill for web usage, billboards or small prints.</p>

<p>One has the Photographer's masterpiece that the end user hates that us printers get in the middle of.</p>

<p>It too might have a tad of blur but be total overkill for the newspaper; but poor for the glossy magazine cover.<br /> There really has been no other era in which photographers lack the basics and want to dictate what tools a printer uses or if an image is bad or not. Thus many of those so called marginal blurred shots are perfectly fine for the end user; because one cannot see the issue in the final application.<br>

<br /> If in the final application image #45 and #47 both look technically sharp in the newspaper advert; the end user often will choose the better image #47; and chuck the #45 that has less blur but no soul. The end user does not care about the photographers lack of understanding about enlargeability. If they it looks great in the target application; that is all that matters.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Re "One of my first employers taught me to only edit out shots that make "you" look bad."</p>

<p> that is what my Indiana 1960's boss had us do too!</p>

[lisa_f]

<p>Wow. I posted this last night and can't believe the great replies.</p>

<p>Just for clarity purposes...I DID edit out all the technically bad shots of this baby for the mother to choose from. I just have a hard time seeing her pass on what I know are the magical shots...which I still get to use in my portfolio!</p>

<p> </p>

[david_r_lewis]

<p>Lisa,<br>

Re: your 5/11/10 8:55 PM post. You nailed it. Client passed on the magical images, but is possibly pleased. You get your choices for marketing. You have both won. This situation happens to me quite frequently. For the last 30 years or so, when we present portrait images to the client for their first look, the first 4 - 8 images they see are what is known as " my favourites. " Why, you ask ? " Because I like them. " This has become an expected tradition with all our clients. Don't take offense when someone sees the images differently than you. As long as you exceed the expectations of the client, you will probably have a good sale and good word of mouth which is truly priceless.<br>

Warmest regards,<br>

David R. Lewis </p>