Question about editing.

[Jessicayla]

I got my first editing assignment from my new job and was asked to edit 50 photos. There were some outdoor shots that were taken earlier in the morning and the camera was on portrait mode and the speedlight was on top of the camera, which resulted in there being a pretty harsh shadow behind the subjects.

So anyways, my question is, how long would you expect that to take to edit that many photos? Maybe there was a faster way but I made a selection around the subjects and then used the clone stamp tool to sample the grass to get rid of the shadows.

Here's an example:




The only reason I'm asking is because I feel like I was going super slow. It took me about 10 hours to do 50 pictures which seems horrible, but I've never had to edit this many photos before in my life, and it took me a while to get a method figured out that yielded the best results. I didn't want to do a crappy job since people are paying for the pictures, so, I don't know!

My manager mentioned spending only a few minutes per picture but there's just no way the pictures would look good (in my opinion) if that's all the time I had for each.

 

[Hoogle]

Mass editing pictures I would use lightroom especially if you have the later versions with clone brush. As for time that is dependant on how much you value your own time. How much do you get paid or how much does the photographer budget for post editing. I am going to assume these were not taken by an actual photographer though (as very rarely will real photographers take pictures with an on camera flash without some light modifier/diffuser).

If you are only charging $20 for the whole job then that puts your working price at $2 an hour. It is very unlikely the client will want all 50 images anyway so doing 40 extra just for the sake of it seems a bit to much and maybe you should have them choose 10 images they like for a batch job of $50 and then charge $10 for each additional image. These numbers are random numbers go with whatever you think is a fair price. You will also find that after you have done a couple the process will speed up so what took 1 hour for 1 image 2nd image will be 40 mins and by the end of the batch you will be knocking them all out within 5 mins.


All work that I can not predict exactly how long it will take me instead of a job finish rate I do x ammount for my 1st hours work and then a lower amount for every additional hour.

 

[dv8_fx]

Welcome to the real world of a computer graphic designer (under supervision by a boss).

There could be so many ways to do something. But this depends on the image, the project at hand and the amount of time you are allotted to do it - the latter forced on you by your boss or client.

In this business, speed is essential. The faster you finish a task, money comes in and the sooner the employee can start work on a new project, the more orders the company can fulfill. This is the reality of it all.

Don't worry, as time goes by in your work, you will figure out the fastest way to do things without sacrificing quality. In time, you will develop what I call automatic movements to do automatic day to day tasks.

Unless your boss is a jerk, I'm sure he knows this. For as long as your work is of quality, he'll close one eye to your slow pace. But don't take too much time or his patience.

Find or discover the fastest way to do things. With this project , you've gained experience . Think back.... what took up most of your time? How to streamline the process? What procedures you did to retain and disregard?

 

[Tom Mann]

With respect to the photo(s) you posted, the solution to the problem is NOT post processing. It's getting the picture much closer to optimal in the camera.

I see two problems: (a) the shadow caused by the flash being so close to the camera; and (b) the extreme falloff to black in the background.

The first problem, the shadow is easily fixed. The simplest (but not optimal) way is to put the flash on a bracket that is directly above the camera, not off to one side. This will put the shadow directly behind the subject, out of view of the camera. Stroboframe makes very nice brackets, e.g. with one like this , the flash stays directly above the camera no matter if the camera is in portrait or landscape orientation.

A better approach is to use better lighting, for example, two large umbrellas on either side of the camera. This might not be realistic when shooting HS level athletic team pix.

The second problem, the extraordinarily dark background, is puzzling and I have some questions. The EXIF data show that you shot it at ~8:13 AM at ISO 200, 1/60th, and f/6.3 using a d300s. At that time of the day, with those settings, the background should be somewhat overexposed, not dark. Are all these settings correct? Did you intentionally darken the far background using PS? Was this photo taken inside, or in deep shadow?


