who just leaves photos alone!

[savan_thongvanh]

quick poll-

 

How much post do you do for a wedding? (the question is Imeant to be vague open-ended)

 

I'm always looking @ other peoples work for technique/ideas/inspiration/seeing where my level of work is in the

market. I'm aways amazed at how many wedding photogs do so much post. I hardly do any.

 

My color is usually close enough to proof with and cropping is usually minimal. I don't do the glamour shots

oof/hazy look or any special effects. The pj sort of images is what really gets me going.

 

To each his own, I know but, are many people *here* still doing a lot of "special effects" sort of post?

[william_grimsley]

Kind of like cooking in my opinion...Everyone has their own recipe and some are better than others. I don't think a little seasoning to taste is a bad thing. However overseasoning in my opinion will always ruin a good piece of meat. :)

[cjogo]

Very little --I shoot all manual camera / manual flash / RAW & use a hand meter ...just a few seconds longer in the pre >>> saves a lot of post time. I batch an action to the folder of final jpegs. Slim amount of pj shots though.

[cjogo]

We offer "special effects" if the clients are willing to pay--

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Post processing always is needed for enhancement/sharpening and at least some selective cropping here and there. Special-effects is a different issue and largely a matter of personal taste........why do you ask? How much is too much is a relative question and I don't see the value in vague questions.

[savan_thongvanh]

David-

I ask because because I want to hear what people's rationale for doing it or not. I ask out of curiosity for knowing how

unique or not my thoughts are on this. I ask vague questions about things that I don't think are totally objective.

 

The value in it for me is to see the dialogue. Really I come here for answers/thoughts in response to vague questions.

While I"m as guilty as any for not always using it, we all have google for the objective answers.

[Spearhead]

<i>we all have google for the objective answers.</i><P>If you google for "objective answers" about photography, you end up here more often than not. That's because many people take it seriously, not as a place for batting around vague questions that will never do anything for anyone's photography. What makes photo.net successful is that people can come here and get answers to their questions.

[William Michael]

Like C Jo, I believe more effort goes into the taking, than the post production, even though for my Weddings, I do not

do the Post Production, but my jobs have consistently less PP time, by comparison to those taken by the Studio`s

other Photographers. Like David, Sharpening and Cropping are the necessary and most consistent elements of

Digital PP from my Wedding shoots.

 

From a Saturday Wedding, all the PP is usually ready for the Client`s viewing of the Corrected & Finished product by

the following Tuesday or Wednesday. Digital PP time for my wedding shoot, averages 6 to 8 hours, so, if necessary,

the client can view the finished product Monday Night. The Wedding Formals I usually shoot on Film, they are turned

around within in eight hours, also.

 

FYI:

 

http://www.photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00PqP9

 

WW

[William Michael]

. .. and one can always play the vague question, with a straight bat. :)

 

WW

[markonestudios]

When I shoot film weddings, which I occasionally do, I do no post-processing :) I also try to minimize post-processing when I do a wedding in digital. To each his (or her) own :)

[greg jansen]

When I shoot film for weddings, none. No color correcting, no cropping, nothing. Drop off film, pick it up in a couple of days. Put best of proofs in an album. Done. No computer used in the process. It's really nice.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

Fair enough: For me, out of 500-750 images they will all reeive some post in the way of sharpening/enhancement which is pretty close to what the labs are already doing. Also out of the 500-750 images there will likely be "special-effects" to about 25-40 to give the client an idea of what can be done to others if they'd like more or for my own personal aesthetic. These would include B&W conversions, paper toner, selective coloring, starburst vigenttes, sloppy borders, and a mix of actions by Kubota, Pfister, and Yervant. Almost all portraits get some skin help with PS and some viginetting.

[rick_shanahan]

Post processing is ALWAYS needed. Even in film days the images would be 'post processed' by the lab. Now, with digital WE can control that and not leave it up to a lab. DSLR images are designed to be PP'd, if you aren't doing it than your images aren't as good as they could be. I shoot RAW, so literally every image needs to be processed...it has nothing to do with so called 'special effects'. it's basic image correction.

[wedding-photography-denver]

I make conversions to B&W for those I "saw" that way. I adjust ALL shots given to the client, but largely its a minor (15 seconds or so) adjustment. On about half of what I get, nothing much is really needed.

[tmilanowski]

Personally, I think that most of your 'standard' special effects can and should be created through the camera, not by

digital manipulation. Most of my post-editing comes in the form of cropping or converting images to B&W, which

really ends up not being much...

 

I find that more and more photographers in my area are charging higher rates and manipulating the photos beyond

reality (seems to be a growing trend). I find it disappointing due to the fact that some a lot of the general public is

unaware of the extent of manipulation being done, and then you hear people exclaim "what a GREAT photographer".

When in fact they may be great photographers, but more so, they are 'great' at digitally manipulating photos.

 

I like to think that the majority of photographers out there would agree that most of your special effects should be

done 'in-camera'. I have so much fun with panning, adjusting shutter speeds, flash, etc... (and let me not forget the

actual physical activity while working a shoot) that the idea of sitting around in front of a computer and digitally

creating the same effects sounds like a chore I could do without.

 

Cheers,

[shawn_mertz]

I assume you are asking about post work before the client ever sees the images. First off I shoot good exposures that are

close to how I want them to look in the camera. Most of my post work is done through presets in Bridge or Lightroom

whichever I feel like working in, before I even look at the image I already applied are Saturation/Vibrance, curves etc. that

will get most images very close to ready. Getting 1000 photos to proof ready takes about 3-5 hours of looking at them on

the screen. Knowing how you want your end product to look, and how to get it there, before you hit the button on the

camera, is the best time saver in post work.

[g.e._masana]

Who just leaves [digital] photos alone? I'd say, rank amateurs and others who don't want to be bothered with it. Back in the film days the printer would do at least a color analysis and set three dials to get what they thought was decent color in your prints, along with tweaking the exposure if needed. Nowadays with digital, personally, shooting RAW, the camera won't handle any image manipulation, not that I want it to anyway, preferring to do it in post to my tastes and where I have more options, and it makes a HUGE difference. Taking this step to "finish" the images, IMO, is one of the things that separates a pro from both the "shoot n burners" and "Uncle Joe at the wedding" who just hand over files straight out of camera.