Veit Photo wrote:
If I send her the unretouched photos I'm concerned that they will be retouched by a random person and attributed to me. This final product may not be good and of course I have no control over this. But I'm actually not happy with her using the unretouched photos.

Which is how 99.9% of commercial projects go. Photographer takes the images and provides them to the client for retouching by a professional of their choosing (who is usually on-site and sits down with the client and make the changes right there).

You're the photographer. It's great you want the best possible results but that's not your call. The client decides what the best possible results is and it doesn't always align with what you think is the best. Your opinion of the final outcome isn't relevant.

Do what all sane professionals do. Give them what they need. Allow them to do their job. And walk away. If you have a problem with the font they use for the ad copy are you going to contest that too? Let it go.

LA StarShooter wrote:
If possible meet. Email communication in this case doesn't seem to make things easier. Swing by with the images on your labtop to sit down with the client so you can figure a better solution than handing over raw images. Good luck! Wow, that is a tough one.

Thanks. I'm hoping a phone call will help to diffuse the worst of it. We live a long way apart.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:

Which is how 99.9% of commercial projects go. Photographer takes the images and provides them to the client for retouching by a professional of their choosing (who is usually on-site and sits down with the client and make the changes right there).

You're the photographer. It's great you want the best possible results but that's not your call. The client decides what the best possible results is and it doesn't always align with what you think is the best. Your opinion of the final outcome isn't relevant.

Do what all sane professionals do. Give them what they need. Allow them to do their job. And walk away. If you have a problem with the font they use for the ad copy are you going to contest that too? Let it go.

Thanks. I see your point. I'm used to doing this when it's part of the deal. In this instance it wasn't, but I still think your advice is the way to go. It's the path of least resistance.

Creative Concept Studio wrote:
What was the intent of the session? Modeling port. artistic, corporate headshots? Client implies a paid gig - any agreement written or oral in place at the time of the shoot?

Actor headshots. No agreement - the listed product session includes six retouches but that's all is stated.

Veit Photo wrote:
If I send her the unretouched photos I'm concerned that they will be retouched by a random person...

They most certainly will be.

Veit Photo wrote:
...and attributed to me.

Strip all exif data.

Veit Photo wrote:
This final product may not be good...

Remains to be seen. It could also be better (for her taste, that is...)

Veit Photo wrote:
...and of course I have no control over this.

A control freak would freak out. Any image sent out there in the universe can be altered without your knowledge. If you have been paid handsomely, be happy.

Veit Photo wrote:
...But I'm actually not happy with her using the unretouched photos.

Tell the client THIS and sleep better.

.

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
Be happy that they're pleased enough with the images you provided that they feel they're worth being retouched by another professional.

That's a big assumption. They could as easily have them done by a complete amateur.

Giving up the originals gets me out of the retouch cycle but I doubt if it guarantees the client the best photos. It's a shame that the client doesn't have confidence in my abilities but that's everybody's right. Although I do have a good track record and the client chose me for that and for my portfolio. But my feeling is that I'd like to get out of this situation quick with the client getting what they want, even if it's an uninformed and unconsidered choice.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:

Tell the client THIS and sleep better.

.

Yeah, I have a bad feeling about this. I think it will be just the beginning.

Veit Photo wrote:

Actor headshots. No agreement - the listed product session includes six retouches but that's all is stated.

Actor headshots have a limited lifespan. The sooner you end this the better so you can move on to productive things. Make them happy and they will come back for new headshots in a couple of weeks. That may or may not be a good thing

Robert Helm wrote:

Actor headshots have a limited lifespan. The sooner you end this the better so you can move on to productive things. Make them happy and they will come back for new headshots in a couple of weeks. That may or may not be a good thing

Yeah, good point about lifespan. This is a client who is getting new ones because they have changed their hair colour. May be a very short lifespan!

Billy Bui photography wrote:
Have to becareful with all those monitor out there
Best if you have her come to your office and show her from your monitor or a print will do.

I show my works on my IPAD or IPHONE

I live in a big city. It's not always practical.
But on a side point, can you run any leading calibration software on either of those two devices? Otherwise how are they any more colour accurate?

