All my work gets processed in LR and my favorites images goes to photoshop for some massaging. My time is limited so I don't stay in photoshop as long as I want to. I can't imagine turning a three week project into three years of post and digital technology does has made the process of post-production a lot faster too.
Interesting article. I've always liked the Ansel Adams quote: "The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance"...
I am not at all shy about processing images. Most of what I do is crop, exposure, burn and dodge, straighten... All things I was doing in a "wet" darkroom decades ago. But I doubt the average image spends more than 15-20 minutes in "post processing".
I expend few minutes working in LR with levels, sharpness and color cast. I try to get half of the work done exposing correctly the photo, but I shot in raw then I need a little of darkroom after to get details, but I said, I don't expend more than 5-10 minutes per picture. Finally, as you said, if the picture is so good for me I give him final touches in photoshop. :)
i've really never timed it... and obviously it depends on what i'm trying to do, how much fancy stuff is involved, etc...
some composite work has taken me hours in photoshop... some basic processing, including conversion to black and white in nik silver fx has only taken 5, 10 or 15 minutes...
When it comes to play, I spend as long as it takes. When it comes to clients, I've budgeted a specific amount of time in post. That is all they get. :)
Hmmm haven't read the article yet (will get to that) but for the jobs I've done so far I've come home with approximately 1000 images and given myself about 2-3 weeks to have everything done and delivered (between 150-300 images). I only have Lightroom thus far so am always interested in what people do post-LR in PS? And whether this requires exporting very large JPEGs to be worked on in PS?
As long as it takes to make the image into what I want. Fortunately I have the luxury of time and I love the process.
The link is interesting in that a photographer known as a photojournalist, one of the most influential in the field, took as much care in the darkroom as did the "art" greats like Ansell Adams, Brandt, Callahan and the Westons. Interesting too that his "journalistic truth" was what came out of that process, not necessarily what came out of the camera on film at stage one of the process.
I try not to do a lot of processing at all. But my main goal is to get the photo to look as close to what I was seeing as possible. So I might work on it for a little while, or maybe not at all. I guess depending on what I was doing would also determine the time spent. If I was doing a fantasy-type photo, that takes quite a bit of time to get where you want to be. Totally up to you and what it takes to get what you want as the end product! :)
I heard something recently that I have taken to heart...if it takes you more than 4 minutes to process an image, it probably isn't worth it. I've never really timed it, but I have tried to live by that lately.
I have made presets for lightroom and actions for photoshop that I the most used changes I make...I then fine tune that and add finishing touches in PS.
So as little time as I can unless I am deliberately playing. @tina_mac some of my photos I adore took more than 4 mins and it was definitely worth it...don't restrict yourself with time limits :)
Hi, with my clients I shoot in RAW and process each individual image in ACR (WB exposure and noise tweaks) before moving into PS for my 'creative edit' and fixing skin. My clients are all newborns so each image is not batch processed. I do want to start batching but can't be bothered learning! Lol! Each image takes between a few minutes and 20mins if skin is bad.
For my 365 project they are all taken and edited on my iPhone, edit takes about 40seconds ;-)
5 mins max in gimp.
Levels, cropping, straightening, sometimes cloning out distracting bits and best of all g'mic filters (highly reccommended as good as Nik)
With practice, my pp time has been reduced significantly. I generally only need 2 or 3 minutes per image. On really challenging images, I might need 15 minutes. In comparison, the first image I did major post processing on in 2011 took me 16 hours!
On average I'd say probably 5-20 minutes, closer to half an hour if it needs a lot of cloning or clean up, or I start getting carried away with filters... I think the most time I've taken on one image so far was a couple of hours, but I'm also a total n00b at processing, so there is a lot of trial and error and correcting mistakes... and also there is probably more I could/should be doing, but then I often think: "I'm spending far too much time on a lousy image." On the flip side, the great images don't need much work, so maybe I really should be spending all that time on the lousy ones ;)
I think Phil's statement of "A good photographer will get it right in camera. If it not right in camera, it not worth editing" doesn't necessary suggest that a good photographer doesn't need their images to go to PS. (Otherwise, that might imply good photographers don't shoot RAW cause they don't need to).
I think Phil's comment supports the "garbage in, garbage out" philosophy. A good photographer tries to get it right every step of the way and starting by taking a good picture is the 1st step".
Every step of the photography workflow is important. Part of the reason why I thought the article was interesting and valuable to share. Many of the Straight of the Camera (SOOC) supporters think that the goal for the photographer is to minimize the time in post work to as close as zero. As Frank pointed out about the article about W. Eugene Smith, a renowned photojournalist photographer, he spent an extraordinary amount of time in the darkroom working on perfecting his image to tell a stronger story without altering the fact. As the article pointed out: "Smith believed that most of what makes a photo is done in the darkroom rather than in the camera."
