Upgrading work-flow efficiency and picture quality...

[callyolson]

<p>What was the biggest change you made in your post process work-flow that helped you work more efficiently and improved your picture quality? I am looking at changing some thing around myself and wondering what are the best steps are that will help my flow and quality. So I am curious what helped you?<br /> Here is what I am looking at doing if you did any of these where was your biggest payoff? -- finally switching to raw, looking at buying Lightroom, looking at creating (or purchasing) more actions, taking a class to learn curves and other advanced P.S. abilities better.<br /> Thoughts? What took you to the next level?</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>I'm still stuck in an fairly "old-school" (and time-consuming) Photoshop workflow using adjustment-layers with masks to get the look I want. I'm also very interested in other responses.<br>

While not first-hand information, many of my colleagues report that LightRoom 3 has dramatically reduced their processing time. I have a copy, but I haven't had a chance (yet) to figure out how to adapt my workflow to it.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>In order:</p>

<p>1. Study. no matter what software you use, you need understand things like curves, other contrast adjustments, sharpening, clarity or local contrast, vibrance/saturation, etc.. I would call these essentials, not advanced.</p>

<p>2. Shoot RAW. It gives you far more control. I put it off for a year or two and very much regret it. The extra steps are very simple.</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The biggest improvement I made was in getting the exposure, composition, and usefulness of the image more correct, more often, <em>while shooting</em>. Man, the hours I've saved since paying more attention to that! That, and learning to batch-process images that share (or should) the same white balance or other characteristics. Oh, and using faster computer hardware. Plenty of RAM and having fast storage (with some thought given to where the temp/scratch files are, relative to the drives handling the apps, operating system, and image files) has made a very tangible change, measured in hours per larger project.<br /><br />The shooting part's the biggest one, though. Since my time is scarce (and thus valuable), I've found the purchase of lenses that are right for the job, and lighting gear that rises to the occassion - those things have paid me back in post/editing time far more valuable than the equipment.<br /><br />As for software: go through the manuals and tutorials. There's often a simple, easy way to do something that you're completely missing. Once you undo a bad habit (say, using the mouse when there's a keyboard shortcut that's far faster and less tiring by the time you've done it 200 times in an hour), you'll wonder how you ever got by before. In fact, that's my single biggest software tip: <em>learn the keyboard shortcuts!</em></p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>I shoot 99.95% in raw.<br>

For processign I use either Lightroom 3.3 or Capture One Pro 6.1 and do most of my heavy lifting at the raw processign stage. Batch processing where possible.<br>

For post processing work I use a carefully managed layers stack (using a Global > Regional> Localized adjustments approach I learned from Mac Holbert and John Paul Caponigro > tuning for output method and media type (if printing).<br>

See the "Digital Fine Art Workflow DVD set from Holbert and Caponigro: http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/store/dvd-fine-art-workflow.php</p>

[callyolson]

<p>Thanks Dan, I do want to point out that I currently I use Photoshop for 100% of my editing but I feel that I could use it better, curves is just one item I am sure I could be smarter about that part in my process. However yes I know the essentials you listed, and use them all the time, even curves, I just know I can use curves for more then I do, and Photoshop as a whole I want to know the advanced features it has to offer.</p>

[diane_madura]

<p>Cally, switching to raw and using Nikon Capture NX 2 software to process them gave me the biggest jump forward of all the improvements that I've made.</p>

[callyolson]

<p>Matt when you say, "batch-process images that share (or should) the same white balance or other characteristics." Are you doing this inside Photoshop? I would love to keep or change my white balance more consistently then I do... that was my frustration with my last job... I was talking to someone who said they found Lightroom to make this easiest for them. So I thought I would pry a bit more your steps on this one.</p>

[callyolson]

<p>Ellis, Thank you I am bookmarking this website.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>Cally,</p>

<p>Didn't mean to be disparaging. I just misread your note to mean that you were really at the beginning.</p>

<p>White balance in LR is very simple if you shoot raw. When in doubt, i shoot an image with a neutral gray card (I use a WhiBal), use the LR eyedropper to set WB for that one image, adjust to taste, and then sync the settings to all the other images that were taken in the same light. You can do a lot of images in a very short time. You can also easily change color balance if the issue is not just temperature.</p>

