Re: Whingeing about workflow
I mostly use the stock presets(Styles) in CaptureOne Pro, my custom presets are almost entirely metadata (copyright and location). -Adam On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 4:34 AM, eckinator eckina...@gmail.com wrote: Adam, would you share those presets? Can they be exported? Cheers Ecke -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
Adam, would you share those presets? Can they be exported? Cheers Ecke 2010/1/8 Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Agreed - that the digital workflow takes more time but at least you've got the control and a much better opportunity at getting a keeper image, at least as far as exposure/focus is concerned. Kenneth Waller Ample use of presets and an application suited to batch processing can seriously cut down on the time needed. For example, I was the photographer for Ryerson University's Engineering Frosh Week. I took over 2500 shots in 5 days and was able to edit, process and submit the approximately 450 chosen shots with less than 5 hours work total. Note that I did shoot JPEG for this (I always do when shooting high volumes), but even in RAW my working time would be only marginally longer as I make heavy use of presets for rendering (in-camera for JPEG, in the RAW converter for RAW). Now I happen to use CaptureOne, which is very much oriented towards batch processing (Particularly its batch colour correction capabilities), but Lightroom does quite well for batch processing as well. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
www.presetsheaven.com They aren't hard to make. 2010/1/8 eckinator eckina...@gmail.com: Adam, would you share those presets? Can they be exported? Cheers Ecke 2010/1/8 Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Agreed - that the digital workflow takes more time but at least you've got the control and a much better opportunity at getting a keeper image, at least as far as exposure/focus is concerned. Kenneth Waller Ample use of presets and an application suited to batch processing can seriously cut down on the time needed. For example, I was the photographer for Ryerson University's Engineering Frosh Week. I took over 2500 shots in 5 days and was able to edit, process and submit the approximately 450 chosen shots with less than 5 hours work total. Note that I did shoot JPEG for this (I always do when shooting high volumes), but even in RAW my working time would be only marginally longer as I make heavy use of presets for rendering (in-camera for JPEG, in the RAW converter for RAW). Now I happen to use CaptureOne, which is very much oriented towards batch processing (Particularly its batch colour correction capabilities), but Lightroom does quite well for batch processing as well. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
Couldn't write to: /customers/presetsheaven.com/presetsheaven.com/httpd.www/wp-content/cache/wp-cache-ad4f55cdbde416a762d64edc0a607ae3.html will try later thank you! =) ecke 2010/1/8 David Savage ozsav...@gmail.com: www.presetsheaven.com They aren't hard to make. 2010/1/8 eckinator eckina...@gmail.com: Adam, would you share those presets? Can they be exported? Cheers Ecke 2010/1/8 Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca: On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Agreed - that the digital workflow takes more time but at least you've got the control and a much better opportunity at getting a keeper image, at least as far as exposure/focus is concerned. Kenneth Waller Ample use of presets and an application suited to batch processing can seriously cut down on the time needed. For example, I was the photographer for Ryerson University's Engineering Frosh Week. I took over 2500 shots in 5 days and was able to edit, process and submit the approximately 450 chosen shots with less than 5 hours work total. Note that I did shoot JPEG for this (I always do when shooting high volumes), but even in RAW my working time would be only marginally longer as I make heavy use of presets for rendering (in-camera for JPEG, in the RAW converter for RAW). Now I happen to use CaptureOne, which is very much oriented towards batch processing (Particularly its batch colour correction capabilities), but Lightroom does quite well for batch processing as well. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
I find I like to work the same way I used to with a selection of slides on a light box. I view the small thumbnails, click to view full screen (viewing with loupe) then another key stroke to view 100% if I want more details (stronger loupe). Breeze Browser has a better interface than Adobe Bridge, but lacks the magnify tool in the version I have. I like Bridge best in filmstrip mode. The end result is to find something that works for you. Everyone is different. I have 3 presets set up in camera raw for the initial correction of the image and have found that beyond that I want control of the fine detail - you do get used to what to tweek to get the desired result with practice. If you only use presets then you end up with your images not as good as they could be or you spend forever trying different presets to see which is best. They make a good way to get to a starting