# Post Processing Beginner! (Event photography?)



## Fabinator (Dec 14, 2012)

Hello! New to the forum here! My name is Fabio, nice to meet you.



Canon 60D

50mm - f1.4 - 1/80 - ISO 800​
I'm not necessarily new to photography. But recently I was asked to take pictures at a company christmas party (a company at which my girlfriend, above, works). It wasn't a paid gig, in fact I was just at the party and they noticed I had my camera, leading them to ask me.

I was quite happy with the way they turned out. Now I'm hoping by the summer I can turn this into something that can make me a bit of money. One thing about photography I still haven't gotten right, however, is the post processing. The photoshopping, the editing. 

I have access to photoshop, and I do tend to shoot in RAW and have tried camera raw, but I just can't get it right. I like my original photos better than my edited ones, but they still need that "professional" finishing look to them. (Keeping in mind that I do not have external flash, and refuse to use the build in flash indoors.)

This is where I ask, what is a good resource to learn photo editing and post processing? What are some good procedures and tactics to putting the glossy finish, the polish, the twinkle in her eyes into my photos?

In fact, if someone could take the time to quickly edit the photo I posted above of my gorgeous girlfriend in a way that would make it more 'sell-able,' I could see the end result and see the changes that have to be made. You can download the full resolution (JPEG, unfortunately) here: IMG_3688.JPG

Anyway, thank you so much for your time, hope to see you around!

Fabio


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 14, 2012)

Fabio,

With due respect to your intent, it is almost insulting for you to think - and say - that because you have a camera and 'access to Photoshop' you can quickly grab enough knowledge and skills in 4 or 5 months to go pro and make money at it. Good photographers are professionals with enormous amounts of experience and lots of investment - time and money.

What is well done with the image above is due to the camera's capability, what is not well done is yours.
It is in reasonable focus and reasonable exposure (camera), she is not well-posed, the white balance is off, the framing is off, her hands are amputated (you). There are lots of bright distracting things in the background - again yours.

Welcome to a great hobby but you should be realistic, there is a huge, long way to go in all aspects with no guarantee of any income. There is no one perfect resource, there are hundreds of books, on-line turorials, etc that are available and there are NO shortcuts.

Enjoy yourself, take great pictures of your pretty girlfriend but learn to do photography first and then see if you have what it takes.


----------



## Lipoly (Dec 14, 2012)

Good comment Lew...a bit of a wakeup call for me as well, b/c I didn't initially notice any of the stuff you pointed out.  Its funny, even w/your (presumably) quick removal of the TV, it still looks way better.

I will add though that even though you (a pro) noticed this, many people wouldn't...I'm sure some people pay good money for sub-par photographs.  Not saying that is a good thing, but likely is the reality.  My dad went "pro" in a small town b/c he acquired a lot of (at the time) pro level gear about 10yrs ago and was paid for portraits/weddings with no prior experience.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 14, 2012)

Lipoly said:


> Good comment Lew...a bit of a wakeup call for me as well, b/c I didn't initially notice any of the stuff you pointed out.  Its funny, even w/your (presumably) quick removal of the TV, it still looks way better.
> 
> I will add though that even though you (a pro) noticed this, many people wouldn't...I'm sure some people pay good money for sub-par photographs.  Not saying that is a good thing, but likely is the reality.  My dad went "pro" in a small town b/c he acquired a lot of (at the time) pro level gear about 10yrs ago and was paid for portraits/weddings with no prior experience.



Thanks
You know the trick to spell checking articles (without a spell checker) is to read them backwards so that the flow of ideas doesn't get between you and 'seeing' the errors. 
In the same vein, I have 3 working guidelines that I use to help me look at and understand pictures - and get away from being influenced by an overall impression that would decrease my sensitivity to 'errors.'

Be certain that important things are in important places
Accentuate positive attributes
Minimize negative ones.​
This gives me a 'list' of things I would change and then I parcel that 'list' into a workflow that makes sense.

(BTW, I am not a 'pro': compared to many of the working photographers here I am a _patzer.
_I am just a little more clear about my mistakes and my weaknesses.)


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2012)

You don't mention which release of Photoshop you use.

The latest release - Adobe Photoshop CS 6 - is actually Photoshop 13. Back in the day, the release following Photoshop 7 was called Creative Suite (CS/Photoshop 8)
Camera Raw is formally known as Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). ACR first appeared with Photoshop 7, so CS/Photoshop 8 uses ACR 2, and today CS 6 uses ACR 7.
Of course Photoshop CS 6 also includes Bridge 5

Assuming you use CS 6, here are some resources:
The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop
Adobe Photoshop CS6 for Photographers: A professional image editor's guide to the creative use of Photoshop for the Macintosh and PC 
Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition) 
The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers 

Here are some more resources offering information on other aspects of doing photography:

Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Boxed Set, Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4
Digital Photography Masterclass
Digital Photography Essentials
Understanding Exposure, 3rd Edition: How to Shoot Great Photographs with Any Camera

