Editing Images

[chezzyr]

Everything I keep/use, I edit.

Sometimes that entails just a crop or resize.

Graphic design/photo art involves more extensive editing in PS and vector programs.

Oh my lord I am not a purist

[rubiton]

Wow so I crop an image send it to the printers and even though they dont touch it the fact it goes through a machine to print means its edited with colours etc. OK fair enough but it certainly isnt like wasting hours taking photos in RAW and editing every single one. On a small scale if you took pics and then had talent in graphic design (I have seen some very impressive night time shots taht have been worked on to enhance them) but not when its 400-600 pics a day. Its nearly Royal show time again and when you download then rename those 400-600 pics each day for 8 days the last thing you want to do is post processing on them unless you get actual orders for that image!

I do like the sharpening tools in CS4 - saved a few photos that I completely stuffed up at the yearling sales.

[persephone]

The EDITING I had in mind when doing this poll... was the photographer sitting here at their computer, with photoshop or similar...

definitely NOT what's done by a mass-produced printing business

Sorry If I've not been clear .

[chezzyr]

Given that the questions were:

Do you routinely edit images post -camera?

How much editing do you do?

Do you regularly rely on editing?

I don't think the OP is really talking about lab involvement here.

[Ashanali]

I love the purists... because a true 'purist' will take the photos, process them at home and print them in their own darkroom.

And they dodge and burn, they can push or pull the developing of the film, they can over or underexpose an image to get the outcome they want. They are editing!!

I think people who jump straight into digital often forget/don't realise that. With film (and i mean self processing and printing, not done at the shops), there wasn't a 'no edit' option, from the way you process your film to all the work done at the enlarger. Every single step is manually done, with considerations made.

I came from film. I have printed black and white in a dark room and been responsible for my own processing and I have printed colour in a lab. I know exactly what you're talking about.

Hope you weren't assuming that I jumped straight into digital.

[kja]

it certainly isnt like wasting hours taking photos in RAW and editing every single one. but not when its 400-600 pics a day. Its nearly Royal show time again and when you download then rename those 400-600 pics each day for 8 days the last thing you want to do is post processing on them unless you get actual orders for that image!

This can all be done at import in lightroom - stick the card in the reader, choose a folder and a backup location, choose the filenames, file type and hit the button. No time to do. Those who shoot the same things over and over have presets created that can be applied at import so that can eliminate that step for the vast majority of images, too. A good friend who shoots underwater has a couple of presets that are applied to all his images at import - like one for macro work, one for super wide angle, one for in-between etc and also different ones for different cameras. All of the applied tweaks are, of course, totally changeable if they don't suit a particular image.

I haven't used the import presets as yet but in the back of my mind I'm always thinking about it. I do have presets that I'll apply to a whole shoot by selecting the preset from my develop menu and using "select all" after I've imported, but not very often as often what I shoot has a good variety of conditions. So I tend to just import without a preset and then apply whatever to batches or groups of similar photos.

The synch option in LR lets you apply your tweaks to multiple images at once - it's very fast and efficient and everything can be tailored per photo if you need to. I can whip through 1000 photos with basic edits ready for proofing FAST, if need be. What tends to take the most time, for me, is selecting the keepers - and I can't see that RAW or jpeg would impact that at all.

It really shouldn't take more time to get images ready to show if you shoot in RAW vs jpegs once you get a good workflow happening. And the extra benefits of RAW for the final product more than make up for any extra seconds, imho This isn't to debate the merits of one over the other as both work for individual photographers so there's no right or wrong, but having used both, I just don't see that jpeg took any less time for me to deal with than RAW (and using RAW has saved a photo here or there that simply wouldn't have been recoverable in jpeg, since I'm not perfect and do make mistakes or get slack and don't check settings before I pick up a camera and shoot sometimes!)

[Poo d'état]

Wow so I crop an image send it to the printers and even though they dont touch it the fact it goes through a machine to print means its edited with colours etc. OK fair enough but it certainly isnt like wasting hours taking photos in RAW and editing every single one. On a small scale if you took pics and then had talent in graphic design (I have seen some very impressive night time shots taht have been worked on to enhance them) but not when its 400-600 pics a day. Its nearly Royal show time again and when you download then rename those 400-600 pics each day for 8 days the last thing you want to do is post processing on them unless you get actual orders for that image!

Well, that would depend on the other editing (as in culling - i try to be tight with mine, especially if it was 400-600 a day!) and how fluent you are with your editing program . Like Kja said, there are presets you can apply on import, and also actions you can customise to do multiple functions with the click of one button (with PS anyway).

