PDA

View Full Version : 923 M9 pics to process...


Roger Hicks
09-12-2010, 12:23
...and it's time consuming. Shot under everything from ISO 160 to 2500, sodium vapour to dappled sunlight, in the Pyrenees. That's nearly a fortnight's pics. For non-English-speakers, a fortnight is two weeks: fortnight = fourteen nights.

This is quite a few hours in Lightroom. How does anyone who shoots 100-200 pics per day ever manage to process the shots?

Cheers,

R.

le vrai rdu
09-12-2010, 12:26
trier d'abord telle est la solution

jbf
09-12-2010, 12:26
you dont process everything. edit down. brutally edit. get rid of all the riff raff.


i usually spend a few days editing down/categorizing all my shots. ones that work for a specific purpose, ones that i think have a potential in a bigger group, etc. then do basic adjustments. come back later when i have more specific idea that they'll work for sure, ill go back and do finer adjustments.

johannielscom
09-12-2010, 12:31
1 weed out the bad ones and delete them from the catalog
2 mark all shots that need no work at all 5 stars
3 mark all shots that need color correction only 4 stars
4 mark all shots that need exposure correction and color correction 3 stars
5 mark all shots that need cropping, exposure correction and color correction 2 stars
6 select the 4 star shots only (filter) and assign the color flags to different jobs of color correction. Select the four star shots with a certain colored flag, edit one shot and sync the others
7 do 6 for 3 star, 2 star shots as well
8 fine tweak the lot as you see fit. Should be only minor tweaks if all went well.

That's how I did it when still shooting digital. Still takes time, but LightRoom really is a long way from individual shots through PhotoShop... much faster.

Good luck! Looking forward to seeing some of those shots here!

MartinP
09-12-2010, 12:37
Almost makes me glad I haven't got round to buying another scanner yet ! My 'cunning plan' in future is to scan prints, that way most of the work (editing, curves etc.) is already done. It remains to be seen if this really works.

Good luck Roger ! Can grouping them by light-conditions work, or maybe there would still be 923 groups of one.

Roger Hicks
09-12-2010, 12:40
Le vrai rdu: Trier, c'est vrai.

But there are pics that could be 5* when processed but are (at best) 3* before processing.

Thanks Johan for the workflow analysis. Better than mine: I shall adopt it forthwith. But it's still a f***of a lot of work for 923 pics. Sure, I've overshot. Even so, there's more there than I can process in a day.

Martin: cunning stunts spoonerizes well. It's not 923 groups of 1 but at least 50 groups of 1-50.

Again, thanks to all,

Cheers,

R.

dogberryjr
09-12-2010, 12:40
1 weed out the bad ones and delete them from the catalog
2 mark all shots that need no work at all 5 stars
3 mark all shots that need color correction only 4 stars
4 mark all shots that need exposure correction and color correction 3 stars
5 mark all shots that need cropping, exposure correction and color correction 2 stars
6 select the 4 star shots only (filter) and assign the color flags to different jobs of color correction. Select the four star shots with a certain colored flag, edit one shot and sync the others
7 do 6 for 3 star, 2 star shots as well
8 fine tweak the lot as you see fit. Should be only minor tweaks if all went well.

That's how I did it when still shooting digital. Still takes time, but LightRoom really is a long way from individual shots through PhotoShop... much faster.

Good luck! Looking forward to seeing some of those shots here!

All this, plus make use of that handy-dandy Lightroom feature that allows you to Copy/Paste settings from one photo to the next.

Michiel Fokkema
09-12-2010, 12:56
I shoot 1000-2000 at a wedding, 300-500 at an engagement shoot.
I delete everything that's bad. Pick everything I like. That takes me one hour per 1000 pictures. Then go through the picks and take the best ones from that. These are corrected.
That's it.

Cheers,

Michiel Fokkema

Austerby
09-12-2010, 13:12
Go back to 36exp per film and you won't be so overwhelmed!

Roger, I'm interested to hear if you think there are more shots of a higher quality than if you'd used a film camera - i.e. does digital present a stronger ratio of keepers to rejects, or is it just a phase we're all going through?

sojournerphoto
09-12-2010, 13:19
Funny, I just came back from a fornight camping in the outer hebrides with 1457 shots including my wife's and childrens. I only took the 1Ds3 as camping can equal damp and my wife took her GX100. Loads of work, but I'm just running through them in date rder and printing the ones I want for the album first. The a tighter edit to about 3 for the wall:)

Mike

sepiareverb
09-12-2010, 13:27
I generate proofsheets in Bridge and edit there. I'm pretty ruthless with proofsheets- and too easily seduced by the images on the screen, so the printed page works better for me.

