Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

I did a (free) photo shoot for my Sis-n-law, husband & their dog over the summer in locations they choose around a farm, all outdoors and they turned out good. The couple loved them and had some even done on canvas and used others on Christmas cards this year. My editing consisted of lighting and cropping and very minor touch up on a face pic here and I was done.

A month later the same couple goes with his family to a nice lake and his parents hired a well known lady to do a photo session. The pics were stunning, and not cheap I’m sure but the editing was so much it didn’t even look like the people I know. Skin was perfect in every way. In one pic she even changed the color of everyone’s shirt to the same color. As great as the pics looked it just wasn’t my style even if I was that great on PS.

I follow a Photographer on FB who post some incredible pics and ask once if he would post the original, straight from the camera pic of a certain picture but he wouldn’t for nothing. So what do you guys and gals do to your pics that your doing for others be it free or for money?

Fred Harwood Loc: Sheffield, Mass.

While I shoot for realism, I shoot raw and can adapt to the customers' preferences.......

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Well, if the people really did not look natural, then the processing may have been too much. I process skin/faces so people look like the THINK they look. The difference between untouched and retouched can subtle or more, but a definite improvement. I change clothing color all the time as there is always someone who arrives in a shirt that is so different form every else that he or she becomes the most noticeable person and that is not acceptable.

The real question is how the clients felt. If they loved it, then your opinion is just your opinion. If THEY felt the retouching and charges were wrong, then the photographer obviously went too far.

Now this just one person, but here is an example of how I retouch a portrait. There is no question it is the same person - the client and family loved it.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-502316-1.html

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I keep in minimal and only do what is needed from the raw file.
Crop
White balance
Exposure adjustment
Noise reduction
Sharpening.

I do not have paying "clients".

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Usually, less is more.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The level of editing depends on the end look wanted. It goes from barely visible to composites that have little to do with photography.

Seek what you 'feel' is right, not what on will dictate as 'acceptable or correct.

There is no set formula here.

My PP reflects the same philosophy: It depends.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

Thanks for the example, incredible pic, looks like something I’d see in a magazine. The family in my op loved both what I done and what the Pro done. I will say my work got more prints made if that counts for anything.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Ron is correct. I depends on the subject and the "look" you are going for. Here is a case of not much needed to get the look. Cleaned up the skin a bit, did some dodging and burning to give the face more dimension and color, added a bit of vignette to make the face the brightest part...done. Bottom image is SOOC.

whwiden

In black & white film, I aim to do nothing other than whatever adjustments are made by the Epson 750 scanner automatically. These jpeg files are used for web viewing and the occasional small print. Scanned at 1900 to 2000 dpi. For a negative I wish to print larger and frame, I take a picture of negative with a macro lens, create a Raw file, invert in lightroom and make adjustments as needed. Mostly the electronic version of dodging and burning.

For digital, I really try to get right in camera. I will increase the light in shadows, and tone down highlights in difficult lighting. However, I generally find that if a shot does not hold up well out of camera, post processing can make it better but almost never enough to change a printing decision. If it is not good enough to print ooc, post processing will not change that.

Resqu2 Loc: SW Va

Thanks, this is more what I like, the person doesn’t look all made up and the small changes you did made the pic. Great pic!

whwiden

Nice adjustments to a nice photo. Do you think you could have achieved a similar result out of the camera by making adjustments to the jpeg settings?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

My shooting techniques require processing. This is due either to using film or my preferred settings in my digital camera. I tend to limit my own work to normal darkroom procedures, burning and dodging. Although I can, at a client's insistence, create some extensively retouched photos, In some cases, I'll do additional manipulations to produce antique style photographs, collages, or OOB photos, as well.
--Bob

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

If you shoot RAW (and I do), it has to be processed. In fact, it is the point of shooting RAW.

PhotoKurtz Loc: Carterville, IL

If peeps want free pics I give them the originals on low res jpeg. Anything I edit goes to my website and is for sale.

Most people dont give a rip about quality unless they pay up front.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

Totally depends on the shot. Some of my images need next to nothing and look just the way I like, others need some love to get them to that place. In the end, I strive for believable, realistic images that reflect the scene as I experienced it.