How much time do people spend post process digital - avg. time per pic???

[richard_hoover]

Just trying to get a "survey" of the average time wedding

photographers spend per pic [raw or jpg file] and what camera they

are processing from.

[e.m.]

I spend no more than one or two seconds if that.

 

I use the Canon 20d and 10d. I batch process the Raw's with DPP. I then use the same program to batch them into Tiff's or Jpg's.

After that I scroll through the images in photoshop CS2 to see if any need just a little retouch. (Usually I'm good.) I then run a Photoshop batch process for the sharpening.

 

Ed McCulloch

[wedding-photography-denver]

Using the 20d's at this point I am needing about 3/4 of the shooting time to PP all selected images. I hope to have that down to 1/2 the shooting time before too long (about another year?).

 

If I use the 1Ds2 it increases by about 20% (guess) because of the file size (I think). I have thought of using the RAW converter to downsize all images from the start, but that just goes against the grain.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

About 3 hours in front of the computer from CF card to 200 edited RAW's. The rest is PS actions, takes about 2 and a half hours to make both high and cropped low res jgs but I don't need to be there.

 

A few workflow tips:

 

1)Use a decent USB2 card reader (I'm happy with the Lexar one) and copy the files in windows explorer to a fixed hard drive (not USB external), for fastest copy speeds. Copying through the camera or using USB1 or using DPP/Bridge will have you tearing your hair out.

 

2)With Rawshooter Essentials (free), activate the slideshow, flag the dud images, you are seeing them full screen so you can notice all the small details such as shut eyes, then when you're finished, click on the flagged tab and copy all of them to your 'duds' folder. Far Far faster and easier than using Bridge's slooooow lightbox mode.

 

3)Find a set of default values for your wedding work with that camera in the RAW converter, to put you in the ballpark. I like a certain amount of saturation and a particular curve in ACR for example. Apply the defaults before you start so that all you need to tweak is the WB and exposure.

 

4)Use a Whibal or similar and take a proper white balance reading under every type of lighting that you encounter. Before you start editing apply the correct WB to all the pictures in that 'group'. Now all you need to tweak is exposure and maybe shadows. This will take about 5 minutes and save you hours of clicking on shirt collars!

 

5)Tweak exposure on the pics remembering to batch setting for similar shots such as flash lit formals which all have the same exposures. Don't open each one, open all in CS2 and tweak or open all in CS and update. When using CS2 hit 'done' every now and again otherwise you will have tweaked 200+ pics and then hit cancel by mistake (yes, I've done it more than once, *groan*)

 

6)Let the computer do the rest of the work by setting up apropriate PS actions to batch stuff like auto contrast (stretches the histogram), shadow/highlights (calm those highlights slightly), sharpening, resizing and saving as TIFF or JPG.

 

Most importantly, remember that the better you get it in camera, especially the exposure and framing, the less post work you will need to do.

 

For all the film guys who are bound to be rubbing their hands in glee: Once you have spent the 3 or so hours, you have a numbered and ordered set of edited proofs. I don't know about you, but it used to take a bunch of time sorting out which rolls of film went where, culling the dud shots and then making sure that you have 200 proofs exactly for the album, instead of getting to the end and realising you have an hour more of pictures to fit in....

[todd frederick]

I was spending hours doing this, but recently, thanks to Ben Rubenstein, who gave me some tips, I am reducing the time greatly. It's all a matter of getting some good help and practice.

[todd frederick]

Ben, I guess I was writing while you were posting. Again...Thanks for you help.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Sorry the emails I sent you wern't as clear and coherent as the above, Todd. Practise makes perfect.

 

When shooting RAW you should try to shoot as if it were jpg and the only thing you could use was Auto Levels in PS. It's great dicipline, results in better pictures overall and cuts down on post time. The advantage is that if you screw up you can fix it, you can get the WB absolutely exact, etc.

[derrick_morin___fallon__ne]

Thanks, Ben. My workflow needs help as well. I'll be referencing this post a few times and surely make some improvements.

