I just finished post-processing 1,017 images. Many of those, but not all, will be used for marketing and public relations both in print and online. At this time, the client isn’t able to do any post-processing except to crop and resize the pictures.
Since the client doesn’t know which images will be used in the coming year, all these photos had to be processed now. About 2,300 images were originally shot and those were edited down to 1,017. Yes, I probably should’ve edited it down a lot more but I wanted the client to have a broad selection to cover all future possibilities.
The images included:
• Many group shots, all of which required some faces to be retouched (i.e. eyes opened, shadows lightened and eyeglass reflections removed).
• Several presentations where fingerprints had to be removed from the glass-framed items.
• Building exteriors and room interiors of which many needed verticals straightened, carpets cleaned and ground debris removed.
• Food shots in which the food had to be freshened and fixed up.
• A few hundred pictures of people wearing baseball hats or visors, all of which needed shadows lightened and colours warmed.
If the work could’ve been done at one minute per picture that would still have added up to 1,017 minutes, or 17 hours, of non-stop work. Some pictures required just a quick basic tweak of crop, levels and sharpen but others required much more work.
I spent almost 50 hours on the images. Do the math and that works out to an average of only three minutes per image. Would you work 50 hours (i.e. more than a week) for free? Of course not. This is why photographers charge for post-processing.
Some clients understand that images right from the camera are not ready-to-go. But many others don’t realize that digital photo files need to be cleaned up and often require adjustments to brightness, contrast, colour, sharpening and sometimes even more, especially for portraits. Yes, even pictures from a $6,000 camera still need work.
Is post-processing really necessary?
It depends. How good is good enough when your company image is on the line?
A picture right from the camera is like standing one leg: if all things work out just right, you can stay upright. Good enough as long as there’s no expectations and no competition.
But a properly processed and finished photograph gives you two solid legs to stand on; quality photography to fully support your marketing needs and business image.
A rule of thumb is that one hour of commercial photography requires two hours of computer time. This is better than the old film and darkroom days.
Digital photography allows for much more control and many clients fully expect to benefit from that control. They want their executive portrait to have the polish of a magazine cover, their office interiors to look like the pictures in an architecture brochure, and their events to look like a well-lit stage play.
Photographers: don’t under-estimate the time required to fully polish your pictures. Even a few minutes per photo can really add up. Don’t be surprised when, not if, you spend more time with your computer than your camera. For better or worse, post-processing is part of your job. It is real work and you must charge for it.
Clients: don’t put up with photographers who “dump and run”: dump the raw pictures on a disc for you and then run out the door. Pushing a camera’s shutter button only starts the picture, it doesn’t finish it. Yes, post-processing will cost you money. Yes, your company image is worth it. The public judges a company by its marketing and advertising efforts.
––
Just to toot my own horn: last month, I spent a lot of time post-processing a building exterior photo which was intended for a company’s web site. The client liked it so much that they had it printed and framed to hang in their boardroom.
Quality photography is not only good for the client’s business, it’s also good for the photographer’s.
