Do you do post-processing every day?
What I was suggesting in the "Processing Strategy" post a few days ago was that on the first pass working on an image, stay loose, take it easy, work fast, and don't stress—get it mostly right. And then step back and stop working on it. Then, let it "ripen"—live with it for a while, think about it; "feel your way into it" as a friend of mine says. If an image still has power / interest / energy for you after some time has passed, that's when you spend the time to really work on it, to more closely calibrate it with "just right" or "perfect."
In the Comments to that post, Adrian Malloch had this to say, in part:
"Just looking," and the passage of time, has been a necessary part of my slow-photography practice too. However, the impatience of my commercial clients who, despite having had the proofs for three weeks, suddenly want 37 selected images graded and processed urgently, means that their poor planning becomes my rushed processing.
My sympathies. I suspect all pros know that feeling. In fact, "pro" work in general means getting to good results quickly and efficiently...rushing, usually.
I made the case for this once in back in the old days talking about home darkroom work vs. commercial labs. The custom fine printers were generally much better printers, and faster, because they did it all the time and had to make good prints quickly, spending the least possible amount of time and materials. Where the custom lab guys fell down is precisely in that they were forced to use...the least possible amount of time and materials! That's why the home darkroom worker could sometimes make a better print. What they lacked in fluency and practice they could make up for in time and care. Where the custom lab guy might have no more than seven minutes and two sheets of paper to make a "finished" print, the home darkroom worker could take four hours and twelve sheets of paper if she wanted to.
Where the home darkroom workers fell down is that they didn't work often enough to stay "fluent." They never pushed themselves to learn how to work quickly and efficiently. Never had enough reason to.
Do you post-process at least a few images every day?
If you don't, you should. Just to keep your hand in. Regularity makes for fluency. Even if it's not an image you're going to keep, spend a few minutes fixing it. (Even if it's not yours. As I think I mentioned a while back, I sometimes snag random images off the Intertoobs and fix 'em. Why? Just to keep my hand in.)
This is a picture I processed yesterday. It's kind of a bleh, meh, second-tier shot. I don't like it, would never print it, and consider it an also-ran. So why bother with it at all? Because I want to get good at B&W conversion, and that mostly means exercising my judgement of tones on a regular basis. I want to practice on skies, and on questions such as, how dark a gray should the lake be in this shot, taken at dusk, to "read" like the scene really looked and felt to me? This is practice, pure and simple. Like a pianist playing scales.
Really, the ideal way to master post-processing (or darkroom printing) is to learn to work both ways—fast and slow.
When you first work on a new image, act like a professional—work quickly and fluidly. Pretend your client wants 37 images delivered yesterday. Get to a good-enough result fast. Then move on to the next one.
Later, act like an artist or hobbyist...bring your full judgment to bear on those (no doubt fewer) pictures that still interest you. Study the file; determine what it really needs; question everything; work slowly and fastidiously. Be a craftsman (or -woman). Take your time. Get it just right. Not close but just right.
Speed and fluency is the great advantage of the pro. Time, thoughtfulness and detail-orientation is the great advantage of the amateur.
You need to learn both ways of working to really get good.
Mike
(Thanks to Adrian M.)
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Jay Pastelak: "You're so right about looking at what one has done. As a teacher, I have many students who don't really look at what they have (or have done: in a final critique I once had a student bring in a comped piece in which a label was unintentionally flopped). As a result, they have no idea what to do to the file in processing. I'm not sure if their lack of looking is merely a result of their inexperience or a manifestation of a cultural notion that the technology will get it right. It's one of my huge frustrations in teaching because I can't seem to find a way to teach them to look. And brother, have I tried."
Mike replies: I know what you mean. My former teacher, now friend Paul Kennedy, who taught lighting at the Corcoran School of Art for years, once told me that the hardest thing about teaching lighting was getting students to actually look at what the lights were doing. They were much more comfortable following setup diagrams and so forth. He had an exercise where one student would slowly move a hot light, and the other student's assignment was merely to look at what happened to the light on the subject while the light was moved.
Michael Martin-Morgan: "Quite so. Most people when they play on a computer choose a video game. My video game? Photoshop—great fun!"
Kenneth Tanaka: "In a typical week I do some form of post work perhaps three of seven days. Other days I'm either doing camera work or other things.
"After nearly 20 years working with images I'd like to offer two thoughts outside what's already been noted. First, contrary to the old chestnut, practice will not make perfect when it comes to image refinement. In the absence of some external feedback or aesthetic guidance chances are good that practice may make you worse. In today's digital environment it's very easy to succumb to 'trying' one set of filters and HDR widgets after another. Bit by bit (sorry) your images begin to take on a kitschy, cartoonish appearance where the treatment overthrows the whole message of your images. Unless you force yourself to remain tethered to some aesthetic model constructive to your visual goal it becomes easy to lose sight of what you're trying to accomplish. Learning short-form and long-form treatment routines, as Mike suggested, is essential. But you must first find rails best for your work.
