Post Processing Speed

abraxas · Aug 23, 2008

cszakolczai said:
As one professional photographer said, a lot of modern day photographers don't even worry about using the camera to the full extent because they know they can fix it on the computer. They are better with photoshop and they don't take the time to get the picture done properly.
I believe in this 100% and I'd rather take the time behind the camera to get the picture done properly, as opposed to dealing with it on photoshop. Leave photoshop for the fun pictures, like selective coloring and what not.
I shoot in RAW then clean up the colors a little bit, then I'm done.

Alex_B said:
Well, you can turn an OK-ish image where you had some trouble with exposure and composition into a rather good image using photoshop.

But, and this is a huge but, applying some effort in post processing to a well exposed and composed image will create a superb image!

The more you invest while creating the image in the camera, the further you can get in postprocessing!

I totally agree with Alex. Photoshop is a tool, not a crutch. I've never shot an image with, "I can 'fix' that in photoshop" in mind. All the rest is just getting better at managing your tools and becoming more efficient at what you do.

JerryPH · Aug 23, 2008

abraxas said:
I totally agree with Alex. Photoshop is a tool, not a crutch. I've never shot an image with, "I can 'fix' that in photoshop" in mind. All the rest is just getting better at managing your tools and becoming more efficient at what you do.

Not all of us are that good, though! :lol:

Seriously, now and then, I shoot underexposed and if it was not for RAW and CS3 together, I would be in deep doo-doo.

Yeah, in those times, CS3 makes a great crutch.. but I understand and agree with the sentiment.

kellylindseyphotography · Aug 23, 2008

Extremely important to get it right SOOC. White balance, focus, exposure all bang on. Then I create a simple workflow action on one picture (usually includes a simple s curve, a defog, light noiseware) and batch process the action on all of them.

I'm still not 100% there yet as all my SOOC aren't always perfect. I struggle with correct white balance a lot.

Bifurcator · Aug 23, 2008

skieur said:
The general mantra is that you photograph everything in RAW, do all your settings and editing and then perhaps save to tiff. With more megapixels and larger files the process takes even longer. Then there are plug-ins for sharpening, noise reduction, portraiture, and even software filters. Time spent learning all these programs also has to be factored in before you get into using them.

The result is that a lot of pros are now looking at ways of speeding up their workflow and realizing that 15 step or more procedures in Photoshop do not accomplish this task. Software is starting to come out with fewer steps but still a good level of control.

What are you doing to speed up your postprocessing, so that you spend more time behind the camera and not as much time in front of the computer?

skieur

Nothing.

I like editing as much or more than shooting. They're obviously very different tasks though.

I like powerful tools but they usually increase the amount of time needed to edit - they add ability and increase editing time. For me if I want to save time it means I have use fewer tools and/or skip some processes that might be needed. I think if 15 steps or so (not including any brush work that might be needed) can't accomplish the edit then probably the base image is too bad and I should reshoot it.

For simple edits and viewing I'm finding that the tool used makes allot of difference though. For me the best beauty to speed ratio is "Capture One" followed by the new release of LightRoom, followed by Bridge+PS CS3. With Capture One often times I feel like I don't even need post processing. And for me being on a P&S "bridge" camera, that's pretty amazing. :thumbup:

PS: I naturally assume that EVERY image I shoot will be processed in PS. It's part of digital photography if you want you're images looking good. The shot that doesn't require editing IMO almost doesn't exist (one in a hundred? one in a thousand?) - it's the limits of the equipment and not the photographer (although being a good photographer certainly helps

).

Garbz · Aug 23, 2008

cszakolczai said:
As one professional photographer said, a lot of modern day photographers don't even worry about using the camera to the full extent because they know they can fix it on the computer.

Doesn't sound like much of a professional. If he was he could have fixed it in the darkroom 20 years ago too. Dodge and burn are not words that came from Photoshop.

Bifurcator · Aug 24, 2008

Yep! Sharpening too is a process that comes from enlarger printing techniques! True also of Brightness/Contract! :thumbup:

EDIT: All of which were developed before television let alone computers.

epatsellis · Aug 24, 2008

if you really want to shorten your editing time, get it right in camera. I shoot mostly product work, and have off and on for the last 25 years. Back before digital, retouching Ektachrome was expensive, and you had to get it right in camera. If you look at my friend Frank Doorhof's work, you'll see just what getting it right in camera is all about. ( if you can, got to one of his workshops, you'll learn more in a day or two than spending months on photo forums)

erie