 

Just curious; what is your processor speed and how much RAM are you using? Do you feel limted by your equipment? My 3/4GB RAM is fine, but the 1.2GB processor just doesn't seem to keep up well enough. (always new equipment on the horizon....)

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

P4 1.6 2gig of DDR RAM, yes it could go faster, no I can't be bothered upgrading.

 

I just bought another HD for use as an offsite backup as I've given up backing up to CD's, took too long and was a pain in general. I now have all my data on 3 HD's, one in the computer, one external and one offsite. To me that's a more worthwhile investment than a bit faster processor, it's the RAM that makes the difference anyway and XP can't handle more than 2 gig.

[stacy]

I've got computer envy now :) I want more RAM!

[merlin]

Thanks to adobe bride and ACR 3.1 I can color correct, crop, and fix exposures at about 130 pics per hour. I then batch process, and apply any special effects that I want. Average time per wedding 5 hours. iBook G4 1.2 DDR Ram

[steve_levine]

I'd rather stick my head in a ceiling fan.

[KenPapai]

Me too if I had to shoot a range finder!

[joeb]

XP like all 32 bit systems are limited to 4G not 2. The Programs only use 2G with default configuration. The Kernal uses the other 2G. If you want to use more memory XP64 has a physical limit of 16TB. You would need a 64 bit system and drivers for all hardware. I don't think the drivers are there yet.

 

I am considering upgrading to a A64 system with 4G. It looks liks a MB, power supply, processor 3000+, and 4G of ram will run about $800-850. I would like to get a motherboard that has Athlon 64 X2 support for a processor swap to a 4600+ speed in 12-24 months when the price is more reasonable. At current prices the 4600 X2 would be $500 more.

[shaun westlake]

Steve:

 

Batch processing is less painful than the ceiling fan.... TRUST ME

 

Shaun

[michael mccarley]

Painful is NO control over film costs. Remember the recent thread where Fugi NPH got expensive real quick? At least we can decide if we want to upgrade.

 

I currently spend about three evenings doing the initial post processing. The first night is transferring files from the cards to the computer and backing up the RAW data to DVD. Two copies each. The bulk of this time is waiting for the computer to do its thing. The next evening (or two), I do the initial cull of duds and first pass corrections. The third step is to batch process (rename, resize and apply custom border) and upload to our proof site.

 

I'm looking at upgrading to an Athalon dual core processor, 4 gigs of ram and a Buffalo terabyte network storage array. That way my wife and I can process on two platforms at once. My processing time will be cut in half and she will get to learn that part of the photographic process. We both win.

[todd frederick]

I'm starting to agree more and more with Al Kaplan. I tried to read and understand the previous few comments and I don't have a clue! Film's not a problem!

 

With film, I just needed to remember the directions to the lab!

 

I just upgraded my RAM to 768MGB and I thought that was good!

 

Man, I've got to start working at Wal*Mart to get some extra cash to catch up! (^O^)

[lex_jenkins]

In my D2H I shoot NEFs and JPEG/Fines simultaneously for important stuff. I try to set the in-camera parameters for JPEGs as near as I can get to perfect for good prints straight outta the Fuji Aladdin, Kodak or other DIY kiosk.

 

Most of the time it works just fine, especially when there are no awful mixed lighting conditions (flash plus sodium vapor or mercury vapor).

 

For the occasional trouble child I'll go back to the NEF and work it individually.

 

I haven't actually timed myself since I'm rarely under any deadline pressure. I'm on my second week processing my niece's wedding, altho' I've been sick most of this week so I'm not spending much time at the computer. Otherwise they'd have been done by now. That's something like 600 digital photos and a little more than 100 film photos.

[steve_hovland]

It all starts with a good capture.

