I never consider source files straight out of the camera finished work. After the shoot, I spend in-studio time on each individual image to tweak and enhance the colors and character in them. When I'm in one of my pickier moods, sometimes it can even take up to a few hours on one photo to get the exact result I had envisioned. Isn't that insane?! Good Lawd, I need some helpers.
Some photographers are beginning to go in the route of outsourcing the post-processing part of their job. Maybe one day that will be an option for me, because I absolutely love shooting way more than editing. Right now I like having a lot more control over the entire process, beginning with shooting all the way to the end product.
Take a look!
Above is a set of images in various lighting situations (1. indoor, 2. sunset, 3. outdoor on cloudy day, 4. indoor reception lighting). :) The photos on the left are still technically sound, but even though it's necessary to understand lighting to optimize each photo in-camera, post-production/digital retouching is necessary to give the photos the estherjulee signature look and feel. ;)
We may start considering offering "shoot and burn" packages that consists of just photo coverage throughout the day with DVD of set number of source file images for folks who are not looking for artistic photos but just want the day documented. It may be a good alternative for brides on a budget, but will it bring the overall quality of our photography go down? Something to think about.
Are the prices of some wedding photographers too good to be true? Here's an interesting article that talks about shoot and burn weddings. Thoughts?
1 comment:
I wouldn't offer shoot and burn packages because I think more often than not people will try to do post-production themselves, only to find more problems than solutions and ultimately having to go back to the photographer.
Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment