Beginner Post Processing for Idiots

NDevon

Suspended / Banned
Messages
296
Name
Marc
Edit My Images
Yes
I have had a go at using phot editing software for fun several times over the past x number of years, but now it's time I learnt how to do it properly. I have found the thread with all the tutorials and guides, I've my made a start and will continue to work through that, but I have some questions of anyone would like to have a go at answering.

Is there a right and wrong way to process? I'm talking more Lightroom than Photoshop editing - I look at them as totally different approaches and I believe that's right. I'm not really interested in photoshop type editing, is that 'possible' for portraiture? Or is it a set of skills I will have to learn?

Do you ask clients if they want their photos editing? I know you wouldn't ask if they wanted images processing as that's standard, I couldn't imagine not processing an image, but I wonder if you'd check if they wanted editing or just do it.

What's the general approach to processing - are you trying to make the image look natural, the best it could look, or do you have a style you process to? I guess I want to know the rules. Are some styles 'right' and others 'wrong'? Is it ok to over/under expose and use what are obviously excessive or un-natural contrasts and colour levels if it is to a style?

It's just those first steps I guess, I've been trying out processing of images I've taken in LR, I don't have a computer at the moment so it's just the iPad version, I realise it is somewhat limited but it's all I have for now. I try making pictures look natural, and I've tried making them look more interesting, but I don't know which is right - everything I'm reading gives me tips and tutorials to show how to change stuff but a lot of it seems to be very creative and artistic.

How did you start? Was it just something that came naturally or did you have to learn it, and if so how?
 
Your question, in essence, encapsulates the entire of Art/Photography school :)

Lightroom is a very basic tool, think of it like a darkroom. You have global controls, some gradient and local controls with limited options (Like using cardboard scraps and your fingers to dodge and burn) and moderate (And very very laggy/slow/cumbersome) tools for rough cloning / dust spotting. I use it to tone images and nail exposure before taking them to PS to retouch. It's possible I'm not leveraging the brush and gradient tools in LR to their fullest extent, but I find them so sluggish and laggy that I can't be arsed with them (32gb RAM, i7 4ghz workstation)

Photoshop is, well, everything. It encompasses all the functionality of LR, but allows you infinite control when it comes to adjustments, painting, selections, etc. It also allows you to operate in multiple colour spaces (Which is useful for certain techniques) and so and and so on.

If you just want to roughly adjust the colour/exposure/tonality of your image and dodge&burn as you would have on a traditional enlarger, LR will fit the bill handily.
If you need to retouch, then you're heading to Photoshop.

With that out of the way, your next query sadly has the answer you knew all along: There are no "rules", you're dealing with art so it's completely subjective. There are *technical* rules (Don't work on gradients in 8 bit space, don't repeatedly save as JPG, don't oversharpen, don't plan on reproducing < RGB 555 or > RGB245 on paper, etc etc) but when it comes to style, all bets are off.

Professionals tend to identify themselves by their "Look" (Google 'Sean Archer' who's the current portraiture darling and you'll see what I mean), amateurs who are playing around for fun tend to veer between what looks cool, what's currently popular, and wherever they end up at 3am before work the next day. It takes quite some time to develop a "style" and often you need to be at it for a while before you even know what it is your style IS, *and* how to push any source image towards it.

In a simple list:
- Identify what you want to achieve
- Understand how your image is different from the target
- Learn the techniques to push your image towards the target

That first bullet point is easily the hardest, the rest are simply technical problems that can be solved with analysis.

I learned by doing. The only books I ever read on the subject that were any use were the series by Dan Margulis, but he was writing before Lightroom existed, so if you have no intention of approaching Photoshop his texts would be useful only from a theoretical standpoint.

Any questions, just ask. I'm always online in the reddit photography IRC channel, and regularly live-stream tutorial material.
 
Thanks for the thorough reply, that's all really interesting. I know what I like, I guess I need to use the applications and work through as many tutorials as I can to fully understand what all the tools do. I realise the hardest part is combining the tools to develop the look, and I guess that just comes from experience as you say. I looked at Sean Archers work, I see what you mean. You could pick his pictures out of a lineup. I guess I knew there was a heck of a lot of the 'art' in the post processing, I also guess I was hoping there was a clear route to learn how to become semi competent and be able to process to a clear style. As you said though I really knew there were no rules other than the fairly obvious stuff. D

Did you just start working on pictures to see what you could achieve? Did you try to get them to look a certain way as a way of learning?

I'm going to get a computer as the iPad is obviously not going to allow me to do much at all with images, I will spend time getting to know photoshop as well reading your views, I think it will be good for me to learn. I sold my last computer around 3 years ago as I didn't think I'd need it as much, I just spent so much time using mobile devices instead, but it's getting more obvious I need at least a decent laptop.

Thanks again for your advice, I will take you up on the offer of asking more soon. I'm not a Reddit user, visited a few times but not spent much time there, maybe I'll have another look. Is that where you live stream tutorials? Where can I find out more about that and when there will be another?

PS I checked out your work - really nice, I'd be happy if I could produce a picture even half as good.
 
Last edited:
Lightroom is a very basic tool, think of it like a darkroom. You have global controls, some gradient and local controls with limited options (Like using cardboard scraps and your fingers to dodge and burn) and moderate (And very very laggy/slow/cumbersome) tools for rough cloning / dust spotting. I use it to tone images and nail exposure before taking them to PS to retouch. It's possible I'm not leveraging the brush and gradient tools in LR to their fullest extent, but I find them so sluggish and laggy that I can't be arsed with them (32gb RAM, i7 4ghz workstation)

Which version of LR are you using? Its come a long way from you description. To the point where I happily se it to manage my entire workflow, including editing. Its rare now I take a photo into PS to work on it.

Now that might well be because I tend to edit lots of photos, which LR is very good at, rather then spending a long period on each one

Is there a right and wrong way to process? I'm talking more Lightroom than Photoshop editing - I look at them as totally different approaches and I believe that's right. I'm not really interested in photoshop type editing, is that 'possible' for portraiture? Or is it a set of skills I will have to learn?

There are several years questions there. As a very general rule, remember less is more with any PP. Although every digital photograph will benefit from a sympathetic touch in an editor, all can also be ruined by going to far
 
Last edited:
I have 5.7 and CC installed. I use 5.7 for 99% of my work as CC is simply too slow - regardless of cache / GPU settings. (Library and OS are on separate SSDs which bench at over 800mb/sec, I have an nVidia 970GTX seems to do more harm than good with GPU Accel enabled). I'm frequently stuck editing sets of 4-5000 images so I try to avoid LR CC where possible as the lag is just soul destroying. I use Photomechanic for as much of the culling/editing as possible, then only work on the reduced set in LR.
 
Last edited:
Did you just start working on pictures to see what you could achieve? Did you try to get them to look a certain way as a way of learning?

I guess I started in the same way as everyone else, that is, mucking around with tools and filters and turning everything up to 11. (B&W with coloured bits, over-done HDR, plastic skin, Alien Skin filters, dodgy composites etc, we all do it, we have to get it out of our systems!!) Once you get past that (If you get past that, some people get stuck there) you have an understanding of the tools, but not necessarily an idea of how to use them. It's a bit like having a full toolkit, but not having an architect to tell you what to build with them. You need to be able to look at professional work (Anything you aspire to) and rationally identify what is different between your image and theirs. If you can do that, you can aim towards it. Then you'll start to find things you do and don't like, steer away from some things and towards others and before you know it, you're at your own destination instead.

Being able to identify the differences between your work and your target is *THE* most important photoshop skill. That's a point so important I felt it prudent to re-iterate it.

This is a combination of two sides of the coin - artistic and technical. I studied engineering instead of art, so for me the technical side of it was the obvious approach (I'm only recently starting to get more into the "artistic diagnosis" and as a technical person I find it a lot harder than numerical analysis!) but it's just as important. You can use numbers to identify a colour cast, or a particular lighting arrangement, but there's no hard and fast rule to qualify things like pose and composition which play a huge part in the final image.

If you're just starting out, it can help to compare to work closer to your own, too. If you were just starting out sprinting, you wouldn't compare your times to Usain Bolt right? Sometimes it can be more beneficial to look at your peers work, with one eye on the top-end, as one might be able to identify and bridge those differences which is a little less demoralising. I have a nasty habit of looking at the covers of Time and NG and beating myself up :/

Thanks again for your advice, I will take you up on the offer of asking more soon. I'm not a Reddit user, visited a few times but not spent much time there, maybe I'll have another look. Is that where you live stream tutorials? Where can I find out more about that and when there will be another?

