Photoshop postprocessing

Say I purchase the Canon 20D. I read that you have to post process with Photoshop, for example sharpness, etc. Say I go on a trip, I take 400 pics...then I have to spend hours post processing those pics?? What's the deal?

You can do as you like.

Post-processing is an option.

Also, there is a lot of freeware out there for post-processing, so you don't have to spend any money.

If you shoot RAW, then you will have to do some post-processing to get your images ready to print, or email, or upload and so on.

to do more processing in camera. However, I like to do it myself in post. The 20D is not really a point and shoot.
--
Juli
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
Canon 2oD, Canon Gee3, and Canon S7o.

I keep trying to find an artist's eye in the B & H catalog

Juli, I know it's not a P&S, I didn't mean that. I mean, do pictures come out really bad that they need post processing or is it just a matter of "taste"?

Juli will no doubt answer too; but, heavens no ... many shots are just great right out of the camera.

... you can set your camera to do it all and after that just have your shots printed in a default way.... like film

but, also like film, if you want that optimal result from each shot, you got to go through all of them one by one (like in a film lab) since the optimal conditions change from shot to shot...

Regards

Rap
--
Rap - from Brazil - http://www.001rap.com

I guess if you want to print 4 x 6, you might get by without any post.
--
Juli
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
Canon 2oD, Canon Gee3, and Canon S7o.

I keep trying to find an artist's eye in the B & H catalog

Juli Valley said:

I guess if you want to print 4 x 6, you might get by without any post.

Click to expand...

Here, we disagree. I often print much larger with no need for PP. To each her own.

I have four different digital cameras:
Canon 20D
Pentax istDS
Sony V1
Sony V3

All four are excellent cameras. Nevertheless, I usually have to do at least some minor post processing with almost all photos from all four cameras. That doesn't mean the images look bad straight from the camera. I do my best to take technically correct photos to begin with. Nevertheless, and maybe I'm really fussy, but I think that almost all photos straight out of any of these cameras need at least some minor contrast, brightness, color correction or some other minor tweaking.

So... my point is, whether or not there is a sharpness issue with the the 20D, you proably still need to do some minor post-processing for just about every photo anyway. Sharpness is not likely to be the only image flaw that needs some tweaking.

Also, like I've said before on this forum, I sometimes look at 20D images on my computer screen and think they need sharpening. On the other hand, those same images look tack sharp when I print them.

--
Allan Plucinik
Colorado Springs, CO

I remember when I had an EOS Rebel G film camera and shot a roll of 100 or 200 speed film. Some of the prints came back with incorrect colors. The grass was never as green as I had seen it or the pic was too dark.

The beauty of the 20D or any DSLR is that you can shoot RAW format and then adjust the image to your liking. For myself I prefer a more warmer feel to my images so when I shoot raw and do my PP I may use the Cloudy or Shade setting even though it was shot during the day.

I generally use CS2 but DPP2 works great too!

alegator said:

Say I purchase the Canon 20D. I read that you have to post process
with Photoshop, for example sharpness, etc. Say I go on a trip, I
take 400 pics...then I have to spend hours post processing those
pics?? What's the deal?

Click to expand...

You don't "have" to post-process if you are satisfied with your results. The 20d has settings for sharpness, contrast, saturation and color temperature. These settings are primarily for JPG, whether JPG only or RAW+JPG. So if you don't want to post-process, you need to configure those settings when you shoot.

If you shoot RAW+JPG on a trip and you have a computer with the Canon software, you can extract the JPG portion and email or post your images. When you get home then you can refine your shots by post-processing the RAW if you desired.

I shoot RAW because it is more flexible to post process RAW than JPG, especially adjusting the color temperature.