So if we had the time and the attention to detail, maybe we should strive to spend more time in the post workflow (maybe not years....) and try to perfect every pixel like Smith likely did (I guess that would be grain in the film/photographic paper world).
I never time post-processing because I'm doing it to get the image the way I saw it in my mind -- which may not be the same as what it looked like in the 'reality' of the world, and post-processing varies widely. When I take a photo, I usually am thinking about what it will look like after I've processed it so I need to get it composed the way I want or with room to do whatever corrections post processing (especially if using a super-wide). Sometimes a photo takes several drafts before it's final -- especially if I've submitted it for critique as feedback may require figuring out how to do something that is new to me. Other times, the photo is fun but not really 'worthy' of that much work, so I use LR (used to use Aperture) to tweak the RAW file and export to JPG. I may only spend a few minutes on those types of processing activities or edits.
@cindyloo I agree with your statement. For me editing is about getting the image to be what you saw with your eyes. The camera is stupid compared to us, an can only do it's best guess of what we saw. AND, if you aren't editing your photos as far as white balance, etc, then you are just letting your camera do it for you. Bad idea.
@phil_howcroft Even some of the best commercial grade cameras and sensors can not record the minute details and light differences that the human eye can see. Editing allows us to correct for that. Clearly, the best shot is the shot you have composed in camera first - leveling, white balance, exposure, etc. Absolutely the more you do there before the shot is taken, the better. But, if you truly believe that the only photos that are worthy are the ones that are straight out of the camera, stop looking at any print advertisements and the likes of National Geographic. Every photo in print is touched these days by "editing" changes.
My argument is that if you are creating an artistic image - sure, remove the moon, add a butterfly, throw in the dragon, change it to purple, and clone yourself 15 times. No problem. It's your art. BUT, if you are trying to truly capture the scene as realistically as true to life as possible, then the most subtle edits should be applied if any at all.
Still though, hard to through away a perfect picture because of dust spot on the sensor.
*shrug*
@adambralston Thanks, Adam! What comes out of that camera is all US, regardless of whether we edit it or not. If editing was never used, most of these fannnnnntastic, jaw-dropping photos we see would never happen....because they're layered, merged, etc. The camera simply cannot create exactly what we see. It's a matter of taste, I suppose. I've had photos that I was perfectly happy with straight out of the camera....BUT, I like to put MY touch on it too...things that you can't do without the editing capabilities we have these days. It's what makes us unique. :) So if 5 photographers took the EXACT same photo and they were all perfect straight out of the camera, what makes each photographer's shot unique? THEIR choice in how it's taken in the camera and if/how they process it afterwards. All up to the individual. There are NO rules for an artist.
I think you all touched upon the topic that photography is subjective and what we all see is different. Even if we have the exact same vision, our interpretation would be all different based on our individual personality. And the post-processing part becomes the step of expressing that reality we want to present. For example, the use of vignetting in post may not reflect the reality of the scene but how the photographer perceived the scene (i.e. I was so focused on the subject that the scene around it seem to fade a bit).
I think W. Eugene Smith likely spent so much time in post to express his reality to the audience while still being true to the scene.
@cindyloo I've expressed that idea to others much like you have mentioned. Every artists vision is different. I like the way you say it.
I read somewhere that the camera "takes" the image, and the photographer "makes" an image. I love thinking of it that way.
I was explaining to somebody not long ago that same concept of multiple photographers shooting the same scene and how it will be different (on manual mode anyway mostly) because of choice of focus, exposure, and of course composition. In post, the difference is like a room full of portrait painters and a nude in the middle. They are all seeing the same image, mostly, of the nude from different angles, lighting depending on where they are sitting, but roughly their view is mostly the same. It is in the interpretation of what they "see" in their painting that creates the art and distinguishes each from the next.
We paint with light in camera, we adjust the light post camera.
We do it in our own style
There is no correct or wrong way
We do what we are comfy with
We do what works for us ...... and as Frank Sinatra often said "And more, much more than this, I did it my way"
Right, I'm about to post a "my way "picture now (coincidentally as Frank Sinatra also said said quite often, a shot from "New York" )...not a very good picture I must add, more a photo journal of what I did yesterday
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I am not at all shy about processing images. Most of what I do is crop, exposure, burn and dodge, straighten... All things I was doing in a "wet" darkroom decades ago. But I doubt the average image spends more than 15-20 minutes in "post processing".
i've really never timed it... and obviously it depends on what i'm trying to do, how much fancy stuff is involved, etc...
some composite work has taken me hours in photoshop... some basic processing, including conversion to black and white in nik silver fx has only taken 5, 10 or 15 minutes...