Veit Photo wrote:
Actor headshots. No agreement - the listed product session includes six retouches but that's all is stated.

Your client =
Mirror mirror on the wall;
Who's the fairest of them all

---

Your client can not see themselves in the images as they really are / look and want the mirror fantasy instead. Been there, done that, got the headache!

---

Veit Photo wrote:
...and of course I have no control over this.

Of course you do. You can wield the "big stick" if you choose to. If you supply the originals without a clear limitation in a written license counter-signed by the client be prepared for the images to be butchered by Retouch-R-Us. If they just want a before-n-after comparison then give them a small copy of the originals and only that. For any more they should get a license that states** that you are fully prepared to invoke your moral right to object to any derogatory treatment of the images that YOU consider to be that. Moral rights must be asserted to be operable in the UK. Therefore something like this in the license:

[[[note **]]]
MORAL RIGHTS ASSERTED

"Author, Licensor, asserts all moral rights. Notwithstanding the exception provided in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s:81(2) [Exceptions to right; computer-generated work] Licensor asserts and Licensee agrees that any supplied unaltered photographic images made from the original iteration ["originals"] or as copies of those originals subsequently altered by the author by their own hand, even if such subsequent alteration or ultimate supply to the Licensee is by way of a computer generated machine readable file, are not computer generated works for purposes of s:81(2), and that, therefore, the provisions of s:80 [Right to object to derogatory treatment of work] shall apply to any such works."

= TO THE CLIENT: N.B. You may NOT make any alterations I might, or do, object to and consider to be a derogatory treatment of my work.

Studio36

Legacy UK Photography wrote:
Veit,

You've been given the best answer as in be happy you got the contract to shoot, then walk away. Yes actors images do have a short lifespan before new ones are needed. So keep them happy, do as they ask and hopefully they will be back for new works.

I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Troublesome clients go to the top of the list.

Legacy UK Photography wrote:
When we do contract work for alternative catalogues and designers the clients always want the Raw files from the studio shoots. Most have their own in house editors, sure many of the final results make us cringe, but they are happy they get what they want, we are happy we get paid and thus continues repeat business.

Best of luck!

This is a minuscule, and in all likelihood one-off, deal with some Numpty actor for some head shots. It's not a major contract with a publisher; or would I believe that Greg is making enough off it to be worth the grief, or would he suffer from the loss of the [a] client in a city with over 8 million inhabitants.

As it is, and from a slightly different point of view, he is being asked to supply the originals and those are what amount to unfinished work. Kind of like being asked to deliver a car that hasn't been washed, waxed or detailed with scuffed tyres and ciggie buts in the ash tray.

You have to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. Simples.

Studio36

RKD Photographic wrote:
OP:
Supply fully retouched (hi-res JPEG) images at (for example) £250 per image.
Supply RAW (unretouched 16-BIT TIFF) images, with limited licence and caveats listed above by Studio36UK for £2,500 per image.

See which the client prefers.

I have in the past supplied raw files to clients for third-party retouching, but the price reflects that.

Actually that's not the purpose of what I suggested. The UK copyright law, where computer-generated work is involved, creates an exception to a moral right but that exception is ambiguous. One can argue that a computer altered work is the same as a computer-generated work and thus the exception applies and the right to object to derogatory treatment can not be enforced. In a dispute that point would be subject to court interpretation. As almost every photograph is today processed to some degree electronically, and even in some cases automatically without human intervention, then the suggested wording for inclusion in the license [as I proposed above] creates a sort of legal fiction by contract that clarifies the ambiguity as to the understanding that exists between the licensor and licensee. The legal fiction is that though the work may indeed be computer-generated for purposes of the statute the parties are agreeing in advance that it is not. Paraphrasing the old Chinese idiom: everyone is pointing to a deer and agreeing that it's a horse. It is quite permissible to do such things in contracts and licenses as long as conflicts within the terms of legality and public policy are avoided.

As the UK statute is worded, broadly, even shooting on a digital camera wherein a computer program is operating within the camera's mechanism and the camera's operation as well as the image(s) created is controlled by such, then downloading the images to a computer, then processing and altering [e.g. retouching] the images through electronic means [e.g. Photoshop] and ultimately delivering the images in a machine readable form, virtually any image so created could arguably be claimed to be computer-generated in whole or in part in one finished copy or another, the license term merely eliminates the statutory exception argument from the onset.

