[QUOTE=acsenray]
Copy editing and proofreading: In my mind, the former is a little more involved. The latter is mostly spelling, grammar, etc., checking.
[/quote]
Not really. What most lay people call “proofreading” is really a simplified form of copyediting. Often each client has different ideas about the definitions, but in general this is the (simplified, I’m busy today) distinction:
COPYEDITING (nonfiction): You are working with the original manuscript after it has been through the larger levels of editing: developmental, substantive, etc., the “big picture” editing. The copyeditor does the final mechanical edit before the ms. goes to typesetting (by way of the author to answer queries, resolve any final problems, etc.). This consists of things like adjusting spelling/grammar/punctuation, usually according to some specified style guide such as Chicago, but also while preserving the author’s voice (IOW, you don’t get to impose your favorite rules willy-nilly); imposing consistency in heads, figures, tables, and other elements; checking things like cross-references, numbered/lettered items, chapter outlines/table of contents for accuracy (if author says we’re going to discuss five items, A, B, C, D, and E, check that there are five and that they are in the same order as listed); and all sorts of other nit-picky stuff like that. You may also be responsible for typemarking elements (identifying things such as head levels, figure captions, boxed elements, and so on so the typesetter knows how to set them). You will compile a style sheet for each ms. that records all of your editorial decisions, both as a guide for yourself as you work and for others later on in the pipeline. You change/query inconsistencies and potential problems as needed. My checklist for the ms. I have in front of me runs to three pages.
PROOFREADING: After the copyedited ms. has been to the author for review and resolution of queries, it goes to composition for typesetting. This produces a set of page proofs. These are sent along with the copyedited ms. to the proofreader (who is NOT the same person as the copyeditor). The proofreader compares the proofs against the ms. to make sure (1) that the comp followed all the instructions and edits on the ms. properly, and (2) that the copyeditor did not miss any obvious errors. Most clients do NOT want to the proofreader to do a bunch of second-guessing of the copyeditor. Changes are expensive at this stage and most of the time you are looking for outright errors only. In addition, you are checking the visual layout, usually against a set of sample design pages. Are the fonts correct? Is spacing around elements correct? Is art placed where it should be? Do spreads base-align; are they too deep? Are headers/footers in place and correct? Is pagination OK? You will check every hyphenated word to be sure it breaks correctly (the software is not infallible, and I usually find at least one or two rebreaks per chapter). You look for rivers, widows, orphans, ladders, bad kerning, and loose lines. Was that en dash supposed to be an em? Should that comma be italic?
This is how most of my clients (for textbook publishing) define the terms. Some people define proofreading as “light copyediting,” but not in my world; they are completely different tasks.
Not bloody likely for a novice, at least if you’re charging hourly rates, unless you find some corporate client with bottomless pockets. (I’ve topped it by using page/project rates, though, because then the faster you can work, the higher your hourly rate.)
I’ll get on one of my hobby horses and say that one of the skills you’ll need as a freelancer is the ability to find information on your own, and this is a good test. I Googled “freelance copyediting rates” and got hits/leads on the first page for the three resources I was going to suggest: McMurry, EFA, and BAEF (editorsforum.org).
Good basic references: Amy Einsohn, The Copyeditor’s Handbook, and Karen Judd, Copyediting: A Practical Guide.
Good luck. Let me know if you have any further questions. I know I’ve talked about this in the past, so a search might also turn up some more juicy worms.