The EDITING I had in mind when doing this poll... was the photographer sitting here at their computer, with photoshop or similar...

definitely NOT what's done by a mass-produced printing business

Sorry If I've not been clear .

I guess i was commenting on the misconception that minilab machine-printed photos are printed 'as-if', meaning 'had nothing done to them'. Even pro labs have their own printer outputs that you need to match your colour profile to, so, really, the purists can't escape it!

I love the purists... because a true 'purist' will take the photos, process them at home and print them in their own darkroom.

And they dodge and burn, they can push or pull the developing of the film, they can over or underexpose an image to get the outcome they want. They are editing!!

I think people who jump straight into digital often forget/don't realise that. With film (and i mean self processing and printing, not done at the shops), there wasn't a 'no edit' option, from the way you process your film to all the work done at the enlarger. Every single step is manually done, with considerations made.

I came from film. I have printed black and white in a dark room and been responsible for my own processing and I have printed colour in a lab. I know exactly what you're talking about.

Hope you weren't assuming that I jumped straight into digital.

I know you came from film Ash, when i said "people don't realise that", the 'that' i was referring to was the bits i quoted you.

[Ashanali]

I know you came from film Ash, when i said "people don't realise that", the 'that' i was referring to was the bits i quoted you.

okay. We are on the same page.

[Poo d'état]

As for my own editing style, i definitely tweak curves and exposure as needed, straightening up, cropping to tidy up, etc, pretty much the same amount that i do at work. We have a World Press Photo award winning Aussie photographer contributing to us at the moment and my goodness, the level to which he does not edit (cull), tweak or straighten his photos is rather astounding, it certainly does not do his reputation any favours (especially since we have to do all of it for him!).

For happy snappy shots of friends though, i do occasionaly touch up the odd pimple or shiny forehead, oh and skin rashes on my OH's baby nephew when they were in town to visit.

[rubiton]

Poo d'etat and kja I should explain - at a Royal I take 400-600 photos a day of horses which can be white, grey, chestnut, bay, brown or black. The sun can be out then it can be overcast and then it can pour down with rain on the same day. Some will be fully lit some on an angle or in the case of presentations some can be backlit given difference times of the day. The backgrounds vary depending on if you are at the end of the oval (grass mostly in background) or right out the other end with the trotting track & fence right behind them. The estimated 400-600 is after culling though this happens when going through every single shot and naming it with the rider & horse id (and this can take til midnight alone). I would not have time to go through and pick out similar images to use shortcuts/presets on so its easier to cull the ones that had problems (focus, stride, missed the right exposure) and leave them as taken by the camera. So its up to me to get it right when they are taken - I'm also not patient enought to sit at the computer to edit since I'd be kicking my self thinking why did I not do this when I took them! Once they are ordered they would be cropped and sometimes might need to bring up the shadows etc but for the proofs they go as is.

Now as for photographers that take a different type of photography such as landscapes, piers, bridges, similar backgrounds etc then I can see the idea of being able to enhance the image - have seen countless ones at work on the email forum especially night shots (lit bridges, piers, etc) that look much like those posters you see out there. Its amazing what you can do in photoshop even with high qual jpegs but I never have the time to even try some of the fancy effects (have instructions here for cloud mist taking over the image as is the subject is bursting through but wouldnt quite work with the horse photos as an image).

[Ashanali]

Poo d'etat and kja I should explain - at a Royal I take 400-600 photos a day of horses which can be white, grey, chestnut, bay, brown or black. The sun can be out then it can be overcast and then it can pour down with rain on the same day. Some will be fully lit some on an angle or in the case of presentations some can be backlit given difference times of the day. The backgrounds vary depending on if you are at the end of the oval (grass mostly in background) or right out the other end with the trotting track & fence right behind them. The estimated 400-600 is after culling though this happens when going through every single shot and naming it with the rider & horse id (and this can take til midnight alone). I would not have time to go through and pick out similar images to use shortcuts/presets on so its easier to cull the ones that had problems (focus, stride, missed the right exposure) and leave them as taken by the camera. So its up to me to get it right when they are taken - I'm also not patient enought to sit at the computer to edit since I'd be kicking my self thinking why did I not do this when I took them! Once they are ordered they would be cropped and sometimes might need to bring up the shadows etc but for the proofs they go as is.

Sounds like a wedding.

Also sounds like a dog show.

Everything here is run through lightroom. Once you have it worked out, it really is easy and fast. Lightroom will also work on jpg files.

[Guest Tess32]

For the dog show/event stuff, I edit all proofs before they go up. It is extra work, but it is also your reputation.

I edit pretty much every single photo anyway.

[rubiton]

Sounds like it works well for those who choose to use lightroom etc.

I prefer to get what I want when I take it - thats the challenge of photography to me for the photos I take.

Nothing wrong with either method if it works though.

[Ashanali]

Sounds like it works well for those who choose to use lightroom etc.

I prefer to get what I want when I take it - thats the challenge of photography to me for the photos I take.

Nothing wrong with either method if it works though.

There is nothing wrong with setting yourself a challenge but why resist an extremely awesome tool that you have at your disposal? You sound like Jerry Ghionis. After years of preaching to people that he only shoots in jpg because he get's the shot first go, he is now shooting in RAW. He is still shooting the same way but has realised that RAW has some unbeatable qualities that he wanted to make use of.

Our shooting style hasn't changed since we went from jpg to RAW; we still try to get the image in one shot - but out workflow has changed dramatically. We are 100% happier with the results we are getting now.

[chezzyr]

Maybe Rubiton is happy with the results she is getting now (and her system) and if it aint broke why fix it??

Having shot horse events before I understand where she is coming from and having seen her work I know its good.

Most dog EVENTS I will shoot in jpeg for the simple fact that the file sizes are smaller to deal with and store.

Plus the fact that MOST dog people will only want something smallish with minor mods to put on a website, dogzonline profile etc. Jpegs are fine for that.

If its a special shoot for ad layouts or art (or where I KNOW more use will be made of the images) then I shoot in both RAW and jpeg.

[Ashanali]

Maybe Rubiton is happy with the results she is getting now (and her system) and if it aint broke why fix it??

Having shot horse events before I understand where she is coming from and having seen her work I know its good.

Most dog EVENTS I will shoot in jpeg for the simple fact that the file sizes are smaller to deal with and store.

Plus the fact that MOST dog people will only want something smallish with minor mods to put on a website, dogzonline profile etc. Jpegs are fine for that.

If its a special shoot for ad layouts or art (or where I KNOW more use will be made of the images) then I shoot in both RAW and jpeg.

Why is "EVENTS" is capitals?

I shoot dog EVENTS too. (although I don't advertise it)

I shoot them in RAW (not yelling )

Yep - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's fine, however I was more discussing the point that some people appear to feel 'superior' to those who choose to shoot RAW (eg -

I prefer to get what I want when I take it - thats the challenge of photography to me for the photos I take

) to me that possibly says, "I'm better than you because I can take one jpg image and you all have to edit RAW because you can't get it right."

My example was simply to show that even someone who IS better than most photographers has changed over - not because his photos weren't perfectly captured - because anyone who has seen his SOOC images can vouch for the fact that they are friggen amazing as they are... but because of ease of workflow.

I know it might come as a shock to many, but there are plenty of photographers out there who can nail their exposures and they still choose to shoot in RAW. (and I am one of these people, and so is my husband and I bet there are other people on DOL also who could do this.)

I am all for Rubiton not changing what works for her. That's fine and I have seen samples of her work and agree that they are great. My issue is with the superiority complex that seems to accompany the whole, "I shoot in jpg" issue.

ftr - Shooting in RAW is something that I resisted for ages also - I can see both sides of the argument. :p

[chezzyr]

Ash, like one of the quotes from "Best in Show" (the movie)

youre just going to have to let this one go

[chezzyr]

I didn't know Jenny had a superiority complex and I didn't know I was a purist - you

learn all kinds of stuff via dol

[chezzyr]

Capitals is my way of bolding, not yelling

[Ashanali]

ETA: Did I call you a purist? Or was that someone else?

Ash, like one of the quotes from "Best in Show" (the movie)

youre just going to have to let this one go

Damn. I loved debating at high school. People rarely like to play now. :D

totally off topic - when I did the auditions for Big Brother many years ago, one of the tasks was a debate. I was put onto a side that I was totally against but I defended it right down to the line and our side 'won'. In the afternoon we had to vote people 'out' - one of the people who was on the same team as me for the debate said they were voting me out because if I was able to argue so strongly for a point of view that I was against, they didn't want to confront me about something I believed in.

now back on topic - I honestly have no feeling one way or another over who chooses to shoot RAW and who chooses to shoot jpg. Horses for courses (I thought Rubiton might appreciate the pun). :p ;)

Edited August 22, 2009 by Ashanali