Does everybody post process?

I shoot RAW and so have to PP...but then I would anyway.

Each 'job' gets it's own folder, named in accordance with International naming principles: Originator; Date; Job-Number; Job Description.
Examples for today might be:

"RKD,2010,0608,01 - TP Test Images"
"RKD,2010,0608,02 - eBay Camera Sale, D1x"

That way a year later you don't open a hard drive to see lots of job numbers and have no idea what's inside them until you go through each one and look at the images.

Images then go into three sub-folders:
RAW; Print and Transmission.

Download images from card to RAW folder (and to back-up folder on seperate hard-drive) and then edit. I'll highlight in bridge all the ones I'm going to use. Then save the edited images in the other two folders.

RAW: self explanatory.
Print: full-sized (not cropped) edited JPEG - about 8-10Mb for each image.
Transmission: cropped, edited JPEG, re-sized to 12" along the long side at 150dpi, giving a file of about 1.5-2mb, suitable for email transmission and use in newspaper or colour supplement.

(Though I have printed the 'transmission' images up to A3 with no distinguishable loss in quality over the 'Print' images...)

If I do any further editing, like B&W or resized for PPT presentations, these go in seperate sub-folders.

Once the images are edited, that folder stays on the PC hard-drive for one month then is copied to two seperate hard-drives for archive (not the same drive as the RAW back-up is kept) and removed from the PC's drive to make room for the next month's work.
 
I always process, even if it just a minor colour/levels correction, and I have learned the hard way to always keep the originals.

When my ex-wife and I divorced years worth of RAW images ended up in the wrong black bin liner and have never been seen since, I still have the processed JPGs but it isn't the same. I would love to be able to re-edit the shots I took on Concorde's last day at Heathrow in 2003 with the knowledge I gained in the intervening years but the 1024x683 processed images are hardly worth even trying to rescue.:|
 
You gotta do summit to 'em, even if it's a little sharpen. I'm trying to process less these days unless I'm going for a particular look, but still, everthing needs sharpening from RAW to jpeg.
 
Arkady said:
I shoot RAW and so have to PP...but then I would anyway.

Each 'job' gets it's own folder, named in accordance with International naming principles: Originator; Date; Job-Number; Job Description.
Examples for today might be:

"RKD,2010,0608,01 - TP Test Images"
"RKD,2010,0608,02 - eBay Camera Sale, D1x"

That way a year later you don't open a hard drive to see lots of job numbers and have no idea what's inside them until you go through each one and look at the images.

Images then go into three sub-folders:
RAW; Print and Transmission.

Download images from card to RAW folder (and to back-up folder on seperate hard-drive) and then edit. I'll highlight in bridge all the ones I'm going to use. Then save the edited images in the other two folders.

RAW: self explanatory.
Print: full-sized (not cropped) edited JPEG - about 8-10Mb for each image.
Transmission: cropped, edited JPEG, re-sized to 12" along the long side at 150dpi, giving a file of about 1.5-2mb, suitable for email transmission and use in newspaper or colour supplement.

(Though I have printed the 'transmission' images up to A3 with no distinguishable loss in quality over the 'Print' images...)

If I do any further editing, like B&W or resized for PPT presentations, these go in seperate sub-folders.

Once the images are edited, that folder stays on the PC hard-drive for one month then is copied to two seperate hard-drives for archive (not the same drive as the RAW back-up is kept) and removed from the PC's drive to make room for the next month's work.
Click to expand...


You are So organised!!
 
I try not to post process to much but I've never printed anything totally untouched. I shoot RAW and jpeg and I've tweaked the jpeg settings on my camera so I don't need to touch 90% of my holiday snaps for general viewing.

It's not that I object to post processing, what I object to is spending ages sitting in front of a computer when what I enjoy is getting out and taking the shot.
 
Bubby said:
For some reason, I think that I'm changing what was actually there. As if it is in some way false. As if what I look back on the pics in years to come & it isnt actually what was there or something? I cant quite put my finger on it. Can anyone add anything to what Ive just said to help me see it in a different light? Its actually like a big dilemma I have.
Click to expand...

Its not like pressing a button that automatically awesome-izes an image, all of the adjustments are thought out by the user. Just see it as if you are a carpenter sanding and polishing some of his work!
 
a1ex2001 said:
It's not that I object to post processing, what I object to is spending ages sitting in front of a computer when what I enjoy is getting out and taking the shot.
Click to expand...

I do a fair amount of it on the train on my laptop (at least roughing things out) or in the evening so there's not a lot of lost shooting time there. :)
 
I use film and there is always some processing to do after scanning the negs, even if it is just dust bustin'.

I scan the negs to tiff at 600ppi, which I always keep as backup.

I process the tiffs and save as jpgs at 600ppi still and also keep them.

I then resize the jpgs to 300ppi for printing or uploading to Flickr, RedBubble etc, these I delete after use.

I guess we all have our own little ways of doing things. :D
 
You don't have to post process. The out-of-camera JPEG has already been pre processed according to the Picture Styles pre-sets - sharpness, contrast, saturation, colour tone - and white balance, noise reduction etc. It is intended to be viewed as a final output, in the same way that most compacts don't provide any other option.

Of course, if you don't like what the camera does for you, or you want to change things, or maybe because you've just been a bit sloppy, then you can go back to the Raw and start again.

