What's new
By:
Filters
Photoshop Gurus Forum

Welcome to Photoshop Gurus forum. Register a free account today to become a member! It's completely free. Once signed in, you'll enjoy an ad-free experience and be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

first paying job


We have members who get paid work here and also do the freebies to, so what does that make them 'pros' one day then 'idiots' the next, it is there for the taking regardless of skill level, or money crossing palms.
To keep telling people they are selling themselves short is to be honest your hang up, and to spout it the way you are just makes this site look like a money grabbing member forum AND IT IS NOT THAT AT ALL.
How do you stand on explaining things to members as a 'pro' i mean - time is money and all that to a 'pro' is it not?
 
You can look at it any way you choose. I find it strange that you would categorize people as money grabbers for thinking they should be paid for their time and expertise. If I want my car repaired I have to pay for the skills required. If I want my house painted, need a plumber or an electrician the same applies. All those people place a value on what they do, and I wouldn't call them money grabbers because they refuse to work for free. Frankly I can't imagine even asking them to.

I applaud people who see the value in their skills and the time and energy they put into developing them. Helping people to learn takes time and I give my time freely toward that end with no expectation of compensation. That is what I consider the site to be about.

We each have an opinion and it seems likely that they will remain in opposition. By the way regardless of the fact that you put the word idiots in quotes, I never used that term.
 
Round and round we go WHAT A RIDE THIS SUBJECT IS AT TIMES
:mrgreen:
 
Someone who as 'learned' via internet the creative abilities to work for a paying client is not a professional, they are doing it on a continual learning curve, ergo not proficient yet.
If a client is happy with work done then fair play to that photo manipulator for getting a payment for said work, but to then boast no more freebies i have learned it all is a little arrogant, and to then have others patting them on the back because of their singular value is repulsive and offensive to others.
To many members here say this do that (when the cap fits).
 
hawkeye said:
I'm not sure what you are implying about reasonable boundaries as it relates to working for free.
Click to expand...

With respect to egosbar for going off-topic a bit........

Anyone up to creating a 40-page catalogue layout for free? Or a logo for a corporate enterprise or establishment like the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore? LOL.... How I wish one would pop in with that in freelance..... I'd jump in if the price were right.

But seriously, I don't think it's a good idea to allow free designs for corporate and business use. As for image edits like what egosbar did, maybe its alright to do 1 or 2 but not an entire photographer's portfolio, not even half a dozen.

Neither do I agree to visitor's who request so many changes to a free edit or design. There's a couple of on-going threads where I find the OP stretching his welcome a bit too far. To me that's taking advantage of a member's good will as well as time and effort.

REASONABLE BOUNDARIES cover a broad range. But in a nutshell, I'll define a freebie work as a no-brainer, doesn't take too much of a member's time and not for commercial use. But that's just me talking.


If anyone else has something to add to this list, maybe a separate topic is in order.
 
Paul said:
Someone who as 'learned' via internet the creative abilities to work for a paying client is not a professional, they are doing it on a continual learning curve, ergo not proficient yet.
If a client is happy with work done then fair play to that photo manipulator for getting a payment for said work, but to then boast no more freebies i have learned it all is a little arrogant, and to then have others patting them on the back because of their singular value is repulsive and offensive to others.
To many members here say this do that (when the cap fits).
Click to expand...

Not giving away your work has nothing to do with claiming to know it all, neither have I seen anyone here make that declaration. That particular leap of logic is a creation in your head. You accuse me of having a hangup, yet you fear being considered a money grubber if people don't work for free, and think that being a professional is based solely on the amount of money you are paid. And now you characterize not working for free as a demonstration of arrogance and that congratulating someone for a their singular success is offensive and repulsive. I suggest to you sir, that if you wish to see someone with hang-ups you need only locate the nearest mirror.

