Thoughts on giving a disc of culled images after contract fulfilled?

[elle_m]

<p>I know this has been discussed on here before, but I'm having trouble finding those discussions through the search field...</p>

<p>What are your thoughts on giving a disc of images that you decided were unfit (not your style, out of focus, people blinking, whatever) after you have already fulfilled (and even exceeded) your contract?</p>

<p>I shot a wedding at the beginning of this past summer for a <em>very</em> discounted rate (long story, but I felt good about the decision). They were very pleased with the images. I thought it was all wrapped up and done with. However, they are now looking for more photos that they feel are missing from the collection.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how I feel about a) taking the time to go through the images AGAIN, process the ones I feel are adequate, and burn another disc (not a task I take on cheerfully, since after countless hours combing through and editing the images the first time, I can say it would be quite tiresome) and b) handing out images I'm not professionally happy with, for whatever reason.</p>

<p>At the same time, I'd like to keep these folks as future clients. Theirs is some of my best, most thorough work to date.</p>

<p>How have you folks handled such situations?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I personally have no problem giving clients everything I shoot, if necessary. I don't do it as a matter of course, but on occasion, when I shot film, I'd get asked to provide everything. No one has asked me to do so since I began with digital though.</p>

<p>I usually fix closed eyes as a matter of course, so that doesn't come up very often. Anything else I shoot that is a dud is because what I though would happen didn't, or I have something better (a series of similar shots, from which I choose the best), or the focus or exposure is completely unfixable. Most of the gross exposure errors get deleted almost immediately anyway, and I might delete gross focus errors if it isn't the only one of an important moment or person(s). So I couldn't even provide too many extra frames if someone asks, anyway.</p>

<p>In your case, I would investigate further re their reason(s) for thinking there are missing images. I pretty much know if I missed anything, and since I have a high keeper rate (even with immediate deletions), most of the time, if someone thinks there are missing images, they are mistaken.</p>

<p>Based on what their reasons are, I would either comply if you want to keep them happy, or just tell them you delete everything below your standard of quality as a matter of course.</p>

[elle_m]

<p>Thanks Nadine!</p>

<p>I think the problem is that I tend to shoot, even if I'm pretty certain the photo won't turn out. Why, I still don't know. My dream is to shoot 500 photos, and deliver 500 photos, but my ratio is not that perfect just yet.<br>

I also have pretty high standards when it comes to post production, so if my contract says I deliver 200 images, I deliver 300 and any more is excess time and hours I'm not being paid for.<br>

I'll see what moments they think are missing, and see if I actually have them, or if they were deleted on-site.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>I agree overall with Nadine. Does the couple "feel" they are missing out or are there fairly significant elements of the wedding missing? If there are actual missing elements, are the images of of poor quality or contain unflattering appearances of the people?</p>

<p>If they are missing out on key material and it is good enough to be seen by others as a reflection of your work product, then honoring the request is safer. Otherwise, its not even worth considering.</p>

[kayumangi]

<p>You do realize that you answered your own question. If it's not your standard practice then don't, specially since you've already fulfilled everything contractually. </p>

<p>Alternately, you could be upfront with them, you could say you've archived the raw images and it will require time to go over each image and process them again. Then quote them an amount, if they are happy with the amount then proceed and cull those images again.</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Seems that you have a couple of issues here - </p>

<p>1) you've delivered more than the contract (at a discount) called for already - so I'm a little confused as to how they could think that significant shots were missing - unless of course there are actually events or people that they know where photographed that are missing - maybe Uncle Bob was at the wedding and there aren't any photos of him, but they know you took some of him. </p>

<p>2) Client is probably not going to be willing to pay for the extra shots. So you've already delivered more shots than the contract called for - and they're not made of money - so if you said - Okay - I'll do it for $xxx.xx they probably would tell you to forget it and not give you any references. </p>

<p>What I would suggest doing - if at all possible - load the images onto a laptop - and meet the bride and groom at a local coffee shop. Go through each image with them - and as you go through them - mark them as either - delivered, not delivered - don't want, or not delivered but they want. This makes two assumptions - 1) that you didn't delete the non-keepers. (if you did - see my next bit of advice) 2) that you are close enough to them to be able to meet - meaning they don't live in LA and you in New York. </p>

<p>If you are like me and delete the grossly under exposed or over exposed or out of focus - then explain that to them. Be honest about the reasoning - I do it because I don't want work that is substandard getting out - even by accident. I don't delete "duplicates" or multiples of a similar or same pose that are properly focused and exposed - I just don't provide those on disk to the client. </p>

