Let me put it this way: the best (photographic) edit is the one that the viewer does not perceive as such, especially non-photographers.
By that I do not have in mind non-distinquishable before/after, but non-perceivable when viewed alone. For that reason I agree with previous posters who thought it is not such a good idea to push before/after comparisons.
Slobodan, Great comment and I appreciate the perspective and opinion. With my personal experience on this topic which is completely subject to my opinion, is that I have had an amazingly positive response from all of my clients. That's not to say that it's going to work for every client. When I started actually presenting this to my clients a while back, I was under the same opinion that it may
not be taken or received well. But after showing clients and explaining the role of editing in many photographs (as an educator) it has only supported and solidified the hopeful positive response.
The beauty of this whole topic which is one reason why started this is that " i'm learning that Photography is completely subjective from all perspectives from the client to the photographer. What I like may not work for you and what makes me money may be a complete flop for someone else. It's so interesting how this has played out.
Question for you: (Slobodan) In photography there are many parts and areas that need to be considered or take place to produce a great photograph. One of those is editing/processing the photos you take. If we as photographers can sell or make light of our abilities (to produce excellent photos) from style to equipment, then why would we not want to show the client the process/art of editing because (in my experience) it appears to be almost as important as actually taking and composting the photo. (This could be a new perspective for the digital area we are in)
I would love to hear what you think. (great photos on your viewbug by the way)