Scott Kelby's LR Workflow Question

Helvegr

Hi,

Does anybody else use the workflow or one similar to Scott Kelby's workflow he outlines in both his LR2 and LR3 book? I have a question about it.

It makes perfect sense how he takes all the images from a shoot, and then rejects the really bad ones, and "picks" the keepers.

Then the keeps turn into another subset called selects, which are the best of the best.

My question though is what happens to that batch of images that were not deleted as rejects, but not considered to be keeps? Are they just destined to sit on your hard drive, never to be processed or shown to anybody again? I'm just wondering what could come of these images that were not good enough to show a client, but not bad enough to delete?

Thanks!

CatOne

Yep, pretty much. Keep them in case you might need them for something down the road, but if you're too busy to really work on them, or they're not good enough to show off, then don't really spend time with them.

PilotBrad

Helvegr wrote: »

I'm just wondering what could come of these images that were not good enough to show a client, but not bad enough to delete?

I've made it a practice of going throught them again (quickly) a few weeks later to determine if I really want to keep them. I am a bit of a digital-pack-rat, but I've been able to delete a bunch more that I knew would never be touched again.

jfriend

Helvegr wrote: »

Hi,

Does anybody else use the workflow or one similar to Scott Kelby's workflow he outlines in both his LR2 and LR3 book? I have a question about it.

It makes perfect sense how he takes all the images from a shoot, and then rejects the really bad ones, and "picks" the keepers.

Then the keeps turn into another subset called selects, which are the best of the best.

My question though is what happens to that batch of images that were not deleted as rejects, but not considered to be keeps? Are they just destined to sit on your hard drive, never to be processed or shown to anybody again? I'm just wondering what could come of these images that were not good enough to show a client, but not bad enough to delete?

Thanks!

Storage is so ridiculously cheap these days that I keep anything that is technically an OK capture (exposure, focus, etc...). I've found that I never know when I might want some other shot that today doesn't seem like a select shot. Sometimes I need a piece of background to fix some other photo or I need more photos with one particular person in them or I need a photo that fits a different print size or something that I'm now not anticipating. So, with ridiculously cheap storage (less than a penny per 12MP RAW file), I only throw things away that are really ruined.

Helvegr

Thanks for the replies.

One additional thing I'm curious about with this type of workflow is how scrutinizing people are when they are picking out the best of the best.

For instance, if you were to spend the day at a national park, about how many shots do you think you'd take by the end of the day?

Of those shots about how many would be considered "keepers"? And of those how many would you actually put through the post processing workflow?

I ask this because a friend of mine were having a similar discussion and he tends to process a large number of his shots, making the thought of the post processing work very daunting, even limiting the number of shots he takes.

So i'm just curious how you all tend to trend.

jfriend

Helvegr wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.

One additional thing I'm curious about with this type of workflow is how scrutinizing people are when they are picking out the best of the best.

For instance, if you were to spend the day at a national park, about how many shots do you think you'd take by the end of the day?

Of those shots about how many would be considered "keepers"? And of those how many would you actually put through the post processing workflow?

I ask this because a friend of mine were having a similar discussion and he tends to process a large number of his shots, making the thought of the post processing work very daunting, even limiting the number of shots he takes.

So i'm just curious how you all tend to trend.

I have two levels of post processing. The first level of post processing is in Lightroom and it's really quite quick so I can process hundreds of photos in not very much time. This is what I do before putting on the web to share.

My second level of post processing involves hand tweaking the image in Photoshop, fiddling with custom curves, selective sharpening, cloud enhancement, color enhancement, masks, graidents, etc... I only do these on images I'm going to print and hang on the wall which is only a few.

Most people would probably not notice the difference between my Lightroom adjusted photos and the ones with the additional hand tweaking, but when printing I want the best I can produce so I take the extra steps.

Whether those extra steps are worth it for you before putting on the web depends entirely on the purpose of your web display.

As for selectivity, I spent two days in Yosemite this spring doing nothing but taking photos. I took about 1000 photos, put 86 on the web, have hand tweaked two for printing so far, and will probably hand tweak another five or six for printing in the next few months.