I've also saved several starting points in the DNG converter for various situations- that saves a lot of time- as I can click though several processing set-ups quickly to get close. Just getting started with LR, so not sure how simple this is to do there.

Ezzie
09-12-2010, 13:30
Lift and stamp, lift and stamp. Those pictures that have suvived the ordeal of selection, group them according to what type of adjustments are needed and to which extent. WB, sharpening, definition, recovery, contrast, curves etc. When happy wirh one lift the adjustment and stamp the other pictures that would benefit from the same tweeks. Only then do image by image final tweeking; burning, dodging, healing, cloning etc.

ampguy
09-12-2010, 13:34
Roger, here's the key - take a good picture the first time, learn to expose, and compose what you want the final image to be, then you can eliminate that photoshop and cropping and whatever else you do and just end up with keeprs.

mervynyan
09-12-2010, 13:48
don't look back, delete one immediately that can't make an impression on the computer screen. or do 50%-25%-10% reductions.

Roger Hicks
09-12-2010, 14:17
The catch is that digi includes 'free Polaroids' -- the best of which are of the same (technical) quality as the keepers...

Bear in mind that my professional background is in advertising; or in other words, in Polaroid tests.

But regardless of how good you are at triage, it's still a long, slow process.

The other thing is that selectng (say) 25 shots of a single subject is not the same as selecting 10-20 photos each for at least 5 different purposes (3 websites, magazine/s, book/s)

Cheers,

R.

Keith
09-12-2010, 14:30
You mean, the M9 doesn't take perfect photographs ... and it costs how much? :angel:

:D

Roger Hicks
09-12-2010, 14:33
You mean, the M9 doesn't take perfect photographs ... and it costs how much?

Dear Keith,

Sure, it does. Problem is, I don't...

Cheers,

R.

yanidel
09-12-2010, 14:35
I now edit on my LCD screen every day to avoid your kind of situation. After a week in Arles, I had 300 pictures left to process which is fine.

Keith
09-12-2010, 14:36
You mean, the M9 doesn't take perfect photographs ... and it costs how much?

Dear Keith,

Sure, it does. Problem is, I don't...

Cheers,

R.


Ahh ... you forgot turn on the autofocus and matrix metering again huh!

:p

Roger Hicks
09-12-2010, 14:41
I now edit on my LCD screen every day to avoid your kind of situation. After a week in Arles, I had 300 pictures left to process which is fine.

Tried that. Didn't work for me. Too worried aboit losing (potentially) good shots that I can't judge adequately on a tiny screen. Besides, it just moves the editing process to a little earlier, with an inferior viewing medium. Like judging slides without a good loupe.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks
09-12-2010, 14:43
Ahh ... you forgot turn on the autofocus and matrix metering again huh!

Dear Keith,

Damn, that must have been it. And the autocomposition...

Exposure for steam over hot springs is surprisingly demanding.

Cheers,

R.

MartinP
09-12-2010, 14:47
In a flash of inspiration, as I came back to the pc to close down for the night, I have the answer !!!!

Shoot only 10x8.

Maybe I should go to sleep.

Ezzie
09-12-2010, 14:57
Take your own advice Roger. Shoot as if it were MF or LF, you'd not have to contend with this backlog if you had.

robklurfield
09-12-2010, 15:04
editing? let's leave that to our heirs.

erik
09-12-2010, 15:14
As said: Edit. But editing at the back of the camera isn't a good idea, risks card read errors.
The other key: presets and batch processing. Save the fine tuning only for the best.
Still, it is a lot of work. Digital puts control back in our hands but it also means we are the lab now too.

Bill Kapinski
09-12-2010, 15:44
I shoot between 1500 and 2500 per wedding, and I find that if I assume everything is garbage and then edit in "good" photos it takes me much less time. I also try really hard to just look at the photo as good or bad and not reflect on the experience while taking the photo or any other influences. Like Michiel said above, about 1000 an hour for editing. I then make a collection in lightroom with those and then as I go through to correct I will edit out photos that don't make the cut for what ever reason. I also find that sometimes in the evening when I do this a Gimlet helps =:p

Roger Hicks
09-13-2010, 00:44
Take your own advice Roger. Shoot as if it were MF or LF, you'd not have to contend with this backlog if you had.