<p>Keep in mind - that the wedding photography industry is 20% photography and 80% customer relations and business. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

[alohadave]

<p>Silly question, but did you rename the files to give continuous filenames, or the original names that show that there are obvious 'missing' pictures?</p>

[rayt]

<p>I provide all the images when I give the clients the disc. I put the less than optimal images in a folder named as such. I explain to the client the images are ones that have flaws for whatever reason. It was explained to the client that not all images will turn out correct for issues that are sometimes tough to control and just plain screwups on my part. So when they get the disc they are aware why the images exist in the folder.</p>

<p>I have found that an image that I think is no good the client may like because uncle Bob is making one of his stupid faces that I thought was annoying. Turns out they like uncle Bob that way. So in one or two of those images that I rejected the client may find something they like. So I provide them.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>I've addressed this question many times before..... Personally I find it very troubling for someone to shoot 10000 images and deliver 20%, 35%, or 50%. My cull rate is around 80-85% shooting digital for myself. When I shot film for established/successful studios, their cull rate was typically less than 5% and if it ever approached more than that amount I could expect to be called "on the carpet" to explain what went wrong. Granted there may be some shooting styles that rely heavily on multiple bursts but I believe that they would be a better fit shooting video instead of stills.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>David, you might enjoy this article. As may others.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.smogranch.com/the-numbers-game/">http://www.smogranch.com/the-numbers-game/</a></p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Didn't really enjoy the article much because it was mostly generic ramblings about the obvious....who really shoots 5,000 images at a wedding? Arguments about such extremes are overly simplistic. Searching for a "collective soul" to photography coverage may sound like a lofty ideal to some, to me it sounds like over-idealized poppycock. End the end it comes down to a balance between quality and quantity. Shooting for a purpose, with good technique & lighting, and representing the day in a way that features the key moments and key players while not neglecting the details and the family/friends/guests who play a supporting role.</p>

<p>Smaller, shorter, and more intimate weddings might only need 100 or so images while the larger productions that feature the getting ready shots, pre-ceremony, ceremony, formals, stop at the park on the way to the reception venue, reception shots etc..... could be in the range of several hundreds to just over a thousand. Which is why clients should view several full weddings before hiring a photographer to get an accurate representation of what they can expect.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>....who really shoots 5,000 images at a wedding?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I recall one person on here last year who was very vocal about shooting 6,000 images per wedding on the grounds that his brides deserved the very best. There was a WPPI conference where a straw poll on numbers found some people shooting upwards of 12,000. It's not a mindset I subscribe to but I'm aware that it exists.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Searching for a "collective soul" to photography coverage may sound like a lofty ideal to some, to me it sounds like over-idealized poppycock.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair enough. Although many people would consider that the search for emotional significance and visual substance behind an image is one of the main differentiators between a button presser and a photographer. Anyone can operate a camera. Few people can make interesting images.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shooting for a purpose, with good technique & lighting, and representing the day in a way that features the key moments and key players while not neglecting the details and the family/friends/guests who play a supporting role.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed - those things are important. Although I'd probably consider that to be only the minimum benchmark. The photographers I admire aim a lot higher, and most of them routinely elevate record shots to art. People producing interesting work incorporate a lot more than mere technique. Good pictures have soul, character, emotional content -- possibly most of the things you describe as poppycock.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>A truly great photo will have soul, character, and strong emotional content.....no argument. A handful of great images amongst hundreds of good images from a single wedding is a worthy accomplishment and an appropriate goal. Photographers waxing poetic over soulful wedding images and artistic sensibilities, more often than not.....poppycock.</p>

[William Michael]

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>What are your thoughts on giving a disc of images that <strong>you decided were unfit </strong>(not your style, out of focus, people blinking, whatever) after you have already fulfilled (and even exceeded) your contract?</em>

 

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

 

<br>

I wouldn't. <br>

I have deemed them unfit, why would I give / sell them with my name on them?<br>

I shot a Christmas Function & Prize-giving on Wednesday I finished with 41 frames of meat and potatoes stuff. OK it is not a Wedding, it only went for an hour. I sent 35 finished product last night.<br>

 

 

<br>

The 6 extra frames: <br>

two were repeats of a Posed Group shot of Prize-winners – silly face or closed eyes; <br>

one was my scene setter – from one angle, the other angle was better; <br>

one was a purposeful “silly face” pulled at me – which I sent to that person to do with as she pleases – if she wants it on the Club’s Wbsite, she can send it to the Coach or Club President, herself;<br>

two were shots "just for me" of interesting abstract objects/lighting in the area – not associated with the event – the event was over, anyway.<br>

 

 

<br>

 

 

<br>

I have no problem with the Club, Committee or Members seeing those six extra images – but why would I give/sell them to the Club? <br>

IMO they are of no use to them and there is no benefit in me providing them.</p>

<p>

 

<br>

The same logic I applied to Weddings – I would never hide that there were extra frames taken, but I see no percentage, nor need, to provide the clippings from the cutting room floor. <br>

I do tend to shoot purposefully and considered - so there are not that many extras anyway.<br>

I think that for those who do shoot many frames – like 1000, 3000, 6000, 10000 for a Wedding – the burden of having all those images would be quite great for the B&G. <br>

Not to mention the burden of taking that many shots in the first place - and I believe I understand the technique, when it is done purposefully.<br>

I wonder what they (the B&G) would do with them all? – Surely such a mass of images, would dilute the impact of the really good, finished "keepers"? <br>

 

 

<br>

 

 

<br>

WW

 

<br>

</p>

 

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"I'll see what <em><strong>moments</strong></em> they think are missing"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I beleive this is the answer, to your situation.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[picturesque]

<p>David S.--I don't believe Elle mentioned how many images she shot, or what her keeper rate is, so the sideline about shooting what you consider too many images is misplaced? For all we know, Elle's keeper rate is 80%, which is well within your approval range.</p>

<p>I also remember shooting for a studio with film, and being held to quantity standards. Made perfect sense back then when every frame of film had a hard cost to it. Now, with digital, the cost is still there, but it appears as one's time in handling and processing, which is slightly different. When I started with digital, I forced myself to shoot more and to use continuous mode more for action shots. I do think it is quite a handy technique at times, and in the right hands.</p>

<p>I can also understand Elle's shooting even when she doesn't think the shot will turn out. I am still sometimes pleasantly surprised upon examining a shot I thought was superfluous or not so great. Sometimes, there are gems hidden among the weeds, and it happens even for 'old hands' like me. I think I know when I just took a good image and when I didn't, but sometimes I'm still surprised. I also have experienced turning a shot I thought was a dud into something pretty good, in post processing.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Nadine, Elle's OP states: <em>“What are your thoughts on giving a disc of images that you decided were unfit (not your style, out of focus, people blinking, whatever) after you have already fulfilled (and even exceeded) your contract?” </em>and since she doesn't give an indication/description of what her cull rate is or how many images/percentage are delivered per her contract, then I feel the cull rate is a legitimate concern relative to the question. I am in total agreement with your last two paragraphs and it matches my experiences completely.</p>

[shawn_mertz]

<p>If you go to restaurant do you ask the waitress if they will bring you the fat that was trimmed from your steak? If you buy an apple pie do you want the core and the apple skins? I don't but maybe some people do.<br>

Most of my clients want everything but the garbage. But the idea of wanting a thousand pictures and the reality of having them are two different things. Who hasn't taken more food they they can eat on occasion. I am trying to come up with a new way to deliver that will highlight the best but also give the rest. </p>

[ted_suss]

<p>Elle,<br>

If the chef burned your first steak, would you expect him to bring it out to you after you finished your meal? I'm not trying to make this a joke, but this is pretty much what you're asking. Do you want this couple showing off images that you're not proud of? Probably not.<br>

Going forward, there needs to be more clarification between you and your clients about what they should expect. This needs to be crystal clear. If they ask for a picture of the bride with her sorority sisters, you're not obligated to show them 6 different ones of the same pose if that's what you took and they need to know this.<br>

Most situations with couples after their weddings have to do with not having everything spelled out ahead of time. This isn't something you should post in detail on your website, but perhaps have it in your contract or other information you give them when they hire you....-TED :-)</p>

[ed_te_pas]

<blockquote>

<p>of this past summer for a <em>very</em> discounted rate</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a story behind this, usually when you give a finger they'll grab you entire hand.<br />I never give cd's, so I don't have this problem.</p>

[david_schilling___chicago_]

<p>Ed, even if you don't give your client a cd there will still be requests to see what the couple perceives as missing photos.....even photos that someone else might have taken that they assume that you did.</p>

<p>Typically you can get the couple to identify what they think is missing and it may only be one or two. In which case you may be able to meet up and review some of the edits. What is more difficult to deal with is the B or G's fear that you've culled some images that they'd like to have.....especially with some of the high cull rates that some new shooters have.</p>