point. In Photoshop I work with my right hand on either a mouse or small tablet (I spent all my money on Photoshop and can't afford a bigger tablet) and left hand on the keyboard for macros and keyboard shortcuts. My macros are mainly things like functions on a single key (such as crop, 8 bit, flatten layers) or resizing for web use, thumbnails, A5, A4, A3 etc. My workflow goes something like this (some people will probably disagree with it and writing it out helps me understand what I do). Select image in Bridge or Breeze Browser. Adjust colour, exposure and initial sharpness in Camera Raw. Adjust composition (M for the marque tool, select the area with the mouse, F3 to crop) Remove dust or blemishes with the spot tool (S, Alt click to select the copy area and mouse or tablet to do the work - I have my mouse pad on top of the tablet so I just move it to the side and pick up the pen). Any other fancy stuff like additional images, text or distortions. Resize the image (F9 - F12 with or without the control Key depending on the size I need) Save as PSD file if necessary Flatten the image (F7) Convert to 8 bit (F8) Save as jpg file. Back to Bridge/Breeze Browser for the next image. I've tried suggestions from others to improve my workflow and have found some work for me and some don't, so even if something someone suggests sounds great it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be good when you actually try it. Leon 2010/1/8 D. Glenn Arthur Jr. dgl...@panix.com: At the family Christmas party, my brother's father-in-law (there's And it strikes me that when I'm going through a collection of photos where I tried different angles and lighting on the same subject, or where I shot lots of frames of some event, that culling the duds and picking out which of the good shots to consider redundant ... was a whole lot easier when I was sorting through a stack of 4x6 glossy proofs that I could easily shuffle, look at in twos and threes next to each other, etc. I haven't found an approach yet that feels anywhere near as smooth or natural on the computer. ... mine.) In the meantime, I guess I ought to crawl through the mailing list archives for advice on digital workflow and tools that I skipped over before. Anyhow, I just felt a need to whine about how long this instant technology is taking me. Now to get back to editing instead of whining for a while ... -- Glenn [*] I did go into Serious Photographer mode to try to capture the smokestack on the cardboard-box hotel my nepphew made out of the box a gigantic flat-screen television had come in -- my brother stuck a humidifier inside so the mist would come out the chimney and look like smoke. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
On Jan 8, 2010, at 7:56 AM, Leon Altoff wrote: I find I like to work the same way I used to with a selection of slides on a light box. I view the small thumbnails, click to view full screen (viewing with loupe) then another key stroke to view 100% if I want more details (stronger loupe). Breeze Browser has a better interface than Adobe Bridge, but lacks the magnify tool in the version I have. I like Bridge best in filmstrip mode. The end result is to find something that works for you. Everyone is different. I have 3 presets set up in camera raw for the initial correction of the image and have found that beyond that I want control of the fine detail - you do get used to what to tweek to get the desired result with practice. If you only use presets then you end up with your images not as good as they could be or you spend forever trying different presets to see which is best. They make a good way to get to a starting point. In Photoshop I work with my right hand on either a mouse or small tablet (I spent all my money on Photoshop and can't afford a bigger tablet) and left hand on the keyboard for macros and keyboard shortcuts. My macros are mainly things like functions on a single key (such as crop, 8 bit, flatten layers) or resizing for web use, thumbnails, A5, A4, A3 etc. My workflow goes something like this (some people will probably disagree with it and writing it out helps me understand what I do). Select image in Bridge or Breeze Browser. Adjust colour, exposure and initial sharpness in Camera Raw. Adjust composition (M for the marque tool, select the area with the mouse, F3 to crop) Remove dust or blemishes with the spot tool (S, Alt click to select the copy area and mouse or tablet to do the work - I have my mouse pad on top of the tablet so I just move it to the side and pick up the pen). Any other fancy stuff like additional images, text or distortions. Resize the image (F9 - F12 with or without the control Key depending on the size I need) Save as PSD file if necessary Flatten the image (F7) Convert to 8 bit (F8) Save as jpg file. Back to Bridge/Breeze Browser for the next image. I've tried suggestions from others to improve my workflow and have found some work for me and some don't, so even if something someone suggests sounds great it doesn't necessarily mean that it will be good when you actually try it. Leon That's pretty much how I work. I use Bridge exclusively, but have it set to provide three images across, and I just scroll down to view others. That way I don't have to enlarge them unless they're good candidates. I do everything else about the same as you. I agree that relying on presets alone is inadequate in terms of optimizing every image. One other difference: I save as Tifffs rather than jpegs. I figure after all that work why degrade the image with compression. Storage is cheap these days. Paul 2010/1/8 D. Glenn Arthur Jr. dgl...@panix.com: At the family Christmas party, my brother's father-in-law (there's And it strikes me that when I'm going through a collection of photos where I tried different angles and lighting on the same subject, or where I shot lots of frames of some event, that culling the duds and picking out which of the good shots to consider redundant ... was a whole lot easier when I was sorting through a stack of 4x6 glossy proofs that I could easily shuffle, look at in twos and threes next to each other, etc. I haven't found an approach yet that feels anywhere near as smooth or natural on the computer. ... mine.) In the meantime, I guess I ought to crawl through the mailing list archives for advice on digital workflow and tools that I skipped over before. Anyhow, I just felt a need to whine about how long this instant technology is taking me. Now to get back to editing instead of whining for a while ... -- Glenn [*] I did go into Serious Photographer mode to try to capture the smokestack on the cardboard-box hotel my nepphew made out of the box a gigantic flat-screen television had come in -- my brother stuck a humidifier inside so the mist would come out the chimney and look like smoke. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Whingeing about workflow
At the family Christmas party, my brother's father-in-law (there's gotta be a shorter way to say that) asked about my photography and whether I did it for money, and I commented that if I were any good at the _marketing_, I'd do it for money. He asked me to round up a sampling of my work and he'd see whether he could do anything to help with the marketing angle. So I've been going through a lot of my recent-ish backlog, picking out portfolio-worthy shots to edit into shape. (When I go back home, I'll fire up the scanner; here at Mom's house, I'm going by what I have on hand on CF cards, CD, and cluttering up my laptop's hard drive.) The first step, of course, is to decide which photos are worth spending any time on. I'm also trying to get some of these folders of photos moved off onto CD to free up space on the laptop. So I'm going through lots of images, deciding which to copy (well, hard-link) to the possible portfolio candidates folder to take a closer look at later and maybe fire up GIMP on. And it strikes me that when I'm going through a collection of photos where I tried different angles and lighting on the same subject, or where I shot lots of frames of some event, that culling the duds and picking out which of the good shots to consider redundant ... was a whole lot easier when I was sorting through a stack of 4x6 glossy proofs that I could easily shuffle, look at in twos and threes next to each other, etc. I haven't found an approach yet that feels anywhere near as smooth or natural on the computer. And that's even before we get into the whole business with corrections and adjustments the folks at the lab did for me when I was paying somebody to develop and print. (OTOH, an awful lot of film from the last couple of years before I got the *istD is still in the freezer waiting for me to be able to afford to have somebody develop and print it, so even though digital is a lot more work, I'm actually _seeing_ what I've shot instead of tossing it in the freezer to hopefully see someday.) At the aforementioned Christmas party, folks saw me shooting with a Fancy Camera (i.e. not a PS, and with a big ol' flash unit stuck on the shoe), and asked when they'd see the pictures. So I made an effort to winnow that evening's shots and tweak (crop/levels/etc.) the good ones in time to hand a CD to my brother two days later when I knew he'd be stopping by. I didn't keep close track, but it was something like 16 hours of editing for one party worth (three or four hours) of mostly casual shooting[*]. I'm sure I'll get faster at this as I go on. But I suspect that choosing a subject, composing the shot, working out lighting, and operating the camera will all continue to count as The Easy Part. (Maybe I need to team up with somebody who doesn't like taking photos but loves editing them, and whose aesthetic closely resembles mine.) In the meantime, I guess I ought to crawl through the mailing list archives for advice on digital workflow and tools that I skipped over before. Anyhow, I just felt a need to whine about how long this instant technology is taking me. Now to get back to editing instead of whining for a while ... -- Glenn [*] I did go into Serious Photographer mode to try to capture the smokestack on the cardboard-box hotel my nepphew made out of the box a gigantic flat-screen television had come in -- my brother stuck a humidifier inside so the mist would come out the chimney and look like smoke. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
