|
Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/05/2012 10:42:59 AM · #1 |
Thanks for the breakdowns,  willop and  Devinder. I find this very interesting. |
|
|
|
09/05/2012 09:43:03 AM · #2 |
One day I want to sit with those folks that claim to cull thousands of images per hour or the like. I don't see how it's possible.
I DL from the card - what, 2 minutes? As skip says, you punch 'go' and go do something else. That's one of the benefits of automation - you don't have to watch it do it's thing.
Import into LR, select all, 1 star, set to show 1 star and then i go thru editing/culling as i go. 0 star is a cull. 2 star is a gallery image. 5 (red) means it needs PS work of a major nature (cloning mostly).
I can do 100-150 images per hour in and get 30-50% of those as proofs ready to show the client. The more I leave in the less time it takes of course.
Backup is mostly automated - again, punch a button and walk away.
I don't keyword, my copyright is automagically added.
A typical wedding is 7.5 hours, results in about 1000 images, takes me about 5 1/2 hours from import to proofs posted on line.
A typical baby studio shoot is 75 minutes and editing takes 45
A typical senior shoot is also 75 minutes and editing takes about an hour 15 with the slideshow ready for the proofing session. Seniors get more editing, more effects, some retouching so take longer. But then they spend 4X what babys spend.
Coming from an auto technician background i timed everything and it's figured in my time and therefore my prices. A wedding for example:
phone call (.2 hr), meeting (1.0), paperwork/bank deposit (.3 hr), pre=wedding phone call for final details/timing (.5), prep for the wedding (batt charge, card erase, etc .3), load car, drive, shoot, drive home, unload car (8.5 but depends on wedding, where, etc but 8.5 is what's in the pricing), 5 hours edit, .5 upload/call bride/burn disk, .3 delivery chat when she picks up. This is for every wedding -the basic shoot/burn steps needed. If they buy wall port, albums, etc then that's more time but more money and i have figures for all of that too. I think that adds up to 16.6 hours, give or take. Some take longer, some less.
For a typical senior shoot - .2 phone/appt, 1.5 for session (me getting the camera/studio ready, clean up after included), 1.5 edit allowance, 1.5 sales session allowance, 1.2 edit/order, .7 for getting in the order and sorting, packaing for delivery, framing. .3 for notification and delivery presentation. Depends on the specific package they order of course, but this is typical for all orders short of ones with albums. 6.9 hours. I think few people have a handle on how many hours go into a portrait session w/ order. I have an assistant that does the sales/framing/packaging (about 2.2 hours of the 6.9) or I'd never handle the busy season.
When you figure there are about 1200 hours a year (full time) you can actually work on client stuff (the rest is overhead time- marketing, bookkeeping, cleaning, shopping, education, backups, planning, budgeting, etc) and 25% goes to product (in a typical portrait/wedding studio that does prints/albums), 30% goes to taxes, so you get to keep less than 50% in your pocket. And the odds of you booking ALL 1200 hours is unlikely, perhaps you can book 800 of them.
If you want to make $40k a year based on that 800 'client' hours then you need to charge $110 for every hour.
So that 17 hour wedding effort means your min charge should be about $1850. Your senior session (at 7 hours say) means you need to average $700 per senior. More money on either is profit, or means you need less sessions.
800 hours means, at 17 per, you need 47 weddings. Good luck with that. Or 116 seniors. or some combination of both.
Can you do $250 senior averages? Sure. But you need to spend a whole lot less time than 7 hours and you need a lot more seniors. If you shoot/edit/burn and hand over the disk maybe $250 works on a per hour basis. Maybe you can get the appt/session/edit/burn to 3 hours. No product costs to speak of so you can 'charge' less per hour. But you'll need 267 seniors to do this. And most places senior 'season' lasts maybe 10 weeks...can you shoot/edit/deliver 27 senior sessions a week? |
|
|
|
09/02/2012 05:58:59 PM · #3 |
This thread is old, but i can chime in.
I m an amateur. I get some work, but photography is not my main bread and butter yet. I have been slow to transition from absolutely no commercial work to a small amounts of it. Despite what a whole lot of people say, my equipment (including software) has made me much, much faster at the job. In my old setup, transfer and initial conversion was all manual and slow due to limitations of usb2.0+processing capability and lack of a properly setup Lightroom. It took hours and it was frustrating.
While i still can't afford a nice Xeon MacPro with all the Bells and Whistles, I can now afford a motherboard with 3.0usb, a drive that compatible, along with an i7 2600k processor and 4 gigz of videocard power. One may argue that a non-pro card won't do much in terms of speed boost for Photog applications, but the system now churns out what used to take 30-50 minutes in about 3 minutes. Since, i took the time to setup LR properly for most camera settings, my step one work (lens/NR/fringes) is taken care of for me.
