Your record for most images edited in a month?

[ajax_andy]

News to any pro landscaper

Different disciplines of course, I'm not gonna argue about fashion or weddings

Aye definitely depends on the type of photography... after all there's not going to be much point in skin smoothing a back lit tree

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Aye definitely depends on the type of photography... after all there's not going to be much point in skin smoothing a back lit tree

I sure some fashion and wedding bods would argue with you too like, but I'll leave that to them

 

[ajax_andy]

I sure some fashion and wedding bods would argue with you too like, but I'll leave that to them

Argue with me in what way though? About workflow and not using LR for the majority of editing?

Like I said I have met a fashion and life style one and know how she does things and it aint using lightroom

 

[Steeeeed]

Argue with me in what way though? About workflow and not using LR for the majority of editing?

Like I said I have met a fashion and life style one and know how she does things and it aint using lightroom

Was the debate ever about Lightroom vs PS? I thought it was more automation/one size fitz hall versus manual/bespoke.

 

[ajax_andy]

Was the debate ever about Lightroom vs PS? I thought it was more automation/one size fitz hall versus manual/bespoke.

Fuck knows mate I honestly can't remember

I think the point of the thread was talking about how many images anyone's ever edited in a month on here... somewhere along the line it 'developed' in to something else

 

[sketchy]

I don't really see the problem with using presets you have made. You are still giving the client the best photo/video you can, but you are saving yourself time by not manually doing everything. I use presets on a lot of stuff then manually tweak individual parts of the preset for the individual photo. I don't see how that reflects on what the client gets, all I see it doing is saving me some time.

Also in answer to your first question, somewhere around the 15,000 mark

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Argue with me in what way though? About workflow and not using LR for the majority of editing?

Like I said I have met a fashion and life style one and know how she does things and it aint using lightroom

You forgot what the convo was about within 2 posts?

 

[ajax_andy]

I don't really see the problem with using presets you have made. You are still giving the client the best photo/video you can, but you are saving yourself time by not manually doing everything. I use presets on a lot of stuff then manually tweak individual parts of the preset for the individual photo. I don't see how that reflects on what the client gets, all I see it doing is saving me some time.

Also in answer to your first question, somewhere around the 15,000 mark

Depends on what you are doing though I thin is where the argument is coming from tbh... If I shoot a wedding in a dark church at ISO 2400 for example there's going to be a fair bit of noise that needs to be removed. In lightroom I could remove it by softening the image but everything would then be soft including the focus on the bride and groom. In photoshop I could soften the image and then remove that from the bride and groom... something that no amount of presets in LR can do.

I recently took a few pics of back lit orchids with a white backdrop... I made changes to one in LR and copy and pasted to all other pics... in that scenario there would have been no benefit to using PS and doing it all manually on each pic.

My arguments are based on what I'm editing which is wedding pics in various conditions and with lots of factors to content with... to me using presets aint ever going to yield as good a result as doing it manually in photoshop.

And back on topic 15,000? Fuck me that's some going!!!

You forgot what the convo was about within 2 posts?

Haha it's been a long day / week / month

 

[sketchy]

Depends on what you are doing though I thin is where the argument is coming from tbh... If I shoot a wedding in a dark church at ISO 2400 for example there's going to be a fair bit of noise that needs to be removed. In lightroom I could remove it by softening the image but everything would then be soft including the focus on the bride and groom. In photoshop I could soften the image and then remove that from the bride and groom... something that no amount of presets in LR can do.

I recently took a few pics of back lit orchids with a white backdrop... I made changes to one in LR and copy and pasted to all other pics... in that scenario there would have been no benefit to using PS and doing it all manually on each pic.

My arguments are based on what I'm editing which is wedding pics in various conditions and with lots of factors to content with... to me using presets aint ever going to yield as good a result as doing it manually in photoshop.

And back on topic 15,000? Fuck me that's some going!!!

I am not bothered about the Lightroom/Photoshop debate. I am just referring to presets/actions/workflow etc. I look at it as that is my base, then I play around from there on.

15,000 was timelapse shots so can be around 1,000 photos for one clip. I don't edit them all individually usually edit one then copy and paste to the lot then split it down into sections then edit these further depending on light changes then key frame it so the changes happen slowly over an amount of frames rather than abruptly.

 

[ajax_andy]

I am not bothered about the Lightroom/Photoshop debate. I am just referring to presets/actions/workflow etc. I look at it as that is my base, then I play around from there on.

15,000 was timelapse shots so can be around 1,000 photos for one clip. I don't edit them all individually usually edit one then copy and paste to the lot then split it down into sections then edit these further depending on light changes then key frame it so the changes happen slowly over an amount of frames rather than abruptly.

Ahh ok then yes 15,000 aint quite as extreme as it sounded

 

[Jonny]

I'm going to play devils advocate here.
Firstly, top photographers don't do their own retouching!
Secondly, most people are clueless about what makes a good picture, so won't be able to tell the difference between your painstakingly retouched work or someone who quickly removes spots and blemishes and adds a couple of actions.
Think of it like this. I don't have a clue about opera signing, and would be hard pushed to tell the difference between the best in the world and someone who was barely making a living. There'd both sound like good opera singers to me.
Opera buffs would know, so other photographers and image makers might be able to tell the difference in your editing, but the general public!

