Beware. This post contains a rant.

Digitals versus Prints. That is the debate among many photographers. Each has their own business model and beliefs about what a photographer provides their clients. I personally choose to offer both, prints and digital images, however I specialize in offering a selection of professionally printed wall art as opposed to a disc of images.

I have this belief for several reasons, which I have discussed in another blog. You can read more about those beliefs here. But this post is not about my beliefs regarding this matter.

I know why some clients choose digital images. They like having the ability to print the images as they wish. Others like to have a hard copy for safe keeping. I completely understand both of those reasons. However, I hear stories from other photographers about clients completely editing the images they've received from a photographer and/or slapping Instagram filters on them. I do not understand this at all. Why hire a photographer if you're just going to edit the images yourself?

We don't hire a dentist to clean our teeth to just go home and clean them ourselves.

We don't hire a hair stylist to cut our hair just to go home and cut our own hair.

We don't hire a mechanic to change our car oil just to go home and change the oil again.

The list goes on and on...

So why do some hire a photographer just to go home and edit their images after a photographer has already done this?

Most of the time this is actually illegal per the copyright terms within a photographers contract. A photographer also has a certain style with regards to their editing - they only produce a certain type of photograph. They are typically hired for this particular style. When someone alters this photograph, they are altering their style. Therefore the photograph no longer accurately represents their work as an artist.

That is all. End of rant :)

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this matter.