My step 2 is culling. I want to say 20-40 minutes for a 500-700 pictures shoot.
Step 3, broad stroke adjustments if its an event - a second round of culling if its fashion/glamour work.
Step4is send proofs for the heavy adjustment stuff, work on the images i really like while i wait or do something else. Heavy PS work after proofs are back - time on this can really really vary depending on the type of job. Backing everything and prepping it for print/web/secondary retouchers is usually pretty simple through LR. 5 minutes? maybe 10 if i really have to think about it?
Save stuff for my port+backup is a quick process and then while it does that (very very quickly), i head out - come back to make sure no errors happen and voila. done. |
|
|
|
03/11/2012 06:02:41 PM · #4 |
Hi, I just found this. A faster workflow is a helpful goal to strive for and improve upon. I would assume this survey is just for "General" Portraiture, Event, or other Photography. Editing to the "Proofs" level.
If you know the photo-session is going to get you more "exposure" to large group of possible customers, you may spend more time.
Lightroom really does speed things up. Other things to consider is the amount of "nitpicking" you do, which may-or-may-Not be needed. Editing for a "Contest" and/or Large Print sizes, add to editing time. Using it to showcase your best, in technique or creativity, adds time. Some top Ribbon-hogs on dpc spend 8-Hrs or even more on editing composites.
You can't make every picture a work of art, but with Presets, Saved Settings, Copy-Paste in LR, you can come closer. I use Nik Software as a plug in for Lightroom-and-PS-CS5, and may need to go to Photoshop to do layers or fix-complexion adjust details even further. Adding f/x and calling up Plug-ins take more time. |
|
|
|
08/04/2011 07:48:14 AM · #5 |
after 53 response (Thank you very much!!), here are the final numbers:
about 55% of the respondents consider themselves non-amateur
the type of shooting done is spread fairly evenly, with the exception of "other" having a lot of responses (i'm going out on a limb and guessing that "other" probably includes stuff like fine art, landscape, stock, food, and travel).
for every hour shooting, it seems that most photographers spend their computer time as follows:importing 19 minutes
captioning 9 minutes
rejecting 32 minutes
editing 81 minutes
packaging 40 minutes
archiving 25 minutes to reiterate my earlier comments (bolding the slight changes)
Originally posted by skip:
totaled up, that's about 3.5 hours of computer time for ever hour shooting!
for an amateur, that's fine.
for a pro, of any stripe, that's ton of time. the big question is, are you accounting for it in your pricing?
the next question is (as some of you have already stated), what are you doing to streamline your workflow?
[ without paying for a pro surveymonkey account, i can't get much more scientific than this ;-) ]
i'll venture that some numbers are lower because amateurs are not going to have the same demands as non-amateurs, and that (possibly) some numbers are higher because amateurs do not necessarily have the same incentive to get some things done more quickly.
if i were to 'guess' at which responses were non-amateurs, i would guestimate that a conservative total computer time would be about 2.6 hours for every hour shooting. |
===============================================================
for those of you that consider yourself non-amateur, how do you feel about those total numbers? are they close to what you think you put in for each hour shooting?
---------------------------------------------------------------
for those of you that picked 'Other' to describe the type of shooting you do, feel free to elaborate either posting here or by shooting me a pm (thanks!)
---------------------------------------------------------------
just a few comments
Importing. Yes, the is an automated process and of course the time spent is largely dependent on the number of images you import. All the same, you need to have a workflow that takes this time into consideration (call it 'planned multi-tasking').
Captioning. I guess this is a bit of a misnomer from the standpoint that not everyone captions their images as if the images were being submitted for editorial publication. However, everyone should be making sure all the relevant IPTC fields, especially the copyright fields, are filled in. I would encourage everyone to not only complete their copyright notice, but also to put copyright information in the 'description' field. Many online gallery systems (such as Facebook) will display this.
Rejecting. Again, don't be thrown off by the word. It does take time to go through and weed out the rejects, to rate the keepers, and to select the ones you want to deliver. I use Lightroom and even though it makes the process very quick, it still takes time. I make a pass to separate my keeps from my kills, then make a pass to bump up the ones I'd put in a gallery, then make a pass to pick my best 10-15, and then finally a pass to pick my favorite. Sometimes it might not take full passes (such as when I immediately recognize the standout images), but most times it does take a few passes - especially if the images are from an event that produces 500 - 1500 images.
Editing. This is another place where Lightroom greatly enhances the process, especially with the use of presets. However, I still make as quick a pass as I can to eye-ball each image to make sure the basic toning is correct and to see if a custom-crop is needed. Not that big a deal for 20 images, but time-consuming for 200.
