is extra photo editing out of scope?

Gently separate the proofs from the finished set, because this is one of the most common honest misunderstandings in photography. Clients frequently assume that every frame you captured arrives fully edited, when in reality you priced a specific number of finished images selected from a much larger pool of proofs. Point back to the contract's edited-image count and explain the distinction warmly: the proofs let them choose favorites, and the finishing fee covered editing the agreed number to a polished standard. Additional finished images mean additional editing hours, which is why they carry a per-image rate. Framing it as 'here's how the package works' rather than 'you misread the deal' keeps it collaborative — the misunderstanding is structural, not a sign of bad faith, and treating it that way protects the relationship while you hold the boundary.

A correction fixes something that fell short of the standard you promised on an image you already delivered; extra editing adds work beyond what was agreed. If you delivered a finished portrait with a dust spot you'd have caught, or a color cast inconsistent with the set, fixing it is just delivering the image correctly — no charge, and you should fix it readily. But if the client now wants skin smoothing you didn't quote, a background removed, or an object composited out, that's new labor at a new fee regardless of whether the image was already 'delivered.' The test is whether you're meeting the agreed standard or exceeding it. Standing behind corrections without charge actually strengthens your footing on genuinely extra work, because the client sees you're fair about your own mistakes and reasonable about the line.

Per image is usually better for both sides, especially for retouching. A fixed per-image rate makes the cost predictable for the client and protects you from a perfectionist client's endless 'can we try one more pass' that an hourly arrangement quietly rewards. It also forces a useful conversation about how many additional images they actually want, rather than an open-ended editing tap. Hourly can make sense for genuinely complex one-off compositing where the time is hard to predict, but for ordinary additional finishing, name a per-image price tied to the retouching level. If a client pushes for hourly thinking it'll be cheaper, that's often a sign they expect many small revisions — exactly the situation a fixed per-image rate is designed to contain.

Yes, because the retouching level is part of what the editing fee priced, not just the image count. Delivering fifteen images at standard color and exposure correction is a different deliverable from delivering fifteen with deep skin work, body reshaping, or detailed compositing — the second can take many times longer per image. If the client now wants that heavier treatment on shots you already finished at the agreed level, you're being asked to redo the editing at a higher tier, which is new work. Name the tier difference explicitly: 'These were finished at standard retouching as we agreed; high-end retouching is a different level of work and here's the rate.' The image was delivered correctly to the agreed standard; raising the standard afterward is an upgrade, and upgrades are billable.

There's no universal number — it depends on the shoot type, your market, and your editing depth — but the rule that matters is to name it explicitly rather than leave it open. A portrait session might finish a handful to a couple dozen images; an event might deliver many more at lighter editing; a commercial product shoot might finish only a few but at intensive retouching. Whatever fits your work, state the count and the retouching level in the contract, and make clear how the client selects from proofs. The exact figure is a business decision; the protection comes from specificity. An unnamed count is an open invitation for the client to assume the number is 'all of them,' which is precisely the gap that turns a finished project into an unpaid editing marathon.

You can offer tiers, but don't solve it by quietly absorbing unlimited editing into a flat fee — that just hides the cost in your own time. The cleaner approach is to price the editing transparently: a named count at a named retouching level, with clearly priced add-ons for more images or a higher tier. That lets clients who want more buy more, while protecting you from the ones who'd treat 'included' as 'infinite.' Some photographers offer a small, generous edited count and price additional images as easy upsells; others bundle more finishing into premium packages. Either works, as long as the boundary is explicit and the overage has a price. What doesn't work is an open-ended 'I'll edit what you need,' because editing hours are real and someone is always paying for them — make sure it's the client, not your evenings.