Do you use presets to edit your photos?

[nerwin]

Since the majority of photo edit applications...Lightroom, Capture One, etc have the ability to use presets for a once click edit, do you use them?

This is more for people who shoot RAW, but it can be applied to those who also use presets on jpegs as well.

I am curious how the response will be here. When I was on social media, I asked a similar question and I was surprised to know that a good number of people did use presets for a "consistent looking feed" but their photos felt all the same because they all looked identical.

So how many many of you have bought presets and use them on a regular basis?

How many of you downloaded free ones and experimented with them? Maybe perhaps used them as a starting point?

How many of you edit your photos individually and have made your own presets?

Lightroom recently has added a number of actually pretty solid presets to use as a starting point and I use them myself occasionally. But I swear I spend more time going through them all to find one that I like and it just doesn't feel fulfilling that way.

This isn't meant to be a SERIOUS topic. Just chatting.

 

[smoke665]

Since the majority of photo edit applications...Lightroom, Capture One, etc have the ability to use presets for a once click edit, do you use them?

Yes/no/maybe......I mostly dislike presets because they alter the Develop Panel adjustments. I like to use Profiles which don't.

To understand when and how you have to understand my workflow. Over the years I've developed certain "standardized settings" on all images, starting in the camera and following through processing/editing. I very seldom edit a single image, usually it's anywhere from a few to several hundred, so time and efficiency are the rule for me. I shoot for a certain image SOOC, specify certain standard Develop settings at import, and use a gray card as my first shot. When it hits LR I adjust the exposure on the gray card shot, and sample/set WB. I apply my Profile, I highlight all the images in the set, and sync the WB/exposure/profile. At that point I do a cull in Library by using the X to mark for deletion, or rating those for the second cull with a 1. I delete the "X" shots and sort all marked 1. I at that point I will make slight adjustments to the Develop panel sync all images and do a 2nd cull round, rating those for further editing with a 2. I sort on 2's and make the final LR edits then syncing all images. The 3rd rating is reserved for only the best of the bunch. Prior to all the improvements in LR for masking, I would normally take the 3's into PS for further editing but now I'll go a step further in LR doing some more detailed editing, before culling the final time for PS only. My thing to is to see uniformity across all the images in a set.

The problem with Presets and Profiles for that matter, is there is no one size fits all. I just find that the more I standardize my process the easier it becomes, and the less need I have for Presets. I see Presets more for the individual who lacks the knowledge of the functions available in the Develop Panel. I have a library of both purchased and custom Profiles that use regularly that give me the option to quickly apply a tone mapped looked to an image without the hassle of applying a Preset, then adjusting it to match my particular image.

 

[Ysarex]

I'm a Fuji X shooter -- I edit my RAF files from scratch, 100%.

 

[480sparky]

I only do on a set of files taken at the same time under the same conditions. For example, a series of table-top shots using studio lighting. I'll edit one image, then create a preset of those edits and apply them to the rest of the files.

 

[smoke665]

I only do on a set of files taken at the same time under the same conditions. For example, a series of table-top shots using studio lighting. I'll edit one image, then create a preset of those edits and apply them to the rest of the file

I stopped saving presets for that, instead I edit one image then sync the others to it.

 

[smoke665]

I'm a Fuji X shooter -- I edit my RAF files from scratch, 100%.

You the man Joe! LOL Just an FYI, part of my workflow process over the years has a few bits and pieces I've gleaned from you.

 

[480sparky]

I stopped saving presets for that, instead I edit one image then sync the others to it.

Same result, different name & method.

 

[shadowlands]

Occasionally. For the most part, no.

 

[adamhiram]

I don't use presets, but I have a common starting point for most photos and tweak from there.

 

[Hardus Nameous]

I use Raw Therapee and can't figure out how to do anything other than edit every photo individually. Even then, the only presets I'd want would be my own and mostly just for resizing.

 

[Ysarex]

You the man Joe! LOL Just an FYI, part of my workflow process over the years has a few bits and pieces I've gleaned from you.

Thanks, I've been doing this for a long time. I think I've finally figured it out.

My goals are simple, beyond taking interesting and engaging photos I want:

1. The highest tech quality possible from a given camera.
2. To photograph what I want to photograph without regard to limitations set by processing software in my cameras.
3. As simple a workflow as possible.
4. A processing workflow that is 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable.

To satisfy goals 1 and 2 I only save raw files from my cameras.

To satisfy goals 3 and 4 I process those raw files in a single parametric editor that is designed to support my workflow goal -- I use either C1 or PL6.

So my workflow is: expose and save the raw file. (I expose every photo I take the same way: place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor threshold and/or expose as much as possible -- click).

Open the raw file in either C1 or PL6, process the image -- I'm done.

As for third party canned presets, the problem is they look canned. It's like cooking and food. It doesn't matter what you do to green beans that you got from a can; they will always taste like the can.

 

[smoke665]

As for third party canned presets, the problem is they look canned. It's like cooking and food. It doesn't matter what you do to green beans that you got from a can; they will always taste like the can.

Yup there's a mistaken belief that if you buy XYZ presets, then your photo will look just like the sample. Unfortunately doesn't work that way.

I remember your parametric mantra. I work that way to a point, but when I get into some of further processing, there's just no way around it. LR updates have taken great strides but I don't think it will ever replace PS.

 

[SquarePeg]

It only let me choose two options but reality is..

 

[SquarePeg]

I don’t think I’ve ever used just a preset. The ones that I own came free with some courses that I took from Matt K or software that I bought included some presets. They’re fine and sometimes I’ll play around with them. Usually I’ll edit from scratch and then if I want more drama I’ll try out a preset. This is a photo that was edited from scratch then preset used then adjusted to my liking.

PHL Sunrise by SharonCat..., on Flickr

Here it is before the preset

 

[nerwin]

I've always been struggling with my edits. Sometimes I feel the presets make it harder sometimes because they don't feel like my vision if that makes any sense. But I also struggle to edit to my vision as well.

Anyways, I have tried using The Archetype Process film profiles for using Lightroom.

The Archetype Process Film Emulation Profiles

The Archetype Process profiles and photo editing products are the worlds most powerful film emulation tools.

thearchetypeprocess.com

They are good but I don't really care for the look they give me much of the time.