As I have stated before, our opinions are at odds and will remain so.
 
i didnt boast mate ,this was the statement " yes i agree now , i wont be doing any more freebies , i did earlier because i was inexperienced and learning " in that statement i never said id learned it all , and ill be the first too admit ill be always learning ,i can see how you might of misinterpreted the statement but ill have a go at things posted still but if i think they are good ill just put a watermark on them , still get the practice , still help others but at times make some cash, if others want to do things for free i have no problems as ive done it and enjoyed it
 
I missed your thread egosbar, until now when it has become one of those freebies vs. freelance. I support whichever view a member takes and how they want to deal with requests, paid or not. How boring it would be if we all approached these things the same.


Any w a y . . . deep breath everybody . . .



Well done egos, and congrats on your first paid job!
 
The first edit looks good, second edit looks like they're floating just above the grassline. Go with the first.

Just curious egosbar, how long have you been into PS?
 
Last edited:
I agree with Paul. The definition of a professional is a person whose skills have reached a certified and expected standard within his/her industry. Professional is also an attitude and a manner in which you conduct yourself with clients. I'll say this - most of the industry standard practices (writing briefs, dealing with clients, technical elements of design) I know came from school. Most of the specific techniques (which they don't teach much of at design school) I know came from online educators.

The world has changed so vastly that there is more information online about how to use design programs, but less information about how to prepare yourself to work in an expected manner within the industry. Everybody is so keen to get the latest technique from Deke McClelland, PlanetPhotoshop, or whoever, that they fail to see that knowing the industry is just as important as knowing the programs.

There are some brilliant PSers out there online, but they wouldn't last 5 minutes outside of freelance because they don't know how to work in an established studio, or work easily with an art director. If you want to be professional, then you need to understand the profession too. You don't need to do a degree as most places will hire you on the strength of your portfolio, but doing a couple of short courses in an actual classroom to increase your knowledge of the industry will be the best money you ever spent.
 
Last edited:
Spectrum said:
The first edit looks good, second edit looks like they're floating just above the grassline. Go with the first.

Just curious egosbar, how long have you been into PS?
Click to expand...

been playing with photoshop for about ten or eleven months now , a little shading would ground them ill have another look , the client loved the shorter grass version , i dont think they are floating too bad now ive looked maybe the guy i could burn a slight shadow
 
Last edited:
Sorry mate not that into facecrack/ache/hole face or whatever it's called:rofl:
 
Sorry so late on this one. Just got back from a business related trip.

Ego, both of your edits don't look right to me. I think what's throwing me off with both edits, other than the floating problem, is that you did not match the lighting of the original. This is important because the lighting of the subjects no longer match the lighting of the new backgrounds.

Here's a quick example of what I'm referring to:

(slightly exaggerated to show my point)
Click on example to see animation.
egoGIF_02.gif

I am, however, glad that your "client" was happy.
 
Hi Sam, sorry to be a bit contrarian, but FWIW, I pretty strongly prefer Ego's re-lit scene and would not attempt to match the darkness of the closest areas at the very bottom of the frame of the original. Here's my reasoning ...

One of the most common tasks of a good photographer is control of lighting in a scene -- it might need more contrast, it might need less, or it might need the light redistributed to encourage the viewers' eyes to spend more time on the subject. Pros and advanced amateurs often use multiple off-camera lights, reflectors, scrims / silks, flag panels, etc. to get closer to what they think is ideal lighting. If this were my shoot, I would definitely attempt to lower the contrast of everything but the family. Higher contrast in these elements of the scene, such as you suggested just pulls the eye away from where it should be.

However, that being said, if it were my shot, in addition to the above, I would also change the relative brightness between the family and everything else in the scene. I would either go in the direction of a high-key approach where the background would be almost uniformly soft and bright (and obviously very low contrast), or do the opposite and brighten the family a bit compared to a lowered contrast, slightly darker / muted background.

Just my $0.02,

Tom
 
Last edited:
PS - I was about to demo the two alternative subject-to-background lighting ratios that I suggested, but when I went back to Ego's first post, saw that everything he posted was at low resolution, and I didn't feel like spending the time to carefully mask out the family at this resolution. I knew that unless care was used in the selection process, there would likely be edge artifacts that would further compound the evaluation of any tweaked images. Sorry, but I'm getting lazy / a bit short on time.

T
 

Back
Top