BTW, you can't actually see the Raw (and if you could, it would look rubbish). It's just a pile of data and must be processed into an image file of some sort. When you shoot Raw-only, what you see is a miniature JPEG tagged to the file, and that will also reflect all the camera pre-sets.

Edit: you can also post process the JPEG and make quite a few changes to that, but it's obviously better to go back to the original Raw.
 
Arkady said:
Each 'job' gets it's own folder, named in accordance with International naming principles: Originator; Date; Job-Number; Job Description.
Examples for today might be:

"RKD,2010,0608,01 - TP Test Images"
"RKD,2010,0608,02 - eBay Camera Sale, D1x"
Click to expand...

:lol: Just worked out where your nick comes from... :bang:

I'll go back to sleep now... :coat:
 
Bubby said:
For some reason, I think that I'm changing what was actually there. As if it is in some way false. As if what I look back on the pics in years to come & it isnt actually what was there or something? I cant quite put my finger on it. Can anyone add anything to what Ive just said to help me see it in a different light? Its actually like a big dilemma I have.
Click to expand...

What you need to realise is that what the camera produces is a lie anyway - the sensor 'sees' i a different way to your eye so what your camera captures isn't exactly representative of what you saw, you therefore need to process it to represent what you were taking the picture of.

Shooting in JPG makes an attempt to do this for every shot (adjusting contrast curves etc) but it is a rough and ready tool and doesn't always get it right, hence people shoot in RAW so they can do it to their mind's eye.
 
Yes and no I suppose. Everything gets imported into Lightroom, some get some minor adjustments, some get a little more, a few get taken into photoshop for a bit more processing.

I do try and get as much as possible right in camera, just to cut down on the PP time.
 
I shoot in raw and then use ufraw/idc and gimp to do any PP. These are free software.

Time spent on each pic depends on how much I like the original image or how much of a challenge I am finding it to work with.
 
plymman said:
I have it set to RAW + jpeg, the Jpeg so I can view them straight away without any fuss, and RAW because one day I might start to do some PP and need the untouched original.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough.

Treat the RAW file like a digital negative, and you can't go wrong.

There's some fairly basic changes in Lightroom (or other RAW converter) which can improve your image no end....just like printing a neg!
 
Do I process? Man, Ive never taken a photo that hasn't beem photoshop'd to death.
I don't take a lot of care taking pictures, I just point and shoot knowing I can sort it all out later on my laptop.
:)
 
I started shooting in RAW early on, and use DPP to just give the levels a nudge or a wang, and add a little sharpness & saturation. Even this level of editing can be time consuming if you've been on a bit of a mission and have 100s of images to look through.

I actually tried using Raw + JPEG for a while to try to save time, but found I binned almost all of the JPEGs each time in favour of making RAW adjustments. It's just worth it, and I now see it as part of the process of taking photos.

A couple of my friends shoot in JPEG only, and i've seen loads of images where just a little bit of a play in Raw would have either saved a badly exposed shot, or given a good but 'flat' looking image a nice boost.

I like to retouch my 'people shots' a little in photoshop. Either to smooth them out a little, or to get a particular effect (love the high-pass filter, high contrast look).

I actually find editing images quite relaxing, and using something like DDP will help you spend time going through your images and noticing mistakes (Like underexposing on bright days, which I have noticed I've been doing - but only while I was processing).

I don't think there's any shame in making a good image better!
 
jerry12953 said:
That's fair enough.

Treat the RAW file like a digital negative, and you can't go wrong.

There's some fairly basic changes in Lightroom (or other RAW converter) which can improve your image no end....just like printing a neg!
Click to expand...

It's not the negative, it's the digital 'latent image' ;) :D
 
I always post process, at the very least to get the best tones, colours and sharpness, out of the image, at the more extreme end to add more artistic merit or alter an image to the way I want to show it.

I consider the camera a tool to create an image, from which I take an image and then develop it further. I don't believe once you take a shot you should be purist and leave it untouched. Some shots I try to leave looking natural (weddings etc) others I'll heavily work on (more conceptual work).*

My recent interest is in grading images with different tones (as they do in films) which creates a completely different look and mood to the originals. *

On the other hand, I don't like obviously pp'ed work, and try to keep it somewhat believable, but have been known to remove people, rocks, dirt, move clouds etc. If I think it looks too processed though, I'll take a step back.

Without getting into a huge theoretical discussion I see photography as an opportunity to tell stories or show things as I see it. My last thought (and playing devils advocate-ish) would for you to consider taking a slow shutter image of a moving car and getting it all blurred? Is that not some sort of processing / image altering in camera?

You should try a bit of post work - your images will be benefit considerably. Have fun.
 
I think this year I've probably shot 70% of my personal work on film, the rest on digital. By definition all the film shots are processed - though this is by dunking in noxious chemicals rather than photoshop.

I'd also say that every shot i've taken has been post-processed in some way - the digital shots are in RAW and will probably need a little sharpening for output.

The film shots have been scanned, the scanning software processed the images via profiles according to the film type - neg/pos colour/B&W. They then generally need a quick crop to tidy the film rebate black bits away. At this point, they get a once over for dust spots and other scanning artifacts. Finally, as with pretty much any digital file, they will be sharpened for output as appropriate.

All of this work is to present the image in the best manner I can. As commented by wavefront/Mark - if things start to look processed, i'll back up and re-assess things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top