Agencies / Photographers / Studios
You sold the shoot and you keep the client. Esteban cuts the footage and returns unbranded files named your way, with no watermark, no credit and no contact with the end client. Send the camera files, the brand assets and a one-page brief, and the delivery slots into the workflow you already have.
One point of contact on your side. Notes consolidated per round with timecodes. Files unbranded and named to your convention. No public reference to the work unless you say so.
Esteban works in Spanish, with intermediate English also available for written notes and briefs.
Exports come back with no watermark, no end card and no credit, because the client relationship belongs to the studio that sold the job. Naming, folder structure and aspect ratios follow whatever convention that studio already uses with that client, so the files drop straight into an existing delivery instead of needing to be renamed first.
Material shot in a flat or log profile looks washed out until the matching camera transform is applied, and guessing which one it is produces skin tones nobody ordered. Sending the camera model, the picture profile, and any LUT or grade already approved for that client removes the guesswork. A graded still from an earlier delivery is often the fastest way to communicate a look.
A subcontracted edit goes wrong in the feedback, not the cutting. Notes tied to timecode, gathered into a single list, turn a revision from a conversation into a task. The opposite pattern, a trickle of separate messages from several people, is what turns a simple pass into an open-ended one, so it is worth agreeing who speaks for the client before anything goes out for review.
Everything needed to cut without asking a question, which in practice is five things. The original camera files, including any second camera, with their folder structure intact rather than flattened. The separately recorded audio, if a recorder or lavalier was used, so it can be synced rather than reconstructed from the camera track.
Then the brand material as vectors or layered files, because a logo lifted from a website is a low-resolution picture of a logo. A brief naming each deliverable, its aspect ratio, its destination and its file-naming convention. And the technical line: camera model, picture profile, frame rate, plus any LUT or approved grade. The last item is the one most often missing, and it is the one that decides whether the opening assembly arrives looking like the studio's work or like somebody's guess at it.
The studio does. The end client's relationship stays with the studio that sold the job, so notes travel through one named contact there rather than arriving from several directions. That is not a preference about tidiness: on subcontracted work every note has already been filtered through the client and the studio, and two versions of the same instruction arriving separately costs a full pass over the timeline.
The practical shape is one consolidated list per round, with timecodes, and an agreement about how many rounds the job includes before it starts. On the delivery side the files are unbranded and unwatermarked, and the work is not published as a public reference unless the studio says so. Whether the end client is told that post-production is subcontracted is the studio's call to make, and nothing in the files makes it for them.
Before you send footage
Not from the files. Deliverables arrive unbranded, named the way the studio asks, with no credit, watermark or contact detail attached. Communication stays with the studio rather than going direct to the end client, and the work is not shown as a public reference without the studio's say. Whether to tell a client that post-production is subcontracted is the studio's decision to make, not something the files decide for them.
The original camera files, any audio recorded separately, brand assets as vectors or layered files rather than screenshots, and a short brief naming the deliverables and where each one will be published. Add the camera and picture profile, any approved look, and the client's own reference material. A folder with that in it can be cut without a single clarifying question, which is usually the point.
As one consolidated list per round, with timecodes, coming from a single point of contact at the studio. That matters more here than on direct work, because every note has already passed through the end client and the studio, and two people giving contradictory instructions costs a full pass. Agreeing up front how many rounds a job includes keeps the scope the studio quoted intact.
Yes, and the shortest route is a reference the studio already owns: a finished export from an earlier job, a LUT, or a graded frame. Matching a described look, as opposed to a shown one, takes more passes than matching a picture. If the footage comes from a camera or profile not used on that client before, a short graded test clip before the full edit is cheaper than a reversal at the end.
Ask for a quote
Start with the service, goal, assets, deadline, and where the work will be published. That gives Esteban enough context to answer with a useful next step instead of a long back-and-forth.
Copy this
Hi Esteban, I need help with white label video editing. Goal: deliver an edit to our own client under our name. I have original camera files, brand assets, the deliverable list and any approved look. Can you quote this?
Review published work