Dear Ezzie,

Thing is, there's a big difference between 'pretty pictures' and illustration -- and these are illustrations as well as (I hope) pretty pictures. If you're illustrating a magazine or web article the pics have to tell a story.

One of these stories starts at the Mediterranean shoreline and ends at the Atlantic shoreline having crossed Pyrenean passes up to 2200 metres (call it 7000 feet) in the meantime. In a 1972 Land Rover.

Another story deals with shopping in a supermarket in a foreign country where you're very shaky on the language (Spanish and Catalan).

Yet another story deals with a 'wild' (non-commercial) hot-spring spa half an hour from the nearest road, inaccessible even by Land Rover: the path is a foot wide at one point, with a 5-metre dropoff on one side and a 45 degree bank on the other, quite apart from a couple of places where the path drops 2 metres in a metre and a half (you have to treat the rocks like steps).

And so forth.

Cheers,

R.

Ezzie
09-13-2010, 00:56
Forgive me, I didn't know Land Rovers were involved. It's a wonder you didn't end up with more! ;)

1974 SIII 109" FFW
1954 SI 86"

user237428934
09-13-2010, 00:56
A few weeks ago I shot my first wedding for some friends. Took 230 photos during hairdressing, preparation, church and the photo location. Yesterday it took about four hours to reduce them to 130 photos including the first tests what corrections might look good. I want to reduce them to 100 photos were I only apply some basic corrections and about 20 where I do a lot more work on.
So most work is choosing the right ones.

J. Borger
09-13-2010, 06:20
After a typical shoot i delete immediately what i do not like at first sight and I repeat this procedure the 2nd day .. delete what i do not like on second sight.
I repeat this procedure for 5-6 days in a row and can assure you there is very little left to proces after that ;).

In general i only keep what is at least as good as anything i shot before. If it does not give me the WOW feeling it is of to the bin, no backups nothing. It does not get better over time.
But i do not work on commision or shoot weddings, so my procedure is probably of little help to you.

ferider
09-13-2010, 06:27
Work is hard :)

That's about 2 rolls per day, doesn't seem excessive. How about dealing with the back-log with a laptop while you're traveling, Roger, isn't that what digital is about ?

Roland.

ederek
09-13-2010, 06:45
Roger,

I'm quite guilty of generating many files for the digital darkroom. As was mentioned, sort first, with pick/reject or assign #'s. In LR, you can assign while watching all as a slideshow (p, x, u for unpick, 1-5), cursors work to go back during slideshow. Assign a keyword for each article topic, or use the Collection function. Will there also be a general photo album in addition to the photos used as illustrative support for the stories (nice for those fantastic shots that might not quite add to the story)? The copy / paste function (with selection of what actions to copy), and / or creating develop presets helps. Seems your stories will drive the need for images, a small subset of what was shot, so it makes sense to work the stories and use the images as library stock from which to draw. All the best - after many many hours in LR, I've got a long way to go...

jsrockit
09-13-2010, 07:09
I let time pass before looking at the images and then only import those with potential into lightroom. Then, after some time in lightroom, I delete the ones that aren't as good as I thought.

dcsang
09-13-2010, 07:14
Like Michel and Bill, I usually average about 1500 per wedding (for about 8-10 hours work).

I load them all into LightRoom. I rifle through them "tagging" keepers (*****) only. I then filter on the number of stars (*****) and I begin editing those. I usually end up with about 300 photos give or take 10-20.

That said, I'm slowly becoming more and more interested in determining if there's actually any "savings" (from a time perspective.. and, in the end, money.. because time is money.. apparently :D :D ) by shooting digital over film. People will say you save because you have an endless supply of images that you can capture on your SD or CF cards.. but look at the time it takes to edit.. it's EXTREMELY time consuming. Developing film, yes, it too can be time consuming if you develop your own B&W but if you're a C-41 shooter.. drop off the film at the lab and they can take care of it for you.. usually for about $5 / roll tops.

I have my doubts that there is actually a savings to be had by shooting digitally - one day I'll do a comparison via a "typical" wedding for me and that will be a deciding factor in continuing to shoot digital...

Cheers,
Dave

Roger Hicks
09-13-2010, 07:15
@Double Negative. I got back at the end of last week. Weds/Thu I'll be in Brittany. Sunday I leave for photokina, from which I shall return with a ton more pics and lots of articles to write. If it don't happen now, it ain't gonna happen for weeks.

@JBorger: Quite a lot of illustrative shots don't have a WOW factor, and even then, I'm not always the best judge of my own pics. I like to give editors a choice of informative shots, mostly pretty.

