Photo Editing
Photo Editing
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
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
- LN Strike Eagle
- UKAR Staff
- Posts: 11191
- Joined: Mon 21 Jul 2008, 3:29 pm
Re: Photo Editing
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.
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!"
Re: Photo Editing
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
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
Re: Photo Editing
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Wed 21 Aug 2013, 8:44 pm
Re: Photo Editing
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...).
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...).
Re: Photo Editing
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.
Re: Photo Editing
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?
Re: Photo Editing
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.
-
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Wed 21 Aug 2013, 8:44 pm
Re: Photo Editing
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.
-
- Posts: 968
- Joined: Sat 04 Oct 2008, 11:32 am
- Location: South London/Croydon
- Contact:
Re: Photo Editing
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.
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.
Re: Photo Editing
Thanks - I didn't realise JPGing did sharpening for me and am glad I don't use RAW and have to do it myself!
-
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Wed 21 Aug 2013, 8:44 pm
Re: Photo Editing
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).
Re: Photo Editing
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.
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.
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomdjones/
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/tomd.jones/
Hell is other people.
Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/tomd.jones/
Hell is other people.
-
- Posts: 208
- Joined: Thu 04 Sep 2008, 2:06 pm
Re: Photo Editing
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