Editing Time - event/wedding

[tslice]

I'm editing some shots from a wedding, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm doing everything right. I shot over 450 pics, about 200 are worth a darn and I'm averaging about 3 mins per shot in post. That's from raw processing ( exposure / color / contrast ) to sharpening and cloning out junk. I'm just wondering if I'm crazy slow at editing or not.

 

[DRoberts]

Batch operations for your basics then go back and detail the keepers individualy, could cut some time.

 

[tirediron]

No, on the contrary, I would say that you're crazy good. From the last wedding I shot (two weeks ago) there were a total of about 550 images; of that, less than 60 make the final grade. Average PP time is eight - ten minutes/image with some of the specialty stuff (selective colouring etc) taking in excess of 30 minutes.

 

[JerryPH]

Depends on what you want. I can average around 300-400 photos per hour doing the basics after culling, but there are some that I want to spend more time on so I can easily spend several hours on a single pic.

In terms of culling out the useless ones and doing the basics (key words, metadata, WB, exposure, sharpening, minor noise reduction, etc...), LightRoom is the king of speed once you learn to realy exploit it's abilities. One can for example modify the WB, sharpnes, contrast and noise reduction on one picture and apply it to 150 other pictures in under 20 seconds. It makes life so much easier.

Last night while watching TV and my laptop in my lap, sitting in an easy chair leaned back all nice and comfy, I imported, culled and made all the basic modifications to a pack of 290 images I did for my cousin's son's 4th birthday. I ended up with only 175 photos that I was satisfied enough with to put on the CD, though. An easy job ending with the burning of a CD all done in 1 hour.

 

[EhJsNe]

In photoshop I usually spend 5 or 6 minutes per picture. So your actually rather fast, compared to me.

But then again, I dont NEED my pictured to be absolutely perfect. Just close.

If Im in a lazy mood, Ill use picasa, and it usually only takes me a minute or two at the longest. (then again, the only exposre option I have is fill light, highlights, and shadows. The "creative" things I use the most are sharpening, saturation, graduated tint, and filtered B&W.)

 

[JerryPH]

The guy is doing wedding pics for a friend... one doesn't want to give someone their "lazy processed" pics in that case.

In LR, if you cannot get sharpness, noise, exposure, whitebalance and a nice vignette done in 15 seconds or less... you need a little more practice... becuase that is VERY doable. As mentioned, you can also make a single profile from one picture and apply it to a series of pictures in just a few clicks. Potentially that means you can do what.. 50-100 pics (whatever number of photos are in one area with the same settings needed) in under what, 30 seconds? That is just sic fast.

 

[RyanLilly]

Depending on how you deliver the final product, you could mainly batch process for proofs or 4x6 prints, then put in the extra work on individual shots that are ordered for enlargements.

 

[In2daBlue]

Depending on how you deliver the final product, you could mainly batch process for proofs or 4x6 prints, then put in the extra work on individual shots that are ordered for enlargements.

I agree completely with this post. Also, with the one about batch editing (saying the lighting is similar, of course).

My client contract includes a clause that pays me $70 an hour for extreme PS work. For example, if they want me to clone a big tree out or take a hated ex-wife out of the photo (happened more than once, believe it or not). Beside that, if the photo is never going to be larger than 4X6 I don't waste my time. If it will be enlarged I spend 5-10 minutes per shot depending on post required.

For news and editorial work I never spend more than 45 seconds on a photo. But, that is different because the ethics of altering an editorial shot really only allow for subtle shifts in levels, contrast and sharpening.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I'm editing some shots from a wedding, and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm doing everything right. I shot over 450 pics, about 200 are worth a darn and I'm averaging about 3 mins per shot in post. That's from raw processing ( exposure / color / contrast ) to sharpening and cloning out junk. I'm just wondering if I'm crazy slow at editing or not.

take as much time as you need.

If you're doing anything wrong, i'd probably say you should have been shooting more.

400 images from a wedding aren't much. At my brothers wedding i took some snaps when the pro's weren't there. It was the rehersal dinner, the getting ready shots, and the reception. I wasn't the hired shooter, I let them do their job and when we were in the same room, I put my camera down. But I still shot total of about 1600 images and deleted almost 200 on my flight back. On my computer after editing, I narrowed it down to 400, which is a good number for a wedding, 800 total with the mono conversion too.