Thereafter most of us would agree that certain changes manually or by happen-stance of use might result in some minor alteration - image size, slight shifts in colour rendering or colour depth, changing file formats, the demands of printing accurate reproductions to paper or to print published or display digital versions, and so forth, can and do occur in normal usage. These would not normally be objectionable or objected to. But, taking an image of "X" model and then seeing them, without let or leave, have some third party retoucher alter it to make them look like the Bride of Frankenstein would certainly be objectionable to most. We see enough comment here to KNOW with certainty that it happens.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

RKD Photographic wrote:
OP:
Supply fully retouched (hi-res JPEG) images at (for example) £250 per image.
Supply RAW (unretouched 16-BIT TIFF) images, with limited licence and caveats listed above by Studio36UK for £2,500 per image.

See which the client prefers.

I have in the past supplied raw files to clients for third-party retouching, but the price reflects that.

Actually that's not the purpose of what I suggested. The UK copyright law, where computer-generated work is involved, creates an exception to a moral right but that exception is ambiguous. One can argue that a computer altered work is the same as a computer-generated work and thus the exception applies and the right to object to derogatory treatment can not be enforced. In a dispute that point would be subject to court interpretation. As almost every photograph is today processed to some degree electronically, and even in some cases automatically without human intervention, then the suggested wording for inclusion in the license [as I proposed above] creates a sort of legal fiction by contract that clarifies the ambiguity as to the understanding that exists between the licensor and licensee. The legal fiction is that though the work may indeed be computer-generated for purposes of the statute the parties are agreeing in advance that it is not. Paraphrasing the old Chinese idiom: everyone is pointing to a deer and agreeing that it's a horse. It is quite permissible to do such things in contracts and licenses as long as conflicts within the terms of legality and public policy are avoided.

As the UK statute is worded, broadly, even shooting on a digital camera wherein a computer program is operating within the camera's mechanism and the camera's operation as well as the image(s) created is controlled by such, then downloading the images to a computer, then processing and altering [e.g. retouching] the images through electronic means [e.g. Photoshop] and ultimately delivering the images in a machine readable form, virtually any image so created could arguably be claimed to be computer-generated in whole or in part in one finished copy or another, the license term merely eliminates the statutory exception argument from the onset.

Thereafter most of us would agree that certain changes manually or by happen-stance of use might result in some minor alteration - image size, slight shifts in colour rendering or colour depth, changing file formats, the demands of printing accurate reproductions to paper or to print published or display digital versions, and so forth, can and do occur in normal usage. These would not normally be objectionable or objected to. But, taking an image of "X" model and then seeing them, without let or leave, have some third party retoucher alter it to make them look like the Bride of Frankenstein would certainly be objectionable to most. We see enough comment here to KNOW with certainty that it happens.

Studio36

While I think this is a useful contribution to the discussion, you have to bear in mind the impact of 'getting legal' when talking about a small number of photos with a small audience and a relatively small fee.
In the past I've been confronted with relatively complex contracts for minor work including, believe it or not, for a test shoot. When the contract is too complex to understand in a reasonable amount of time and is written in a way that only a lawyer can understand, then I have other projects that I would rather work on.
I wouldn't be surprised if a client found it a strange move on my behalf.
It's like when you buy a £20 piece of software and the T&Cs take an hour to read. Does anyone bother?

Veit Photo wrote:
I'm having trouble deciding the right thing to do in the following situation. I am used to complicated dealings with clients but this one I don't feel comfortable with at all.

I shot some headshots for a client.

The client didn't like the way photos looked claiming they were too contrasty and had the hair colour wrong.

The photos looked good on my calibrated monitor so I wrote back asking if the client would look at the photos on another monitor to get a more objective view.

The client emailed back making no reference to my request but insisting again that I lighten the photos and change the hair colour because it's important for their career to have photos that are a good likeness.

I made the corrections.

