Time...

botanist

How do you all balance the time between shooting and PP'ing?

I'm currently...well...about 800+ shots behind in editing. It's not because I don't want to edit. On the contrary, I'd rather be able to show them off! The problem is I have 2 choices, To edit them right now or to go out and shoot. (or to live life, aka work/eat/sleep/socialize, but honestly those rarely win).

So how do you do it? Where do you find the time? *sigh*

sonny_c

botanist wrote:

How do you all balance the time between shooting and PP'ing?

I'm currently...well...about 800+ shots behind in editing. It's not because I don't want to edit. On the contrary, I'd rather be able to show them off! The problem is I have 2 choices, To edit them right now or to go out and shoot. (or to live life, aka work/eat/sleep/socialize, but honestly those rarely win).

So how do you do it? Where do you find the time? *sigh*

I have my system, which usually eats up two or three days. I'll shoot a football game on Saturday. One team, four divisions = 8hrs & up to 3000 shots. Then Saturday night consists of deleting any blurries and start on cropping to ready them for upload. part of Sunday I usually finish up the cropping and upload during the early morning hours while I sleep. Once a customer orders, then I go in and post-process any photos that need it.

botanist

sonny_c wrote:

I have my system, which usually eats up two or three days. I'll shoot a football game on Saturday. One team, four divisions = 8hrs & up to 3000 shots. Then Saturday night consists of deleting any blurries and start on cropping to ready them for upload. part of Sunday I usually finish up the cropping and upload during the early morning hours while I sleep. Once a customer orders, then I go in and post-process any photos that need it.

well i'm not quite as lucky I guess since I can't wait to PP based on customer's requests. Most of my business/portfolio has to be displayed on the web first before anyone even realizes they've happened (landscape/cityscape/floral).

ballentphoto

botanist wrote:

How do you all balance the time between shooting and PP'ing?

I'm currently...well...about 800+ shots behind in editing. It's not because I don't want to edit. On the contrary, I'd rather be able to show them off! The problem is I have 2 choices, To edit them right now or to go out and shoot. (or to live life, aka work/eat/sleep/socialize, but honestly those rarely win).

So how do you do it? Where do you find the time? *sigh*

This is what I do. After I go out and shoot I do not immediately download the images, usually do it the next day. Then I look through all the images and decide which ones "speak to me" Those are the ones that I will PP. Also I find it very important to nail the exposure (look at histogram in the field) the white balance right off the bat. Get it right out there and then the rest is just minor tweaks in PP. Get the tools to make your life easier. Since I use Nikon I use Capture NX and the color control points are wonderful when I want to tweak a color on something. So here is my W/F:

1. Nail the exposure in the field.
2. While taking pictures try to keep everything as steady as possible while taking the shot (good handholding techique, tripod etc) less need for USM etc
3. Cull through the images dropping anything that I do not care for.
4. Open in Capture NX
5. Set black and white control points 30sec-1 min
6. place color control points where I need them 2-4 minutes
7. If I need to clone something out or heal something off to PS
8. other wise a small amount of USM in Capture. ~1 minute
9. save as highest JPG settings (biggest file possible)
10. upload to Smugmug

Out of 100 shots I probably use 10 shots so it takes me about hour to edit all those files.

That is how I manage YMMV.

botanist

ballentphoto wrote:

This is what I do. After I go out and shoot I do not immediately download the images, usually do it the next day. Then I look through all the images and decide which ones "speak to me" Those are the ones that I will PP. Also I find it very important to nail the exposure (look at histogram in the field) the white balance right off the bat. Get it right out there and then the rest is just minor tweaks in PP. Get the tools to make your life easier. Since I use Nikon I use Capture NX and the color control points are wonderful when I want to tweak a color on something. So here is my W/F:

1. Nail the exposure in the field.
2. While taking pictures try to keep everything as steady as possible while taking the shot (good handholding techique, tripod etc) less need for USM etc
3. Cull through the images dropping anything that I do not care for.
4. Open in Capture NX
5. Set black and white control points 30sec-1 min
6. place color control points where I need them 2-4 minutes
7. If I need to clone something out or heal something off to PS
8. other wise a small amount of USM in Capture. ~1 minute
9. save as highest JPG settings (biggest file possible)
10. upload to Smugmug

Out of 100 shots I probably use 10 shots so it takes me about hour to edit all those files.

That is how I manage YMMV.

wicked, thanks

I use Lightroom and PShop CS...since I have them already lol. Nailing the exposure and WB is a good rule of thumb. I'm normally lazy about setting my custom WB though :uhoh ooops.

I really need to refine my process down to 1 program. Problem is Lightroom has MANY limitations (no color space support, ICC profiles, exporting sometimes causes jpg artifacts, no healing brush, no clone, etc) but moves 10x faster than Pshop. Pshop, i shouldn't have to explain the slowness of any process involving Pshop but really batch processing w/ Actions can be decently quick but you lose the sense of connection w/ the editing process. i've pumped out some disgusting things w/ Actions and had to go back and redo a bunch of work as a result.

Anywho, thanks for the tips, i'll be keeping them in mind. :

rutt

There is good and bad news here. The good news: every image can be improved more given more time and effort. The bad news: every image can be improved more with more time and effort. Learning how to make images look their very best, especially in print, well not only is that a lifetime endeavor, it's also an evolving science/art where even the most advanced are still learning.

I know this isn't what you wanted to hear. So I'll give you some actual good news. Most of the time you can make an image look good enough for professional quality prints in just a minute or so. This is just (!) a matter of practice. Once you learn a workflow that works for you most of the time, you can stamp it out darn fast.

There will still be those problem shots that are really worth saving but which just don't yield to the techniques you are used to. And suppose you are going to have your first ever cover of Vogue or Outside Magazine? How much time would you spend on that shot?

There is a story (purportedly a Zen story) I was once told.

A merchant commissioned an artist to make a drawing of a fish. After one day, it was not ready. After a week, still not ready. A month, no go. Eventually the merchant forgot about it. Two years later he met the artist in the market and remembered (barely) about the commission. "Weren't you supposed to draw a fish for me at one time?"

"Yes, and I've been working on it ever since," answered the artist, "and now it's ready." Well, the merchant was very excited to see this drawing that had consumed two years of work and immediately invited himself to the artist's studio to pick up the treasure.

At the studio, the artist pulled out a fresh sheet of paper, dipped his brush in ink, and drew the most beautiful fish while the merchant watched. An excellent fish, far beyond anything the merchant might have hoped for.

"But," asked the merchant, "this only took a second. Why did you wait all this time to do it?"

The artist opened a closet door to reveal thousands of fish drawings.

I've probably told this story on dgrin before, but I never get tired of it. Spend a day on an image today. In a year you'll get better results in five minutes.

botanist

rutt wrote:

There is good and bad news here. The good news: every image can be improved more given more time and effort. The bad news: every image can be improved more with more time and effort. Learning how to make images look their very best, especially in print, well not only is that a lifetime endeavor, it's also an evolving science/art where even the most advanced are still learning.

I know this isn't what you wanted to hear. So I'll give you some actual good news. Most of the time you can make an image look good enough for professional quality prints in just a minute or so. This is just (!) a matter of practice. Once you learn a workflow that works for you most of the time, you can stamp it out darn fast.

There will still be those problem shots that are really worth saving but which just don't yield to the techniques you are used to. And suppose you are going to have your first ever cover of Vogue or Outside Magazine? How much time would you spend on that shot?

There is a story (purportedly a Zen story) I was once told.

A merchant commissioned an artist to make a drawing of a fish. After one day, it was not ready. After a week, still not ready. A month, no go. Eventually the merchant forgot about it. Two years later he met the artist in the market and remembered (barely) about the commission. "Weren't you supposed to draw a fish for me at one time?"

"Yes, and I've been working on it ever since," answered the artist, "and now it's ready." Well, the merchant was very excited to see this drawing that had consumed two years of work and immediately invited himself to the artist's studio to pick up the treasure.

At the studio, the artist pulled out a fresh sheet of paper, dipped his brush in ink, and drew the most beautiful fish while the merchant watched. An excellent fish, far beyond anything the merchant might have hoped for.

"But," asked the merchant, "this only took a second. Why did you wait all this time to do it?"

The artist opened a closet door to reveal thousands of fish drawings.

I've probably told this story on dgrin before, but I never get tired of it. Spend a day on an image today. In a year you'll get better results in five minutes.

Rutt...you are wise indeed.

And yes you are correct, that is a Zen Koan.

I have witnessed your advice first hand within myself. My ability to edit a picture from last year has improved significantly, however my ability to take that picture better this year is FAR more impressive. Over time I am learning to take the right shot the first time.

Luckily for me patience and dedication to the art aren't things I lack. Patience in editing...well... hahahaha

Thank you for the Koan, I will remember it. :

TomaS

THe shooting is definitely more fun than the processing for me too. I am way behind on my organization and upload of photos. Not sure how to manage that either.

I am beginning to use a similar flow as ballent describes. I shoot RAW+JPG so my first step is to look at the jpgs while still on the card and delete any duds. I then delete the corresponding RAW to save upload time.

Question for ballentphoto: Do you shoot sRGB or Adobe color space? I am starting to use Adobe and convert to sRGB when creating JPG for upload to SmugMug. If I ever buy my own photo printer, I want to have the Adobe space intact. Is there a downside to that?

