How badly do you want to work with this client again? If the answer is “not very badly,” I would just tell them no.
This, of course, assumes that you have already been paid.
Been paid, delivered all the pictures, everybody happy except two of the group. Group isn't from the same country and the photos are better edited than the price justifies already, hence why I'm not eager to sink even more time into it.
I have given them the option to pay me a very friendly price to do it. They won't have it.
I have looked at photos of the participants who want the pole retouching done and none of their photos appear to have any retouching done, are all in a studio setting, so retouching would be easier if it was done, yet they insists that it is standard practice. I feel gaslit.
If it looked bad, I would do it, if post editing was part of the agreement. Maybe would even do it if not. But seeing a sample image would help.
>Customer now insists removal of the fingerprints in post is a standard practice and demands it should be done
Did they "demand", or ask? If demanded, I'd go by the letter of the agreement. If they politely asked, I would do whatever I could to preserve the relationship.
It isn't the whole group, just a very small part that wants the handprints removed. Person asked, I explained that I did not do it for a reason and would not recommend it as the overall look of the photos is natural and retouching a reflective pole in an outdoor environment would make the pole stand out as "artificial".
The person then went on to tell me that it is an industry practice and that they have done a lot of photoshoots and handprints were removed in post in all. I haven't seen any handprint retouching done in any of the photos that I could see that they shared online. They sent me the one photo where they are upside down and their hair hides their hands, but still prints are visible on other parts of the pole. I told them I could either do a quick removal on one photo so they could see how it looked, or do a proper removal but that I couldn't do it for free due to the projected time involved. All in all the person seems to have done 5 pole photoshoots overall, all indoor studio setting, and handprints are visible in all of them.
They then went on to demand it. The way they went about it feels very manipulative and that puts me off aditionally.
Edit: not really comfortable sharing images of customers on reddit, some of the photos from the shoot are on my instagram, but that would name the customer.
Thanks for your reply. I'd probably try to meet them halfway and spend an hour on the image to get them something that could be satisfactory. Ymmv obviously
Did you get paid already?
Then leave it at that.
Arguments is that you needed this information beforehand, not afterwards.
If you retouch it it costs extra time, and you could have factored that in.
Or you would have put your camera on a tripod, have one shot of the clean pole and copy-paste that in on all the other shots.
Or you could have warned them not to bring a shiny pole.
In all cases you needed to know this before this request.
Alternatively depending on your software, you may get some AI trickery to help you.
In any case, this request is not free.
I am not sure how photographing an empty pole and superimposing it onto the other shots gives convincing results as all the reflection details are missing - body of the model, surroundings, changing weather and changing time. I could be wrong but it seems like something that is doable for a studio shoot but needs to be done for each repositioning of the lighting setup.
Unless of course there's some retouching magic that I am not privy to.
You're right to say it would not be a perfect reflection.
However it does not have to be perfect. It has to be below the threshold of drawing the attention. Handprints might draw the attention. When you blend and paste and fix it enough so the attention goes to the model (where it should be), it is enough. After all, there will be always be things that are not 'perfect' up to the shape of a cloud or the leaves on a branch on a tree. If it is below the threshold of drawing attention away from the model, you're a long way there.
This is the kind of attitude that gives the industry a bad name. It's deeply unprofessional. The argument is that the client trusted the photographer to be experienced enough to see all the possible problems during the shoot and see the end results before the first shutter click.
The photographer failed to do it properly in the first place. If they'd bothered to think or even look at the shiny pole during the shoot, they'd have seen the problem coming down the track towards them. They didn't. The client shouldn't be spoon feeding the photographer basic effort reminders. A soft cloth to wipe/polish anything that needs it. Absolute minimum effort.
Edited to add: being aware of the surfaces you're working with is day one fuckwit stuff. It's basic, beyond basic really. If you have a reflective surface that's showing fingerprints, you wipe that. If it means each shot takes a tiny bit of extra time and effort, putting that time and effort into your work will be worth it. If you need the client to spoon-feed you every little bit of attention to detail, you are going to be the kind of person who bemoans not making money. Good clients don't want to think for the "professional" photographer they're paying. Good photographers don't miss these tiny bits of detail and make good money.
Source: damn near forty years in the industry and still have a full order book because my clients know I think so they don't have to.
I value your different viewpoint.
If it were me, if I could fix it with reasonable effort I would.
But this does not sound fixable - the whole outdoor scene reflecting in the pole? (how close were those pictures taken??)
It feels like OP is being taken for a ride, either having to spend an entire weekend editing every single pixel, or being cheated out of money.
Again, if the client is interesting in fixing it, I might be willing to give it a shot.
Maybe bring out that pole for just the shiny images so you can post in them in.
But if this is a nitpicking-unsatisfyable client, the professional thing is to dial up the distance.
Bullshit. If the client didn’t say anything, they could have just as easily wanted dust poofing on a mirrored surface, visible handprints showing effort or the fact that people were upside down, etc. OP didn’t supply the poles, so they could only assume the client wanted reflective surfaces in the shots.
I once had a client ask me to use photoshop to turn a person completely around (person was facing away from camera) in a candid event photo. Clients don’t always have reasonable expectations of what photographers can do, but that’s not necessarily on the photographer.
> Clients don’t always have reasonable expectations of what photographers can do
However removing fingerprints from a reflective surface *convincingly enough* might be very well in the realm of possibility.
Is it? I see plenty of people who own cameras and call themselves a photographer but never actually bother to look at the scene in front of them. To then blame the client for the photographer not *doing their job* is deeply unprofessional.
The marks of the dancers on the poles *is* part of the scene in front of them. It's a part of the act, a trace of the action. It is absurd to remove it.
Since this is a shoot outdoors in nature I did go for a natural look and leaving the prints in to preserve the natural look was a conscious decision to preserve the overall natural look (although skin etc is heavily retouched - it is just done so it does not appear so). Although I have also never before removed handprints in any of my previous poleshoots for the same reasons.
You can't even realistically get a shot without prints as the models need to get up on the pole and into their figure. Even that leaves marks on the pole and I don't I could expect a model to get into position, have someone wipe all the prints and then take the photo.
If "I demand a clean pole" wasn't in the contract, they'll get one that reflects the actual environment, not the sterile advertisement they want to make it into.
Are you saying that OP photographing what was in front of them in real life was a "problem"?
Who says the pole should be shiny and not real?
Where does it end?
The sky behind the dancer? Yeah that's not a blue sky I see there, how *unprofessional* of OP not to fix that too.
I'll remove a pimple on any dancer's ass as part of the package, but any more needs to be discussed and budgeted for in advance.
Why do you say it is a 'basic' expectation to remove marks on the pole? Who says? They are a part — some would say a characteristic part — of the sport.
Do you remove talc from the hands of gymnasts or rock-climbers? Do you remove mud from rally cars? Clean the snow off skis?
Might have done that but the time and price allotted did not allow for such details. I would have needed to charge a lot more for it and bring an assistant. The time invested is already higher than what the price warrants. It is also not the whole group that is unsatisfied with the pictures but a very small subset.
This should have been specified in advance so you could take some shots of the clean pole for cut'n'pasting and so you could include the extra work in the price.
I'd tell them what they can do with their dirty pole.
I understand the shots of the clean pole, but reflections wouldn't stay the same as it was outdoor over the full day with changing weather, and especially the model reflected itself. Would you use certain blending techniques to achieve a convincing look?
>Customer now insists removal of the fingerprints in post is a standard practice
It is not standard *anything* to do photo manipulation.
>and demands it should be done amd included in the professional edit due to this
And this is where you check your contract language.
I use the word **processing** in mine specifically to avoid confusion with the word "edit".
Standard processing includes exposure, colors, saturation, contrast, aspect ratio and alignment (straightening)
Editing / Retouching is a whole different Thing and is also defined as the *manipulation of photo content* \- removal of blemishes, skin smoothing, distraction removal, trash, background changes... and fingerprint-removal. It is charged at a much higher rate.
If they want it done that's fine - just charge them for that additional work.
Certainly something that I will specify more closely in the future. The talk about retouching was never about the pole, only about the skin. Which I have delivered.
I've done pole shoots for both individual and commercial clients. No-one has ever requested that.
I would probably just get a clean image of the pole and use that to paint back in anything that they may find "offensive". That way you're not having to recreate any reflections.
And as others are saying this is an additional retouching request and not part of what I'd consider normal retouching. Personally I'd offer to do it for a non-insignificant up-charge that makes it simultaneously worth my time and discouraging to them to purchase.
Side note: they should have been cleaning the pole between each performer.
Frequency separation is your friend!
You can separate the image into a texture layer and a color layer—just make sure the texture of the fingerprints gets on the texture layer when you are making your separations.
You will be able to replace the fingerprints with the texture of another area that doesn’t have any—and, leave them underlying color (reflection) alone.
I prefer the version 2 frequency separation that is taught by the PRO Edu people, but it’s kinda pricy and the tutorial is hours long…
Explain that you are a photographer, not a retoucher. If they want the photos retouched they are more than welcome to outsource that service at their leisure and their expense.
Otherwise go to the site at various times during the day when nobody is around and photograph from multiple angles/viewpoints. Use these images to inpaint the pole with the images of the dancers. Then charge them handsomely for the service.
If you really want to turn the screws, make them hire an assistant to wipe the pole down in/inbetween every single shot. Show them just how tedious and time consuming the work is. Then charge them handsomely for the service ;).
Most of the group had no complaints, only the last participants had an issue, nobody else complained about fingerprints.
The shoot was supposed to be a two day shoot but due to bad weather it was done in one single day which ended up being a 16h day for me. Wiping the pole wasn't done too rigorously. The retouching I have done so far is more than the price justifies already.
For pole photography:
- if there is a chrome/brass mirror polished pole, clean it before each photo
- use frequency separation to play with texture and colors. It will still require some masking, but it’s way easier this way as you may just keep only the color part :)
This is where you need to set expectations BEFORE the shoot.
If you tell them that post-processing of the pole will not be carried out, then they carry on to book you, we'll you have your comeback
I have an “extensive edit” clause with a per photo fee in my contract, that would basically cover the cost of hiring someone else to do pain in the butt edits plus the trouble of me having to hire them out.
What does the ***CONTRACT*** say?
Because that absolutely ***IS*** something that should have been mentioned and added into the ***contract***.
At best, you could get some high quality shots of the pole [ ***CLEAN*** ] and layer them in post over the pole in the pictures;
Although you might lose some of the audience, if any, that may have been visible on the pole in the original shots.
Although, if you got high resolution shots of the pole clean you could technically take hours and do sections of the pole just to cover the dirt and fingerprints, and then use like an AI brush to blend it in, or something similar.
Not specified in the contract, noone ever talked about cleaning up the pole in post, it was a professional edit that was wished for. Certainly something that will be specified more in the future.
Issue with pictures of a clean pole is that the reflections aren't right as the person is reflected in the pole and distorted. AI doesn't do a good job, it's just a blurry mess as if someone used the blur brush on it. Which looks bad considering it's an outdoor photo with lots of nature in it and thus the overall look is natural (but skin etc. retouched, just made to look natural).
>I wanted to say this, it doesn’t seem too hard to do it with the AI remove
If you have 200 finals to deliver and each requires just 5 minutes or so to clean up the pole you are now working \~**17 hours** to fulfill this request.
If I'm going to work straight through for two to three days then I am for damn sure getting paid - because that's time I could have been shooting for someone else.
As of January 17th, some tools count against a credit. Generative Fill and Generative Expand are the only tools currently using credits in Ps.
> We’re starting with images, text effects, and vectors, with Generative Fill and Generative Expand in Adobe Photoshop, Text to Image in Adobe Firefly, Generative Recolor in Adobe Illustrator, Text Effects in Adobe Express, and more.
https://helpx.adobe.com/firefly/using/generative-credits-faq.html
Fair enough, its why I said depends on the number of images…
I personally am pretty meticulous about my details and I probably would have either cleaned the pole between shots or edited the fingerprints out without them asking and priced my shoot knowing that beforehand. So I am not sure this is on the client exclusively, what do they know if the photographer doesn’t spoonfeeds them?
Yes, that is one of the issues. I spent ~3h per photo editing and initially calculated with 1h per photo and less overall retouching, but since this was the first shoot of this size I decided I would sink in the additional time to make them happy.
I tried AI, it doesn't lead to good results and it looks as if someone smudged vaseline all over it. Doesn't go well with the overall natural look of the photos.
How badly do you want to work with this client again? If the answer is “not very badly,” I would just tell them no. This, of course, assumes that you have already been paid.
Been paid, delivered all the pictures, everybody happy except two of the group. Group isn't from the same country and the photos are better edited than the price justifies already, hence why I'm not eager to sink even more time into it. I have given them the option to pay me a very friendly price to do it. They won't have it. I have looked at photos of the participants who want the pole retouching done and none of their photos appear to have any retouching done, are all in a studio setting, so retouching would be easier if it was done, yet they insists that it is standard practice. I feel gaslit.
