Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: Scott Hargis on June 28, 2011, 08:34:33 pm
-
I'm shooting architectural interiors, and working with a lot of interior design clients.
Lately I'm having issues with clients wanting more re-touching on images than I'm really willing to do. I don't separate re-touching in my estimates, but in my own mind I have a number of hours that I am willing to put in. I've never had a client be more picky than I am anyway, so it's never been an issue until now.
What I'm getting recently is clients who wish the styling/staging was different. NOTHING to do with the actual photography! "Can you remove the coffee-pot from the kitchen counter?" or "Can you change the color of the flowers from pink to white?"
I'm comfortable enough to say "No" when I can't or don't want to do it, but what I'd like to do is get in front of the issue and get some language into my contracts that specifically deals with this, without making it sound like I'm unwilling to do "ordinary" re-touching like color corrections, toning, etc. etc. Something that deals specifically with material changes to the scene.
How do you set limits with your re-touching?
-
Yes it's always an ongoing battle, even with clients who know better. They just try it on.
I have them make a list of things they want to change and then provide them with a quote. I explain this is going to be the way I work before the shoot. It doesn't need to be threatening for the client if you treat it positively and friendly and once they understand you work that way then it's fine.
-
I'll sometimes tell them it would be cheaper to re-shoot than pay for the retouching involved! But then I usually explain to them that I can get rid of 'it', but the problem comes with replacing 'it' with what's actually behind 'it'. People think you can just take something out, but need to be educated on the consequences. Really... it's a matter of educating the client on what can and can't be done, and if they push, then provide the quote to do it.
-
My clients get photographs of what they supply me. If they need something changed from what is supplied I do it no problem at my retouching rate. Have not had a problem since the late 90's when it was all pretty new and we were all still trying to figure it out.
-
This is the direction it's been going with interiors for a while now, and why clients will be using renderings more than actual photos more and more.
A few years ago I was able to charge for all retouching, now almost none. I know retouchers who specialize in interiors who made tons of money at it from huge clients and even their clients aren't willing to spend extra on retouching anymore (it's expected to be included with the photography).
The trouble is you can make a stand but there are always people out there who will give what you won't. If you're in a top position in your market and your clients aren't able to find anyone to replace you it will be easier to say no.
-
Thanks for the responses.
I think I should clarify this a bit. I'm trying to separate the "normal" post-processing that I would do regardless of what I'm being paid -- like color corrections, toning, sharpening, cropping, blending multiple exposures -- from the material changes I'm being requested to do (like changing the color of the flowers).
I have no problem with charging extra for that work, but what I haven't done a good job of is communicating to my clients where the line is. I'd like to get some language into my contracts to clearly communicate a policy so that it's clear at what point I'm going to start billing an hourly rate for re-touch work.
-
Is this a common problem with interior designers and decorators or what? How about the ones who decide to completely redo a room in the middle of a shoot or want to run to their house to pick up the perfect item-completely blowing the time budget. Why didn't they design it that way to begin with?
In this particular case are we talking about shoots where the client was present or a representative of the client was there? Or was the opportunity to be there offered and declined? If so-tough bananas-charge them for the additional retouching.
I am not an interior designer or decorator. I do well organizing objects in a space for photographic composition but I am not a magician or a mind reader. If they are going to be super picky they have to be at the shoot and make these decisions.
-
I've never done a shoot when the client wasn't present and approving shots on my laptop. These are after-the-fact requests.
-
I usually tell that I can make little changes in the image, like removing wires or electrical sockets, things like that. But when they want to have objects removed that are in front of something that is not a smooth gradient or simple pattern, that will be extra. And for complicated backgrounds, that will be outside of my ability, but no problem, because I can supply the name of a digital artist that can do the job. Of course a good artist will charge $200+ an hour. That price usually gets them to make sure everything is the way they want it on location.
PS, I do remove exit signs whenever I can, and that is what I spend the most time removing when doing that kind of work. Here I dont charge because I would remove the sign anyway for my own use.
-
I've never done a shoot when the client wasn't present and approving shots on my laptop. These are after-the-fact requests.
Then for me the clock starts running after basic adjustments to the image that were discussed at the shoot.
-
My rule of thumb now is that if I can do it in LR, it's included. If I have to go to PhotoShop... the clock starts tickin'. So as soon as I get a request where I know it's going to PS, I state up front that this is an additional charge.
-
That's a pretty good rule of thumb Mike, though I end up opening almost every image in PS just to do basic adjustments. My main concern is when they come back to you after the shoot with requests like removing some difficult object. That is why I want to discuss the adjustments I will be doing during the shoot. So if they come back with more it automatically becomes an additional charge because it is work outside of our original agreement and understanding.
