MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Image Processing Question  (Read 3462 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: June 23, 2007, 12:36 »
I am a newbie to all this stock photography stuff... but I got a question for everyone...

How long do you spend on each image, processing it in Photoshop?

Assuming you are shooting in RAW at a low ISO and at the correct exposure AND you are not doing any isolation, cloning, special effects or anything... how much time are you spending with each image before you feel satisfied that it is ready to submit for stock?


« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2007, 13:05 »
Lately I am spending more time per image. Between 10 min and 30 min.
But it also depends on the image. On some I spend just two min. On two other images  I spend about 7 hours this week.

And if its perfect, low ISO, right exposure, no isolation,cloning etc, than its perfect and I spend about two minutes typing in the keywords and the description :-)

« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2007, 16:42 »
I tend to spend 1-2h, depending on the image.  Too much when it's just a single one, not too bad when it's a series because then I can save a lot in the following images.


« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2007, 17:59 »
I spend one to two hours on every picture.  This might seem a lot but I am a perfectionist I suppose.

Current acceptance rate of 96% reflects the efforts made.

« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2007, 11:16 »
"I spend one to two hours on every picture."
I admire your acceptance rate, but my experience is that the acceptance rate is inversely proportional to the amount of processing, as processing seems to introduce artifacts, etc.  Is this time spent in making isolations? If not what do you do in that time?  Thanks.

« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2007, 13:55 »
In some images it's isolation, in others is selective denoise, logo/text removal, etc.  The simpler ones is just some color adjustment (I shoot with a P&S and WB is never perfect).  Then comes description and keywording.  I don't have hatman's acceptance ratio, but I'm ok.


« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2007, 14:37 »
Bloody good question, and one I ask myself constantly.....

Almost all of my work at the moment is done in my new studio, so I've got perfect lighting, exposure etc and no hint of noise, artifacts.  I expected/hoped that studio flash would allow me to increase my production rate; what it does do is give me perfect white backgrounds etc straight out of the camera but that is all.

My work is a lot of close-ups and a lot of girls.  Try as I may I simply cannot get rid of all the dust, fingermarks, marks, blemishes etc on 'products' prior to taking a picture of them; I zoom in to 200% and the whole thing is a bloody nightmare of dust and scratches; so most of my time is spent getting rid of those.  Also, although my flash units give me the isolation, I almost always add a clipping path, so I have to go through the process of drawing paths anyway.

For the girls, well even the most beautiful woman has blemishes at 200% (!) and I eliminate all of those; it takes time but I have good models and I want to present them in the best possible way I can.


Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
23 Replies
Last post January 24, 2016, 12:11
by Sean Locke Photography
9 Replies
Last post February 15, 2010, 15:24
by donding
26 Replies
Last post July 25, 2010, 15:05
by trek
81 Replies
Last post May 25, 2013, 16:39
by jshooz
17 Replies
Last post May 06, 2013, 05:49
by MicrostockExp


Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results


3100 Posing Cards Bundle