I don't consider myself a wedding shooter, I couldn't stand to do it myself unless i'm a 2nd shooter, too much pressure, and i'm not good enough. But, the more you shoot, the more product you have, thus the more product you can sell, the more money you make.

 

[manaheim]

Depending on how you deliver the final product, you could mainly batch process for proofs or 4x6 prints, then put in the extra work on individual shots that are ordered for enlargements.

This seems logical to me having almost no idea about weddings, other than what I saw my own wedding photog do.

It is most certainly how I deal with pictures for my clients (pictures of buildings, mostly). I shoot X00, throw away some percentage of them entirely (mostly just brackets), send them the best of any given bracket set as a proof, let them select which ones they want and THEN do the corrections.

Even with buildings, I tend to spend 2-5 minutes per image in fine tuning, cropping and correcting. I lean more towards the 2 minute point on most... but... they're buildings... lots of them butt ugly buildings. I wouldn't be surprised to see times more like tired is suggesting.

 

[patrickt]

I was visiting a shop I use and a Photoshop tech looked bored and frustrated. I asked what was going on and he said the camera was apparently defective and made the brides ankles look fat. He was supposed to go through every photo and slim down the ankles. Darn those cameras.

 

[In2daBlue]

I was visiting a shop I use and a Photoshop tech looked bored and frustrated. I asked what was going on and he said the camera was apparently defective and made the brides ankles look fat. He was supposed to go through every photo and slim down the ankles. Darn those cameras.

This gets into my point about the extra charge for comprehensive PS work in post. I have had more than one wedding party ask me to "airbrush", as they call it, unfavorable characteristics. Mostly it's the bride's mom who has the problem. I wonder if there is a psychological aspect to that?

 

[JerryPH]

This is very common with the MOBs but sometimes, when this is said... it is true.

If someone is going to try to do portraits with a sub-70mm lens, there *is* a lot of distortion (most easily seen in the face), that comes up and looks like someone gained 30 pounds between this picture and the last. Using a long lens (I just crank it up to something between 100-200mm), more distance and compresses the picture. This makes people look a lot slimmer and gets rid of what I call "chipmunk cheeks".

Now, there will be times that no matter what you do, a person with excess weight will look like a person with excess weight and they may ask you to play with the pics. This can be a time consuming process and I believe in charging the client for your time spent adjusting these pictures for them. Same goes for scar removal, acne, etc...

As a general rule, I would do some skin softening and cleaning on closeups of the bride, but beyond that, what everyone looks like, is how they will appear in my pictures simply becuase the day is NOT about them, but about the bride and that is who I am working to make look good, no one else... unless you wish to compensate me for the extra time to make Aunt Jenny and her 50 pound overweight frame to look like Marilyn Monroe... lol. These are the shots that one could spend a lot more than 15-20 minutes per picture on.

 

[In2daBlue]

This is very common with the MOBs but sometimes, when this is said... it is true.

If someone is going to try to do portraits with a sub-70mm lens, there *is* a lot of distortion (most easily seen in the face), that comes up and looks like someone gained 30 pounds between this picture and the last. Using a long lens (I just crank it up to something between 100-200mm), more distance and compresses the picture. This makes people look a lot slimmer and gets rid of what I call "chipmunk cheeks".

Now, there will be times that no matter what you do, a person with excess weight will look like a person with excess weight and they may ask you to play with the pics. This can be a time consuming process and I believe in charging the client for your time spent adjusting these pictures for them. Same goes for scar removal, acne, etc...

As a general rule, I would do some skin softening and cleaning on closeups of the bride, but beyond that, what everyone looks like, is how they will appear in my pictures simply becuase the day is NOT about them, but about the bride and that is who I am working to make look good, no one else... unless you wish to compensate me for the extra time to make Aunt Jenny and her 50 pound overweight frame to look like Marilyn Monroe... lol. These are the shots that one could spend a lot more than 15-20 minutes per picture on.

Agreed Jerry. And this point gets back to my surcharge for extensive post work. In the end, I have had very few people complain about the charge when I explain the time it takes for me to do it. If they do complain I tell them I might not be the right shooter for them. We all got to make choices in life.

 

[Breanna]

I've never shot a wedding before, but that is about how long I spend per photo for the basics. I can spend up to 15 mins on images where I'm doing blemish editing, editing something out of a photo, or something else beyong contrast/warmth/etc.