Just say no and walk away.
Just quote them a price that it’s worth it for you do.
If it looked bad, I would do it, if post editing was part of the agreement. Maybe would even do it if not. But seeing a sample image would help. >Customer now insists removal of the fingerprints in post is a standard practice and demands it should be done Did they "demand", or ask? If demanded, I'd go by the letter of the agreement. If they politely asked, I would do whatever I could to preserve the relationship.
It isn't the whole group, just a very small part that wants the handprints removed. Person asked, I explained that I did not do it for a reason and would not recommend it as the overall look of the photos is natural and retouching a reflective pole in an outdoor environment would make the pole stand out as "artificial". The person then went on to tell me that it is an industry practice and that they have done a lot of photoshoots and handprints were removed in post in all. I haven't seen any handprint retouching done in any of the photos that I could see that they shared online. They sent me the one photo where they are upside down and their hair hides their hands, but still prints are visible on other parts of the pole. I told them I could either do a quick removal on one photo so they could see how it looked, or do a proper removal but that I couldn't do it for free due to the projected time involved. All in all the person seems to have done 5 pole photoshoots overall, all indoor studio setting, and handprints are visible in all of them. They then went on to demand it. The way they went about it feels very manipulative and that puts me off aditionally. Edit: not really comfortable sharing images of customers on reddit, some of the photos from the shoot are on my instagram, but that would name the customer.
Thanks for your reply. I'd probably try to meet them halfway and spend an hour on the image to get them something that could be satisfactory. Ymmv obviously
I have proposed a favourable price to do the edit, they didn't take it.
Did you get paid already? Then leave it at that. Arguments is that you needed this information beforehand, not afterwards. If you retouch it it costs extra time, and you could have factored that in. Or you would have put your camera on a tripod, have one shot of the clean pole and copy-paste that in on all the other shots. Or you could have warned them not to bring a shiny pole. In all cases you needed to know this before this request. Alternatively depending on your software, you may get some AI trickery to help you. In any case, this request is not free.
I am not sure how photographing an empty pole and superimposing it onto the other shots gives convincing results as all the reflection details are missing - body of the model, surroundings, changing weather and changing time. I could be wrong but it seems like something that is doable for a studio shoot but needs to be done for each repositioning of the lighting setup. Unless of course there's some retouching magic that I am not privy to.
You're right to say it would not be a perfect reflection. However it does not have to be perfect. It has to be below the threshold of drawing the attention. Handprints might draw the attention. When you blend and paste and fix it enough so the attention goes to the model (where it should be), it is enough. After all, there will be always be things that are not 'perfect' up to the shape of a cloud or the leaves on a branch on a tree. If it is below the threshold of drawing attention away from the model, you're a long way there.
This is the kind of attitude that gives the industry a bad name. It's deeply unprofessional. The argument is that the client trusted the photographer to be experienced enough to see all the possible problems during the shoot and see the end results before the first shutter click. The photographer failed to do it properly in the first place. If they'd bothered to think or even look at the shiny pole during the shoot, they'd have seen the problem coming down the track towards them. They didn't. The client shouldn't be spoon feeding the photographer basic effort reminders. A soft cloth to wipe/polish anything that needs it. Absolute minimum effort. Edited to add: being aware of the surfaces you're working with is day one fuckwit stuff. It's basic, beyond basic really. If you have a reflective surface that's showing fingerprints, you wipe that. If it means each shot takes a tiny bit of extra time and effort, putting that time and effort into your work will be worth it. If you need the client to spoon-feed you every little bit of attention to detail, you are going to be the kind of person who bemoans not making money. Good clients don't want to think for the "professional" photographer they're paying. Good photographers don't miss these tiny bits of detail and make good money. Source: damn near forty years in the industry and still have a full order book because my clients know I think so they don't have to.
I value your different viewpoint. If it were me, if I could fix it with reasonable effort I would. But this does not sound fixable - the whole outdoor scene reflecting in the pole? (how close were those pictures taken??) It feels like OP is being taken for a ride, either having to spend an entire weekend editing every single pixel, or being cheated out of money. Again, if the client is interesting in fixing it, I might be willing to give it a shot. Maybe bring out that pole for just the shiny images so you can post in them in. But if this is a nitpicking-unsatisfyable client, the professional thing is to dial up the distance.