I stream at http://www.beam.pro/denyer but it's very ad-hoc at the moment. There are a couple of VoD's on there from past retouches but they won't be online much longer (They're only held for 14 days). If you have an account and follow a channel, I think it sends you an email when that channel starts to broadcast to make it easy to catch.

As for Reddit, i can't stand the bloody thing, so I just stay in the IRC chatroom and avoid all the noise on the reddit site. There's a web IRC thing too, it's here I think: http://biSPAM/1KpbQJ9


PS I checked out your work - really nice, I'd be happy if I could produce a picture even half as good.
Thanks man!!
 
There are several years questions there. As a very general rule, remember less is more with any PP. Although every digital photograph will benefit from a sympathetic touch in an editor, all can also be ruined by going to far

Thanks, it's tricky isn't it, I hope you can see I'm not just being lazy with my questions, I do realise I need to learn this stuff, it's the 'how to learn' bit I'm struggling with. If it was a case of take a course I'd sign up, read a book I'd buy it, watch videos I'd get going. I know I need to just practice until it comes naturally, I guess I'm just struggling to understand how I'll know when I've got it right and - more importantly - wrong. Of course if a photo was very wrong I'd know, but sometimes editing for impact means you can do more with it, a bit like art I guess - it doesn't have to be a life-like representation to be good, although if it's too abstract it will obviously not be to everyone's tastes.

I'm dabbling with some street photography - although I'm not even sure of the rules there, what is and isn't street photography, I'm assuming I just take pics of things I say and can make something interesting out of. I mostly take pictures of people, thats my interest, and when editing I like to move the 'clarity' slider up, sometimes quite high, I don't know if this is 'wrong' though. I realise it isn't good if you are zooming in on those pixels, but it makes the pictures more interesting, it shows the facial expressions with so much more clarity, I also work on shadows blacks and whites, the highlights, the temperature, and other elements too, it's not as if I'm going in and whacking up thenclarity and I'm done. I just don't know if technically I'm way off with this stuff and I'm approaching it all wrong


I guess I started in the same way as everyone else, that is, mucking around with tools and filters and turning everything up to 11. (B&W with coloured bits, over-done HDR, plastic skin, Alien Skin filters, dodgy composites etc, we all do it, we have to get it out of our systems!!) Once you get past that (If you get past that, some people get stuck there) you have an understanding of the tools, but not necessarily an idea of how to use them. It's a bit like having a full toolkit, but not having an architect to tell you what to build with them. You need to be able to look at professional work (Anything you aspire to) and rationally identify what is different between your image and theirs. If you can do that, you can aim towards it. Then you'll start to find things you do and don't like, steer away from some things and towards others and before you know it, you're at your own destination instead.

I hope I got the funky editing out of my system a while back too! I understand most of the tools as I can usually see what they are doing, it's not always clear but I have a reasonable idea. What I'm not sure of is combinations of tools, I just move things I know work and together they make a picture I like, I'm not sure I could look at a picture and work out what I needed to do to get it to match. I'd love to get there, but I don't know how else to learn other than keep trying. Any tips always appreciated!



Being able to identify the differences between your work and your target is *THE* most important photoshop skill. That's a point so important I felt it prudent to re-iterate it.

I understand, I guess that's what I don't know how to learn. Some things are obvious, others less so or not at all.


This is a combination of two sides of the coin - artistic and technical. I studied engineering instead of art, so for me the technical side of it was the obvious approach (I'm only recently starting to get more into the "artistic diagnosis" and as a technical person I find it a lot harder than numerical analysis!) but it's just as important. You can use numbers to identify a colour cast, or a particular lighting arrangement, but there's no hard and fast rule to qualify things like pose and composition which play a huge part in the final image.

I'm not an engineer but I'm analytical - maths and physics we're my favourite subjects, and I loved technical drawing and design, but I was rubbish at the creative art elements (first stitches, final artistic renders) and the physical building stuff - I'm not very practical and can't make or build unfortunately. I tend to know how things should be done but lack the ability (or enthusiasm) to get my hands dirty. So similar to you the artistic stuff isn't natural for me and I find it a challenge. I approach it by thinking what I personally like, but I guess I worry others may not, and I worry that I'm technically way off with my work - from making the photo in camera through to the editing part. Partly this is because I'm a total perfectionist, 'ok' or 'nice' don't really work for me.

I need to get my in camera work to a higher standard as well, I took a load of pictures yesterday and looking back I found I missed the focus on so many but I don't know why. I know how to do it (at least I thought I knew) but it didn't work out as I hoped.