[jean_marc_liotier]

Downloading the JPEG from CF through USB and batch rotating all the pictures that need it; browsing while erasing the worst; browsing again - this time more selectively; editing each selected picture for levels (optionaly curves), despeckle, unsharp mask (or lab sharpen) and optionaly touching up blemishes & co; browsing again to remove even more not so good pictures... All in all, it takes me an average of four to six minutes for each picture depending on the difficulty. And that's average : some pictures take one minute (constrained mostly by the performance of the hardware) and others take nine minutes because there is some heavy touching up to do. But the secret is to start with a good picture, that is definitely the best way to cut post-processing time in half !

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Jean-Marc, you are spending time editing pictures that by your admission you will then chuck. Cull first, even before rotating, only then do the PS work.

 

BTW it sounds like you're shooting JPG. Set the despeckle, sharpening and sizing as an action and apply it to all the images after colour corrections, it will save you a serious amount of time, especially if you sharpen in LAB.

 

Of course opening jpgs multiple times is bad for them and having to open each one, apply changes and save is a pain in the rear, another reason to shoot RAW.

[jean_marc_liotier]

> Jean-Marc, you are spending time editing pictures that by your<br>

> admission you will then chuck. Cull first, even before rotating,<br>

> only then do the PS work.<br>

 

<p>You are right, but sometimes I think I can save a picture and only afterwards decide that it is not worth showing. Pictures that I eliminate after editing are a tiny minority, but as someone once put it : the most useful accessory in a lab is the trashcan. It looks foolish to throw away pictures that I already spent time editing, but sunk costs should not be taken into account when judging.</p>

 

<p>As for the rotation; download, backup and rotation are done in one go using a command line batch script, so it does not cost me a second of my time. In addition I like to review without having to tilt my head...</p>

 

> BTW it sounds like you're shooting JPG. Set the despeckle,<br>

> sharpening and sizing as an action and apply it to all the<br>

> images after colour corrections, it will save you a serious<br>

> amount of time, especially if you sharpen in LAB.<br>

 

<p>Yes, but no. Batch processing is only useful if all images processed with the same parameters need the same corrections. My web image gallery software (Gallery) handles the batch resizing and thumbnailing. Locally, I use batch processing for removing noise with Neatimage (which I run on Linux using Wine), but for other uses I do not because no two images require the same treatment. I guess people doing studio shoots that yield a few hundred pictures under the exact same lighting conditions benefit greatly from batch, but PJ style coverage with very varied lighting and my erratic exposure skills on top of that requires processing by hand. Now if you know a way to automate the processing of such pictures I'll be extremely interested...</p>

 

> Of course opening jpgs multiple times is bad for them and<br>

> having to open each one, apply changes and save is a pain<br>

> in the rear, another reason to shoot RAW.<br>

 

<p>Rotation is lossless with jpegtran. The rest I apply in just one editing session in Gimp, so I do not get too much degradation from multiple openings.</p>

 

<p>I have not explored the use of RAW yet, but I guess I should... I fear that this will lengthen the post-processing even more. In fact that is the reason why I still shoot JPEG. But since I open each JPEG I might as well open them using <a href="http://ptj.rozeta.com.pl/Soft/rawphoto/ss-20041013.jpg">the Gimp's RAW plugin</a>. Only remaining problem : the 300D is much too slow for shooting RAW... I guess that's one more reason for getting a 20D soon...</p>

 

<p>I'm going to give dcraw a try and produce 16 bit TIFF from the RAW file. I guess I'm going to crave faster disks and faster CPU...</p>

 

<p>I found <a href ="http://www.lysator.liu.se/~ture/eos10d/">Ture Pallson's 10D ICC profile</a>. Has anyone found anything better to use dcraw with RAW files from a 300D ? The <a href="http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/digicam/dcraw/d60_linear_dcraw_profiles.zip">D60 profile pack</a> has profiles for all kind of lighting conditions, but I have not found that for the 300D.</p>

[michael mccarley]

Thank you Mary for not nuking the entire post. Hopefully a good discussion regarding the DIGITAL process after capture can continue now.

 

If you shoot film and do NOT have anything productive to offer, DON'T!

 

If you don't like Al, we don't care.

 

Thanks again,

 

Michael