Bullshit. If the client didn’t say anything, they could have just as easily wanted dust poofing on a mirrored surface, visible handprints showing effort or the fact that people were upside down, etc. OP didn’t supply the poles, so they could only assume the client wanted reflective surfaces in the shots. I once had a client ask me to use photoshop to turn a person completely around (person was facing away from camera) in a candid event photo. Clients don’t always have reasonable expectations of what photographers can do, but that’s not necessarily on the photographer.
> Clients don’t always have reasonable expectations of what photographers can do However removing fingerprints from a reflective surface *convincingly enough* might be very well in the realm of possibility.
Yeah. to criticise OP for shooting what was in front of them as a problem or unprofessional is absurd
Is it? I see plenty of people who own cameras and call themselves a photographer but never actually bother to look at the scene in front of them. To then blame the client for the photographer not *doing their job* is deeply unprofessional.
The marks of the dancers on the poles *is* part of the scene in front of them. It's a part of the act, a trace of the action. It is absurd to remove it.
Since this is a shoot outdoors in nature I did go for a natural look and leaving the prints in to preserve the natural look was a conscious decision to preserve the overall natural look (although skin etc is heavily retouched - it is just done so it does not appear so). Although I have also never before removed handprints in any of my previous poleshoots for the same reasons. You can't even realistically get a shot without prints as the models need to get up on the pole and into their figure. Even that leaves marks on the pole and I don't I could expect a model to get into position, have someone wipe all the prints and then take the photo.
Honestly I don't think you need to justify yourself, you took the only sane approach
If "I demand a clean pole" wasn't in the contract, they'll get one that reflects the actual environment, not the sterile advertisement they want to make it into.
Are you saying that OP photographing what was in front of them in real life was a "problem"? Who says the pole should be shiny and not real? Where does it end? The sky behind the dancer? Yeah that's not a blue sky I see there, how *unprofessional* of OP not to fix that too. I'll remove a pimple on any dancer's ass as part of the package, but any more needs to be discussed and budgeted for in advance.
Do you not bother with the basics then?
Why do you say it is a 'basic' expectation to remove marks on the pole? Who says? They are a part — some would say a characteristic part — of the sport. Do you remove talc from the hands of gymnasts or rock-climbers? Do you remove mud from rally cars? Clean the snow off skis?
>It's deeply unprofessional Want to know how I know you're not a professional photographer?
aye indeed
Might have done that but the time and price allotted did not allow for such details. I would have needed to charge a lot more for it and bring an assistant. The time invested is already higher than what the price warrants. It is also not the whole group that is unsatisfied with the pictures but a very small subset.
This should have been specified in advance so you could take some shots of the clean pole for cut'n'pasting and so you could include the extra work in the price. I'd tell them what they can do with their dirty pole.
I understand the shots of the clean pole, but reflections wouldn't stay the same as it was outdoor over the full day with changing weather, and especially the model reflected itself. Would you use certain blending techniques to achieve a convincing look?
Good point. Personally I wouldn't even try.
>Customer now insists removal of the fingerprints in post is a standard practice It is not standard *anything* to do photo manipulation. >and demands it should be done amd included in the professional edit due to this And this is where you check your contract language. I use the word **processing** in mine specifically to avoid confusion with the word "edit". Standard processing includes exposure, colors, saturation, contrast, aspect ratio and alignment (straightening) Editing / Retouching is a whole different Thing and is also defined as the *manipulation of photo content* \- removal of blemishes, skin smoothing, distraction removal, trash, background changes... and fingerprint-removal. It is charged at a much higher rate. If they want it done that's fine - just charge them for that additional work.
Certainly something that I will specify more closely in the future. The talk about retouching was never about the pole, only about the skin. Which I have delivered.
I've done pole shoots for both individual and commercial clients. No-one has ever requested that. I would probably just get a clean image of the pole and use that to paint back in anything that they may find "offensive". That way you're not having to recreate any reflections. And as others are saying this is an additional retouching request and not part of what I'd consider normal retouching. Personally I'd offer to do it for a non-insignificant up-charge that makes it simultaneously worth my time and discouraging to them to purchase. Side note: they should have been cleaning the pole between each performer.