On-Camera Flash Techniques for Digital Wedding and Portrait Photography
Off-Camera Flash Techniques for Digital Photographers

Light Science and Magic. 4th Edition - An Introduction to Photographic Lighting
Light It, Shoot It, Retouch It: Learn Step by Step How to Go from Empty Studio to Finished Image (Voices That Matter)
Photographic Lighting Equipment: A Comprehensive Guide for Digital Photographers
Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Studio Photography
Minimalist Lighting: Professional Techniques for Location Photography
Posing for Portrait Photography: A Head-to-Toe Guide for Digital Photographers
Doug Box's Guide to Posing for Portrait Photographers

Bryan Peterson's Understanding Composition Field Guide: How to See and Photograph Images with Impact
Learning to See Creatively: Design, Color & Composition in Photography (Updated Edition)
Beyond Portraiture: Creative People Photography
The Photographer's Eye: Composition and Design for Better Digital Photos
The Photographer's Mind: Creative Thinking for Better Digital Photos
The Photographer's Vision: Understanding and Appreciating Great Photography

A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things
Profitable Photography in Digital Age: Strategies for Success
The ASMP Guide to New Markets in Photography
Best Business Practices for Photographers, Second Edition


----------



## 12sndsgood (Dec 14, 2012)

Lipoly said:


> Good comment Lew...a bit of a wakeup call for me as well, b/c I didn't initially notice any of the stuff you pointed out. Its funny, even w/your (presumably) quick removal of the TV, it still looks way better.
> 
> I will add though that even though you (a pro) noticed this, many people wouldn't...I'm sure some people pay good money for sub-par photographs. Not saying that is a good thing, but likely is the reality. My dad went "pro" in a small town b/c he acquired a lot of (at the time) pro level gear about 10yrs ago and was paid for portraits/weddings with no prior experience.




downside to that is there are millions of people picking up a camera taking sub par photos dilluting the customer base, including yours truly


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 14, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Lipoly said:
> 
> 
> > Good comment Lew...a bit of a wakeup call for me as well, b/c I didn't initially notice any of the stuff you pointed out. Its funny, even w/your (presumably) quick removal of the TV, it still looks way better.
> ...



We should hope that some percentage of those millions don't think they are on the path to Pro-hood and riches.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 14, 2012)

Lew,

That is a really good starting point into post processing and the thought process that it takes. I find myself needing to do more of this before I process. I spend way too much time in the flow and with mediocre results.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 14, 2012)

Ron,

IMO, technical issues, including composition, are totally unimportant, even irrelevant, unless the deficiencies hurt the viewers' appreciation of the image.

The only reason that technical issues are the basis for much of the critique here is that many people here aren't ready yet to express what they see to like/dislike about an image at levels more abstract than the technical ones. 
And, of course, many, if not most, pictures presented here have no higher aspirations than technical competence.

Try looking at a picture and saying (to yourself so your wife doesn't think you're crazy) 'this picture is/isn't totally satisfying because these things help/hurt how it impacts me.'

A good example of this is flatness of the horizon. In a standard landscape, particularly including water, a tilted horizon is a niggling irritation because it disturbs our ability to look through the frame into the picture's reality - we know that horizon's aren't tilted, the water would run out and why are we thinking about it?

Yet, *in this image * , the tilted horizon is useful because it accentuates the higgledy-piggledyness of the house and fence. A casual viewer wouldn't even notice because the tilted horizon, as a attribute, helps the main impression; we accept the distorted reality.

'Technical issues, including composition, are totally unimportant, even irrelevant, unless the deficiencies hurt the viewers' appreciation of the image.'


----------



## cgipson1 (Dec 14, 2012)

12sndsgood said:


> Lipoly said:
> 
> 
> > Good comment Lew...a bit of a wakeup call for me as well, b/c I didn't initially notice any of the stuff you pointed out. Its funny, even w/your (presumably) quick removal of the TV, it still looks way better.
> ...



Damn... beat me to it! :greenpbl:


----------



## Fabinator (Dec 14, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Good photographers are professionals with enormous amounts of experience and lots of investment - time and money.



Hello Lew, thank you for your quick reply! 

First off I would like to point out I never said I wanted to 'go pro' by the time summer comes around. At the same time, there are many _good_ photographers who are paid for their work, who do not have years and years of experience (see: professional). In fact, I've seen many portfolios of photographers making hundreds of dollars per event who have unimpressive, generic photos. I think you misunderstand the purpose of what I want to do. I want to have small independent 'events' pay perhaps 20 dollars for me to capture some memories, NOT to create studio-quality professional photos to be sold by the print.

On the topic of professionalism, remember that I simply brought my camera to snap silly shots of my friends, I had no intention of making good looking pictures until the district manager of the company asked me to take a few for her (while I was sitting eating my food, I might add) and email them. Wouldn't a professional at the very least research the venue, plan shots ahead of time and bring proper equipment?