Packaging. Lightroom handles the heavy lifting here, as well, especially through presets. I have defined presets for making web-ready images, optimized animoto-sized images, PJ submissions, print-ready images, and more. Even though the process is automated, it does take a fair amount of resources - and that means I have to have something else to do while my workstation is tied up. While image production takes the bulk of the time, 'packaging' also includes not just burning a CD or DVD, but also creating and producing a label, preparing a shipping label, preparing a bill of goods, preparing an invoice, as well as anything else you need to put in the box or envelope.
Also, packaging includes the time it takes to create your online galleries, whether in a hosted sales system, a photo-blog entry, or both, as well as if you are transmitting images to a client via email or ftp.
Archiving. Of course this is automated, but it still takes time, and depending on your system and workflow, you may still have to put some time into it. I build catalogs on my laptop that also require archiving. My primary backup is a Netgear ReadyNAS. For me, this means that once I'm done working with the local files, I have to break the catalog links with the local files and redirect them to the networked files (this way I can copy the catalog to other workstations and still be able to access the files). Time-intensive, yes, but worth it in the long run (your mileage may vary).
With thought, planning, and practice, you can shave time off as well as make yourself more efficient by multi-tasking. However, if you don't take these things into consideration (especially when it comes to setting your rates), you can easily be working yourself to death without much compensation to show for it.
---------------------------------------------------------------
thanks again to everyone who participated! |
|
|
|
08/03/2011 12:15:12 PM · #6 |
I just plug the card reader in, and hit "auto". Come back in 15 minutes, pix are all sorted, selected, edited, filed, archived, and the printer is spitting out 16X20's of the great ones. Love my Mac.
Just kiddin'. : )
|
|
|
|
08/03/2011 11:58:37 AM · #7 |
I generally import and select a few for immediate editing. However, I tend to go back to a library over and over as I learn new editing techniques to see what I can create. My ratings change over time as I use that as a selection tool for the current project.
Toss, you mean I have to toss something? Don't trash it, it might be useful is my current motto as I tend to play in PS with unconventional uses for conventional tools.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2011 11:49:58 AM · #8 |
Just responded, but had a couple of comments to toss in as well.
Importing takes time, but I'm always doing something else during that time so I don't count it as time against a project or that I would charge to the client. If may take 10-15 minutes to import and 8GB card and generate previews (using Aperture), but it only took me 1 minute to drop the card in the reader and then everything else is automate.
Archive is the same type of process. Click a button and do something else while the images are moved from my library to an external drive as referenced images. |
|
|
|
08/03/2011 08:57:41 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Skip:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Holy moly, those are *huge* numbers! |
LOL, i totally understand where you're coming, fritz ;-) btw, in addition to posting your numbers here, did you do the online survey? |
Yep, I did, Skip!
|
|
|
|
08/03/2011 08:45:37 AM · #10 |
I did it also, not even sure what IPTC is...
But I'm a hack, a professional hack, but a hack none the less.... |
|
|
|
08/03/2011 08:43:09 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Holy moly, those are *huge* numbers! |
LOL, i totally understand where you're coming, fritz ;-) btw, in addition to posting your numbers here, did you do the online survey? |
|
|
|
08/03/2011 07:39:44 AM · #12 |
Holy moly, those are *huge* numbers!
Importing: a few hundred shots, cripes, 5 minutes max! Including keywording.
Captioning: for me, near-zero. but in some cases I can see this taking 9 minutes. Still if it does, I think this is a lot of time ofr this task.
Rejecting: really? 33 minutes to mull over which shots to keep? Usually, for me it is pretty obvious, And I don't physically delete most of my rejects, just the worst of the worst (badly missed focus, etc.). The rest stay there, with a low rating.
Editing: there was a time when I could see this. But I do the vast majority of my work in Lr, and I will spend no more than 30 minutes per hour of shooting, often much less.
Packaging: This should be mostly automated, unless you are creating a custom book or other special packaging
Archiving: near-zero. Period. This should be automatic. |
|
|
|
08/03/2011 06:23:01 AM · #13 |
really appreciate the input! thanks!
at this point, with 40 responses, just over half of the respondents consider themselves non-amateur
the type of shooting done is spread fairly evenly, with the exception of "other" having a lot of responses (i'm going out on a limb and guessing that "other" probably includes stuff like fine art, landscape, stock, food, and travel).
for every hour shooting, it seems that most photographers spend their computer time as follows:importing 20 minutes
captioning 9 minutes
rejecting 33 minutes
editing 86 minutes
packaging 45 minutes
archiving 25 minutes to reiterate my earlier comments (bolding the slight changes)
Originally posted by skip:
totaled up, that's about 3.6 hours of computer time for ever hour shooting!
for an amateur, that's fine.
for a pro, of any stripe, that's ton of time. the big question is, are you accounting for it in your pricing?
the next question is (as some of you have already stated), what are you doing to streamline your workflow?