I have to admit here though, since the recession I have become much more reluctant about adding on additional charges-something I did not hesitate about in 2008.
-
I'd like to get some language into my contracts to clearly communicate a policy so that it's clear at what point I'm going to start billing an hourly rate for re-touch work.
Here's one attempt to actually answer your question: "standard global post-processing (including brightness, contrast, white balance, levels, curves) is included in the price. Local and specialty post-processing is done upon request, and includes, but is not limited to, removal or addition of objects, retouching of surfaces, and HDR, and will be charged at $X per hour."
-
This is the direction it's been going with interiors for a while now, and why clients will be using renderings more than actual photos more and more.
A few years ago I was able to charge for all retouching, now almost none. I know retouchers who specialize in interiors who made tons of money at it from huge clients and even their clients aren't willing to spend extra on retouching anymore (it's expected to be included with the photography).
The trouble is you can make a stand but there are always people out there who will give what you won't. If you're in a top position in your market and your clients aren't able to find anyone to replace you it will be easier to say no.
Asf, architects and interior designers relying solely on renderings to represent their finished work? I am surprised to hear that, except maybe for some of the smallest architects or architectural firms. Anyone else experiencing this?
Feppe, I am glad someone actually addressed Scott's initial request.
Kirk, wouldn't you actually address most or all of that sort of retouching in your contract, as a result of your scouting of the property?
-
Kirk, wouldn't you actually address most or all of that sort of retouching in your contract, as a result of your scouting of the property?
Ideally yes, But with interiors that are being moved around allot or furnished just for the shoot there are always things you didn't foresee.
Also I am really an architectural photographer-not an interiors specialist perse. Allot of my shoots are big commercial or institutional buildings out of town-exteriors and interiors. I may not have really seen the building before the day of the shoot and my client (usually the architect) may not have been to the building recently either. You would be amazed at the crap we run into on a "finished" building in those circumstances that have to be fixed in PS.
As per architects relying on renderings to present their work? Not in my experience. They only use renderings until they have decent finished photos.
-
You would be amazed at the crap we run into on a "finished" building in those circumstances that have to be fixed in PS.
Do tell. Bonus points for docile rhinos :)
-
Hmmm...not sure what you are trying to add to the conversation with those images?
-
Asf, architects and interior designers relying solely on renderings to represent their finished work? I am surprised to hear that, except maybe for some of the smallest architects or architectural firms. Anyone else experiencing this?
I wrote "will be", as in that is the direction I see it going in the future
And I have seen it starting to happen, and not with small firms. Think of how CGI has affected the car shooters.
Interior photos are as a whole so retouched now compared to 10 years ago they are approaching renderings.
-
I wrote "will be", as in that is the direction I see it going in the future
And I have seen it starting to happen, and not with small firms. Think of how CGI has affected the car shooters.
Interior photos are as a whole so retouched now compared to 10 years ago they are approaching renderings.
The problem is not becoming, with making things look perfect and evenly lit, to into Photoshop instead of painting with light (which is what PHOTOGRAPHY actually is). Not making images that look like renderings. Not becoming lazy and relying on HDR or other Photoshop tricks instead of professionally lighting the space or using the right camera/lens to correct things on location is only making it worse.
I have spoken to many high end architects and they all say the same thing. They want images that look like pictures; they dont want images that look like something they could have had their rendering departments do. Create images, not cad drawings; allow the imperfections of light to remain in the photograph.
-
I'm in a bit of a different interior situation btu similar at the same tine.
Most of boat/rv interiors are either prototypes or first run samples. its not uncommon ofr the interiors to be missing pieces, have the wrong piece or something does not work.
Many times the entire kitchen for example will be missing the cabinet doors, a tv hutch will be missing the tv, a backsplash is the wrong color, or even a window is in the wrong place.
Since waiting is usually out of the question I have to shoot and fix in post.
There is never a question, if the fix IS possible it gets done. And there is never a question on what it will cost, since we agree prior to the shoot. Never for free.
And I agree that PS has changed how I shoot at least. I do far more assembly in post that ever before.
Pricing in my niche has bottomed out since the RV/Marine businesses crashed in 2008. No one will pay 2008 prices and timelines any more. What was once a 5-8 hour shoot on a single interior is now 1.5 hours and 1.5 hours of assembly in post. It's the new reality. You either deal with it or find different clients.
That said my retouching rates stayed the same and I do more of it now than ever.
-
IMO there are allot of over statements and misinformation being voiced here.
Joe, you talk about WE as if there is one one workflow everyone adheres to. There were plenty of bland homogeneous overly lit interiors long before digital. There has always been bad and good photographers-always will. There really is no WE. Just speak for yourself.
Interior photos are as a whole so retouched now compared to 10 years ago they are approaching renderings.
The top guys like Hedrich-Blessing were doing major retouching long before digital. They had an in-house team that retouched transparencies and did amazing work. That was part of the reason their work was the gold standard and very hard to compete with. I got asked by potential clients in Chicago, "can you fix X like the guys at HB can?" if you couldn't you were second tier. I could by sending it to a lady in Texas, but I would take a month and cost a fortune-I rarely had the time or budget to include this service.
-
The top guys like Hedrich-Blessing were doing major retouching long before digital. They had an in-house team that retouched transparencies and did amazing work. That was part of the reason their work was the gold standard and very hard to compete with. I got asked by potential clients in Chicago, "can you fix X like the guys at HB can?" if you couldn't you were second tier. I could by sending it to a lady in Texas, but I would take a month and cost a fortune-I rarely had the time or budget to include this service.
Yes, and the difference now is almost anyone can do the retouching only major players like HB were doing before digital. And so clients are expecting it.
On a shoot last year for a well known NY architect I told them I couldn't do the retouching beyond X - no problem, they had interns in their office with PS skills who did it (at intern rates). I gave them instructions as I do to the paid retouchers I use and they did it, no problem. And they did a very good job.
I'm not saying retouching isn't getting paid for still. I'm saying over the last years I've watched it erode, and I don't see the direction changing.
But as to the OP's question Feppe's answer is basically what I tell clients.
-
IMO there are allot of over statements and misinformation being voiced here.
Joe, you talk about WE as if there is one one workflow everyone adheres to. There were plenty of bland homogeneous overly lit interiors long before digital. There has always been bad and good photographers-always will. There really is no WE. Just speak for yourself.
Point taken, have fixed my post.
-
Here's one attempt to actually answer your question: "standard global post-processing (including brightness, contrast, white balance, levels, curves) is included in the price. Local and specialty post-processing is done upon request, and includes, but is not limited to, removal or addition of objects, retouching of surfaces, and HDR, and will be charged at $X per hour."
Feppe, thanks for that. That's the direction I'm going to go, I'll probably riff on your text a little but the gist will be that "material changes" will be billed at $XX/hour. There's always going to be a live conversation about this stuff, but I like having things in writing.
Thanks all.
-
Very informative thread.
You can also term things in essential vs advanced editing. Essential editing is included in the price, advanced editing is billed by hour with a description of what each type includes.
-
Hmmm...not sure what you are trying to add to the conversation with those images?
A comment on standards, perhaps?
Rob C
-
Thanks for the responses.
I think I should clarify this a bit. I'm trying to separate the "normal" post-processing that I would do regardless of what I'm being paid -- like color corrections, toning, sharpening, cropping, blending multiple exposures -- from the material changes I'm being requested to do (like changing the color of the flowers).
I have no problem with charging extra for that work, but what I haven't done a good job of is communicating to my clients where the line is. I'd like to get some language into my contracts to clearly communicate a policy so that it's clear at what point I'm going to start billing an hourly rate for re-touch work.
Be specific in the contract.
Included - minor retouching such as color corrections, toning, sharpening, cropping, blending multiple exposures
Extra/Variation - larger changes to the integrity of the image (total color changes, etc etc etc)
-
Very informative thread.
You can also term things in essential vs advanced editing. Essential editing is included in the price, advanced editing is billed by hour with a description of what each type includes.
"Essential" and "advanced" might mean a very different things to a client and the photographer. The worst-case scenario is that the photographer will be in court arguing with a trained attack lawyer on the definition :P It's best to describe where exactly the line is drawn between included PP and what costs extra, which is something I attempted to do in my earlier post.
It's best to draft the contract and take it to a lawyer. The few hundred EUR/USD spent on it will pay itself back very quickly in a dispute, no matter whether it is agreed upon in a gentlemanly manner (whatever happened to that?), or goes to judge, mediation or trial.
-
That looks like a 'work for hire' type of agreement to me - whereby you are talking to them & charging them for your time & expenses to do a job for them - rather than a 'licence' type of agreement - whereby you are talking to them & charging them for the use of your pictures.
That's indeed a crucial distinction: work for hire means that the client gets copyright of the work in question.
-
That's indeed a crucial distinction: work for hire means that the client gets copyright of the work in question.
That's why lawyers do well.
In a recent conversation with one, I learned that the finest minds in the profession don't ever want to go to court: they always seek an out-of-court settlement. That's why the owl is a symbol for them.
In the case of the fine distinction made by feppe, I think that these things could be simplified by introducing standards of contractual behaviour where different jobs, photography included, work within simplified guidelines. In other words, if you hire a photographer, there is only a single form of hire/copyright that is possible and then everybody understands where they stand. I understand that the differences adopted are mainy there in order that the snapper might winkle out a little more revenue; okay, that's what it's all about; but the level of fees would always be an individual's choice. What's not to like about a situation where another photographer can't undercut you via the contract but only through price?
