david_cisco

Sorry for any confusion..

Actually either of the latter options- I'd like to know what pro photographer consider appropriate when paying a contractor to perform the post production work, and what the contractors are being paid (and what they consider fair).

After searching the forum for awhile, I still haven't found a clear answer to

this topic. If I've missed the thread, maybe someone could point me to it?

I understand that in different markets, different prices are considered

reasonable. Still though, no one has said exactly what they are being paid for

performing post processing, and I haven't found a reply from a photographer

saying what they expect to (or are) paying.

Specifically for those who are using Lightroom as the primary software to batch

process all images and Photoshop to enhance the "keepers". I feel Lightroom has

the potential to reduce time spent in post production significantly, thereby

having an influence on profitability. I say "profitability" instead of "rates"

because as a result of more efficient time investments in the work, you may

result in producing more work, and faster.

The average client for me will submit between 1,000 and 1,400 images shot

between 2 photographers, 1 lead, 1 assist. It is agreed between us that all

images should be of good quality, somewhere between proof and album, but

definitely not straight out of the camera.

From the photographers point of view, they can't be expected to meter every

shot, so even in a series, exposures may vary. This means that not all the

images will fit in any Batch Action and will need to have individual tweaks. On

average, 1-2 minutes per image is spent on some problem jobs.

The closest answer I've found on the topic here was a mention that anything

under $1 pr image is ridiculously cheap. But how can even a pro wedding shooter

expect to pay $1,400 at least for post production?

As a result of low competitors in my market, I have lowered my rates just to get

the work. Recent career changes have caused the need for me to do wahtever it

takes to get the bills paid.

On average, I figure I'm collecting .50 an image. Sounds cheap, but hourly it

isn't that bad.

So now that I have stated clearly what I am getting paid, will someone else join

in and let me know if this is an average amount, too high, too low?

I plan on staying in this line of work as long as I can, and will re-adjust my

rates later on.

Thanks for any input.

ive heard good stuff on ACDSee but havent used it.

Adobe Bridge can do a batch rename, but you'll have to script the images first. once scripted,

you can select the appropriate files and rename them in Bridge.

stuart- thanks for taking the time to work on the image, and thanks again to all who have

given advice. i feel like im being a pain in the ass.

i dont want to focus too much on how to fix the image, but more importantly, how to

capture it correctly.

so are you guys *sure* that this is the best the camera can capture?

if not, what does he need to do differently to get a proper image?

i am new to this forum, so i really dont know the etiquette of thread length or how many

times to reply to an issue.. so set me straight if need be!

i am completely familiar with dodging, burning, shadow/highlight correction, curves,

layering, masking.. all that. if needed i can totally rescue a bad image.

however, *all* exposures on his shoots are coming out like this. it isnt a one-off!

he would like 5x7 proofs generated from the shoot, of which more than 100 exposures

were taken in several settings. in all of them, highlights will be lost. it isn't practical, or

profitable, to correct that many images in photoshop. and with bad looking proofs... sales

typically go down as well.

there must be a solution to get better images at the time of capture.

really appreciating the feedback.

i have to disagree on the use of the RAW utility. i've been doing this for a long time, for

several different potographers. the problem i am having now is unique to this particular

photographer, and it is happening indoors and out.

to me, the first picture of the girl outside is a badly exposed image. i have no choice but to

adjust exposure. making the corrections here is much more effective than using curves or

levels, and even in going that route i am sure the detail in the dress would be lost there

too.

thanks guys. thought id submit another expample of the problem -

before and after. the underexposed pic is straight from the camera. the corrected image no

longer shows any detail in dress!<div></div>

Thanks to all who can help. I am a photoshop guy trying to assist a photographer.

Using the Canon 1Ds, highlights are being blown out. This happens in the studio or

outdoors. I am using the latest Adobe Camera Raw profile for this camera and my monitor

is calibrated.

The deal is, I have to push the exposure up on his images to get the skin tones right, and

by doing so, most detail is lost on any white clothing worn. He frequently shoots subjects

wearing white in front of a white background, so it's getting pretty difficult to handle the

images, as I am having to open the raw's twice- once for clothes and once for skin tones

and then having to patch them together.

Sorry to say I do not have all the details such as what lighting he uses.

I'm wondering if it's inherent in the camera, or if his meter is off, or the camera is set

wrong.

Thanks again!<div></div>

if thats the clients expectation..

you wont hear me complain about retouching to that degree for that kind of money!

geez!

yes, the answer is adjusting the canvas size. if you have a horizontally oriented image that is

3x10 inches, then the print size you'd want from costco is an 8x10. just change the canvas

size to 8x10 (and click in the center of that little anchoring box option to center the image in

the new 8x10 canvas).

most importantly, what is the intended end result of the image? is it for web display only,

or for print? who will be printing it?

if its for web only- there's only so much you can do. every monitor is different and the

majority go uncalibrated.

for print? the only monitor that truly matters is the one that will be preparing the file for

printing.

if you print in house, as we do in our studio, you just need to make sure your monitor is

calibrated to your printer.

as a web designer, i cant think of any way google would be able to reach the EXIF info in a

jpg. i think what you're looking for is what the others have said- use descriptive info in the

ALT tags.

not only does google use this info, but it provides info for blind people when they surf the

web. they use web readers to read the content of a web page, and if no text has been entered

into the ALT tag, they may not get the full effect of the page.

before going with any company, google their name and see what comes up. this is useful

particularly for godaddy.. you are sure to find a lot of negative feedback on them, of which i

could contribute to.

i do web design on the side and have worked with Verve Hosting since day one. absolutley no

complaints at all.

some web companies will offer to "lease" you a domain name- that is nothing more than a

ripoff. register it yourself!