"To that end, make every effort to see good printed work whenever possible. Work whose treatment you not only find appealing but that accomplishes the kind of visual messaging you feel you need. Learn the master art of restraint. It's very, very hard to find such work within the amateur photo sites. I strongly recommend museums and galleries whenever possible. Online, sites such as Lens Culture and L'Oeil de la Photographic are excellent places to see a broad range of work and treatments.
"Second, and this may seem radical, consider partnering with someone who does post-processing, and perhaps printing, professionally. Paying an experienced retoucher, or even a talented art student, to put the finishing touches on your images can be tremendously enlightening and more productive for some projects."
Joe Holmes: "Ken Tanaka's advice, 'consider partnering with someone who does post-processing,' is spot on. Every time I've worked with a professional post-processor or printer I've seem them bring out my images in a way I could not. And I picked up their techniques each time—invaluable! But even non-pros can show you tricks you hadn't considered. Watching a friend work an image is worth a hundred YouTube videos."
Should a person practice (printing, writing, piano, golf) to stay sharp or get better?
Probably both.
Posted by: Speed | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 10:59 AM
Mike,
It might be interesting to know what software TOP readers are using. Lightroom (or something like it) might be good for working quickly to get something "good enough". Perhaps Photoshop for working more slowly and optimizing the image? I used to use Lightroom almost exclusively. Once I figured out Photoshop, I shifted most of my work there, at least for images I really care about. Camera Raw does much of what Lightroom does, although one of the nicer features of Lightroom is the ability to save versions.
Phil
Posted by: Phil Service | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 11:01 AM
Mike,
If one is working for oneself (O.K. that is actually play, not work), be it post processing or printing, there is no fun in hurrying and working like a professional printer with a dead line to meet. That will only kill the enjoyment. Every one has one's unique way of doing something and it is not worth trying to learn another way of doing it. That "one way" of a person is his style and will show up in shooting as well as in post processing.
Posted by: Ranjit Grover | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 11:02 AM
Manuel Álvarez Bravo had a sign in his darkroom that read: "Hay tiempo" (There is time).
Posted by: Francisco Cubas | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 11:03 AM
I don't really have any scintillating insight to add here, but would like to say that I've been working towards this approach for a while now. As you're recommending, I've been discovering lately that the breather period is essential to cutting out the fat.
I've pulled together a couple personal projects lately that both give me a little twinge as I "finished" them too quickly and there are some things now that I would like to revise (as they were Blurb books for a friend and for a gallery, it's an expensive lesson). But in that, I've begun to recognise in myself that I have a tendency to get very excited about a project and want to tie it up very quickly and say LOOK! LOOK! ISN'T THIS COOL? Whereas, invariably, the things I work with over longer periods have had that time to live and breathe I tend to find a more satisfying conclusion.
I've tended in the past to really like the rough, first draft versions of things... get that inspiration on paper, let it out, don't self-edit, follow that thread and let Kerouac be your guide. But I am now starting to see that perhaps in the refinement is the real voice. That upfront excitement and engagement is still valuable and essential to the process, but let it move on to something else.
So, now, at least, the realisation is there and it is time to tame the beast and work longer and smarter, not faster.
Posted by: Adam Lanigan | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 11:11 AM
I agree, and my strongest learning curve was when I used to process and share hundreds of photos for my daughter's school, both as a volunteer and as a part time instructor. Now days I still learn little by little. Recently while processing I learned more about the limits and ability of my camera with skin and shadows. If I want good skin I need more light, no big surprise. Otherwise I can get rough gradations, essentially banding of the skin.
Posted by: John Krumm | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 11:31 AM
Pity the poor motion picture colorists. Post processing 500 images a day ... and matching them too! :)
Posted by: bruce alan greene | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 12:01 PM
Excellent advice.
I do a bit every day, but hadn't practiced the fast - slow suggestion.
Thanks
Posted by: Jack | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 12:53 PM
I do post-process (almost) every day. I shoot almost every day, then I dump into my favorite cataloger Aperture and (MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL) keyword and rank all the photos I don't delete. (If I don't keyword images right away, I never get around to it, and the images might as well be lost forever.) Then I take the few picks -- 3, 5, 7 images? -- and do a quick post.
Because I shoot in RAW, my images start out rather flat and dull and always -- always -- require some post processing.
The post routine doesn't vary much at that stage: a run through Nikon's NX-D to automatically fix distortion and chromatic aberration (does a better job than DX-O for Nikon lenses), then into Photoshop where I typically straighten crooked shots, do a Curves -> Auto Color Correct -> Enhance Monochromatic Contrast (usually works like magic!), maybe a little cropping, maybe lighten or darken with a Curves layer.
The whole process might take a half hour, for all images beginning to end. And at that point I'm at the stage where those first 3 or 5 or 7 images are reduced to one or two, which are saved as Photoshop files in my "Ultimate Repository" folder.
An image that I know is going to be a print or some other major keeper gets the later, big post-processing treatment, at least a few days later but often weeks. At that time I might clean up spots, do real color correction, etc. I'll run the occasional print so can see what the picture really looks like. When it's all cooked, I append the word "MASTER" to the filename, so that I can later resize and sharpen for various purposes without changing the look of the image.
But the real reason I immediately post-process is because I can't really evaluate an image until I see it at its (almost) best. Some images don't come alive until I've tweaked them. And some that I think are winners just seem to be unsalvageable.
Posted by: Joe Holmes | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 01:30 PM
Good advice.
One of the main reasons I've kept an ongoing blog for almost twelve years is to force myself to PP images regularly. I consider the images to be "illustrations" rather than "photographs"; with no limits on subjects, styles or themes: it isn't a portfolio.
I also agree with your previous advice of "starting over" when working up an image. I find that I always get a fresher result than if I just kept rehashing a prior version.
Posted by: Stephen Cowdery | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 01:44 PM
Dear Mike,
I don't mean to have the impudence of criticizing your aesthetic options, but having seen many of your black and white conversions for some time now, I suspect I'm finding a pattern: you never seem to allow highlights to shine. They're mostly muted. I see it here, I saw it in a famous snowy landscape you showed us some months ago.
Having taken the opposite path to most people and turned from digital to analogue photography, I found out I completely changed my mind about highlights. When I shot digital, I used to post-process my pictures so that highlights were reduced to pale midtones. I'd move the highlights slider until the false colours were gone. When I look at those photos now, after having made the transition to analogue, I find them dull, dark, lifeless and ploddy.
Highlights are beautiful. As long as they aren't too glaring and don't destroy information, they can make the pictures come alive. I wish I saw them more often in your conversions.
Posted by: Manuel | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 03:04 PM
No way. Since digital, I've gone all Garry Winogrand and deliberately do not look at most non-family shots for at least a month and sometimes much longer. This provides the detachment needed to quickly winnow down (ha!) the absurd number of frames I generate to the few that have a ghost of a chance.
Posted by: Paul De Zan | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 04:25 PM
Practicing scales is a good analogy to post-processing (except, of course, when the situation is one of those 'rushed, need it now' things).
A variation I enjoy is taking a photo I've processed to my satisfaction in the past, creating a virtual copy, resetting it, and doing my best with it again. Mixed feelings when it turns out better: nice that I'm getting better/what was I thinking; mixed feelings when it turns out similar (or worse): OK, I was dialed in on this/why aren't I getting better?
But, as I say, enjoyment ;-)
Posted by: Tom | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 04:25 PM
No I don't process every day and wouldn't want to either. Even after a break of weeks or more it only takes five minutes to settle in to the software process again. I have created a few actions in PS that simplify the initial phase of processing and having just returned from a trip with several thousand photos to process I always do a fast editing and processing run then return later to refine the ones that are worth it. The time between also means you may find the occasional worthwhile pic that was missed in the first run. I can process to a satisfactory level in a very short time but to fine tune takes commensurably longer at an exponentially increasing ratio.
Image evaluation is an important part of the equation that also needs streamlining - "fixing it in Photoshop"has meant that many an image that would never have been considered good enough before is now processed to death to try and revive it.
Knowing what you want to achieve before starting is not so easy as playing with the image until you get something either.
Posted by: Kefyn Moss | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 05:28 PM
I learned quite a while back, that it is best practice to go through the whole test printing process, and then stop. Full stop.
Now wait until the next day and look again at what looked finished, and take a long look. And then look again.
All too often what seemed fine yesterday is obviously a little off. Easy to fix, really. No customer would have objected, but it can be better.
I choose to do better, and wait until the next day.
Posted by: Doug Chadwick | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 08:49 PM
I had a student last night who was presenting her photo to the class, a photo that had obviously been processed to hell and (halfway) back. At first she denied that she had processed it at all, but under my no-doubt withering glare, she admitted to "moving some of the Lightroom sliders around a bit."
Sigh.
Posted by: TC | Tuesday, 10 November 2015 at 09:31 PM
Dear Mike,
I'm hesitant to argue with you about your taste (which is inarguable) and even more so based upon a JPEG, but from what little I can see on the screen I don't think that sunset photograph is hopeless. I think it might actually be rather good, when printed properly.
My first thought is something needs to be done about the lake. As it is it competes with the sky. I would take it down and brightness. I might even end up cropping the bottom and taking it out entirely. If I did that, I'd also be taking a little bit off the top. I might do that anyway; enough to get rid of that thin line of white clouds in the top 5-10% of the picture.
Then I'd start to work on the clouds themselves. One of the things that's become very obvious to me over the past year's printing (I've been printing LOTS of clouds) is that clouds rarely reproduce in a print with the texture and three dimensionality that they have when we look at them. They frequently need lots of local contrast enhancement to convey the same sensation they did in real life. It doesn't end up making them look cooked; it ends up making them look natural. Which, by definition, isn't overcooked.
Or, you know, it might turn out to be mediocre after all. But, I gotta feeling.
Just some thoughts from one master printer to another.
If you want some amusement, you could dropbox me your black and white conversion and let me noodle around with it a bit and see what happens.
pax \ Ctein
[ Please excuse any word-salad. MacSpeech in training! ]
======================================
-- Ctein's Online Gallery http://ctein.com
-- Digital Restorations http://photo-repair.com
======================================
Posted by: ctein | Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 03:30 AM
Everyone finds their own level of competence at various tasks, so I like Kenneth Tanaka's advice of partnering up with someone with complementary skills. In my case, I'd love to have someone next door or nearby who really knows how to print. I own one of those Canon "photo"-inkjets (8.5 x 11 only), as opposed to the low-end consumer inkjets, and I've never been happy with what comes out. I have not settled into the discipline of using only one or three kinds of paper, and do not have the expertise to be able to predict (even crudely) what the machine will spit out. I wish I had the discipline to better my printing, but I'm pretty sure I don't. I shoot for fun and so print only for me so it's easy to put it off. I suspect that if I made a living at this, I would force myself to become good at it. As it is, there are too few hours in the day and too many other demands on my time.
For example, I'd occasionally (3 times per year) like to print something larger, but there's no way I am going to spend $500 (minimum) on a larger format printer just so I can continue my mediocre printing on more expensive paper.
What the world of photography needs is a web-based fine print making service, a network of Cteins or near-Cteins (we'd find the appropriate level). All this sitting at home by yourself is fine for some things, but not everything.
Posted by: Robert Roaldi | Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 10:20 AM
"had a student bring in a comped piece in which a label was unintentionally flopped"
comped --> completed?
flopped --> flipped?
Posted by: Sam | Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 06:36 PM
If you're in commercial photography, you give the relative client what they want. I tend to shoot a lot of aerial work in NYC, the brokers and developers tend to want a over saturated image. It varies from Summer to Winter, less/more.
A human trait I guess, we want to see more color in the drab winter months vs summer. This not based on one client, I've seen it again and again.
The rendering company's however what none of this. They want a pure color accurate photo. They want to do the final corrections. Same for the high end printers to produce massive wall prints.
Know you clients. Be willing to post for them.
Posted by: Robert Harshman | Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 07:51 PM
I'm in the middle of my first 365 project.
So I'm processing pictures every single day. I can get pictures out in a pretty timely manner because I have a deadline to meet. I don't take a ton of pictures each day, but enough that I'm usually working on a couple each day.
Looking back on the progress, I see where I try things out, and tweak things as I go along, and I incorporate commonly used settings and processing.
Has it made me better at post? I don't know, I was already comfortable doing it. But I think I can gauge before changing a setting, what the result will be, so there is that.
Just like the project has refined how I shoot, it's refined how I process. It's not what I expected to happen on either side. Things like, I now use a tripod religiously, when I only ever used one for night and long exposure shots. I use Luminance and Saturation sliders on most of the keepers to tweak color (among other settings).
Posted by: David Parsons | Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 09:24 PM
Sam: "Comped", in this case, means "composited"; made up from multiple images. (A note here: a comp may refer to either a composite image or a comprehensive layout. A commercial photographer may have to create a comp in order to work to the comp he/she was given by the art director. Nobody ever said terminology was going to be easy.) "Flopped" means reversed right-to-left. "Flipped" means reversed top-to-bottom. Both were easy to do in the pre-computer press world, where everything you were working with on the plate or film was usually backwards, except when it wasn't. (You'd think flipping would be hard to miss, but then think about those upside-down airmail stamps that are worth a fortune today.)
Posted by: Stan Rogers | Wednesday, 11 November 2015 at 09:46 PM