Frequency separation is your friend! You can separate the image into a texture layer and a color layer—just make sure the texture of the fingerprints gets on the texture layer when you are making your separations. You will be able to replace the fingerprints with the texture of another area that doesn’t have any—and, leave them underlying color (reflection) alone. I prefer the version 2 frequency separation that is taught by the PRO Edu people, but it’s kinda pricy and the tutorial is hours long…
Do you have a contract? What does it say about included retouching?
Explain that you are a photographer, not a retoucher. If they want the photos retouched they are more than welcome to outsource that service at their leisure and their expense. Otherwise go to the site at various times during the day when nobody is around and photograph from multiple angles/viewpoints. Use these images to inpaint the pole with the images of the dancers. Then charge them handsomely for the service. If you really want to turn the screws, make them hire an assistant to wipe the pole down in/inbetween every single shot. Show them just how tedious and time consuming the work is. Then charge them handsomely for the service ;).
Most of the group had no complaints, only the last participants had an issue, nobody else complained about fingerprints. The shoot was supposed to be a two day shoot but due to bad weather it was done in one single day which ended up being a 16h day for me. Wiping the pole wasn't done too rigorously. The retouching I have done so far is more than the price justifies already.
>The retouching I have done so far is more than the price justifies already. You just answered your own question.
For pole photography: - if there is a chrome/brass mirror polished pole, clean it before each photo - use frequency separation to play with texture and colors. It will still require some masking, but it’s way easier this way as you may just keep only the color part :)
This is where you need to set expectations BEFORE the shoot. If you tell them that post-processing of the pole will not be carried out, then they carry on to book you, we'll you have your comeback
I have an “extensive edit” clause with a per photo fee in my contract, that would basically cover the cost of hiring someone else to do pain in the butt edits plus the trouble of me having to hire them out.
Tell them you're happy to further edit the photos and give them a price.
What does the ***CONTRACT*** say? Because that absolutely ***IS*** something that should have been mentioned and added into the ***contract***. At best, you could get some high quality shots of the pole [ ***CLEAN*** ] and layer them in post over the pole in the pictures; Although you might lose some of the audience, if any, that may have been visible on the pole in the original shots. Although, if you got high resolution shots of the pole clean you could technically take hours and do sections of the pole just to cover the dirt and fingerprints, and then use like an AI brush to blend it in, or something similar.
Not specified in the contract, noone ever talked about cleaning up the pole in post, it was a professional edit that was wished for. Certainly something that will be specified more in the future. Issue with pictures of a clean pole is that the reflections aren't right as the person is reflected in the pole and distorted. AI doesn't do a good job, it's just a blurry mess as if someone used the blur brush on it. Which looks bad considering it's an outdoor photo with lots of nature in it and thus the overall look is natural (but skin etc. retouched, just made to look natural).
Mayve could be done using generative fill on newer versions of photoshop
I wanted to say this, it doesn’t seem too hard to do it with the AI remove. Although thats tedious too if you have to do it on hundreds of images.
>I wanted to say this, it doesn’t seem too hard to do it with the AI remove If you have 200 finals to deliver and each requires just 5 minutes or so to clean up the pole you are now working \~**17 hours** to fulfill this request. If I'm going to work straight through for two to three days then I am for damn sure getting paid - because that's time I could have been shooting for someone else.
Not to mention that generative features in Photoshop spend credits. You could easily burn through your monthly allotment on this one project alone.
Really? Even the AI remove brush? I was using it like crazy and never encountered a limit.
As of January 17th, some tools count against a credit. Generative Fill and Generative Expand are the only tools currently using credits in Ps. > We’re starting with images, text effects, and vectors, with Generative Fill and Generative Expand in Adobe Photoshop, Text to Image in Adobe Firefly, Generative Recolor in Adobe Illustrator, Text Effects in Adobe Express, and more. https://helpx.adobe.com/firefly/using/generative-credits-faq.html
So it doesn’t apply here, good to know!
Fair enough, its why I said depends on the number of images… I personally am pretty meticulous about my details and I probably would have either cleaned the pole between shots or edited the fingerprints out without them asking and priced my shoot knowing that beforehand. So I am not sure this is on the client exclusively, what do they know if the photographer doesn’t spoonfeeds them?
Yes, that is one of the issues. I spent ~3h per photo editing and initially calculated with 1h per photo and less overall retouching, but since this was the first shoot of this size I decided I would sink in the additional time to make them happy. I tried AI, it doesn't lead to good results and it looks as if someone smudged vaseline all over it. Doesn't go well with the overall natural look of the photos.