@ Roland: When I'm driving & shooting all day, I am in no state to work on pics in the evening. Fod and drink are nearer the mark.

@ederek: Yes, the 'pictures as library stock' is pretty much what I do. After processing & saving & backing up the lot, I then copy (not move) to sub-folders for the stories. That way I can go back and hunt out more, and also use the same pic in more than one place.

Thanks for all the ideas and advice.

Cheers,

R.

j j
09-13-2010, 07:44
Beware trying to use film workflow for digital. It's different.

Long term: Use presets. When you process an image in full sun on a blue sky day, make a preset. Likewise for any processing you make regularly. Soon you will have a library of one or two click changes that process lots of your images to your own style. You can kick start the process by getting a load of free presets (OnOne does a free bundle) that will change items such as light balance, vignetting and so on. (Ignore the horrendous over-processed examples you may see; you do not need to follow that route).

Short term: What I do with Aperture or Lightroom is start at the first image and flick through until I reach one I want to process and work on it. Lift that processing (make a preset if it is typical of the pictures you take). Stamp your processing onto similar others as you go, tweaking if necessary. You most likely have a few in a row that need similar processing. You have 900 photos. Maybe a couple of 100 you want to process? I bet there are little more than a dozen sets of conditions. You don't need to work on each one, just one example from each set of similar images and transfer.

pawel glogowski
09-13-2010, 08:03
1. Edit in your head before even pressing the shutter.
2. Choose photos in Bridge like on contact prints.
3. Proceed with PP of the chosen photos.
4. Use presets.

Every step is important, but first is the most important. ;)

Roger Hicks
09-13-2010, 08:56
I guess it's still quicker than souping and scanning that many images... Though I suppose with film you might have taken fewer shots. :p

If they're illustrative in nature rather than artistic, say (where all the little details matter) - then batch processing is your friend!

That's why I always used to shoot slides. VERY quick to sort! I'd probably have shot 10-20 rolls (1/2 to 2/3 as many pics) but processing time would have been limited to dropping them off atthe lab and then picking them up again. Of course, even 10 rolls is 50-100 saved.

Also, with slides, I'd only scan the pics I was going to submit. Well, actually, in the good old days, that was the publisher's problem too!

Still not sure about batches, though. Sunlight, overcast, indoor, outdoor, tungsten, sodium vapour, river running through forest, mountainscapes, close-ups, mixed light...

Cheers,

R.

j j
09-13-2010, 09:27
Still not sure about batches, though. Sunlight, overcast, indoor, outdoor, tungsten, sodium vapour, river running through forest, mountainscapes, close-ups, mixed light...

Cheers,

R.

Lightroom is designed to enable you to make these themes into batches and process them together.

historicist
09-13-2010, 09:49
This is quite a few hours in Lightroom. How does anyone who shoots 100-200 pics per day ever manage to process the shots?

This is actually the main reason I still shoot film. If I shot a hundred pictures per day on medium format, I'd have to worry about the bank manager before workflow...

cmogi10
09-13-2010, 10:11
Presets.

Also going through all of them once marking them with a "star" rating. Then you are able to get to the best first while you are freshest and ween out a lot of the filler and throw-aways.

Dogman
09-15-2010, 13:33
William Eggleston has said he only takes one photograph of a subject because it's too hard to choose between them later. Considering Bill Eggleston can be a bit of a BSer, I would take that with a grain of salt. However, does simplify the editing procedure considerably.

Jim-st
09-17-2010, 16:19
Honestly Roger, it's easy. Really is. I'll explain all when I get through the last 427 of the 1369 I brought back from trip to France & Benelux in July (2010 - no, really!). Honest I will. You see if I don't. Soon as I'm finished. Easy. Honest...

landscapepics
09-23-2010, 07:09
I took about 110 shots in a week's cycling holiday in the Outer Hebrides, on a film camera with one 24mm and one 50mm lens. I still found that too many shots and wished I'd been a bit more disciplined with duplicated shots of the same scene.

Of course, if you're taking photographs for potential commercial use, the drivers are quite different; but I just can't make use of 900 shots in one area even if it is very photogenic. So I adopt the mantra "edit before you shoot, not after" which funnily enough sounds like the kind of advice Roger might give.

I accept also that the drivers are different if you're shooting wildlife or sports and the ability of a digital camera to take 8 shots per second is really useful. But landscapes don't move much so a landscape photographer can afford to slow down and take fewer shots.

By the way I recently used Roger's guidance on his web site to start developing B&W; I think it's going fairly well so thanks to Roger.