I need to minimize post processing!!

[SabrinaO]

I need to cut down on my post processing. I use lightroom to start. There I fix WB, exposure, fix color saturations and noise. Then I export a photo to a folder in two ways. I export one sized to facebook: (sharpened for screen, 72dpi), and one sized to the original size for printing: (sharpened for matte print, 300dpi). Then I edit each of those photos in photoshop fixing blemishes, spot healing, rubber stamping and use adjustment layers fixing contrast and adding curves. So imagine editing twice an entire session worth of pictures.
Anyways, so my question is... to minimize PP, if I just export one photo keeping the original size and check off the print settings (instead of having another copy sized/sharpened for web, 72dpi conversion) will the printing version look any different on screen? If not, then all Id have to do in photoshop is just edit that one picture and size one to facebook, and keep the original for the print size.
I hope I didn't confuse anyone!! I guess ill upload a web and a print version on my flickr and see if i can see a significant difference...

 

[Overread]

Why are you resizing as the first step out of RAW?
You're doubling your workload at that key point. Just export at fullsize once from the RAW processor and edit the shot as normal. Then when you have finished editing away the blemishes and the like then sharpen the result (on a new layer) for the print and save - then delete the printing sharpening layer and make a new one for resizing and sharpening for the net.

Sharpening should always be your last step because it both damages data (it makes things sharper, but also deletes a lot of data, so editing on sharpened photos can suffer from quicker banding and the like) and also because the amount you need depends on the output medium.

 

[SabrinaO]

So I tested it out. I exported this photo... one under print settings and the other under web settings. When I uploaded to flickr the print photo filesize was larger.

The first one is the print copy, and the second is the web copy. What differences do you see?

 

[Derrel]

I like to open folders of RAW images in Adobe Camera Raw, and then batch adjust the exposures that are what I call "similars" or "identicals" by selecting the ones that belong as a group, and then adjusting the white balance, sharpening, and exposure, and quite often the tone curve. In each shoot, there will be a number of sequences, each one filled with say 5 to 15 or 20 frames that need basically, identical basic settings of WB, exposure + or -, and tone curve, hue/saturation adjustments,etc,etc. After an entire folder of RAW images has been adjusted, I then take them and copy them to my storage drive, along with the ACR sidecar files, and then once the adjusted RAW images have been copied to the storage drive, I select ALL the images and do a batch conversion to JPEG, or occasionally, to TIFF format.

Once the images have been converted to a NON-raw format (JPG or TIFF), I will then do clean-up on them, like cloning out defects, etc,etc. After the images have been cleaned up, I can then use the program called AUTOMATOR to make batch-resized images, as needed.

 

[SabrinaO]

Why are you resizing as the first step out of RAW? You're doubling your workload at that key point. Just export at fullsize once from the RAW processor and edit the shot as normal. Then when you have finished editing away the blemishes and the like then sharpen the result (on a new layer) for the print and save - then delete the printing sharpening layer and make a new one for resizing and sharpening for the net.Sharpening should always be your last step because it both damages data (it makes things sharper, but also deletes a lot of data, so editing on sharpened photos can suffer from quicker banding and the like) and also because the amount you need depends on the output medium.

Thanks or the great info! I didn't know that about the sharpening and the damage it can do. So in Photoshop what is the process for sharpening for web and print? Also I if I upload a picture with 300dpi to the web will it be any different than the 72dpi?

 

[Overread]

dpi is only an instruction to printing machines to tell them how many dots to print to one inch - it has no effect on the actual photos quality nor to the display on the computer at all. The reason low dpi is recommended online is because most people don't know any better - so setting it to 72dpi means if anyone tries to print it from a websized image they get a terrible result anyway.

 

[SabrinaO]

I like to open folders of RAW images in Adobe Camera Raw, and then batch adjust the exposures that are what I call "similars" or "identicals" by selecting the ones that belong as a group, and then adjusting the white balance, sharpening, and exposure, and quite often the tone curve. In each shoot, there will be a number of sequences, each one filled with say 5 to 15 or 20 frames that need basically, identical basic settings of WB, exposure + or -, and tone curve, hue/saturation adjustments,etc,etc. After an entire folder of RAW images has been adjusted, I then take them and copy them to my storage drive, along with the ACR sidecar files, and then once the adjusted RAW images have been copied to the storage drive, I select ALL the images and do a batch conversion to JPEG, or occasionally, to TIFF format.

Once the images have been converted to a NON-raw format (JPG or TIFF), I will then do clean-up on them, like cloning out defects, etc,etc. After the images have been cleaned up, I can then use the program called AUTOMATOR to make batch-resized images, as needed.

I have to look into batch processing!

 

[SabrinaO]

dpi is only an instruction to printing machines to tell them how many dots to print to one inch - it has no effect on the actual photos quality nor to the display on the computer at all. The reason low dpi is recommended online is because most people don't know any better - so setting it to 72dpi means if anyone tries to print it from a websized image they get a terrible result anyway.

Oh ok! So if i have to save the online images to 300dpi maybe i can just watermark my pics better. Thanks so much for the info!

 

[shortpants]

Well 72 ppi is the resolution of your screen. Facebook automatically resizes so if it's a large picture it might end up looking fuzzy. As for anything else, if you were to upload a picture at 300ppi, it would still display at 72. Therefore your picture would just be displayed bigger in length and width. I'm not good at explaining, hopefully that makes sense.

And I would definitely do all of your editing and then save 2 copies of your choice size at the end. That's a lot of work editing one low and one high res separately!

 

[madbalsam]

I know that one way to minimize post processing is by having a good picture from the get go. Obviously, there are a lot of elements that go into a good photograph but one thing always stand out to me: good lighting. For me, a good picture is always a good interplay of light and shadow.

 

[KmH]

Well 72 ppi is the resolution of your screen. !

Maybe! Maybe not!

Not all display screens are 72 PPI. The only way to determine the PPI of your display is to measure it and then divide by the screen resolution.

My screen resolution on the long side is 1600 px and is 18.625 inches wide, so it is displaying 86 PPI.

 

[shortpants]

D'oh you're right. The concept still applies though yes? If you open a 8x10 300ppi picture in your browser, it's going way bigger than 8x10 on your screen. I know some browsers resize and you can zoom, but at 100% it will be enormous. Printed it will be 8x10 assuming 300dpi is the printer resolution. I just always save everything at 72 dpi for web, and whatever actual length and width I want displayed.

 

[ababysean]

I know this is not the point of this thread but I've noticed it on a few photos of yours. You need to smooth out your flooring. I see bumps and such where it is being pushed up. That to me is more distracting then anything else because it is unnatural....

 

[KmH]

D'oh you're right. The concept still applies though yes? If you open a 8x10 300ppi picture in your browser, it's going way bigger than 8x10 on your screen. .

No, because PPI is meaningless for electronic display, only the image pixel dimensions have meaning, and inches really only apply to prints.

An 8x10 at 300 PPI has pixel dimensions of 2400 pixels by 3000 pixels. How big it displays on someone's screen is then a function of the display resolution.

I have mine set to 1600 x 1200 pixels. Older screens were typically 1028 pixels x 768 pixels and before that they were 800 px by 600 px.

 

[The_Traveler]

All this time spent double processing, asking questions, etc. would have been saved if you had actually tried reading one damned book.