Managing images, part 1 (digital)

JohnR · « **on:** 14 Jul 2007, 10:07 am »

I complained a while back about the inconvenience of digital photography. It's not so much digital photography that's the problem for me, it's managing the output. (Don't chew me out here, go to the original thread

)

But there's more to it than just managing the files on disk. There's also the question of presenting it to others for display (online gallery etc), and also the fact that I am increasingly coming to resist spending more time on the computer than I already do -- I like photography partly because it gets me out of the house, not because it makes me spend more hours in front of the screen!

I read that folks say that getting the image into the camera is just the first step. After that comes the post-processing. Cripes, so much for not spending more time in front of the computer! Apart from that, I have very little idea what exactly it is I would be trying to accomplish with Photoshop, other than cropping and some basic levels adjustment. I can learn to do more if I need to, I'm just not sure why.

To recap the last paragraph, I don't actually have the skills or knowledge yet to know what is "good" in my photographs and should be worked on after the "shooting" step. I need to get advice from others, which is why online galleries become a part of this (below).

So, here's my proposed solution to "everything."

Take one lens. This makes annotating images a lot easier, and anyway, it's a good example of productive constraints. It's more interesting to try and do something with one lens than a whole bunch. (I'm not a pro who has to get the shot no matter what.)
Number every outing. My format is the same as I use for rolls of film, with no overlap. eg. today's photos will called 0707c (July 2007, the third roll/set). Basically, I am going to pretend that a session with the digital camera is the same as a roll of film.
Embed the outing name in every file name. I will use the Unix command sed, but I'm sure there are other tools.
Select just the photographs that might be reasonable, and toss the rest. It's digital, they cost nothing. I will look for whether a photo immediately strikes me as having what I was looking for when I took it (movement, atmosphere, color, etc).
Upload all selected images to a "proof" album on my online photo site. Have them all resized to a conservative size, say 600 px max.
Later on, after getting feedback, work on the selected images using available photoshop skills. Generate a version for web display, and one or more more versions for printing in whichever format seems most appropriate. (5x7, 8x10 etc)

That probably took longer to write than it will take to do. Here I go now with today's photos

JohnR

JohnR · « **Reply #1 on:** 14 Jul 2007, 11:25 am »

Okey doke, here is my "online proof sheet" for today:

http://www.lostupnorth.net/proofs/0707c/

Any comments would be appreciated

I seem to be having some issues with calibration somewhere, as many of these are darker then they "are supposed to be..."! Anyway here's an interesting one (I think):

Robert57 · « **Reply #2 on:** 14 Jul 2007, 01:37 pm »

JohnR, I liked that photo. Tight cropping without the horizon makes it more abstract and interesting.

I have been reading lately about two powerful image organizing and processing software packages: Adobe's new Lightroom 1.0, and Apple's Aperture . Both cost around $300 and are designed to help pros edit and process shoots, manage large image collections, and make preliminary adjusments for slide show presentations to clients. For someone who doesn't need to do intricate select manipulations, compositing or stitching, or detailed retouching, these have quite a lot of full image adjustment and spotting features that should suffice for most people--PhotoShop or Elements may not be becessary. They also allow one to shoot in the RAW format and retain the original digital information, without any digital degradation after adjustments. Images from each shoot are arrayed like a big contact sheet for quick edits, and then you can assemble editted slideshows for presentations. I personally would lean in favor the new Adobe Lightroom since it includes more image adjustment features and is less demanding of computer speed and memory than Aperture (which I think is for Mac only). Has anyone yet tried the Lightroom software?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/lightroom1.shtml

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/

Vapor Audio · « **Reply #3 on:** 14 Jul 2007, 09:50 pm »

Hey John, you have some nice shots in there ... my primary comment would be to experiment with some other compositions. All the shots are center weighted, try applying the rule of thirds to your shots and cropping.

Oh, and take a look at ACDSee Pro. I use that for my photo management, and find it works well. I have over 1 terrabyte of photos by the way.

JohnR · « **Reply #4 on:** 14 Jul 2007, 11:52 pm »

Quote from: TurboFC3S on 14 Jul 2007, 09:50 pm

Hey John, you have some nice shots in there ... my primary comment would be to experiment with some other compositions. All the shots are center weighted, try applying the rule of thirds to your shots and cropping.

Ah... OK! I'll give it a try

I'll have a look at the programs you guys recommend as well. I do have CS2 though so don't want to spend any more on software.

Vapor Audio · « **Reply #5 on:** 15 Jul 2007, 01:52 am »

Quote from: JohnR on 14 Jul 2007, 11:52 pm

Ah... OK! I'll give it a try

I'll have a look at the programs you guys recommend as well. I do have CS2 though so don't want to spend any more on software.

Cool, hope you didn't take the composition comment as a jab ... you take nice pictures and seem to have a good eye, just play with your cropping of existing shots to see how they'd look had you used the rule of thirds.

ACDSee is pretty inexpensive, I think I paid $99 for it. It's not perfect but it does a nice job, it also has good quick image edit abilities ... I think it does better with quick .jpg work than CS2 or CS3 actually, and that's saying a lot. It's raw convertor is nowhere near Nikon Capture though, but then neither is Photoshop.

nathanm · « **Reply #6 on:** 15 Jul 2007, 05:19 am »

I am plenty happy with Bridge. You can batch-rename, run your Photoshop actions and there's also the Image Processor function. If you've got CS2 already I wouldn't spend any more. I set it so that Bridge automatically launches when Photoshop does and it works fine. Also, you can make Droplets from your actions for drag 'n drop batching. There's plenty of automation power in Photoshop as is.