The link is interesting in that a photographer known as a photojournalist, one of the most influential in the field, took as much care in the darkroom as did the "art" greats like Ansell Adams, Brandt, Callahan and the Westons. Interesting too that his "journalistic truth" was what came out of that process, not necessarily what came out of the camera on film at stage one of the process.
So as little time as I can unless I am deliberately playing.
@tina_mac some of my photos I adore took more than 4 mins and it was definitely worth it...don't restrict yourself with time limits :)
For my 365 project they are all taken and edited on my iPhone, edit takes about 40seconds ;-)
Levels, cropping, straightening, sometimes cloning out distracting bits and best of all g'mic filters (highly reccommended as good as Nik)
A good photographer will get it right in camera.
If it not right in camera, it not worth editing
I think Phil's statement of "A good photographer will get it right in camera. If it not right in camera, it not worth editing" doesn't necessary suggest that a good photographer doesn't need their images to go to PS. (Otherwise, that might imply good photographers don't shoot RAW cause they don't need to).
I think Phil's comment supports the "garbage in, garbage out" philosophy. A good photographer tries to get it right every step of the way and starting by taking a good picture is the 1st step".
Every step of the photography workflow is important. Part of the reason why I thought the article was interesting and valuable to share. Many of the Straight of the Camera (SOOC) supporters think that the goal for the photographer is to minimize the time in post work to as close as zero. As Frank pointed out about the article about W. Eugene Smith, a renowned photojournalist photographer, he spent an extraordinary amount of time in the darkroom working on perfecting his image to tell a stronger story without altering the fact. As the article pointed out: "Smith believed that most of what makes a photo is done in the darkroom rather than in the camera."
So if we had the time and the attention to detail, maybe we should strive to spend more time in the post workflow (maybe not years....) and try to perfect every pixel like Smith likely did (I guess that would be grain in the film/photographic paper world).
@phil_howcroft Even some of the best commercial grade cameras and sensors can not record the minute details and light differences that the human eye can see. Editing allows us to correct for that. Clearly, the best shot is the shot you have composed in camera first - leveling, white balance, exposure, etc. Absolutely the more you do there before the shot is taken, the better. But, if you truly believe that the only photos that are worthy are the ones that are straight out of the camera, stop looking at any print advertisements and the likes of National Geographic. Every photo in print is touched these days by "editing" changes.
My argument is that if you are creating an artistic image - sure, remove the moon, add a butterfly, throw in the dragon, change it to purple, and clone yourself 15 times. No problem. It's your art. BUT, if you are trying to truly capture the scene as realistically as true to life as possible, then the most subtle edits should be applied if any at all.
Still though, hard to through away a perfect picture because of dust spot on the sensor.
*shrug*
I think you all touched upon the topic that photography is subjective and what we all see is different. Even if we have the exact same vision, our interpretation would be all different based on our individual personality. And the post-processing part becomes the step of expressing that reality we want to present. For example, the use of vignetting in post may not reflect the reality of the scene but how the photographer perceived the scene (i.e. I was so focused on the subject that the scene around it seem to fade a bit).
I think W. Eugene Smith likely spent so much time in post to express his reality to the audience while still being true to the scene.
This discussion also came up when the various challenges were raised to the authenticity of the 2013 World Press Photo winner.
http://www.bjp-online.com/2013/05/world-press-photo-controversy-objectivity-manipulation-and-the-search-for-truth/
I read somewhere that the camera "takes" the image, and the photographer "makes" an image. I love thinking of it that way.
I was explaining to somebody not long ago that same concept of multiple photographers shooting the same scene and how it will be different (on manual mode anyway mostly) because of choice of focus, exposure, and of course composition. In post, the difference is like a room full of portrait painters and a nude in the middle. They are all seeing the same image, mostly, of the nude from different angles, lighting depending on where they are sitting, but roughly their view is mostly the same. It is in the interpretation of what they "see" in their painting that creates the art and distinguishes each from the next.
We paint with light in camera, we adjust the light post camera.
We do it in our own style
There is no correct or wrong way
We do what we are comfy with
We do what works for us ...... and as Frank Sinatra often said "And more, much more than this, I did it my way"
Right, I'm about to post a "my way "picture now (coincidentally as Frank Sinatra also said said quite often, a shot from "New York" )...not a very good picture I must add, more a photo journal of what I did yesterday