Freedom of negotiation might sound a very attractive proposition, but it's what's led to much of the confusion that surrounds pricing and expectations on both the part of the doer and the payer! I faced similar problems too, not so much copyright because things were slightly different up until the 80s ran their course, but pricing for calendars was hellishly complex, or it could have been. My solution was to simplify: I priced everything that I could think would impinge upon the job and then, checking out what vaguely similar non-bespoke calendars were retailing at, I added a percentage to the projected production costs for my projects that I thought fair, that paid for my design, photographic and production time, and would stand comparison with the retail market should my client ever choose to check that as a guide to my prices. It worked out very happily. Please, don't get me going on Golden Ages again!
Which brings me back, neatly, to my lawyer friend: did you know that even they had a Golden Age at around the same time?
Rob C
-
Basic retouching is limited to and not more than 10 minutes which includes standard post processing an image - that is converting to a workable image file such as tiff or psd or jpeg and includes basic spotting, basic global color correction and correction of converging parallel lines otherwise known as 'perspective control' a simple step in photoshop. Now once you have completed conversion of your raw file into a working file and completed basic retouching. The next step is what I call 'Advanced Retouching Service'.
Breakdown for the client - keep it simple and show samples to the client step by step as part of your portfolio. This only needs to be done once for all clients.
Photography on location: $$$your Rate (lets say for arguments sake 650.00)
Post Processing a single image file: $$your Rate (let's say $50.00 per image - convert to tiff or psd) Basic 10 minute retouching fee included.
Now here is the kicker, use the term Advanced Retouching Fee. Tell them you will proceed with the work based on their approval of your written quotation.
Advanced Retouching Fee: Based on the clients request and your skill level and time spent on the computer. starts at $75. to $150 per hour. charged in minimum 15 minute or half hour increments. Have the client list all the changes they would like to make have them send it in an email with approved in the subject area of the email and in the body of the email. Or you can write this into your standard contract form. BTW I have never used a photography contract I always get a %50 deposit prior to starting the work for new clients with the balance paid on delivery (after client viewing proofs posted on the net).
If you live in fear of losing a job because someone else will do it cheaper have them show you a written quote from that studio or photographer (of equal value) and if the mood strikes you give them a first time discount of 10% . When working in a soft economy you sometimes have to bend the rules. I find that explanation through illustration works best.
-
When we quote advertising and fashion jobs there is an expectation that the final product will need to have a lot of polish and style applied in post, that's just how it is these days. For me that's also a big part of the interest, it's what makes it engaging for me, not unlike colour grading in film/motion.
The nature of our projects means most of our shoots take anywhere from 1/2 day to a week to execute 1-12 shots. The post typically takes longer then the shoot. We do not accept projects unless we do all the post and we expect a lot of requests, we expect to be asked to make magic and we plan for it because that's part of why we get hired. I can't help but note a bit of a peevish tone in some posts about lower rates and feeling put upon to do more retouching, consider improving your skills, or send the work out, but lots of retouching on commercial work is here to stay.
Recognizing the importance and respect of communicating boundaries in advance - giving the client the information so they can control their budgets and consider rates when they request changes, we separate the post into it's own area of the estimate, into the last section (we write in a chronological order of the project workflow).
In that section we describe how many final shots they get, the expected retouching based on our experience with our workflow and what we know of the project through discussion, scouting, experience, etc.,. All of this is included in the estimate, in an ideal scenario this would deliver the job for that price. Sometimes it does not, but that's the client's (informed) decision.
As an aside, I feel I have to mention that part of our job these days is to think ahead of our clients in a benevolent way, even my newish assistants know not to strike a shot until we've captured any number of plates to get background information, etc. To tell a client that removing a coffee pot is a big retouch because someone didn't capture a plate without it is a bit of a shortsighted approach to modern workflow.
Part of our estimate includes a time-cap on the post, on a per file basis. In other words 'for this type of shot you will get 60 minutes of actual retouching' (RAW processing and files finishing, draft proofs delivery, final delivery are separate areas in our estimates). In the event their needs go beyond this budgeted time we explain we will need to estimate the additional work as a separate fee, based on a transparent hierarchy of fees; basic at x and hour, more involved at xx an hour, difficult at xxx an hour. We bill additional work in 15 minute increments. The software we call on is immaterial, we are billing time and skill.
This method works extremely well for us and is in my view the most ideal and mutually respectful way to 'paper' the retouching portion of the agreement.
Hope it helps
DC
www.dermotcleary.com