Personally, I'd spend a bit of time on the hero shots from the day, the ones you know that the couple will want, and the rest blitz through them.

Finally, don't use the dodge tool, it's rubbish. Either use a curve layers and paint the bits in you want lighter or darker, or if you want to be fancy use the 50% grey layer on soft light technique.

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

I'm going to play devils advocate here.
Firstly, top photographers don't do their own retouching!
Secondly, most people are clueless about what makes a good picture, so won't be able to tell the difference between your painstakingly retouched work or someone who quickly removes spots and blemishes and adds a couple of actions.
Think of it like this. I don't have a clue about opera signing, and would be hard pushed to tell the difference between the best in the world and someone who was barely making a living. There'd both sound like good opera singers to me.
Opera buffs would know, so other photographers and image makers might be able to tell the difference in your editing, but the general public!

Personally, I'd spend a bit of time on the hero shots from the day, the ones you know that the couple will want, and the rest blitz through them.

Finally, don't use the dodge tool, it's rubbish. Either use a curve layers and paint the bits in you want lighter or darker, or if you want to be fancy use the 50% grey layer on soft light technique.

Start with a huge generalisation like The top man in my field in the UK would go mad at the thought of not doing even the slightest click himself

 

[Jonny]

Start with a huge generalisation like The top man in my field in the UK would go mad at the thought of not doing even the slightest click himself

Sorry, I am just playing silly buggers, and was coming to this from the fashion, portrait point of view.

Out of interest who is the top man in your field. I would have thought that it would be Simon Norfolk. Who I would believe farms his retouching out (I have no idea though!)

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Sorry, I am just playing silly buggers, and was coming to this from the fashion, portrait point of view.

Out of interest who is the top man in your field. I would have thought that it would be Simon Norfolk. Who I would believe farms his retouching out (I have no idea though!)

Aye fair enough, passing stuff down to the plebs will be more prevalent in your line of work

Crikey I'm not a war correspondent, don't fancy a bullet through me chops any time soon.

Strictly landscape, fine art and architecture here

 

[Jonny]

Aye fair enough, passing stuff down to the plebs will be more prevalent in your line of work

Crikey I'm not a war correspondent, don't fancy a bullet through me chops any time soon.

Strictly landscape, fine art and architecture here

Just rechecked his work and its certainly started down the war route, he used to be landscape, fine art and architecture. His agent (Peter Bailey) has hardly any of his war stuff on his website.

Just rechecked his work and its certainly started down the war route, he used to be landscape, fine art and architecture. His agent (Peter Bailey) has hardly any of his war stuff on his website.

Edited as i'm talking nonsense.

Just re-rechecked his work and its certainly far more war orientated, I thought he used to be landscape, fine art and architecture. I really only know his work from his agents site, which obviously promotes his more commercial side.

 

[Icarebecauseyoudo]

Just rechecked his work and its certainly started down the war route, he used to be landscape, fine art and architecture. His agent (Peter Bailey) has hardly any of his war stuff on his website.



Edited as i'm talking nonsense.

Just re-rechecked his work and its certainly far more war orientated, I thought he used to be landscape, fine art and architecture. I really only know his work from his agents site, which obviously promotes his more commercial side.

The name not familiar as a landscaper like, and I'm not really acquianted with NatGeo mob. Good stuff like. Everyone does a bit of landscape on the side I guess

 

[ajax_andy]

I'm going to play devils advocate here.
Firstly, top photographers don't do their own retouching!
Secondly, most people are clueless about what makes a good picture, so won't be able to tell the difference between your painstakingly retouched work or someone who quickly removes spots and blemishes and adds a couple of actions.
Think of it like this. I don't have a clue about opera signing, and would be hard pushed to tell the difference between the best in the world and someone who was barely making a living. There'd both sound like good opera singers to me.
Opera buffs would know, so other photographers and image makers might be able to tell the difference in your editing, but the general public!

Personally, I'd spend a bit of time on the hero shots from the day, the ones you know that the couple will want, and the rest blitz through them.

Finally, don't use the dodge tool, it's rubbish. Either use a curve layers and paint the bits in you want lighter or darker, or if you want to be fancy use the 50% grey layer on soft light technique.

The dodge tool is fine for a minor edit... anything more and yes you're needing to use a better tool. I'll either use levels or curves and layer masks for anything that requires more than just a tiny lightening but it can be used for minor editing. Just depends on what you're having to remove or improve. For skin I'd be more inclined to brush over with a 12% opacity brush set to a nearby skin tone as this seems very accurate to me... many ways to skin the same cat I guess.

I would say I spend more time on the 'hero' shots as you said than any other image, that's natural at the end of the day, but you still have to be consistent in your editing IMO... for example I wouldn't reduce the crows feet on a bride in one or two shots and not the rest, if they are noticable they'll get worked on regardless of the shot... although again depending on the shot I may spend less time on it than on an important one.