Glenn, Lightroom can help you cut that time down, but Kodachrome slides were a lot easier. The colors on the slides were the colors in projection and there was no tweaking. Now I go out and shoot 250 images in a few hours and bring them back to the laptop, for hours of editing. Drives the wife crazy on vacations... Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:51 PM, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. dgl...@panix.com wrote: At the family Christmas party, my brother's father-in-law (there's gotta be a shorter way to say that) asked about my photography and whether I did it for money, and I commented that if I were any good at the _marketing_, I'd do it for money. He asked me to round up a sampling of my work and he'd see whether he could do anything to help with the marketing angle. So I've been going through a lot of my recent-ish backlog, picking out portfolio-worthy shots to edit into shape. (When I go back home, I'll fire up the scanner; here at Mom's house, I'm going by what I have on hand on CF cards, CD, and cluttering up my laptop's hard drive.) The first step, of course, is to decide which photos are worth spending any time on. I'm also trying to get some of these folders of photos moved off onto CD to free up space on the laptop. So I'm going through lots of images, deciding which to copy (well, hard-link) to the possible portfolio candidates folder to take a closer look at later and maybe fire up GIMP on. And it strikes me that when I'm going through a collection of photos where I tried different angles and lighting on the same subject, or where I shot lots of frames of some event, that culling the duds and picking out which of the good shots to consider redundant ... was a whole lot easier when I was sorting through a stack of 4x6 glossy proofs that I could easily shuffle, look at in twos and threes next to each other, etc. I haven't found an approach yet that feels anywhere near as smooth or natural on the computer. And that's even before we get into the whole business with corrections and adjustments the folks at the lab did for me when I was paying somebody to develop and print. (OTOH, an awful lot of film from the last couple of years before I got the *istD is still in the freezer waiting for me to be able to afford to have somebody develop and print it, so even though digital is a lot more work, I'm actually _seeing_ what I've shot instead of tossing it in the freezer to hopefully see someday.) At the aforementioned Christmas party, folks saw me shooting with a Fancy Camera (i.e. not a PS, and with a big ol' flash unit stuck on the shoe), and asked when they'd see the pictures. So I made an effort to winnow that evening's shots and tweak (crop/levels/etc.) the good ones in time to hand a CD to my brother two days later when I knew he'd be stopping by. I didn't keep close track, but it was something like 16 hours of editing for one party worth (three or four hours) of mostly casual shooting[*]. I'm sure I'll get faster at this as I go on. But I suspect that choosing a subject, composing the shot, working out lighting, and operating the camera will all continue to count as The Easy Part. (Maybe I need to team up with somebody who doesn't like taking photos but loves editing them, and whose aesthetic closely resembles mine.) In the meantime, I guess I ought to crawl through the mailing list archives for advice on digital workflow and tools that I skipped over before. Anyhow, I just felt a need to whine about how long this instant technology is taking me. Now to get back to editing instead of whining for a while ... -- Glenn [*] I did go into Serious Photographer mode to try to capture the smokestack on the cardboard-box hotel my nepphew made out of the box a gigantic flat-screen television had come in -- my brother stuck a humidifier inside so the mist would come out the chimney and look like smoke. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
2010/1/7 D. Glenn Arthur Jr. dgl...@panix.com: [...] Anyhow, I just felt a need to whine about how long this instant technology is taking me. Now to get back to editing instead of whining for a while ... -- Glenn D. Glenn, Maybe this could be a good starting point? http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Photography-Practices-Workflow-Handbook/dp/0240810953/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1262897515sr=8-1 jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
Agreed - that the digital workflow takes more time but at least you've got the control and a much better opportunity at getting a keeper image, at least as far as exposure/focus is concerned. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan rf.sulli...@gmail.com Subject: Re: Whingeing about workflow Glenn, Lightroom can help you cut that time down, but Kodachrome slides were a lot easier. The colors on the slides were the colors in projection and there was no tweaking. Now I go out and shoot 250 images in a few hours and bring them back to the laptop, for hours of editing. Drives the wife crazy on vacations... Regards, Bob S. On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:51 PM, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. dgl...