With respect to post processing these images, in the last couple of years, almost every currently working wedding / events photographer that I know has switched over to using Lightroom for quickly editing large numbers of photos. The major benefit is that you can store, organize, and use presets much more easily in LR than in ACR or Bridge. The downside is that LR requires a serious computer (eg, lots of memory, 64 bit OS, fast processor). If you don't have such a computer, forget LR -- it will feel like swimming through molasses. LOL.

Tom M

 

[Jessicayla]

I originally wanted to use Lightroom as I have Lightroom 5 but I'm still in the process of learning it. I tried to use the clone brush in it and because of the gradient in the background it was difficult to match it up right so I just want back to the tried and true Photoshop.

Tom, I didn't shoot the pictures, it was another photographer at the shoot. It was pretty dark outside still, the time stamp seems to be off. We started the shoot at about 7am. One photographer that came down from Austin did have the bracket for her speedlight and of course her photos came out fine. This one did not, and I don't think she was used to shooting this early in the morning so she set the settings as she saw fit. Not sure why she did it at those settings either. The background wasn't intentionally darkened and it was underneath a tree so that later in the day it would provide some shade.

 

[Jessicayla]

Oh my goodness. I just realized something that makes me feel so stupid. When I was trying to figure out the tool in LR, I wasn't liking the results of the tool I was using, which I thought was the clone tool... I had it on the heal brush instead. I could have used LR this whole time. I feel like a freaking idiot.

 

[Tom Mann]

Hi Jess -

You last post clears up a lot.

If it were me, I think I would accept the shadow as the lesser of two evils, and simply lighten up the dark part of the background using the adjustment brush in either LR or ACR (see below).

At least that can be done in < 30 seconds per image, and, IMHO people are more likely to understand and accept a shadow vs a completely black distant background that looks similar to what they might get with their little P&S cameras.

T

 

[Tom Mann]

"I had it on the heal brush instead. ... I feel like a freaking idiot."

Don't. Every one of us has made much, much worse mistakes than that.

T

 

[Jessicayla]

Thanks Tom! You're seriously awesome and very knowledgeable and I appreciate your input! I agree about the background, that looks really nice. I wasn't really left to my own devices so I didn't do much editing besides the shadow removal, which was my specified task by the boss man.

I'm not an official editor or anything, they have two other ladies that do that. They may have not been up for this task since the photos are normally a lot better once they get to them in the office, hehe. They are much more used to minimal editing. Not sure, but they may even do more editing once I get the photos back to them.

 

[dv8_fx]

Oh my goodness. I just realized something that makes me feel so stupid. When I was trying to figure out the tool in LR, I wasn't liking the results of the tool I was using, which I thought was the clone tool... I had it on the heal brush instead. I could have used LR this whole time. I feel like a freaking idiot.

There you go.....

It's usually the case. You'd discover a blooper you've done or come up with a better solution to the problem either after you finish the project or left the workplace. You've taken a fresh step forward, Jessi.

ONWARD AND UPWARD........

On another note, it's a good thing to post your workplace situations and problems in the forum. The discussions that come out of it will not only be informative to you but to others as well in terms of how it's like in a real GRAPHIC DESIGN OFFICE scenario .

 

[Tom Mann]

BTW, don't forget that you always have the option of dropping in a new background.

Either take or find a test shot of the same area before the subjects arrive, or find some similar grass on the web, modify the brightness, distribution of light, contrast, color to match the scene, and drop it in back of each subject.

You are going to need to accurately select each subject no matter which editing method you use (ie, clone brush, adjustment brush, new background, etc.), so, that's the same amount of work in all of the methods. However, once you've done that, if you use the new background method instead of one of the brush or clone tool methods, you're done. There's no more fiddly work left to do.

When you have a large number of images to process, this is probably the fastest of all the methods discussed thus far.

Best regards,
Tom

Result of ACR / LR adjustment brush to lighten background



Grass from web after adjustments to get a reasonable match in color, brightness, etc.



Final result including my blooper




PS - I intentionally let my selection error remain (and circled it in red) to urge great caution when you make your selection. Something like that would be a great embarrassment to you and the company.