This says it all...

P

philwillmedia

Messages
463
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
No
484572_468252883198930_387519_n.jpg


Nothing left to say...
 
If you are spending 10-30mins editing each photo you are doing something seriously wrong to start with.
 
But while this is all well and good.
Its the path that professionals chose and continue to choose. No one forced them into it!
Same as my job, i knew full well that i would be saying goodbye to my social life by becoming a chef and while i love my job it has destroyed my social life. But i don't ram it in peoples faces
I never understand these quirky little posters people make, post and re post around the net. Its just peoples jobs and careers, of course the general ignorant won't understand what sacrifices we make so they can receive, and neither do they care
 
Last edited:
crofter said:
Believe what you like but I haven't got a box of cash under my bed, at the moment I'm wondering how I'll be able to buy fuel for the winter.
Click to expand...

I haven't got a box of cash either. However, it is clearly harder to 'avoid' taxes when PAYE that when self employed. What you earn or do with regards to tax has no bearing on what many others do...
 
Just sounds like every other self employed person

When they say you can make up your own hours and work when you want, if you do that you might as well close the doors, you need to put the effort and passion in
 
Getting a bit board of all this 'hard done by photographer' nonsense, no one made you do the job.

And as for 10 - 30 mins editing per image, well you're clearly not a photographer!
 
All that time and effort and they can't spell equipment
 
treeman said:
Getting a bit board of all this 'hard done by photographer' nonsense, no one made you do the job.

And as for 10 - 30 mins editing per image, well you're clearly not a photographer!
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters how long you spend processing an image. Taking a bit longer does NOT make you NOT a photographer, don't be so ignorant. YOu're clearly not a photographer is you feel the editing process is a major part of it. It's what you do in camera that should count most.

It's just a meme, people need to just take these things with a fistful of salt.
 
ernesto said:
It matters if photography is your job...
Click to expand...

Now that all depends on WHAT kind of photography you do.;)

Would I expect to spend 30 mins editing a portrait for a customer to hang on their wall in a Barratt estate in Leeds- Nope.

Would I expect to spend 30 mins editing a sports photo for the local evening paper - Nope.

Would I expect to spend 30 mins editing a portrait of a hollywood superstar for the cover of Vogue - Yep, at least.

Would I expect to spend 30 mins editing a landscape for a limited edition calendar - Yep, at least.

Which just underlines that old rule about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.;)

The OP is largely tosh and I'm getting a bit bored of the pro / amateur debates here, but the underlying truth is that there's more to pro photography than the bit behind the camera - which is often overlooked by those who think photographers charge too much, and those photographers who think 'getting it right in camera' even makes sense as a phrase.:nuts:
Which of course - it doesn't. Because 'right' is a relative term.
 
Last edited:
Don't disagree. All I am pointing out is that it matters. If the 30 minutes is justified then good, if it isn't and just needs 1 minute then good but it is still time and therefore money and therefore matters.
If 80% of a photographers time is taken editing images then a large opportunity exists to improve on that and make their business more efficient.

On the flipside, if it is not your job then it doesn't matter and time spend enjoying editing is part of the hobby.
 
Last edited:
ernesto said:
If 80% of a photographers time is taken editing images then a large opportunity exists to improve on that and make their business more efficient.
Click to expand...


The large opportunity exists for professional retouchers.

Copied from another forum:


wrote:
I was having a discussion with a colleague of mine about airbrushing.

To cut along story short we differed on the amount of time a retoucher/photographer would spend airbrushing a photograph for a magazine.

My opinion is that other then the usual editing that takes place the true extent of airbrushing is not that significant except for certain celebrities.

It's one thing to soften some skin, remove pimples ect but to spend hours on a single photo in today's economic climate it's kinda idiotic.
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
1- It's not called Airbrushing... We are not in the 80's anymore.

2- All my work goes to magazines or advertising so I don't have to guess I can tell you - Time can go from 2 hour to 10 hours an image - Depending if t's fashion or beauty, the kind of magazine, deadlines, amount of images, budget, etc.

3-

'It's one thing to soften some skin, remove pimples ect but to spend hours on a single photo in today's economic climate it's kinda idiotic'

I spend hours on a single image because that's industry standard.
Photographers in the REAL INDUSTRY work with a team - Very few published photographers do it themselves.

About the "idiotic" part... I'll let you think about it.
Click to expand...

Linkto thread: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=838822
 
Good info. Have to admit I had no idea that a single image would have 10 hours of work done on it.
But then if people are getting paid/charge accordingly whose to say they couldn't actually do it quicker if it was their own money...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top