Revised PP workflow - any thoughts

[Diego Garcia]

Hi,

Over the last week I have been archiving my 2006 work and decided to try and reinvent my work flow. Mainly as I am shooting live or with speed at the essence I have come up with a workflow starting in Canon's Zoombrowser for labelling, basic editing levels etc and then into Adobe Bridge for metadata to label numerous files and CS2 if required (moving away from it now)

Each of the following are my old workflow and my new one. Any preference in colours, look and feel?

Any opinions? Hopefully, some of the colours are more natural, whilst I have lost the fringing that was evident in some of my resized work - see the difference between the footballer in 1 and 2, especially around his face - (sit close to the screen). Likwise, look at coat on the US soldier the USM has really brought out the grain of the material, whilst the resize has squashed it I think.

Effectively, I am now using USM 300, 3, 0 as rec. by Canon and then cropping at 750px on the longest edge to allow 50px for my offset frame.

 

[Diego Garcia]

 

[RobertP]

Pictures 1 and 2 I prefer the second versions
pic 3 the first one looks better
4 i can't see any difference
5 not much in it but I'll go for the first one
6 I'll say first again. 2nd looks more natural but 1st looks more like I'd expect for a sports shot.

I'm partially colour blind so don't put much faith in my opinions



edit : Just another thought... that 3rd one - hasn't the aspect ratio changed?

 

[petemc]

I also prefer the 1st in most of them. How come you're moving away from CS2? Is it just a case of trying to find a faster workflow?

 

[Dark Star]

I prefer the first in all but the guitarist shot!

 

[oldgit]

Stick with the 1st one the results are in nearly all cases superior.

 

[Diego Garcia]

I also prefer the 1st in most of them. How come you're moving away from CS2? Is it just a case of trying to find a faster workflow?

Exactly. Pete, most papers and customers like stuff as is, but I am very particular and dont want to send out crap basically.

Appreciate the comments. Will see how it develops. It is not a web process I am looking to develop, more of a print process, so that they can drop images straght into pages and get it done.

 

[CT]

Well I think I prefer the 2nd mostly. with the exception of No4 where I'm struggling to see a difference.

If it's straight to the printer you'tre looking for Pete, then I'd say it's the second versions which retain slightly better shadow detail.. A print will always look a bit darker compared to how it looks on a monitor, which is a bit like viewing a slide on a light tray.

That's as much as I wanna say about work flows... I really need to get one!

 

[Diego Garcia]

Well I think I prefer the 2nd mostly. with the exception of No4 where I'm struggling to see a difference.

If it's straight to the printer you'tre looking for Pete, then I'd say it's the second versions which retain slightly better shadow detail.. A print will always look a bit darker compared to how it looks on a monitor, which is a bit like viewing a slide on a light tray.

That's as much as I wanna say about work flows... I really need to get one!

Thanks. Appreciate that. I too prefer the second images and another batch of test stuff seems to give the new workflow the edge. I think CS2 will still be used, but only where really required and when I am doing 'mega edits' for web after the event.

 

[CT]

LOL I've got files all over the shop. I'm really gonna get a system sorted in the New Year.

 

[Diego Garcia]

LOL I've got files all over the shop. I'm really gonna get a system sorted in the New Year.

Yeah, fair shout, I was going to wait for the break but realised how critical it is. Sorted by date, tagged and added metadata for everything as well as sending loads of stuff back from whenst it came

 

[neonpollen]

A quick question on USM, do you guys sharpen before or after resizing if you were going to post on the web or print them locally ?

 

[CT]

USM should really be the very last thing you do to an image, so don't sharpen before you resize, always do it from an unsharpened original.

Once you've sharpened don't be tempted to adjust contrast levels or anything else, as it can have an undue effect on the sharpening you already did.

That's the generally accepted wisdom on the subject.

 

[Diego Garcia]

A quick question on USM, do you guys sharpen before or after resizing if you were going to post on the web or print them locally ?

I have a tool that adds the correct amount of USM as it is resized but I am looking to add USM to all my press pix without any resizing, aside from the occasional crop.

I would say however, sharpen after resize for an accurate look and feel.

 

[petemc]

Exactly. Pete, most papers and customers like stuff as is, but I am very particular and dont want to send out crap basically.

Appreciate the comments. Will see how it develops. It is not a web process I am looking to develop, more of a print process, so that they can drop images straght into pages and get it done.

I know exactly what you mean. While I was doing stuff for the Biennial they wanted the shots right there and then to send off to the papers. At the time I'd been using Aperture a lot and while it could be slow it didn't bother me much. However when you're on the clock and your RAW editor decides to step out for pizza you have to have a think. So I did and I dumped Aperture for iView which is far far faster. So now its download into iView, keyword, copyright, rate and then process in Photoshop. Like you I'm also wanting to speed up my processing times.