<p>There are many great videos for both LR and photoshop that you can find by googling, but I also found it helpful to have a few books and DVDs. I've used Kelby's books and DVDs by Tim Grey.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Cally: I do most of my batch processing with Capture NX2. It makes it very easy to copy an adjustment made to one RAW file, and to apply it non-destructively to a batch of files. Using that app's browser, I can quickly flag groups of images that share the same lighting, make a correction to one of them, and then apply that change to all of the images that need that same correction. I repeat this for all groups of images that share the same lighting, and whittle it down until I've got a few strays I have to handle manually.<br /><br />If I set a custom WB while I'm shooting (which takes only a moment under most circumstances), that spares me from that step in post. If I have a series of shots that share enough characteristics (say, they'd all benefit from the same use of the same degree and type of noise reduction), that's another thing I can do once on a typical image from that series, and then apply in one step to a batch of similar images.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>What was the biggest change you made in your post process work-flow that helped you work more efficiently...?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If we stop there, the answer is downloading the free trial version of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. It's so much more efficient than any previous workflow that I've tried, including Photoshop CSx.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>...and improved your picture quality?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But this is a different topic altogether. If you're looking for a magic bullet in software, I can't help you. My picture quality improved because of factors that have nothing to do with post processing.</p>

<p>- Recognizing quality of light.<br>

- Recognizing interesting subjects and how to highlight them in the frame.<br>

- Learning how to get the best out of light regardless of the quality.<br>

- Learning how to maximize camera stability. (Just mounting it to a tripod isn't enough.)<br>

- Developing and fine-tuning a compositional approach.<br>

- Learning how to achieve the best possible focus and the most effective depth of field (not necessarily the deepest).<br>

- Experimenting with exposure in many different circumstances.<br>

- Learning how to use off-camera lighting effectively.<br>

- Studying good photographs and learning from them.<br>

- Capturing images that have a good chance of capturing the viewer's interest.<br>

- Photographing a variety of situations, evaluating the results honestly, and learning how to do better the next time.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><br />Here is what I am looking at doing if you did any of these where was your biggest payoff? -- finally switching to raw, looking at buying Lightroom, looking at creating (or purchasing) more actions, taking a class to learn curves and other advanced P.S. abilities better.<br />Thoughts? What took you to the next level?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In my opinion without knowing more about you, you may be looking for answers in the wrong place. No amount of post-processing or "actions" (something that I have NEVER used) are going to give you a portfolio of interesting photographs.</p>

<p>What if you could only shoot JPEG files and you had to give the files to your local newspaper right away with no editing and no post-processing? (Of course you should shoot in RAW, but think about what you'd need to do if you couldn't.) Your local newspaper is going to print your JPEG files tomorrow as an example of the quality of your work. How would you approach those images? Would you shoot in light that supported your vision or worked against it? Would you expose to get the right colors and shades or max out a histogram and worry about it later? Would you spend your time thinking about technical issues or would you spend it looking at the world around you to see what looks most interesting today?</p>

<p>Could you snap a photo that would make people laugh? Could you snap a photo that could make people cry? Could you snap a photo that would make people stare in disbelief?</p>

<p>If a National Geographic photographer were sent to your town and given the same challenge, what kind of images would he capture on those JPEGs? And how would his photos be different than yours?</p>

<p>These are the questions that you need to answer if you want to reach "the next level."</p>

 

[john_deerfield]

<blockquote>

<p>What was the biggest change you made in your post process work-flow that helped you work more efficiently</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That is an easy one: using dual monitors. Hands down. One monitor has my image, the other have everything else. HUGE time saver.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>and improved your picture quality?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Like others have pointed out, the best place to improve picture quality is during capture, not in post.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p>The question that was asked is quite straightforward. It's "what do you do in post." It is not "what do I do to make my images look better in general?" That's a different question. If I were the moderator on this forum, I'd be removing the answers that respond to the second question because they have nothing to do with what was asked.<br>

<br />I am paid to shoot in situations that are often difficult and very sub-optimal. Other than having the right equipment and knowing how to shoot, there isn't much more that can be done while shooting. However, much of the reason I get the work is that I know how to do the post right. In addition, I have certain "styles" that I use and I process to those styles. No shooting methodology will affect these. It's no different than in the film days - if you have a portfolio that is platinum prints, you need to do the printing correctly. There's a lot of work that goes into that, despite what some people above seem to think.</p>

<p>To answer the question you asked, the number one thing is to know what a "good" photograph should look like. This depends on what you want it to look like and what your audience expects it, if you're playing to an audience. In general, it means that you understand basics of how a photograph is affected by modifications to white balance, color parameters such as saturation and hue, sharpness, noise reduction, black point, highlights, etc.</p>

<p>Second, use the tools you easily make these modifications. Lightroom, as recommended above, is a great tool. It's allowed me to optimize my workflow and make most of the modifications that I want.<br>

<br />Third, find a procedural way to approach your photos. If you're just doing a few every week, then maybe this isn't very important. My shoots typically involve from 200 to 1500 shots and I have to use a methodical approach.</p>

<p>Fourth, for the shots that really matter, spend the extra time to do what needs to be done. In other words, if you have 1500 shots, you pick the ones that you need and process them with the procedure. Then look at the shots that are the "money shots" and work on them until they are what you want.</p>

<p>Just as an example,<a href="http://www.spirer.com/Fights/slides/mm22.jpg"> here's a shot of mine that</a> took a fair amount of work. It's done extremely well, published over 100 times, licensed out for clothing usage, etc. etc. This one has a blue dot that is not in the published version, but otherwise it's the same. I had to remove the background very tediously in order to get the drama I wanted. No shooting technique in the world could do that. </p>

<p> </p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I'm not ashamed to admit that my whole post-processing and, infinitely more importantly, digital asset management workflow was effectively, "borrowed" from an article I came across a few years ago by a NG photographer who was kind enough to share EVERY single detail of his workflow with the world (from downloading images to sharing them with the world). Unfortunately I was never clever enough to store that link, but I have since shared all that information here within Pnet, so if you search the archives you should find it...;-)</p>

<p>But what I essentially do is import, rename, keyword and manage through LR, adjust my RAW images to taste and only pixel-push (on those rare occassions I have to) using PS CS3. B&W conversions are done through Silver Efex Pro. All my work is stored, simultaneously, on two (2) 2TB FW800 7200rpm drives and then, secondarily (!!) backed up on two identical (but USB) drives for off-site storage.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Jeff: the reason that <em>I</em> brought up shooting within the context of this question is that I found my post time (and thus the time I was newly able to dedicate to post work on particularly demanding images) went way down as I learned (and equipped myself) to get closer to the mark while shooting. It's not a red herring, bringing that up. True, it's not a feature of or strategy/technique within post production, but it has a huge bearing on the post workload. I mentioned it because my sense is that a lot of people who are relatively new to it place more priority on fixing sins in post than avoiding them up front.<br /><br />Doesn't mean that I don't fix a LOT of sins in post. I'm just talking about things I can do to make my post work less burdensome. And reducing the amount you have to do in the first place is a very real consideration, as <em>part</em> of an overall look at the problem.</p>

[callyolson]

<p>I am loving the answers thanks everyone. I have not finished reading them all but I did want to address two comments I am seeing.<br>

Yes my intent is to stay in the post process area of my workflow, I understand that "picture quality" starts with in camera, but after that what do you do?<br>

Dan S. Yes I kept details of me vague because I don't really want advise on what I should do, rather, what did you do that your felt was your biggest improvement in this area. Some will not apply to me but some might.<br>

I will finish reading and see if I have more questions, Dan and Matt thanks for your WB replies, they helped.</p>

 

[callyolson]

<p>Jeff, thanks for your reply, thinking in terms of picking those money shots to spend extra time is probably a no brainier, but not the approach I have thought of... Silly me. I am going to start looking at my jobs that way... Do you wait and decide on your "money shot" after the first round of editing everything or do you leave those untouched completely til the end? (Did you already mention some of that answer?) <br>

A lot of you are pointing to Lightroom, however, Matt, you mentioned Capture NX2, but described it much like how it sounds like Lightroom works. So the question... Why Capture not Lightroom?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Cally: I like Capture NX2 because I use Nikon cameras. Lightroom doesn't support or understand all of the features of Nikon's NEF (RAW) files. And, NX2 has a lot of detailed editing features that Lightroom isn't really there to do (advanced masking, steps/layers, the u-point tools, etc). Lightroom's better for some things, Capture NX2 for others - especially if you like its editing interface. Lightroom is better for managing large image collections, while Capture NX2 is more about rendering from those NEF files. But it certainly does handle batch processing just fine, at least in the ways that I need it to (for me, almost always less than a thousand images from an event shoot).<br /><br />There isn't much reason to use NX2 if you're not using a Nikon body, and if you're already on the Adobe wagon, there's not much reason spending more money on tools that are largely redundant. Adobe's products have more mature user interfaces, and more users (so there are more forums and tips out there to plow through). The good news is that all of these products have fully functional free trials you take for a test drive.</p>

[michael_s10]

<p>Cally - </p>

<p>I think a lot depends on what you are shooting. Lightroom for me, shooting portraits, works great for getting through a lot of images and picking out the money shot - but after that, it's still *way* more time in PS (mostly because I'm slow) to retouch just one image.</p>

<p>When I need to be efficient, I send the retouching out to be done by people who are efficient at it.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

 

[dan_south]

Cally, I apologize if, as Jeff suggested, I missed the spirit of your questions. Yes, you did ask what we do in post

processing. However, you also asked what took our work to the next level. In my case that had little to do with post-

processing, so I gave you a forthright answer about what did make the biggest difference.

 

What made the biggest difference in post processing? Switching to Lightroom and calibrating my monitor with a

Spyder3Pro. And using a large monitor. And starting with Contrast adjustment and working from there. And checking sharpening decisions at various magnifications up to 100 percent. And trying to avoid over processing my images.

 

But as state above, post processing is admittedly critical to the look of my images, but other aspects of photography had a much bigger impact on the overall quality of my work. So, I hope you'll accept my comments in the spirit in which they were offered.