@panix.com wrote: At the family Christmas party, my brother's father-in-law (there's gotta be a shorter way to say that) asked about my photography and whether I did it for money, and I commented that if I were any good at the _marketing_, I'd do it for money. He asked me to round up a sampling of my work and he'd see whether he could do anything to help with the marketing angle. So I've been going through a lot of my recent-ish backlog, picking out portfolio-worthy shots to edit into shape. (When I go back home, I'll fire up the scanner; here at Mom's house, I'm going by what I have on hand on CF cards, CD, and cluttering up my laptop's hard drive.) The first step, of course, is to decide which photos are worth spending any time on. I'm also trying to get some of these folders of photos moved off onto CD to free up space on the laptop. So I'm going through lots of images, deciding which to copy (well, hard-link) to the possible portfolio candidates folder to take a closer look at later and maybe fire up GIMP on. And it strikes me that when I'm going through a collection of photos where I tried different angles and lighting on the same subject, or where I shot lots of frames of some event, that culling the duds and picking out which of the good shots to consider redundant ... was a whole lot easier when I was sorting through a stack of 4x6 glossy proofs that I could easily shuffle, look at in twos and threes next to each other, etc. I haven't found an approach yet that feels anywhere near as smooth or natural on the computer. And that's even before we get into the whole business with corrections and adjustments the folks at the lab did for me when I was paying somebody to develop and print. (OTOH, an awful lot of film from the last couple of years before I got the *istD is still in the freezer waiting for me to be able to afford to have somebody develop and print it, so even though digital is a lot more work, I'm actually _seeing_ what I've shot instead of tossing it in the freezer to hopefully see someday.) At the aforementioned Christmas party, folks saw me shooting with a Fancy Camera (i.e. not a PS, and with a big ol' flash unit stuck on the shoe), and asked when they'd see the pictures. So I made an effort to winnow that evening's shots and tweak (crop/levels/etc.) the good ones in time to hand a CD to my brother two days later when I knew he'd be stopping by. I didn't keep close track, but it was something like 16 hours of editing for one party worth (three or four hours) of mostly casual shooting[*]. I'm sure I'll get faster at this as I go on. But I suspect that choosing a subject, composing the shot, working out lighting, and operating the camera will all continue to count as The Easy Part. (Maybe I need to team up with somebody who doesn't like taking photos but loves editing them, and whose aesthetic closely resembles mine.) In the meantime, I guess I ought to crawl through the mailing list archives for advice on digital workflow and tools that I skipped over before. Anyhow, I just felt a need to whine about how long this instant technology is taking me. Now to get back to editing instead of whining for a while ... -- Glenn [*] I did go into Serious Photographer mode to try to capture the smokestack on the cardboard-box hotel my nepphew made out of the box a gigantic flat-screen television had come in -- my brother stuck a humidifier inside so the mist would come out the chimney and look like smoke. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
On 2010-01-07 14:51, D. Glenn Arthur Jr. wrote: [...] my brother's father-in-law (there's gotta be a shorter way to say that) Uncle in-law :-) And it strikes me that when I'm going through a collection of photos where I tried different angles and lighting on the same subject, or where I shot lots of frames of some event, that culling the duds and picking out which of the good shots to consider redundant ... was a whole lot easier when I was sorting through a stack of 4x6 glossy proofs that I could easily shuffle, look at in twos and threes next to each other, etc. I haven't found an approach yet that feels anywhere near as smooth or natural on the computer. I agree. For me, the problem is that I can't lay them all out beside each other at a reasonable resolution, when I'm comparing more than two images. And I'm using a 1920 x 1200 resolution monitor. If I had five hundred bucks lying around doing nothing, I'd get another 1920 x 1200 monitor, but that's of limited help, when compared to laying out an entire roll of 4x6 or 5x7 prints on the kitchen table. I'd need a monitor as big as the kitchen table to do it. :-) (Maybe I need to team up with somebody who doesn't like taking photos but loves editing them, and whose aesthetic closely resembles mine.) I have the same problem with the racing. I'm in it for the driving, and I don't really like working on the car. What I need is a partner who loves working on them but isn't into the driving side. They're around, but they're few and far between. Anyhow, I just felt a need to whine about how long this instant technology is taking me. Now to get back to editing instead of whining for a while ... It's actually gotten /much/ worse for me since moving to digital, but that's mainly due to the low cost of firing the shutter one more time. On film, I'd shoot maybe 350-500 frames a day at an auto race. On digital, it's more like 1,000-2,000 frames a day, with a lot more duplicates and dross to cull. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Whingeing about workflow
my brother's father-in-law (there's gotta be a shorter way to say that) If you're from West Virginia, 'father'. -Original Message- From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of D. Glenn Arthur Jr. Sent: 07 January 2010 19:52 To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Whingeing about workflow At the family Christmas party, my brother's father-in-law (there's gotta be a shorter way to say that) asked about my photography and whether I did it for money, and I commented that if I were any good at the _marketing_, I'd do it for money. He asked me to round up a sampling of my work and he'd see whether he could do anything to help with the marketing angle. So I've been going through a lot of my recent-ish backlog, picking out portfolio-worthy shots to edit into shape. (When I go back home, I'll fire up the scanner; here at Mom's house, I'm going by what I have on hand on CF cards, CD, and cluttering up my laptop's hard drive.) The first step, of course, is to decide which photos are worth spending any time on. I'm also trying to get some of these folders of photos moved off onto CD to free up space on the laptop. So I'm going through lots of images, deciding which to copy (well, hard-link) to the possible portfolio candidates folder to take a closer look at later and maybe fire up GIMP on. And it strikes me that when I'm going through a collection of photos where I tried different angles and lighting on the same subject, or where I shot lots of frames of some event, that culling the duds and picking out which of the good shots to consider redundant ... was a whole lot easier when I was sorting through a stack of 4x6 glossy proofs that I could easily shuffle, look at in twos and threes next to each other, etc. I haven't found an approach yet that feels anywhere near as smooth or natural on the computer. And that's even before we get into the whole business with corrections and adjustments the folks at the lab did for me when I was paying somebody to develop and print. (OTOH, an awful lot of film from the last couple of years before I got the *istD is still in the freezer waiting for me to be able to afford to have somebody develop and print it, so even though digital is a lot more work, I'm actually _seeing_ what I've shot instead of tossing it in the freezer to hopefully see someday.) At the aforementioned Christmas party, folks saw me shooting with a Fancy Camera (i.e. not a PS, and with a big ol' flash unit stuck on the shoe), and asked when they'd see the pictures. So I made an effort to winnow that evening's shots and tweak (crop/levels/etc.) the good ones in time to hand a CD to my brother two days later when I knew he'd be stopping by. I didn't keep close track, but it was something like 16 hours of editing for one party worth (three or four hours) of mostly casual shooting[*]. I'm sure I'll get faster at this as I go on. But I suspect that choosing a subject, composing the shot, working out lighting, and operating the camera will all continue to count as The Easy Part. (Maybe I need to team up with somebody who doesn't like taking photos but loves editing them, and whose aesthetic closely resembles mine.) In the meantime, I guess I ought to crawl through the mailing list archives for advice on digital workflow and tools that I skipped over before. Anyhow, I just felt a need to whine about how long this instant technology is taking me. Now to get back to editing instead of whining for a while ... -- Glenn [*] I did go into Serious Photographer mode to try to capture the smokestack on the cardboard-box hotel my nepphew made out of the box a gigantic flat-screen television had come in -- my brother stuck a humidifier inside so the mist would come out the chimney and look like smoke. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Whingeing about workflow
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote: Agreed - that the digital workflow takes more time but at least you've got the control and a much better opportunity at getting a keeper image, at least as far as exposure/focus is concerned. Kenneth Waller Ample use of presets and an application suited to batch processing can seriously cut down on the time needed. For example, I was the photographer for Ryerson University's Engineering Frosh Week. I took over 2500 shots in 5 days and was able to edit, process and submit the approximately 450 chosen shots with less than 5 hours work total. Note that I did shoot JPEG for this (I always do when shooting high volumes), but even in RAW my working time would be only marginally longer as I make heavy use of presets for rendering (in-camera for JPEG, in the RAW converter for RAW). Now I happen to use CaptureOne, which is very much oriented towards batch processing (Particularly its batch colour correction capabilities), but Lightroom does quite well for batch processing as well. -- M. Adam Maas http://www.mawz.ca Explorations of the City Around Us. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
