Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
Frankly Gary that is just your opinion. That may be very true for your chosen workflow and style, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I would say that any image can be "changed" to manipulate it's look but it's by no means a given that improvement can be made. Improvement can only be defined when the expectations for the job are known.

For my own work it depends on how hard I worked at the shoot and how well I've defined my "normal" processes for a given film. My goal is to be completely done creatively when the shutter drops. This is especially true of weddings.

I crop with my feet and my zooms, I look for natural vignettes and frames and context, I use flash, skrims, and reflectors to burn and dodge and control contrast.

At the end of the day I'm pretty well done and the film can be processed "normally" and printed without special work in the enlarger.
I do all of those things, but in fast-paced documentary weddings, you don't always have that luxury. I will make minor adjustments to the balance of composition, straightening and apply some artistic licence to the tonal range of the photograph using burns and dodges, all those things that a mini lab will not do. A bit like trying to sell a house with shabby DIY.

I've had a google for wedding photographers and there are some shabby DIY photographers with logos of 'pro organisations' on the main page...cliched gimmicks and shoot and burn for pennies. I doubt very much that these guys will "inform the client of the pitfalls"

Am I on my own for wanting to deliver the highest quality?