Photo edit curiosity

Dunn

Dunn

Well-known
Local time
4:09 PM
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
258
Just curious to know how much time you guys spend editing photos, per photo. And what does your typical edit consist of.

Also, when I look at the New York Times Lens blog and other photojournalism I wonder how they edit to get those certain deep colors and such. I feel like most photojournalism has certain looks that I can't really figure out how to get.

I really don't enjoy spending a lot of time editing so I just try to keep it simple 5 minutes or so per photo. Curves and such, maybe a little dodge/burn.

Examples are appreciated.

Oh, and do pj's shoot any aperture smaller than f/4?
 
Last edited:
I sometimes spend hours screwing with a photo, but I am severely OCD and just can't stop messing with one till I think its flawless in every way.
 
i have import actions set up in lightroom to adjust the color saturation, luminosity, and curves to a more film like appearance (while digital is supremely more accurate in color reproduction, accurate does not always equate to interesting...imperfections are fascinating.) From there I tweak as needed but I usually spend no more than 5-10 minutes tweaking a photo (i am a bit of a minimalist with the slr/rf variety of images...with 4x5, i could spend days getting a print exactly the way i want it.)
As far as 'editing' goes (to me editing is a way of determining the bad from the good and the good from the great images...) editing can take many many weeks...if not months for personal work...for paid work...that all depends on the deadline.
 
Last edited:
I gather we're talking mainly digital here or digital files from scanned film.

Generally a few minutes per image for a correctly exposed frame ... or substantially longer if I blew it at the coal face so to speak! :D

This is mainly setting levels to get the histogram looking better and adding a little more contrast and sharpening when necessary. Dodging and burning I'm not too interested in as I prefer a basic program like Lightroom or ACDSee Pro where these functions are not really an option. The right camera helps and everyone has a different 'right' camera of course depending on their shooting style. Since getting my D700 the time I spend on post has been substantially reduced compared to the time I used to spend attempting to make my M8's files acceptable to the eye at anything over 640 ISO where very noisy shadows and blown highlights were the norm. Not totally the camera's fault of course ... more my using it out of it's comfort zone a lot of the time.
 
Keith said:
Since getting my D700 the time I spend on post has been substantially reduced compared to the time I used to spend attempting to make my M8's files acceptable to the eye at anything over 640 ISO where very noisy shadows and blown highlights were the norm. Not totally the camera's fault of course ... more my using it out of it's comfort zone a lot of the time.
Click to expand...

You had to go there didn't you keith :)
I will agree with you though...the m8 does indeed require more post work than other cameras...mainly due to the fact that almost nothing is done to the files 'in-camera' on the m8.
 
tmfabian said:
You had to go there didn't you keith :)
I will agree with you though...the m8 does indeed require more post work than other cameras...mainly due to the fact that almost nothing is done to the files 'in-camera' on the m8.
Click to expand...


I didn't mean to sound like I was bagging the camera because I do really miss it in many areas ... I was just emphasing the point that often if you're spending to much time in post doing recovery work you may be using the wrong equipment for your chosen environment.

And as you say there's a lot of in camera processing going on with modern DSLRs!
 
I stick to the very basics in LR. If it takes more than a few minutes - it doesn't happen.

Photography is the hobby. Computing is not.
 
Keith said:
I didn't mean to sound like I was bagging the camera because I do really miss it in many areas ... I was just emphasing the point that often if you're spending to much time in post doing recovery work you may be using the wrong equipment for your chosen environment.

And as you say there's a lot of in camera processing going on with modern DSLRs!
Click to expand...

haha...i know...i was just ragging on ya. It is just the truth of the matter that most dslrs have a-lot of 'in-camera' stuff going on...even in raw that makes post a whole lot easier than with the m8. which brings up an interesting point about what camera makes post the easiest for quick PJ work?
 
tmfabian said:
haha...i know...i was just ragging on ya. It is just the truth of the matter that most dslrs have a-lot of 'in-camera' stuff going on...even in raw that makes post a whole lot easier than with the m8. which brings up an interesting point about what camera makes post the easiest for quick PJ work?
Click to expand...


I've seen and envied your high ISO work with the M8 ... I don't have the skills or the patience! :D
 
As most of my post processing is made to scans, it often takes quite a bit more than 5 Minutes (in particular if there is dust). In general with photos I want to print larger I would work in steps (in particular with color images). First I would just do the first approximation until the results looks fine and then I move on to other image. I would then return to the first one in the next days - often something (color or contrast wise) pops up and then I do the corrections. I have to admit that I have images that after several such iterations (though mostly short ones) were just left as "hopeless".

But somehow the photos that get the most work (either because of less then optimal exposure, composition or scan) are rarely among the best once finished & printed.
 
Matus said:
As most of my post processing is made to scans, it often takes quite a bit more than 5 Minutes (in particular if there is dust). In general with photos I want to print larger I would work in steps (in particular with color images). First I would just do the first approximation until the results looks fine and then I move on to other image. I would then return to the first one in the next days - often something (color or contrast wise) pops up and then I do the corrections. I have to admit that I have images that after several such iterations (though mostly short ones) were just left as "hopeless"...
Click to expand...

Similar to my workflow. And I really don't touch all images coming from digital or scanning. If there are basic flaws, I didn't do my work before. For smaller retouch actions to web pages, I only use IrfanView. The complex work is done with GIMP.

That means: Normally not more than a few minutes of scrutiny and work per image.
 
Every work of art requires two people. The artist to create it -- and someone to kill him when it is finished.

Maybe Picasso was so successful because he was one of the few great artists who was able to understand the phrase 'good enough'.

Cheers,

R.
 
Time? 10-15 minutes or so - maybe longer at times...

Edits? I use PhotoScape and adjust curves as appropriate: Color, Saturation, Luminance. Sometimes use auto contrast & levels with minor tweaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom