Photo Editing

Photo Editing

Postby Talldan76 on Thu 20 Oct 2016, 10:43 am

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and am interested in how long you guys spend on editing photos that you've taken.

Do you:

a. Spend hours poring over the photos removing all sorts of little blemishes from the picture, and making it look nothing like the original image that was taken?

b. Spend a little time cropping, adjusting levels and straightening out the horizon etc?

or

c. Literally the bare minimum (if anything) and keep them as they were straight off the camera.

Cheers
Dan
User avatar
Talldan76
UKAR Staff

Re: Photo Editing

Postby LN Strike Eagle on Thu 20 Oct 2016, 10:50 am

B. I rarely spend more than a couple of minutes on any picture - cloning out dust spots and/or clutter is pretty much the only reason I'd spend longer on an image.

My workflow has been unchanged for years now - I don't see any great need to spend lots of time on each image. I only use my best stuff and if a simple workflow isn't enough to make it presentable, then it doesn't meet the grade anyway.
"You really are an oafish philistine at times!"
User avatar
LN Strike Eagle
UKAR Staff

Re: Photo Editing

Postby boff180 on Thu 20 Oct 2016, 11:08 am

B.
Shooting raw makes it a little convoluted but my current Post processing is as follows which takes a couple of minutes.

1. Process RAW in Lightroom (inc. sharpening) but excluding any noise reduction
2. Open in Photoshop, run through Topaz DeNoise
3. Resize to 1600x
4. Smart Sharpen
5. Close Photoshop copy - system auto saves this as a TIFF copy (in addition to the original RAW) and adds it to the Lightroom Catalogue, linking the two entries.

I then use the automated export modes in Lightroom when finished to export the TIFF's as 1200x 300dpi JPEGs with standard screen sharpening with no logo or the UKAR logo.... or tell lightroom to upload them automatically to Flickr in a new album as 1200x 300dpi JPEGS with my own watermark.

The ball ache being changing the title on each processed shot and adding tags ready for Flickr upload :grin:
User avatar
boff180
UKAR Staff

Re: Photo Editing

Postby wallace on Thu 20 Oct 2016, 5:23 pm

As little as possible.

However it takes time to pick/reject then rate ,edit then keyword images in Lightroom. Then to finish off in Photoshop, I'd guess at five minutes total per image for every image.
User avatar
wallace

Re: Photo Editing

Postby Private Custard on Thu 20 Oct 2016, 5:40 pm

In my opinion, if an image requires more than a few minutes to make it a good representation of what was in front of you when the shutter clicked, it's not worth the extra time. Sharpness is checked first, and then the merciless binning begins!

If the photos are for a magazine or print, extra time is taken. Same for if it's a photostitch, or serious edit (background blackout etc...).
Private Custard

Re: Photo Editing

Postby wallace on Thu 20 Oct 2016, 8:11 pm

Private Custard wrote:In my opinion, if an image requires more than a few minutes to make it a good representation of what was in front of you when the shutter clicked, it's not worth the extra time. Sharpness is checked first, and then the merciless binning begins!


Now there is good advice, however there are exceptions but it's no use trying to polish a t*rd, that's for sure. :smile:
User avatar
wallace

Re: Photo Editing

Postby Aviationcafe on Thu 20 Oct 2016, 9:40 pm

All depends really in all honesty, when I had the 40D and was taking football photographs with the 28-300 and then the 120-400 I used to have to spend a bit of time of the photo's. Mainly due to the lighting at some of the grounds and the camera being noisy at ISO3200, could spend a good few hours sorting them out properly as a lot of them went into the matchday programmes etc.

Now I have the 70D, unless I'm shooting at ISO3200 and above, the most I do is resize/sharpen slightly/correct exposure & levels/watermark then save and upload. Ideally I spend around 3-4 minutes per photo once I've decided which ones to upload.
Aviationcafe

Re: Photo Editing

Postby sdad on Sat 22 Oct 2016, 9:11 am

I still don't understand this "sharpening" that so many people mention. If you are using these expensive SLRs and good lenses, why are the pictures not sharp?
User avatar
sdad

Re: Photo Editing

Postby wallace on Sat 22 Oct 2016, 10:04 am

Most cameras have filters in front of the sensor to counteract Moiré patterns, this has the effect of slightly blurring the image... then when you think of it taking an image stored through something as physically small as a sensor (about the size of a stamp) and displaying it on a monitor then something has to give and that's the sharpening.
User avatar
wallace

Re: Photo Editing

Postby Private Custard on Sat 22 Oct 2016, 1:01 pm

If you're shooting jpeg, your camera will add a certain amount of sharpening, usually an option in the settings. Basically, if you're shooting raw, all that's stored is the general exif, and rgb data per pixel, as well as a few other bits and pieces of data, so you need to do everything to the base image that the camera usually would, including sharpening and noise reduction.
Private Custard

Re: Photo Editing

Postby duxfordhawk on Sat 22 Oct 2016, 2:13 pm

For me it's

b. Spend a little time cropping, adjusting levels and straightening out the horizon etc?

I try to get most things right at the camera stage, and unless it's for an action shot, I would spend a long time on settings on camera rather than post photography processing.
I spend probably 5 minutes on a photo for an edit, that includes straightening, adjusting levels, bit of cropping and checking for any dust spots. If it's for a wedding or something then I would spend longer, as then I am removing anything I do not like in the photo and adding filters,blurring etc.

No matter how good things like Lightroom and PS6 are, you still can't polish a turd.
Martin
To see my Photos go to
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dxhawk/
duxfordhawk

Re: Photo Editing

Postby sdad on Sat 22 Oct 2016, 5:20 pm

Thanks - I didn't realise JPGing did sharpening for me and am glad I don't use RAW and have to do it myself!
User avatar
sdad

Re: Photo Editing

Postby Private Custard on Sat 22 Oct 2016, 5:44 pm

If you have the software for raw converting, you really should use it. It's uncompressed, so you have a lot more headroom for pulling shadows and killing highlights (amongst other things).
Private Custard

Re: Photo Editing

Postby Tommy on Sat 22 Oct 2016, 9:19 pm

I seem to spend the most amount of time sifting/deleting than I do editing.

To me, as a rule of thumb, editing should be about enhancement, not mitigation. Standard workflow tends to be quite brief for me, only if I'm experimenting/trying to pull-off something arty-farty do I spend more than a couple of minutes on each shot.
User avatar
Tommy
UKAR Staff

Re: Photo Editing

Postby Lighning Fan on Mon 24 Oct 2016, 6:36 pm

Private Custard wrote:If you have the software for raw converting, you really should use it. It's uncompressed, so you have a lot more headroom for pulling shadows and killing highlights (amongst other things).


I agree whilst you should always try to nail the shot in camera, there are occasions e.g. forgot to change a camera setting where RAW can rescue the image. The likelihood of this type of photographer error is in direct proportion to how rare the aircraft is :lol:
Lighning Fan


Return to Photography Hints, Tips & Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests