How long do you spend editing a picture?

Dave_Taylor

Dave_Taylor

Suspended / Banned
Messages
658
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Just curious, as if it's any more than a few minutes I give up. It often ends up looking worse than before I started messing with it. I tend to do no more than very simple cloning to remove the odd distraction, and maybe also changing the levels.

I think the longest I have ever spent editing a picture was about 2 hours to remove a set of traffic signals from outside of Wonderworks on I Drive, but this really was a one off. I entered it into a competition at our club and the judge thought the whole image had been edited and the building placed on it's roof electronically. It never scored a point!

So is there more to this Photoshop software than I realise. Sure, I know it's a superb, powerful piece of software, but for me the more you edit the more it moves from photography to crating an image (if that makes sense) I try, but often fail, to get the picture right when I take it, and for me a lot of editing re-enforces the opinion I got it wrong when I pressed the button.

So would anyone like to add to this post and maybe show me, and anyone else that reads this, what we're missing out on, by posting a couple of pictures, before and after, what and why you edited it and how long it took.

Thanks in advance.
Dave
 
When I first started using PS I might spend a couple of days on a picture trying different things to get the result I had in my mind. As I have got more experienced I rarely spend more than a few minutes if it is an edit I have already mastered (to some degree). There is always more to learn on PS though and I rarely regret time spent mastering new techniques as they invariably come in useful at some point. With most pictures I use it purely for resizing and keywording.

I seem to use it more for other people's pictures these days than my own, for instance changing the twigs in this thread probably took around four minutes (a full sized picture is better to work on as you have more detailed pixels to clone from and would have taken longer as I would have been more precise)
 
It depends on the photo. If I take a photo I generally know what sort of editing I want to do to it, and I take the photo as best I can in the conditions and then spend between 2 and 10 minutes editing it to the state I want it.

Sometimes if I cock up in camera, I use software to recover what is lost. for example, in new york, I didn't take a tripod and my lens doesn't have IS and the light was quite poor, causing there to be a lot of slightly underexposed and ever so slightly shakey images, so I did what I could to recover those photos in photoshop. This can be a simple tweak or a massive process, between half a minute and 20 minutes.
 
proberly about 5mins usually just a bit off contrast and brightness... not a big fan off major work (proberly because i dont know how to) so i usually keep it simple :thumbs:

has been said i try to take the right picture when im out there if possible and then only slight touch up's needed if neccesary...
 
I spend around 30seconds per image generally but longer if HDR or noise reduction is being applied of course.
 
most normal shots i can do in less than 30 seconds, trickier ones can take a bit longer, but i try desperately not to go over 10 mins on each or i would be editing all the flipping time lol :)
 
30 seconds to a couple of minutes. Rarely longer that's for sure unless I really like the image or I really cocked it up!
 
just remember that it depends what your doing ,just try and get the picture right ie exposures ect first time.saves you time and as the saying goes time = money. in saying you can spend hours editing pictures just depends on what your doing. :)

Happy new year !
 
Normally white balance, then a bit of curves, then spending a bit of time on a decent crop, and maybe clone out a little distraction, that's it.

Few minutes for me.
 
Me and processing really do not mix :(
I find that I try to clone a small distraction out that takes me around 30 mins, then I see someone clone out a (to me) major item in about 30 seconds!

If I do try processing then I normally end up with the picture looking worse than when I started so other than minor things like a crop I don't often bother.
 
Thanks for the feedback. To be honest one of the reasons I asked was that editing pictures seems to be more and more of a focus for camera clubs. I know the one I attend even have photoshop evenings. There are some members who create numerous adjustment layers etc, resulting in images over 200mb in size. (I believe they do it this way so they can always go back to the original - using an adjustment layer is non destructive although some have now switched to Lightroom.) I also know people who have shot a collection of different skies to add in to a drab image. I wondered whether an unedited picture would compete with the edited ones, if they were done well, or whether it is just sour grapes because I don't want to edit to the degree some people do, or just because I don't know how. I know there was editing in the darkroom many years ago, with dodging and burning etc. Is photoshop just a progression of this? With the move to digital there often seems to be the attitude of shoot loads of pictures, one is bound to be good, and if it's not there then Photoshop will rescue it.
 
i am new to editing and use Gimp rather than photoshop. it takes me around 30min a photo and it seems complicated right now, but i am sure i will need less time in future.
 
Quick wipe with a Jay cloth, if only it were that simple..

You have to make some basic edits, digital photo's straight out of the camera are pretty flat generally.
You have to decide for yourself how far you want to go, whether you want to represent what the scene actually looked like through your eyes (+ misc slight enhancement exaggerations):suspect:, or whether you feel the photo is just the beginning of a scene you want to manufacture.
They say photoshop is just an extension of the darkroom, but its far far more than that, it does not compare with anything that was possible with film.
Its up to you how you use it.
 
I used to think that any editing of a photo, made it no longer a photo but an image.

I have over the time I have been on the TP forum come to accept that a certain amount of editing is no worse than some of the techniques used in film developing.

So I now am of the opinion that ..... if the editing is being used to aid with the limitations of Camera technology over the Human Eye then that is to me acceptable..... ie use of HDR (DR of camera isn't upto the Human eye), sharpening of RAW images (due to lens to digital conversion limitations), a bit of contrast or levels adjustment. In my photos I want them to look how I saw the photo when taking it.

For others that may not be for them :shrug: at the end of the day photography should be an enjoyable pastime so if you are not getting the images out of the camera then editing is maybe how it is made enjoyable for some.
 
Mine are mostly minor tweeks depending on what i am doing, 90% of the time my settings are camera correct.
Sometimes all i need to do is contrast boost my images
Longest i spent on 1 image is around 1 hour
Sometimes mine are just 5 min fixes
 
Dave_Taylor said:
Just curious, as if it's any more than a few minutes I give up. It often ends up looking worse than before I started messing with it. I tend to do no more than very simple cloning to remove the odd distraction, and maybe also changing the levels.
Click to expand...

Hi Dave,
Very interesting thread with some very interesting responses.
IMO, It's a very difficult question to answer as the answers are completely dictated and highly dependent on the task, requirement or the intentions of the author and or client.

Basic editing such as curves, contrast, exposure, noise reduction and sharpening for example are fairly quick actions to perform, batch adjustments and conversions can be made very easily with photoshop action script, lightroom synchronization facilities etc.

Then, should you need it, there are much more advanced editing procedures that are far more time consuming if you intend to do them correctly and successfully. These kind of procedures are only available or possible with software that can enable multiple layers and they require a reasonable amount of knowledge of the capabilities on offer.

Layer composites for example can be very indepth depending on the desired result. High dynamic range increase (digital blending), extensive manipulations, retouches, restorations and reconstructions can be very involving. I'd be willing to wager than even some of the most dedicated purists may use these kind of techniques.

A good friend of mine is totally anti photo editing, anti photoshop and anti manip in every way possible. The funny thing is he shoots in RAW which is a format destined to be manipulated to a degree, he's images are always half arsed and lack punch, he never corrects WB issues and leaves dust bunnies in his shots. We have some very 'colourful' debates on a regular basis.

I agree you can get things as correct as possible in camera but RAW still requires a process.

POAH said:
30s or its not worth it
Click to expand...

Everyone has different methods of editing, some more efficient/conventional than others, some far more advanced and involving, it depends on the requirements or visions of the author.
To say that it's not worth spending any more than 30 seconds on an edit, generally speaking, suggests to me that you work in time sensitive environments.
Not everyone does though and not everyone has to either.
As above, it depends on requirements and considerations of the client/author.

I think it's safe to say that some advertising campaigns spend a little more than 30 seconds when it comes to the post on their images. :)

Different horses for different courses.

Forbiddenbiker said:
Anything from five mins to five hours, depending on shot ...the more I learn the quicker I get. ;)
Click to expand...

Very positive comment, a very encouraging train of thought there. :thumbs:

T.
 
Generally a few minutes but there are some where I may want to duotone and do a lot of dodging and burning etc then it can take a while, sometimes its nice to work on it for a bit then come back with fresh eyes another day, i know my Dad can take days on some of his but they are heavily processed, not that the original is bad in any way but he can see a final shot in his head and works the original to get to that stage, these took him a long long time in PS, sorry they are poor quality thumbnails, i don't have access to originals at the mo, basically it takes as long as it takes to get the result you want

97572.jpg


398552.jpg


153375.jpg


Some of the more subtle tones are lost in the jpg's as well sadly
 
Just thinking of it, if you take the photo well, then the PP is minimal.

Such as these two, all they had done, was a straighten, and a little curves, and a little crop;

(First one used a filter, so minimal work was needed )

2944303707_d19a3c339c.jpg

and
2683214389_ff42eaa85e.jpg
 
Again nice shots but it depends on the result you want, none of my Dad's pics above could be done in camera, Yes they need a good shot in the first place as do all photos but the amount of PP required is purely down to what you want form the picture not how good the original is, although that obviously helps to reduce time
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Anything from five mins to five hours, depending on shot ...the more I learn the quicker I get. ;)
Click to expand...

Many of my shots are simply tweaked very quickly in LightRoom and then put through a batch PS action, so less than five minutes. However, I did once manage to take four and a half hours on one photo. The end result was always going to be about the processing on that one. What I learnt from that was to name the layers, so that it doesn't take twenty minutes to find the layer that you want to tweak. Now I'm just that little bit quicker.

This kind of thing has been debated on many other forums and often, it ends up with people with entrenched views on both sides of the 'purist'/'manipulator' debate not listening to the other. I'm glad to see that it hasn't gone that way here.
 
As little as possible.

Generally just a horizon nudge to stop the world sliding off the edge and some cloning out of any dust bunnies that show, followed by a resize and sharpen to suit the end use.
 
I like to "try" and get the shot as right as possible in camera first...helps me to learn about this photography lark! I guess 'cos I also work with computers all day I don't really want to be bothered with being sat in front of one all night editing pictures :shrug:
 
Its not in my eyes if I've got 200 shots to edit for a magazine, not got the time. get it right in with composition, light and exposure in camera first then you don't have to spend time making a shot in photshop because you pooped up at the scene.

suppose I just don't see the point in making an image in photoshop rather than a photograph in the camera :thumbs:


Tomas Whitehouse said:
To say that it's not worth spending any more than 30 seconds on an edit, generally speaking, suggests to me that you work in time sensitive environments.
Not everyone does though and not everyone has to either.
As above, it depends on requirements and considerations of the client/author.

I think it's safe to say that some advertising campaigns spend a little more than 30 seconds when it comes to the post on their images. :)

Different horses for different courses.
Very positive comment, a very encouraging train of thought there. :thumbs:

T.
Click to expand...
 
Generally under a minute, normally all in Aperture. However, I think my longest took about 3 days to get right. about 8 hours to stack the raw data together, then the rest of the time, pulling out the detail, removing sky glow and noise whilst maintaining as much balance as possible.
 
POAH said:
Its not in my eyes if I've got 200 shots to edit for a magazine, not got the time. get it right in with composition, light and exposure in camera first then you don't have to spend time making a shot in photshop because you pooped up at the scene.

suppose I just don't see the point in making an image in photoshop rather than a photograph in the camera :thumbs:
Click to expand...

That's taking the assumption that time spent in post production is time spent fixing the mistakes you made in camera. :shrug:

For me it usually depends what the shots are for usually it's sub 30sec but for a few landscape shots I might spend a few hours. Usually that's on/off editing though.
 
Hardly anything with digital. Film is a different story though as it takes me ages to clone out dust (I'm a bit OCD about it)
 
POAH said:
Its not in my eyes if I've got 200 shots to edit for a magazine, not got the time. get it right in with composition, light and exposure in camera first then you don't have to spend time making a shot in photshop because you pooped up at the scene.

suppose I just don't see the point in making an image in photoshop rather than a photograph in the camera :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Getting an image as perfect as it can be is a paramount, I agree, but that's not my point, I'm not referring to correcting or making a shot in PS because it's been cacked on location, I'm referring to the different varieties of application with post production after the image has been perfectly conceived in camera. I.E, the next steps.

Making an edit say, without the use of layers, blending modes, layer masking, applied filtering and other more in depth adjustments for example suggest that:
*The job or task you have either does not warrant it.
*The client doesn't need it or is not paying for/allowing time for that level of service.
*The creator does not want to apply it.
*The creator is not aware of what these capabilities offer.
*Adopts prejudice.

Don't get me wrong, I respect all kinds of angle or belief, but I don't accept denial that these procedures have their place or exist in photography.

The fact is, some photographers use them, some don't, as I mention before, it depends on the visions of the creator and in which line of work you operate, but these techniques and the technology exist and they are administered and practiced, there is no argument there.
:thumbs:
 
hellogoodbye said:
Hardly anything with digital. Film is a different story though as it takes me ages to clone out dust (I'm a bit OCD about it)
Click to expand...

I feel your pain, fellow dust dotter.
ICE just doesn't cut the custard:(
 
I don't spend anytime editing photos. I just wouldn't know where to start. :(
 
Normally around 30 minutes on a 'keeper', and I don't subscribe to the concept that because you get everything right 'in camera' then ps is minimal.

I do try and get everything right 'in camera', always bracket exposures, often bracket my apertures, and frequently use grads.

I have everything turned off (neutral) in camera, therefore the raw file always looks flat, so always need some processing.

I spend a lot of time viewing the image at 'actual pixels' removing any dust/defects, I work in layers a lot, trying different adjustments until I'm happy, noise reduction takes time, and a lot of effort in sharpening an image.
 
It totally depends upon what I am doing. If I am at a karting meet then I have no time for editing so they are as they come straight from the camera.
If I am trying to capture something in difficult conditions and have the time to edit then I will do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top