JBurt

TomaS wrote:

Question for ballentphoto: Do you shoot sRGB or Adobe color space? I am starting to use Adobe and convert to sRGB when creating JPG for upload to SmugMug. If I ever buy my own photo printer, I want to have the Adobe space intact. Is there a downside to that?

I'm not ballentphoto but these links might help while you're waiting for a response.
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=304827&postcount=17
http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=346416&postcount=7

claudermilk

rutt wrote:

There is good and bad news here. The good news: every image can be improved more given more time and effort. The bad news: every image can be improved more with more time and effort. Learning how to make images look their very best, especially in print, well not only is that a lifetime endeavor, it's also an evolving science/art where even the most advanced are still learning.

I know this isn't what you wanted to hear. So I'll give you some actual good news. Most of the time you can make an image look good enough for professional quality prints in just a minute or so. This is just (!) a matter of practice. Once you learn a workflow that works for you most of the time, you can stamp it out darn fast.

There will still be those problem shots that are really worth saving but which just don't yield to the techniques you are used to. And suppose you are going to have your first ever cover of Vogue or Outside Magazine? How much time would you spend on that shot?

There is a story (purportedly a Zen story) I was once told.

A merchant commissioned an artist to make a drawing of a fish. After one day, it was not ready. After a week, still not ready. A month, no go. Eventually the merchant forgot about it. Two years later he met the artist in the market and remembered (barely) about the commission. "Weren't you supposed to draw a fish for me at one time?"

"Yes, and I've been working on it ever since," answered the artist, "and now it's ready." Well, the merchant was very excited to see this drawing that had consumed two years of work and immediately invited himself to the artist's studio to pick up the treasure.

At the studio, the artist pulled out a fresh sheet of paper, dipped his brush in ink, and drew the most beautiful fish while the merchant watched. An excellent fish, far beyond anything the merchant might have hoped for.

"But," asked the merchant, "this only took a second. Why did you wait all this time to do it?"

The artist opened a closet door to reveal thousands of fish drawings.

I've probably told this story on dgrin before, but I never get tired of it. Spend a day on an image today. In a year you'll get better results in five minutes.

Fantastic story! So very true.

At this point, I can chew through literally thousands of images in an evening; run a slideshow where I rate & cull them, then process the best (usually about 10%-15%--this is a large part of the time savings). Getting the image right in the camera speeds things along as there is less PP--so those thousand fish paintings to get to the couple of seconds masterpiece.

BTW, a single program will not necessarily speed things. I use BreezeBrowser Pro, IMatch, Bibble, and when necessary Photoshop and/or Noiseware. Each has a defined place in the workflow & I move from one to the other quickly and now fairly seamlessly. It took about 6-8 months to get it all nailed down (those thousand paintings in the closet again), but now it's quite efficient.

ballentphoto

TomaS wrote:

THe shooting is definitely more fun than the processing for me too. I am way behind on my organization and upload of photos. Not sure how to manage that either.

I am beginning to use a similar flow as ballent describes. I shoot RAW+JPG so my first step is to look at the jpgs while still on the card and delete any duds. I then delete the corresponding RAW to save upload time.

Question for ballentphoto: Do you shoot sRGB or Adobe color space? I am starting to use Adobe and convert to sRGB when creating JPG for upload to SmugMug. If I ever buy my own photo printer, I want to have the Adobe space intact. Is there a downside to that?

I shoot for what ever is going to the final output. If I were to print my own I would stick with Adobe, but very few Labs support it so why waste time converting back and forth, back and forth much less keeping track of what it was the last time. Since I just print with labs I just keep the whole thing sRGB. Keeps it simple

There are folks that suggest to shoot in Adobe, process in Adobe and convert in the final step to sRGB, well the gamut is smaller in sRGB than Adobe, and if the final output is going to be sRGB why spin the cycles. There probably is no "right" answer. IMO but hat's is what has been working for me. Probably until I learn something new

TomaS

ballentphoto wrote:

I shoot for what ever is going to the final output. If I were to print my own I would stick with Adobe, but very few Labs support it so why waste time converting back and forth, back and forth much less keeping track of what it was the last time. Since I just print with labs I just keep the whole thing sRGB. Keeps it simple

There are folks that suggest to shoot in Adobe, process in Adobe and convert in the final step to sRGB, well the gamut is smaller in sRGB than Adobe, and if the final output is going to be sRGB why spin the cycles. There probably is no "right" answer. IMO but hat's is what has been working for me. Probably until I learn something new

Thanks for the reply

I am always experimenting and learning better ways too. I guess my only concern is with the technical aspect of converting. Which loses the least information: sRGB>aRGB or aRGB>sRGB? At some point in the life of an image, a conversion may make sense, and I want to have the original in the space that is best for the process.