If you're just starting out, it can help to compare to work closer to your own, too. If you were just starting out sprinting, you wouldn't compare your times to Usain Bolt right? Sometimes it can be more beneficial to look at your peers work, with one eye on the top-end, as one might be able to identify and bridge those differences which is a little less demoralising. I have a nasty habit of looking at the covers of Time and NG and beating myself up :/

Yea that makes sense. I could outrun Usain of course but I let him have his glory, he's a nice chap! I do enjoy looking at photos of people on here, but I don't consider myself anywhere near their levels of course, so it still feels massively out of reach. It is demoralising, but I won't give in. I'm hoping that perseverance will pay off, it would be easy to give up because I can't do it, which is of course what most people do - otherwise there would be even more really good photographers out there than there already are!


I stream at http://www.beam.pro/denyer but it's very ad-hoc at the moment. There are a couple of VoD's on there from past retouches but they won't be online much longer (They're only held for 14 days). If you have an account and follow a channel, I think it sends you an email when that channel starts to broadcast to make it easy to catch.

I've downloaded the app and side up, I'm following you now, I'll watch those videos today, they are way above my level I'm sure but I'll benefit from seeing things done. If you ever get the desire to do some fairly basic editing on some images, especially some street or candid pictures, I'd be really grateful!



Thanks man!!

Not at all, it's all good stufff. Thanks for your lengthy replies. It's easy to ignore beginners and just let us get on with it or tell us to just learn and stop being lazy, I really want to learn, this IS me learning in some ways.
 
Thanks, it's tricky isn't it, I hope you can see I'm not just being lazy with my questions, I do realise I need to learn this stuff, it's the 'how to learn' bit I'm struggling with. If it was a case of take a course I'd sign up, read a book I'd buy it, watch videos I'd get going. I know I need to just practice until it comes naturally, I guess I'm just struggling to understand how I'll know when I've got it right and - more importantly - wrong. Of course if a photo was very wrong I'd know, but sometimes editing for impact means you can do more with it, a bit like art I guess - it doesn't have to be a life-like representation to be good, although if it's too abstract it will obviously not be to everyone's tastes.


I certainly never thought you were. You're right that nothing will ever be to everybody's taste. To me, there were a few things that still hold true today when I thing about PP

You can make a good photo great with PP, but also ruin it by overdoing it. However you'll never make a bad photo good in PP. It'll just be a polished turd. Remember this forum is very good at feedback. If your PP is letting your photos down you will get feedback thats the case. Feedback is an invaluable learning tool. Bad PP is fixable. A bad photography ain't. So concentrate more on photography. A common mistake seems to thinking I can fix something in PP. Its always better to have it right in the first place.

I'm dabbling with some street photography - although I'm not even sure of the rules there, what is and isn't street photography, I'm assuming I just take pics of things I say and can make something interesting out of. I mostly take pictures of people, thats my interest, and when editing I like to move the 'clarity' slider up, sometimes quite high, I don't know if this is 'wrong' though. I realise it isn't good if you are zooming in on those pixels, but it makes the pictures more interesting, it shows the facial expressions with so much more clarity, I also work on shadows blacks and whites, the highlights, the temperature, and other elements too, it's not as if I'm going in and whacking up thenclarity and I'm done. I just don't know if technically I'm way off with this stuff and I'm approaching it all wrong

There are no rules written down with street photography. What ~I think makes a great photo you may not and ice versa. The example of the clarity slider you give is a great one. It can't make an expression but can enhance a good one. Technically, its a good way to learn, but understand what each one is doing as well. Then you'll the able to look at a photo and say 'that may benefit from a touch more of less clarity" for example
 
The question I took from your post was 'what's the right way', to which the answer is that there isn't one.

Some of us edit to create a natural looking image, others go for a personal 'style', or something 'fashionable'. None of those approaches are 'wrong'.

Personally I export JPEGS from Lightroom, most of which are the finished product, I then flag everything that needs pixel level editing in PS (usually cloning or skin work).

But I know many photographers would manage more of that from within Lightroom, my quick and dirty method works for me).
 
Personally I export JPEGS from Lightroom, most of which are the finished product, I then flag everything that needs pixel level editing in PS (usually cloning or skin work).

Phil, am I understanding this correctly that you export to JPEG then work on the JPEGs in PS and re-save? Or do you pass the marked up ones from Lightroom to PS (in whatever internal format LR and PS use), work on them and then save to JPEG?

