Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

[M.A.D.X.W]

Why charge so much more though?

 

[Israphel]

Actually, I completely agree with Mike.
I don't know of a single professional who would ever give his negatives to a client, so why give a RAW file.

Besides, what client would pay you to do a job and then be happy to receive a bunch of files that need to be edited. I don't have an exact ratio, but if I shoot 5 hours at an event, then the editing and processing time is likely to be three times that. These hours are taken into account with the original price, so why pass that work onto the client who's paying me for a service? Clients typically want a finished product, not something that they're going to need to spend hours sitting in front of a computer sorting through and processing for themselves. That's assuming they possess the software to do it on.

I have a different business model to Mike's in that I will give the clients full rez versions of the processed jpgs, so they can print off as many images as they like (which in some ways cuts off potential revenue from print sales, but gets me a lot of jobs) but not ALL the images, only the ones that I'm happy with (a couple of hundred from a typical wedding) and NEVER the raw files.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Here are two examples of my packages:

Portrait / Head shot session
$350
- 30 High quality digital photos on a CD/DVD
- 10 Professional Quality 8x10 prints included
- 4~ hour photo shoot
- Unlimited wardrobe changes
- Online Proof Gallery
- Photographer release

I'll shoot about 300 - 500 photos of them in the studio or at a specific location. They choose the digital photos and prints they would like from an online proofing gallery. They do not get all of the photos I took because it is not in the package they purchased. Post processing is very time consuming and I only do minimal edits (color correcting, exposure compensation, cropping) for proofing. If they want more photos.. they will have to get a bigger package or purchase more photos from the gallery.

Wedding:

$1650

* Two Wedding Photographers - For maximum event coverage
* Complete event coverage - No time limits lets you relax
* High Resolution Digital Files on DVD - Your images belong to you
* Professional Digital Touch Up - Every photo looks it’s best
* Online Image Gallery - Share your big day worldwide
* DVD Wedding Slideshow - Watch from the comfort of your living room
* Travel expenses included - Within 100 miles of Eugene, OR
* $400 credit toward print enlargements (See price list below)

I will easily shoot 1000 - 2000 photos at a wedding but I will narrow them down to about 400 - 700 of the best shots. If people are lively and lots of things are going on they will likely have more photos. If not, they will have less. The same goes with any event photography. Again the client gets to see all the photos online before they receive anything. In this wedding they get to see all of the photos so they can pick out what prints they want.

We have already spent 6-10 hours at their wedding, another 10-20 hours editing the photos and getting them up on a gallery. All the photos we put up on the gallery are already theirs to keep. 500 photos is a lot and we charged them appropriately for time involved.

As far as photographers go.. I'm relatively inexpensive. You can try to get head shots in LA and be charged $600 and only walk away with only three 8x10 prints. No digital files of any sort.

 

[SleepyHe4d]

Well I can understand not wanting to provide RAWs to protect your work from defamation and what not, but it still seems like a bad way to go about things. There has to be a better way or compromise than charging them up the ass to "make it sting." That sounds bitter.

 

[Igoy]

What part is patronizing? I don't find keeping your customers well informed as being patronizing. Giving Raw files away can be very dangerous to your business.

...I know. I'm referring to the fact you lie and say that they're some sort of magical, inaccessible file that only you can read. Most people know about RAW now. That's what I find patronising.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Well I can understand not wanting to provide RAWs to protect your work from defamation and what not, but it still seems like a bad way to go about things. There has to be a better way or compromise than charging them up the ass to "make it sting." That sounds bitter.

I agree, and I wish their was a better way. I am only applying business practices which have been around for a a long time.

Most businesses will charge a lot for a service which they are not quite set up for or that they do not want to do. They do this because they do not want to say "no" to their customer. I'm never rude about it and most customer understand after giving the "film negatives" analogy. Customers also know that every man has his price.

Quite frankly I cannot understand why a customer would not be happy with processed .jpg files. If a business approached me and just wanted me to shoot their products and hand over the RAW files to their marketing dept.. that would be different. It would be in the initial contract.. and yes, I would charge accordingly.

 

[BillyBadAss]

1. Biz partner/wedding photographer surprised us all

This is a really cool idea for a shot and that green is as eye catching as seaing a beautiful shot at a beach. Great location man. I would really like to see you do more outdoor shots.

Recent shot of mine.


The Confession

 

[Zur]

Kokuhaku. I leant something today. I like boths Mike's saturated colours/rich shadows and BBA's simple/pleasant style.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Recent shot of mine.


The Confession

Are you still scanning film or have you come up with a way make your shots look like scanned film?

 

[BillyBadAss]

Are you still scanning film or have you come up with a way make your shots look like scanned film?

Still scanning. I really like shooting film. If I was doing something professionally contracted, I would shoot digital since nobody will pay for film. The thing I really like about film is that all I have to do is change the film and it's like changing the CMOS on a DSLR. The results are completely different.

EDIT:

I do have a Photoshop Action that will make your digital shots look like you used Fuji Velva Film.

 

[kiff]

Friend down the street took this. I noticed it too and took some pics, but haven't moved them to the computer yet...

Monsoon season is here now in the desert. Was 106F yesterday and then started raining...

 

[OO7MIKE]

Monsoon season is here now in the desert. Was 106F yesterday and then started raining...

As beautiful as that looks, its kinda scary. So is your weather. Hot.. then rain? Its happened a few times to me in Georgia but it was never that hot.

...I know. I'm referring to the fact you lie and say that they're some sort of magical, inaccessible file that only you can read. Most people know about RAW now. That's what I find patronising.

I don't believe that I have lied to about the complex nature of a RAW format. My statement holds true. I do not think that most people do know about RAW. I'm not talking about other photographers here, I'm talking about the average consumer who probably owns a point and shoot camera and a camera phone. As a format .jpg is well known and RAW is very alien to them. RAW awareness has increased over the years, however the fact is that most people do not have the ability to view RAW files, especially ones from newer cameras. Once they get the files on their computer and windows tells them that it does not know how to open the files.. people tend to panic. Grandma doesn't want to figure it out, she wants it to just work.

The point is to talk the client out of the idea in any way I can without having to tell them "NO". There is no reason why it cannot be done politely and professionally. I do not intend it to come across as patronizing although I can see how some may see it that way.

More wedding photos!!!

Here are a few portraits I took last week end. I would love to post some of my photo journalistic wedding shots but there are way too many. My shooting style requires more than one shot to tell the story. Its good for wedding albums, bad for internet threads.


1. Direct sunlight with some fill flash via octabox. The sun was way to harsh, lucky to get this shot.

2. In the shade moments later. Natural light, no flash used. Fill was the light bouncing off of the cement right in front of them. That crazy grey ghost effect was actually part of the photo. Not sure why but it was enhanced along with the rest of the photo.

3. Later in the day we took off to a dock. 70-200mm @ 200mm f/2.8 gives a natural soft look when in high contrast situations. Again the sun was pretty harsh. Fill flash via octabox.

 

[Hunter]

Some recents shots when out and about near my place with a friend from uni:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hunterbuf/sets/72157623891724630/

[screenshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2794/4535425147_41a0910fa4_o.jpg[/screenshot]

 

[Rambowjo]

Mike, that top photo you got there, how does the original picture look, like the RAW? Could you try just saving a JPEG of the unprocessed RAW maybe? I would like to see what kind of PP you do.

Great stuff by the way

 

[IronMonkey]

LOL!! Don't ever give away your RAW files!

I completely agree.

Now I had better explain why I do give away the RAW files most of the time.

I'm not a professional, I'm doing the photography for myself and the other parents.

Normally, what I do is prepare an "originals" directory which contains all of the originals, RAW and JPEG, as they came off the camera. The reason that I do that is so that if there is a photo of little Johnny that the parents want to take further then they can get the best quality print from the RAW. In Mike's world, that would (correctly) be a chargeable extra. I would rather have the quiet life and let the parents sort that out on their own.

I then take the better photos, sort them into directories based the name of the child in the photo and convert all of the RAW to TIFF so that the (mostly non-technical) parents can view the photos using their standard photo viewing software. I'll take the best of those photos and further process them (crop, manual lighting adjustment etc.) and group them in a sub-directory if there is a good sequence. Stick the whole lot on a DVD and hand it out at the next training session.

On this occasion, I had a much larger number of photos than usual to process from a mix of cameras (Powershot G3, Fujifilm FinePix A850 & S2500HD) scattered across more than a dozen directories and for various reasons I didn't have the time to do as much additional processing as usual. Hence the command line to search a group of directories, find RAW files, feed it to dcraw and convert it to TIFF whilst applying the camera white balance and some light noise reduction. Laziness!

If someone asks for them, I tell them that they are digital negatives and you probably wont be able to view the files on your computer as they are meant to be handled by professional photographers and graphic designers.

I think that is a pretty reasonable explanation of the situation. It's not technically accurate but it captures the correct essence of the truth. A reasonable simplification.

I would much rather choose the best shots, edit those in raw, create an online gallery, and have them pay for prints or digital files. Since you already said you would give it to them.. I would just narrow it down to 100 of the best shots, zip them up and upload them via ftp. Mass mail your customers and give them the link. Lots of exposure, little effort on your part and you come off looking like a pro.

As a matter of law, I probably could just stick the photos online but (I haven't tested this) my perception is that most parents would rather not have photos of their kids online unless they were in control of that.

I typically shoot 1-2k images at every event. My keeper rate is 5-15 images per 100 shots taken. I'm super picky too! The less images = less work for you. No client likes sifting through 2k images only to find duplicates of the same person doing the same thing. No offense of course, but it reflects poorly on your photography skills and your customer satisfaction. Nobody likes a shovel disk. 100 images is tolerable and will be much more exciting to look at.

That is what I normally do - originals in one directory for the curious and a much smaller set in the viewing directories for everyone else.

Annoyingly, the best photo (actually, video clip) was caught by my nine-year old. It was only 20s long but it captured an amazing display of composure under pressure that would have been amazing in an adult, given that it was a 10-year old girl made it astounding. I can't (won't) post the clip but the essence was that she attempted to sweep her opponent's feet from under her. It all went wrong and the girl ended down on one knee with her opponent behind and above her. A bad place to be in a Judo competition. Without even looking to see where her opponent was, she got half way up and swept backward again, catching her opponent (who probably thought things were looking golden up until that point) and down went the opponent. Envy! Envy!


Very nice wedding shots BTW

 

[OO7MIKE]

Mike, that top photo you got there, how does the original picture look, like the RAW? Could you try just saving a JPEG of the unprocessed RAW maybe? I would like to see what kind of PP you do.

Great stuff by the way

I can definitely do that!

I only ask that you do not sell the photo or use it in any other way than to examine and edit.

Download and Edit away!

This is a RAW file from my 7d. You will need CS4 with ACR 5.6 or higher to view it. Best viewed with CS5 or Lightroom 3 with ACR 6.0 or higher.

 

[shadow_dragon]

I'm suprised 007mike got flak over his .raw file "policy" it's perfectly logical to me.

...I know. I'm referring to the fact you lie and say that they're some sort of magical, inaccessible file that only you can read. Most people know about RAW now. That's what I find patronising.

I totally disagree.
I'd say that the literal majority of people don't know about raw files at all, I know more people with cameras that can take raw photos that don't know what raw is than vice versa myself.

I'd go so far as to say that most people with or without cameras think an image is just an image and barely consider filetypes at all.

 

[Rambowjo]

I can definitely do that!

I only ask that you do not sell the photo or use it in any other way than to examine and edit.

Download and Edit away!

This is a RAW file from my 7d. You will need CS4 with ACR 5.6 or higher to view it. Best viewed with CS5 or Lightroom 3 with ACR 6.0 or higher.

Thanks a lot for the RAW file, promise I won't sell it

I was wondering, are you choosing really high sharpening settings? The people you take pictures of look fairly "soft" but everything else is very sharp and defined. Do you cut people out manually, or do you have some magic trick to create that effect? The frames you use in some your pictures are pretty cool too actually, they really make a big difference.

Thanks again!

edit: here's the best I could do. Turning up the blue channel a little bit yielded some very surprising results. I forgot NR while in ACR.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/1545/blackandwhiteandblue.jpg

 

[IronMonkey]

This is a RAW file from my 7d. You will need CS4 with ACR 5.6 or higher to view it. Best viewed with CS5 or Lightroom 3 with ACR 6.0 or higher.

Out of interest, I tested it with UFRaw and that opens it quite happily. Which is not the same thing as saying that it will give results as good as CS5!

It seems almost a shame to process it such is the quality of the base image. The detail of the weave on the veil is amazing. By the same token, one can see the noise in the sky (when zoomed in) but a denoise setting of 100 makes it disappear without significantly affecting the rest of the image (at any reasonable zoom level)

Want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d.

 

[Rambowjo]

Want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d, want 7d.

do want do want do want