The client emailed back saying that the photos were much better but the cheek shadows were too dark in a couple and could I reduce those. For reference the client sent me a jpg from a recent 'natural light' shoot which was out of focus and with odd white balance. At the end of the email the client also asked for the original unretouched photos along with the retouched ones. This rang some alarm bells for me.

I dodged the cheek shadows and sent the images back.
In the next email the client made no reference to my most recent changes but straight away asked for the originals claiming that they much preferred the originals to the retouch (which did not include extensive cloning of hair to close gaps in the finge etc etc). Side note - I assume the client at this point had no way to compare the two because each new version replaced the old in a web gallery.

I'm not posting pictures because this is an issue of customer service more rather than image quality but my feeling is that these are among the highest standard of images that I have done, and I have quite a bit of experience.

However I'm confused about what to do next.
Obviously I'm annoyed that this person has not taken my advice and has thought little of giving me additional work only to ask for the original photos.

If I send her the unretouched photos I'm concerned that they will be retouched by a random person and attributed to me. This final product may not be good and of course I have no control over this. But I'm actually not happy with her using the unretouched photos.

If I don't send her the photos I'm worried about the reputation risk, although I doubt if she will recommend me anyway.

The next step is to phone the client during office hours to discuss but I'm mulling over my position first. Any thoughts?

Define original unretouched photos.

Put the RAWs into the OEM software, convert to the largest JPEGs and send those.

Your client is not happy with what you're sending. The only way they're going to be happy is if they get something they can have altered they way they want.

Michael Fryd wrote:
Be careful.

If you give the client what they want (the un-retouched image) you run the risk of having a happy client.  You may find that the client tells other people what a good photographer you are.

Remember, a client's opinion of you is primarily based on how they interact with you.  The quality of your work is secondary.

If your goal is to run a successful business, your concern should be making the client happy.

If your goal is to be a starving artist, then by all means never allow anyone else to alter, crop, retouch, or even make prints from your art.

+1

twoharts wrote:
at some point i think you have to let the client play art director and sit with you while you make the changes.

i've had clients reject my retouching before and request straight out of the camera images which is fine, although odd since i didn't do heavy retouching. i want them to be happy.

color is a really tricky thing. hair can look different in different kinds of light and to different cameras, monitors, etc.

sometimes i think they just want to look like "themselves"

This is a really good idea.

The exception would be if there's some other agenda going on, like really wanting someone Elise to do the post.

It's also possible to have passed their limits and it's too late to offer this, but if it's just and issue of taste/communication, this is the solution.

studio36uk wrote:
As the UK statute is worded, broadly, even shooting on a digital camera wherein a computer program is operating within the camera's mechanism and the camera's operation as well as the image(s) created is controlled by such, then downloading the images to a computer, then processing and altering [e.g. retouching] the images through electronic means [e.g. Photoshop] and ultimately delivering the images in a machine readable form, virtually any image so created could arguably be claimed to be computer-generated in whole or in part in one finished copy or another, the license term merely eliminates the statutory exception argument from the onset.

Thereafter most of us would agree that certain changes manually or by happen-stance of use might result in some minor alteration - image size, slight shifts in colour rendering or colour depth, changing file formats, the demands of printing accurate reproductions to paper or to print published or display digital versions, and so forth, can and do occur in normal usage. These would not normally be objectionable or objected to. But, taking an image of "X" model and then seeing them, without let or leave, have some third party retoucher alter it to make them look like the Bride of Frankenstein would certainly be objectionable to most. We see enough comment here to KNOW with certainty that it happens.

Studio36

Veit Photo wrote:
While I think this is a useful contribution to the discussion, you have to bear in mind the impact of 'getting legal' when talking about a small number of photos with a small audience and a relatively small fee.
In the past I've been confronted with relatively complex contracts for minor work including, believe it or not, for a test shoot. When the contract is too complex to understand in a reasonable amount of time and is written in a way that only a lawyer can understand, then I have other projects that I would rather work on.
I wouldn't be surprised if a client found it a strange move on my behalf.
It's like when you buy a £20 piece of software and the T&Cs take an hour to read. Does anyone bother?

I agree, this isn't about the law, this is about customer service.

Veit Photo wrote:
I'm not posting pictures because this is an issue of customer service more rather than image quality but my feeling is that these are among the highest standard of images that I have done, and I have quite a bit of experience.

What EXACTLY was the original agreement? Did I miss that?

Adhere to your original agreement, and either provide "originals" as a "perk" to make them happy (future business), or negotiate a "new" deal with a price that reflects that.

Simple choice. No lawyers required. (yet).

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I agree, this isn't about the law, this is about customer service.

Customer service, however, should and sometimes must come with a stout string or three attached. A license suitable to the needs of both the copyright owner and the customer is the case in point.

Customer service with respect of an insurance policy; or a vacation booking; or a  medical plan; or booking a cruise [as we have seen in just the last few days the kinds of exclusionary, conditional, and liability limiting contracts they are using] certainly comes with a lot of fine print. Customer service, in that it provides both certainty and appropriate protection to both parties in the licensing aspect should be no different for photographers.

If the customer fails to read or understand what they are agreeing to and signing that's their tough luck. That's no reason at all for the provider of the service to have to go walking barefoot on a bed of hot legal coals.

In it's most basic form this discussion should be about running a business like a business. Customer service is certainly part of it but not the only part that needs careful consideration, adequate preparation and a paper trail.

Studio36

GPS Studio Services wrote:
I agree, this isn't about the law, this is about customer service.

studio36uk wrote:
Customer service, however, should and sometimes must come with a stout string or three attached. A license suitable to the needs of both the copyright owner and the customer is the case in point.

Customer service with respect of an insurance policy; or a vacation booking; or a  medical plan; or booking a cruise [as we have seen in just the last few days the kinds of exclusionary, conditional, and liability limiting contracts they are using] certainly comes with a lot of fine print. Customer service, in that it provides both certainty and appropriate protection to both parties in the licensing aspect should be no different for photographers.

If the customer fails to read or understand what they are agreeing to and signing that's their tough luck. That's no reason at all for the provider of the service to have to go walking barefoot on a bed of hot legal coals.

In it's most basic form this discussion should be about running a business like a business. Customer service is certainly part of it but not the only part that needs careful consideration, adequate preparation and a paper trail.

Studio36

Fair enough, but for a headshot client, I would rather let them edit the image themself, if that would make them happy, than have them unhappy.

GPS Studio Services wrote:
Fair enough, but for a headshot client, I would rather let them edit the image themself, if that would make them happy, than have them unhappy.

+1





Andrew Thomas Evans
www.andrewthomasevans.com

Veit Photo wrote:

Actor headshots. No agreement - the listed product session includes six retouches but that's all is stated.

I guess it depends on how much they were paying (we're assuming it's a paid not TFCD gig), and it depends what assurances you included in your agreement with them. For a small shoot like this where the intent is for you to provide finished edits, I don't see any compulsion to hand over originals just because they don't like your edits.

Even my TFCD agreements state that and also state the re-editing is at the photographer's discretion. Otherwise you may be editing and re-editing forever.

Mask Photo wrote:
Just turn off all your adjustment layers and give them the out-of-camera "cleaned up" version. Maybe with a *gentle* s-curve or local contrast boost (unsharp mask with low amount and high radius: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutor … ment.shtml )

I don't see any need to dodge and burn an actor headshot. Just color-correct, blast the zits and stray hairs, and send it on.

^^ If they paid you for your services, it should be this. Any extra creative editing/retouching short of the norm clean up and color correction should be an additional service. If you get images clean in camera to begin with, it will also save you a lot of work and headaches in post later. Also, any paying client that I work with gets a digital contact sheet even before I start to clean up images to choose the images they want me to work on. I tell them I do basic clean ups, and if they want to hire me to fully creatively retouch or hire another retoucher that is on them.  Sounds to me like you are putting a lot of extra work into things for nothing when you could have a satisfied client that will potentially come back to you to pay you to shoot more head shots in the future. If they are paying, then you are creating their image. If they are not paying and it is TF*, you are creating your image generally. Personally I would send them high res .jpg images for what they paid for and ask them to keep your name off of the images unless you dig the other retouchers job and want to be identified as the photographer, and move on. good luck