Post processing woes

[ntexas49]

Hello everyone.
Shoot digital with Canon 10D and 30D. Just did a wedding where we shot over 1100 pics and really struggled this time getting all the shots worked. What is the best way to process so many shots. If you take 1 minute per pic (and much more with some) we are talking alotttt of time to process so many. I use Capture one and Photoshop to work the shots. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

[Redmouse]

I recommend using Adobe Bridge instead of Capture One. Especially if you shot raw. I know a few people on this forum that has or will have tutorials on DVD released or to be released so I wont put any names out. So, here is a 3rd party site you can check out.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/u.../raw_tips.mspx

[ntexas49]

Thanks will check it out.

[David Whatley]

How long were you at the wedding? Thats a shot a minute for 20 hours. Ever think about taking just a tad more time, and shoot less? You might want to switch to film, that will slow you down.

[Gordon]

Don't want to pile on, but for my wedding, I paid a not insignificant 4 figure sum for the wedding photography and we got 144 pictures (4 rolls) and were very happy. That's not 144 selects, but 144 total shots taken.

1100 seems like a huge number.

To be more helpful, it depends on what you mean by processing them. If its just white balance/ exposure/ overall image tweaks, then something like bridge, lightroom or aperture would be a good way to batch process them. If you are doing more per image, I think you need to seriously re-consider your selection process - do you select/ cul through the images at all, or provide all the shots to the client ? I doubt they can cope with that many shots either!

If you are just struggling with that initial selection process, bridge or lightroom have great tools for rating/hiding images as you pick down to a final set of images. Then once you are there, is the first time you want to consider adjustments/corrections. Even at that point, I wouldn't do any 'hands on' work to fix features of the images, just the very basic proofing and work with the client to find out which shots they want finished versions of. The reality is probably only 50 or so final images, for a typical book, more for a magazine style.

[Redmouse]

LOL, 1100 seems like a low number to me though...

[ntexas49]

There were two people shooting. Seriously 1100 is less than some big time photographers do. I found one site where the guy does 2500 and one where he claims to shoot 3000 for a 10 hour gig. I find 3000 hard to believe but???
Yes I probably need to cut out more. It is tough to do:)
Wish I could afford Abobe bridge. Just checked the price and it was close to 900.00. Way out of my budget.

[Redmouse]

Originally Posted by ntexas49

There were two people shooting. Seriously 1100 is less than some big time photographers do. I found one site where the guy does 2500 and one where he claims to shoot 3000 for a 10 hour gig. I find 3000 hard to believe but???
Yes I probably need to cut out more. It is tough to do:)
Wish I could afford Abobe bridge. Just checked the price and it was close to 900.00. Way out of my budget.

Bridge is part of Photoshop starting with CS. Which version of Photoshop do you have? Seriously, 1100 for two phographers isnt a whole lot. I've seen larger counts :)

[David Whatley]

Originally Posted by ntexas49

There were two people shooting. Seriously 1100 is less than some big time photographers do. I found one site where the guy does 2500 and one where he claims to shoot 3000 for a 10 hour gig. I find 3000 hard to believe but???
Yes I probably need to cut out more. It is tough to do:)

Please dont take this wrong, and maybe people get married different in some places. I dont think I can name over 60-80 "must take" shots.
How long were the 2 of you there? Did you ever pose anyone, or were these just candids?
I dont think I could fire that many, and have the strobe keep up, focus and compose is also a concern.
And a "big name" shoots 3000 in 10 hours. I would love to see that camera, thats 300 an hour, 5 a minute, one every 12 seconds. Come on, do you really believe that? He must be able to go with out food, waqter and a bathrom break then. That would be something to see.
And pleaase dont get this wrong, I am NOT trying to pick, I am just AMAZED.
David, the slowpoke shooter.

[AndrewCCM]

Wedding photogs these days (a good percentage) are easily shooting 1000+ images per wedding. I "personally" shoot around 400-500... But there are many times where I shoot with a well known photog here in town that may have as many as 3 or 4 shooters and 3000+ images.

It's not abnormal for this day and age of digital wedding photography. (NOT that I believe it's necessary or particularly the right thing). My feeling, if you want video, shoot video. LOL. But I am somewhere in the middle with the number of images I shoot. Not a low amount, but not near what some of the bigtime photogs are capturing. I try and balance what the clients these days (kids that are used to 1000's of images flashing before them daily, only in electronic form and shot with damn cell phone) is demanding.

Back to the original topic: Grab a free trial of Lightroom and use it. You can batch up similar lit images and get a lot done in a short time. I personally recommend rating images first, throwing out bad ones, sorting into folders (definite keepers/album material), good, and fair).. Then concentrate your time on the best... batch the rest and depending on how you proof or deliver to client, go from there.

[ntexas49]

Thanks folks. All good advice. I will check out Lightroom and Bridge. This is the great part of being in a forum. To trade advice. There are alot of way better photogs out there than myself. The wedding I was refering to was at 5pm with the reception to follow at 6pm(1/2 hour away). We got to the church at 3pm and left the reception at 12pm. My dream is customers who consult the photographer before the wedding to work out the best setup. Oh well. Complain Complain:) I found the article about the guy who claims 3000 in 10 hours in a photography magazine.

[AndrewCCM]

If you are a member of any wedding pro forums (Pro4um, Digital Wedding Forum, etc), you'll find many that shoot 1000s per.

As far as the one that shoots 3000.. I am guessing you're talking about... [b] "Becker" out in CA...

[chedemann]

3,000 shots uh, Thats geting close pretty close to video, or at lest time laps.... lol

[ndsimm]

and now back to the question at hand....
If you have CS2 or even the CS3 beta, you can use Bridge and ACR to filter out your keepers and then batch process the remaining images
if not, try RAWShooter Essentials (I think you can still get it free) and you can batch process with that as well

[The Loft Studios]

Capture One is great for doing this.....it would be no different than what people are suggesting in Photoshop using the ACR. Like everyone else, my suggestion would be to shoot less. I tell my clients to expect about 1 shot per minute which comes out to about 60 per hour and in your case about 600 (10 Hour Wedding)....and that does include my second shooter.

Quality Shooting -VS- Quantity Shooting.

The thing that amazes me about a lot of photographers these days, especially those who popped up since Digital, is that they use shooting thousands of thousands of images as a gimmick to get clients. I guess by telling clients you shoot a couple of thousand images or even more is going to get them. I had a client approach me about that situation and ask me,
".....you don't shoot that many pictures, do you? I just wouldn't know what I'd do with that many pictures?"

But, then these same photographers will only print a couple of hundred of them (if that many) and allow 100 or so into the final Album. *LOL* But to each his/her own, whatever it takes to get clients, I guess.

Good Luck, but I believe you have all the tools you need to do the job.....you just gotta' put in the work now for doing the Sin.....