I assume that when taking pictures in the RAW+JPG format you're decreasing the storage by half (two files, one JPG and one RAW per picture taken) ?

because jpgs are note the same size of raws... jpgs are smaller (or very smaller depending on the quality settings)

Regards

Rap
--
Rap - from Brazil - http://www.001rap.com

key is to select which images you are keeping, batch process those that you can and really onely spend major time on the real keepers.

my suggestions may vary depending on your ability and settings.

I tend to take photos in groups depending on the event or situation. Example...my family is going to go pumpkin patch hunting and apple picking soon.

I will take a P&S for my wife and my 20 for me. I then shoot a gray card with each camera at the very begining of the event and don't tend to worry too much, it's sort of a fail-safe. I then shoot RAW plus small jpeg and use AWB for most all of my shots.

I re-do the Manual WB shot if we move to another location or if the lighting changes. Otherwise, most everything can be done in PS CS2 for me.

I get home, sort out which shots are keepers and edit those in batches. It's easy to adjust RAW images in groups and do 95% of the PP that way.

I then sort out the other 5% and the ones I really like and spend a little time refining the edits and PP of those.

On such events, I may shoot 30-100 shots per event or location with maybe 20% of those being real keepers to the additional processing on. IMO, learning which shots are keepers is part of learning photography. I mean, how often are you going to put more than 20% of your shots into an album. Try and tell the story with key shots only.

--
-tim
http://www.pbase.com/pdqgp

Taking the picture is just the first step in creating a photograph. Most shots need adjustments to improve them, such as improving the dynamic range, color adjustments, improvements in contrast, re-touching areas, cropping and sharpening. This is all part of the photographic process, whether you shoot film or digital, of turning snapshots into photographs.

--
http://www.pbase.com/ejohnw/
http://www.ejohnphoto.com/
eJohn Waldron

A serious photographer shoots hundreds of images, and is rewarded well if he or she gets a few keepers from a session, or from a day of shooting.

Along these lines, I shoot hundreds of photos at a location or event. When I get home, I scan the thumbnails looking for the few worth publishing or posting (if I'm lucky). Then I import that one into photoshop and process intensely.

Shooting family events or or shots for personal use, I import these into the free and efficient Picasa2 and process a few more than usual.

--

Chris
http://www.imagineimagery.com

alegator said:

Say I purchase the Canon 20D. I read that you have to post process
with Photoshop, for example sharpness, etc. Say I go on a trip, I
take 400 pics...then I have to spend hours post processing those
pics?? What's the deal?

Click to expand...

Every image taken with a digital camera can benefit from some postprocessing. I shoot in Raw so it is requirement. However, the results that I get are worth the effort.

You could shoot in JPEG but even then you will get the best image quality if you post process.
http://www.pbase.com/dstearn

I get a tremendous difference with some processing. It's hard to live without it once you know what can be done. Unfortunately, it does take time. I've spent most of today hopping between RSE and the TV window watching football on my computer, processing 110 shots from yesterday.

I know there are ways to batch process, or apply a stanrdard set of corrections to each shot, but I find every shot needs a different set to be optimized, so I take the time. I'm sure there are still shortcuts to learn.

I have my camera set to +1 on settings except for sharpness, so you can do more in camera, but here a shot from yesterday. One is the JPEG right from the camera, one is the file after RSE (I haven't taken them into CS2 for final processing yet).

For RAW, my 6MP 10d generates a single CRW file (plus a 160x120 thumbnail). Here are some numbers from a previous test:
Raw+Large/Fine: CRW= 8.8MB, Extracted JPG= 2.5 MB (3072x2048)
Raw+Med/Fine: CRW=7.4MB, Extracted JPG= 1.2 MB (2048 x 1360)
Raw+Small/Fine: CRW= 6.8MB, Extracted JPG= 0.7 MB (1536 x 1024)

alegator said:

I assume that when taking pictures in the RAW+JPG format you're
decreasing the storage by half (two files, one JPG and one RAW per
picture taken) ?

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that...but anyways it decreases the storage by some factor (less than 1/2)...yet I think it's a cool feature.