A good stills shooter will require 2-8 hours of post processing work only (1,000-1,500 pictures). In our case, we can even let the images stand as they are as they are basically good out of the camera. No postprocessing needed. But Post processing in our case is to enhance the image, not to correct mistakes. On avg, it requires 2-3 hours only. With video, you have no choice but to edit, even if you belong to the edit-as-you-shoot school of video. And even the stingiest editing will require 15-20 hours or so for a 4-5 hour raw footage.
If your spending roughly 2-3 hours in total to edit a whole batch of photos, I would strongly question the quality your providing unless your providing a purely journalistic style.
- Yes. I am using a PJ style, and that is something we are good at. But please don't assume that just because we spend 2-3 hours on PP we provide poor quality. You cannot conclude on that simply by time. What if I were to say you do sloppy work because you spend 25 hours on PP? I don't think that is a valid conclusion.
For anything slightly more creative, that amount of editing really won't get you very far. Your website doesn't seem to be attached to your username so I guess we can't see what you provide after 2-3 hours of editing, but I would really enjoy seeing that.
- Actually it does get us far. The trick is to get the shot "right" the first time. And that is not something new. That's old technology. I have met old timers using film and they get the exposure about 90-98% right without today's LCD, histogram, LCD review, etc. But the technology resides in the person, not in the gadgets. This is why, I am stickler for the stills side of things. The challenge is in the shoot itself, not in the post processing (unless you edit for the coffee book type of album).
- I'm sorry if we don't have a web site. I used to have one, but it closed shop (the host). I keep putting off my web site for a new and revamped one, even if my former student from CS at the university where I used to teach will do it for free because I'm too busy with my work I haven't taken the time to sit down and prep the pictures and write-ups. That's my fault. I guess I will have to sit down one of these days and get that web site built.
- In any case, within my circle, I've had jobs even without me advertising or looking for work. That is a testimony to my work. I have had multiple repeats on the same customers (at least 2 jobs with 3-4 on avg) and that is keeping me busy. I am doing a Baptismal shoot this Sat or Sunday on a couple I did wedding shoot last March. And I am doing the bride's cousin's wedding this Aug 10. It's a package of stills and video. And I don't charge cheap. Yesteraday, the photographer I worked with is already contracting me for 2 weddings this Sept (video only).
- I also notice in these fora that people seem to doubt people who can do more for less. It's as if the world revolves around them and that if I one does something in 40 hours, then doing it in 15 hours means you are sacrificing quality or something else. To us, when it comes to stills photography, it means working smarter, not harder. In any case, sometimes the markets are different. And sometimes the workflow and work ethics are just different. We shouldn't presume that just because one does something for less time, they do less quality of work.
- The only time we spend more hours in an album is when a coffee book table or layout album is required. Now that will require a 20-40 hours, sometimes more, to do depending on conditions. And that kind of shooting requires 400-700 shots to pick from. This is where we do good because there is so much good material to pick from. The time is spent on enhancing and creating new stuff (pages for the album), but never for correcting color, WB, exposure, etc.
On a typical shoot with 800 images or so, we probably spend 25 hours in photoshop enhancing the images, not correcting. I guess you can shoot and edit a video in 2-3 hours as well, but you have to question the quality when that little time goes into it. No offense whatsoever is intended but I have worked with way too many photoraphers that barely touch the photos out of the camera and really don't provide nearly what they could.
- That's your workflow. And I respect that. We each have our own way of doing things that work for us based on our styles and temperament. But you obviously haven't worked with me or my people. Because if you do, then you will know that we get very usable pictures right out of the camera.
- In the next 2-3 months we will be offering, onsite AVP. This means the photos will be shown at the reception projected to a large screen. It will be photos first, then later on (maybe end of this year) we will do video. This show will be 1 hour to maybe 1.5 hours just after the wedding ceremony. What this means is that your shots must be very good out of the camera because there is not time for post processing. We'd rather spend time on assembling the photo montage MTV for that 1-1.5 hours. Your 25 hours will not cut it. 2 hours won't cut it. It has to be zero hour post processing with a 1 hour time limit to create that 3-4 minute MTV at the reception. And that MTV must be a moving/emotional piece, not just a collage if images parading to a background music.
- Same with video. You only have that limited window to do this and with video it's even tougher because the download time eats time on editing. So you have to work fast. The good news is that it's been done. Mazzystar, my countryman has done it and so that gives me the impetus and the motivation to do it too. But we have to
- We've already benchmarked the timing for the editing of photos as early as April. And I will be benchmarking the video this Sept (got 2 weddings to test it on). The only reason for the delay is that once I do the AVP route, I will likely not be able to shoot at the church. Therefore, I have to get my apprentice and my partners up to speed on the shoot before I try this stunt. They will be taking my slack.
- These are examples why we have to shoot well the first time around. If you aim to offer onsite AVP, then you will do everything to cut down on edit time. Edit time must be use to enhance or create new material. Correcting mistakes must be held at a minimum. And this is why we can do a 24 hour turn-around time on stills. This Aug 10, I will be shooting stills on the wedding proper (will shoot video and stills at the dressup/prep and reception). By Aug 11, the MOB who contracted me, will get the CD-Rs containing the stills. Heck, if she can wait 2-3 hours after the reception, she can have my CDRs (all PP to the best they can be). Even with an album delivery, 1 week is tops for a standard album (120 pcs 5x7's and some 8x10's and 11x14). But I don't even touch the album creation as I subcontract them.
the inspiration to add photography and become a "Wedding Image Specialist" instead of a videographer has come because of the obnoxious attitude of some photogs. If they won't share then they will have to go and I will get my own people in to do it. Like you say, video replaces 90% of stills and you only need <30 good shots for a nice album. 
1