The reason I ask is that I use a somewhat similar approach (more often with Silkypix than Lightroom these days but the principle is the same, but I use TIFF rather than JPEG as an intermediate format. I export from Silkypix (or Lightroom) as TIFF, then work on any that need something extra, for example cloning in CS2 or background cleaning in Nik Dfine, resaving as TIFF. Finally I convert all the TIFFs to JPEG.
 
Last edited:
Phil, am I understanding this correctly that you export to JPEG then work on the JPEGs in PS and re-save? Or do you pass the marked up ones from Lightroom to PS (in whatever internal format LR and PS use), work on them and then save to JPEG?
I re-save the JPEGS, I know that this is controversial, but I'm only doing it once at full quality and full size.

It's a habit, and like I said I could probably manage it better within LR, but the final bits of my workflow predate my use of LR by years. I've tried with TIFFs but all I get is a slower experience for no appreciable quality gain.
 
I re-save the JPEGS, I know that this is controversial, but I'm only doing it once at full quality and full size.

It's a habit, and like I said I could probably manage it better within LR, but the final bits of my workflow predate my use of LR by years. I've tried with TIFFs but all I get is a slower experience for no appreciable quality gain.

Thanks Phil. That is really interesting. (I updated my response to mention TIFF while you were responding.)
 
The question I took from your post was 'what's the right way', to which the answer is that there isn't one.

Some of us edit to create a natural looking image, others go for a personal 'style', or something 'fashionable'. None of those approaches are 'wrong'.

Personally I export JPEGS from Lightroom, most of which are the finished product, I then flag everything that needs pixel level editing in PS (usually cloning or skin work).

But I know many photographers would manage more of that from within Lightroom, my quick and dirty method works for me).

Yea that is a big part of my 'enquiring'. How do you learn this stuff and how do you know when you've got it right. I'm happy with knowing there isn't a right and wrong, I'm not just moving all the sliders in one direction and thinking it's art, although I'm sure some might, I guess I just wasn't sure of the 'rules' but I'm glad there kind of aren't any.

Ultimately if people don't like my pictures they won't ask me to take any of them, I'm fine with that, I'm not editing for impact and trying to make an impression. I know I need to take the best pictures in the first instance and then work on them to bring out the best, I get a similar look with each edit even though the process is often different depending on the original image and it's qualities. So I must be understanding how it works to be able to bring photos up to a similar style.

As I'm just using Lightroom on the iPad I believe I'm just editing jpegs anyway, it's taking the images out of the photos on the iPad that I import via the Canon app, so it can't be the RAW files. At least I don't see how it could be, I may be wrong though. I think I'll have more fun with the full version of Lightroom and I'm looking forward to learning to dabble in photoshop.
 
Yea that is a big part of my 'enquiring'. How do you learn this stuff and how do you know when you've got it right. I'm happy with knowing there isn't a right and wrong, I'm not just moving all the sliders in one direction and thinking it's art, although I'm sure some might, I guess I just wasn't sure of the 'rules' but I'm glad there kind of aren't any.

Ultimately if people don't like my pictures they won't ask me to take any of them, I'm fine with that, I'm not editing for impact and trying to make an impression. I know I need to take the best pictures in the first instance and then work on them to bring out the best, I get a similar look with each edit even though the process is often different depending on the original image and it's qualities. So I must be understanding how it works to be able to bring photos up to a similar style.

As I'm just using Lightroom on the iPad I believe I'm just editing jpegs anyway, it's taking the images out of the photos on the iPad that I import via the Canon app, so it can't be the RAW files. At least I don't see how it could be, I may be wrong though. I think I'll have more fun with the full version of Lightroom and I'm looking forward to learning to dabble in photoshop.
LR on the iPad will work with raw files, but I've no idea what your setup is.

If you're aiming for 'consistent' at your stage that makes you better than 99% of photographers.
 
And the full version has some fantastic options that can't be done on the iPad version.
 
Yea that is a big part of my 'enquiring'. How do you learn this stuff and how do you know when you've got it right. .

You learn by practice and getting critique, you know you're good when feedback tells you so. You know you're really good when you're putting your prices up to limit demand.
 
LR on the iPad will work with raw files, but I've no idea what your setup is.

If you're aiming for 'consistent' at your stage that makes you better than 99% of photographers.


Hmmmm how do I get the files into it - any idea? So I have my camera - Canon 1300D - and then I connect to an iPad Air via the cameras wifi and using the canon app I download the images, they then get saved to the photos app on the iPad. I thought they'd be saved as JPEGS - I shoot in RAW + JPEG L. Then when I open Lightroom I import the files.

Is there a better way? I didn't think they could be RAW images as they hadn't been converted, or maybe I just don't know what I'm taking about again!
 
And the full version has some fantastic options that can't be done on the iPad version.


Yea I'm looking forward to getting a computer, I'm waiting to see what Apple bring out as they are long overdue new MacBook Pros - I've always been an Apple user and couldn't get a PC even if it was the only option. My kids all have half decent Mac Minis, they wouldn't be fast but I guess I could install LightRoom on one of those when they are at school. I pay for the Adobe package with the monthly rolling fee so I can install it easily enough.

May have to give it a go on Monday. Is it easier or faster to connect the camera to the computer with the cable or is the wifi a similar speed?
 
Hmmmm how do I get the files into it - any idea? So I have my camera - Canon 1300D - and then I connect to an iPad Air via the cameras wifi and using the canon app I download the images, they then get saved to the photos app on the iPad. I thought they'd be saved as JPEGS - I shoot in RAW + JPEG L. Then when I open Lightroom I import the files.

Is there a better way? I didn't think they could be RAW images as they hadn't been converted, or maybe I just don't know what I'm taking about again!
I know you can import images from camera roll to Lightroom, but it's designed to be synced with collections from the desktop version.
 
Yea I'm looking forward to getting a computer, I'm waiting to see what Apple bring out as they are long overdue new MacBook Pros - I've always been an Apple user and couldn't get a PC even if it was the only option. My kids all have half decent Mac Minis, they wouldn't be fast but I guess I could install LightRoom on one of those when they are at school. I pay for the Adobe package with the monthly rolling fee so I can install it easily enough.

May have to give it a go on Monday. Is it easier or faster to connect the camera to the computer with the cable or is the wifi a similar speed?
Definitely get one of the Mac minis sorted.

Buy a card reader, faster and better by miles than any camera connection.
 
Definitely get one of the Mac minis sorted.

Buy a card reader, faster and better by miles than any camera connection.


Will just one of the cheap and simple ones be good enough or does it need to be a certain type?
 
Will just one of the cheap and simple ones be good enough or does it need to be a certain type?
Cheap ones work, but I went through them at an alarming rate.

I got a Lexar pro USB3 one about 4 years ago for about 3 times what they cost now and it was worth every penny.
 
Last edited:
Cheap ones work, but I went through them at an alarming rate.

I got a Lexar pro USB3 one about 4 years ago for about 3 times what they cost now and it was worth every penny.


Excellent, I'll have a look on Amazon - thanks :)
 
I don't think there's a sensible way to learn all the tools - partly because post processing is invariably the result of a combination of techniques.

It's probably easier to work out what you want to achieve and search for a tutorial on that subject.

It's better still to plan for what you want to achieve prior to taking the picture, i.e. shoot with your processing in mind - and normally with the aim of minimising the amount of post-processing work.
That usually means spending much more time on framing & lighting - whether found or manipulated - than you might think.

If you don't have much of any idea of what is possible then you could start with Phlearn.com - just remember that because he says you can do a thing doesn't mean that you should do it.

are you trying to make the image look natural, the best it could look, or do you have a style you process to? I guess I want to know the rules.

Sometimes I go for natural, and sometimes I go quite far from it - but I still aim for plausible.
There are no rules. If the results fit the vision in your head then you've succeeded.

All that said.. my process tends to include none, some or all of these steps, depending on the shot.
  1. Correct camera & lens defects (distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, noise, sometimes sharpness)
  2. Set white balance or correct to a calibrated target
  3. Correct framing errors / limitations (e.g. fill in or crop background where the studio isn't quite big enough or where I've stuffed up)
  4. Correct exposure errors (it does happen)
  5. Background replacement / composite
  6. Remove blemishes - dust spots, unwanted marks, etc
  7. Black & white conversion, if required
  8. For beauty portraits - skin / hair / eye etc retouching
  9. (Rarely) special effects - e.g. adding lighting effects
  10. Contrast enhancements / dodge & burn
  11. Colour toning
  12. Resize, sharpen & export
For street photography I do much, much less than this.
 
Back
Top