[ without paying for a pro surveymonkey account, i can't get much more scientific than this ;-) ]
i'll venture that some numbers are lower because amateurs are not going to have the same demands as non-amateurs, and that (possibly) some numbers are higher because amateurs do not necessarily have the same incentive to get some things done more quickly.
if i were to 'guess' at which responses were non-amateurs, i would guestimate that a conservative total computer time would be about 3.1 hours for every hour shooting. |
===============================================================
for those of you that consider yourself non-amateur, how do you feel about those total numbers? are they close to what you think you put in for each hour shooting?
---------------------------------------------------------------
additional responses welcome!
|
|
|
|
08/02/2011 11:46:46 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 11:43:29 PM · #15 |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 10:38:08 PM · #16 |
On the workflow..... Maybe what I do with backups can add some value to someone (or maybe not) - I use LightRoom right now - almost exclusively...
* The Backup (NOT archive), I have all automated into 2 layers.
- I mirror the main drives (using personal backup) to some eSATA drives.
- I created a "smart" collection in LR that grabs anything with stars (I star the good ones and flag the working set).
- That smart (semi-dumb) coll kicks out DNG files to a location seen by carbonite, which backups up to the cloud.
- That is as slow as crap but worth it for the critical files. Do NOT use carbonite as the cripple the upload speed :-(
* Archiving - I got nothing and am open to ideas. I don't know anyone else has a great idea I have seen either, so keeping it all on spinning drives at this point... apart from maybe the place that burns digital files back to film and stores in the old salt mines :-) Not real cost effective though. |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 10:14:55 PM · #17 |
next to nothing, since the place I submit my work to does not allow editting. Must be right off the camera. Did da sorbey.
Message edited by author 2011-08-02 22:17:43. |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 08:27:49 PM · #18 |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 08:20:23 PM · #19 |
out of just over 25 responses (thank you, very much!), about 60% of the respondents consider themselves non-amateur
the type of shooting done is spread fairly evenly, with the exception of "other" having a lot of responses (i'm going out on a limb and guessing that "other" probably includes stuff like fine art, landscape, stock, food, and travel - some of which i would probably classify as 'commercial').
for every hour shooting, it seems that most photographers spend their computer time as follows:
importing 21 minutes
captioning 10 minutes
selecting 31 minutes
processing 88 minutes
packaging 39 minutes
archiving 27 minutes
totaled up, that's about 3.5 hours of computer time for ever hour shooting!
for an amateur, that's fine.
for a pro, of any stripe, that's ton of time. the big question is, are you accounting for it in your pricing?
the next question is (as some of you have already stated), what are you doing to streamline your workflow?
[ without paying for a pro surveymonkey account, i can't get much more scientific than this ;-) ]
i'll venture that some numbers are lower because amateurs are not going to have the same demands as non-amateurs, and that (possibly) some numbers are higher because amateurs do not necessarily have the same incentive to get some things done more quickly.
if i were to 'guess' at which responses were non-amateurs, i would guestimate that a conservative total computer time would be about 2.15 hours for every hour shooting.
----------------------------------------------------------
more responses are welcome!
Message edited by author 2011-08-02 20:21:34. |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 07:35:17 PM · #20 |
| Took it! Well put together. |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 07:28:40 PM · #21 |
Completed.
I need to:
- be more ruthless and reject more images during the initial pass, quickly.
- be more consistent with redundant backups and archiving.
- improve at "getting it right in camera" more consistently.
- spend less time tweaking and retweaking...and reretweaking.
- create more custom Lightroom and Photoshop actions/templates, since I usually use similar settings in many images (seems like a no brainer).
Overall, my workflow has improved dramatically over the last year...but there is definitely room for improvement. |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 07:14:53 PM · #22 |
|
|
|
08/02/2011 07:13:20 PM · #23 |
Hi Skip. Just completed the survey. Its funny, if you'd asked me those same questions a few years ago, my answers would have been much different. Now, with experience and the right software, my digital darkroom time is greatly reduced. I get the images as "right, straight from the camera" as possible and with the right workflow everything runs more quickly.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2011 06:54:22 PM · #24 |
3)
are you satisfied with your current workflow practices/time relationship:
no. Ideally, I'd like to become more processing efficient, especially in areas of color /spot editing.
-- I find that I tend to push off the workflow and organizing until I need to do it. I've been in the process of sorting and archiving ~12k photos, and with that I'm adding more (mostly) every day. I'm finding it difficult to keyword, rate, rename, edit and print any of my current stuff because I'm still about a year behind in my processing. As I don't make my living with processing and deliverables, it's okay that it's more of a long term thing.
|
|
|
|
08/02/2011 06:48:19 PM · #25 |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:07:08 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 12:07:08 AM EDT.
|