The_Traveler said:


> What is well done with the image above is due to the camera's capability, what is not well done is yours.
> It is in reasonable focus and reasonable exposure (camera), she is not well-posed, the white balance is off, the framing is off, her hands are amputated (you). There are lots of bright distracting things in the background - again yours.



As I said above, everything was spontaneous. Let me tell you the story of the picture above. I wanted to get a nice shot of my girlfriend, so we quickly ran to the only part of the small restaurant that had "good" lighting: In front of the kitchen. Anywhere else had either strong shadows, raccoon eyes, a mixture of stage lights and table lights, or was too crowded. Where we were, there were waitresses bumping into me from behind, and people constantly cutting between her and the camera. Due to my prime 50mm lens, I was as far as I could be away from her without ruining the shot _further._
She got comfortable before I shot, and asking her to pose differently just made the poses seem forced and awkward. Again, no preparation for this kind of shot. There were TVs in every corner of the place, and there were incandescent lights, florescent lights, LEDs and I swear I even saw a glow of radioactivity at one point. 


 Now, another aspiring photographer at my table didn't bring her camera, I lent her mine with similar settings as above (no auto) and this is what came out: 
​This is the 5th take. I don't want to say which photo is better. And I'm not saying that I have a fantastic ability, but with all due respect, it's ignorant to say that my photo's strong points were _entirely_ due to my camera's technical specs. 

In conclusion, yes I agree that my internal photography skills are not at the professional level and could be improved upon. That is one of the things I wish to refine as the summer approaches. And in no way will I be getting downtown 2000 people event gigs any time soon. But I am committed to improving myself, and even professionals started somewhere. 

Thank you for your example edit as well, I see some good improvements. Your analogy with the spell-checking is also a fantastic way of looking at it! 

May your weekend be merry.

Fabio


----------



## Fabinator (Dec 14, 2012)

Lipoly said:


> I will add though that even though you (a pro) noticed this, many people wouldn't...I'm sure some people pay good money for sub-par photographs.  Not saying that is a good thing, but likely is the reality.  My dad went "pro" in a small town b/c he acquired a lot of (at the time) pro level gear about 10yrs ago and was paid for portraits/weddings with no prior experience.



A friend of mine shoots weddings and other events for money, gets paid "lots," he's been shooting for the same amount of time that I have, has not any more training than I do. He wins in the experience sector only because he's pursuing filmmaking as a career, and has a lot of free time to practice (not to mention money to spend on equipment): Erik Madsen Productions -- Your Affordable Solution To Photo And Video --


----------



## John27 (Dec 14, 2012)

Just be careful about your idea of a 'lot' of money.  $4,000 for a wedding isn't a lot if you aren't booked nearly every weekend!  There's also cost of doing business that most people don't think about until it's too late, like insurance, an attorney to go over contracts.. oh and taxes (including sales tax in many states) because it's hard to make a living inside an 8x8 cell, or when all of your gear gets seized by the IRS.

I'm not trying to discourage you or anything, but, I do have some familiarity with the business world and I know a lot of people think that some people make a lot of money, but what they actually have managed to bring in at the end of the year is sometimes less than the people that work for them!

There's a great thread on this subject (actually a few) if you search around.

But, if you do want to do this, good for you, it's good to have aspirations.  Just listen to these folks, they know what they are doing.  Also, find yourself a good CPA, a good attorney, get your documents drafted, file your business papers, and get a Tax ID.  Yes, even if it's just a little, you need to be doing it legally.  Get insured.  Photographers get sued.  Sometimes for a lot of money.  You need $1m in commercial liability and professional liability insurance.  That doesn't have to be very expensive starting out, AND, if you are filed as an LLC and have an attorney draft your contracts for you, it can sometimes save you on your premiums.

Plan on investing quite a bit to get started, but if you are willing to do that, and continue to grow and learn, I think you'll find what you are looking for.  If that all sounds too intimidating, then, stick to a very fun and rewarding hobby.

My wife is in your shoes, she wants to do this professionally.  Me?  For the life of me I can't imagine why anyone would want to work as a photographer professionally.  I love to take pictures, and learn more and more.  Especially when nobody can tell me what to shoot, where to be, and how long to be there, and I can do the PP work when I darn well please with no deadline


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 15, 2012)

Fabinator said:


> *First off I would like to point out I never said I wanted to 'go pro' by the time summer comes around.*





Fabinator said:


> Hello! New to the forum here! My name is Fabio,
> I was quite happy with the way they turned out. *Now I'm hoping by the summer I can turn this into something that can make me a bit of money.* One thing about photography I still haven't gotten right, however, is the post processing. The photoshopping, the editing.
> 
> Fabio



Fabio,

Without getting into an argument, let me point out that you are projecting a lot from one not-very-successful picture of a pretty girl - and, by your own admission - no editing skills.
This is a little bit like being able to ride a bicycle and assuming that the Tour de France is in your future.

You probably are a very nice guy but your dismissal of the craft and your sense of entitlement is annoying.


----------

