Using Light room you can create a gallery to transmit to them ... I do this for paying clients
I include some edits to show options - but mostly unedited all shot (I just delete the closed eyes or whatever)

For TFCD models I chose any I like / think they might like and edit them and send large and  smaller finished / edited files  (I don't delete anything usually and I always offer to retouch more later if they want)

Clients images I will keep for a limited time only. I want them to see on computer ... but best is to bring them in and show on a large TV screen if I want to sell

It is so different when you work with businesses,  with their ad agencys.  It is so different when you work with professionals..

Depends on the client.  Some I choose and they're happy with that.  Some I do basic LR adjustments on them all and either they come for a viewing, or I send them an online gallery and they pick.  Some they're watching it live as I'm shooting on monitors, and they direct and adjust and pick as we go and take the files with them at the end of the shoot.

Anything from an iPad to a 42" TV.  Again, depends on the client, and what they need to see.

If they're paying me enough money, I'll show 'em whatever they want to see.

Not me. I'm fully against putting out unfinished work (I take probably an obscene amount of care in post processing, though.) That's just me. I save over my incomplete images with the completed image and call it a day. I delete anything that doesn't make the final cut.

edit: Oh, you said "enough" money. Sure, everyone has their price, even me! LOL

With business and commercial clients, you don't always have that option.

Some want to see the image as it comes in, and have their own post processing guys work on it to match their standard corporate look and feel.

To me, that's more money and less work.

Kaouthia wrote:

With business and commercial clients, you don't always have that option.

Some want to see the image as it comes in, and have their own post processing guys work on it to match their standard corporate look and feel.

To me, that's more money and less work.

Oh, I see. I often don't take that into consideration because I haven't envisioned corporate photography as a possibility for me (at least, not at this stage), but that makes sense.

Why don't you look up who Onofrio Paccione is.

http://www.adcglobal.org/archive/hof/1992/?id=219

And every photographer shoots some junk. If you claim you don't? You're lying.

Define "junk".

Any photo which you don't want to represent you and your work.

Okay.  I'll agree with that.

So why did you take the shot to begin with?

I know I'm sounding simplistic but it's true.  Sure, we all take shots that aren't exactly what you wanted but I wouldn't call them "junk".  And I'm not saying I don't take shots that I don't like.  If I'm testing or trying some new technique, I am sure I will take some shots that didn't work or I din't like.  That's fine.  That's why we test and learn.  But when there is a client in front of me, I'm not going to be trying something new and perhaps create "junk".  They pay me because I convinced them I was the best person for the job and I know what I'm doing. 

"Sorry Mr. Client.  During your portrait sitting we shot junk so we will have to do it again."  Why would you shoot junk with a paying client?  Your a pro because you know what your doing.  You know how to deliver the goods.  I seem to read that all the time on these forums. 

There is a HUGE difference between junk and shot that just needs some tweaking, or a turn of the head, or an eye blink or whatever.

Some folks would.

Different people have different levels of standard for "junk".

On a more personal note, some entire jobs I've done I've classed as "junk".

Decent enough images, not very challenging, clients loved 'em, they were absolutely over the moon with them, paid me, job done.  To me, they're junk.  They're not what I want to create, they're not what I want to put in my portfolio, they're not what I want to be known or hired for, but if somebody calls me up and says "can you do it?" and offers me enough money for it, sure, I'll do it.

I've had other shoots where I and everybody who's seen them has thought the images were awesome, except for the person paying for 'em.  They thought they were junk, because they didn't like how their nose looked, or their chin, or whatever other personal "defect" they've been obsessing over since they were in high school.

That may work if you're working with a model as the client. But 90% of the clients I've worked with attend the shoot and are viewing the images on a tethered laptop or monitor. They see everything I shoot and cull the images as they're shot. The client is part of the review and selection process.

At the end of the shoot I have a handful of images which are passed on for further review by others. When it's all said and done they've selected the final images and I either do the post or they have someone else do that.

I actually prefer that way because there's no wasted time predicting which images need further work and supplying images by trial-and-error. Just because I may think an image is the best doesn't mean it's the best for the client.

"cookie cutter place"?  Not sure what you mean.  I shoot tethered on location all the time.  Either via USB cable or WiFi grip to a laptop, or Eye-Fi to an iPad.  No problem.

Yes, things are going to need adjustments, and then the client's paying for the shots they want, they see the images as they come in and the adjustments are made to give them what they want.

Just because a shot comes through that they don't want doesn't mean it's a "bad image", it's just not the one they want.

That's fine that you do it that way. I don't only shoot models, either. Even for my families, engagements, and seniors I still choose the best ones and present them with a finished product for viewing. I take great care to make sure that I choose pictures that make the client look best, and then I further edit the pictures to make them look as perfect as possible (but still like an actual human being -- no poreless skin or CG eyes for me like a lot of family photogs). I've always been very picky with pictures of myself, so I have a little insight into what women (usually the female clients are the pickiest) will look for in a great finished product. So far, everyone has been thrilled (I'm aware that down the road someone might not be as happy as the clients I've had so far, but unless it's a special circumstance I'm not going to provide the unedited pics.)

And that makes perfect sense. And I should mention I wouldn't shoot that way with any client. If I was shooting Senior portraits or engagement shots, or even a model...I wouldn't want family there viewing the images as they're shot and commenting. I would perform the shoot, do my own selection process and provide a proof for their review.

But in a commercial setting with a creative and/or art director, marketing reps and others involved in the process it's very rare that I would be allowed the latitude to just shoot and provide them with what I like the best.

For example, they know the copy/text that is going to accompany the image and where it's going to be orientated on the page (layout). So they will make recommendations based on that so I can fine tune composition, lighting, focus, etc. That's invaluable information to get the shot they want and very often creatives are visual people and need to see the shots before they can comment on how things need to change.

Sure, some provide the info in a creative brief and just let you have free reign and don't even attend the shoot...and we all love those...but they are few and far between for me.