When to stop?

[Dave Humphries]

I'm another wildlife shooter and as such, I have to take a bird where-ever it is perched, the best I can do is get myself into a better shooting location; i.e. one that gets me closer, or gets better separation, tonally or distance-wise between the subject and background, in short - the options are very limited to get it perfect in camera.

This also simplifies PP, I'm not that "arty", so PP will be limited to improving that which I couldn't at the time, typically this will be differential sharpening, blurring and/or contrast enhancement of subject and background, it will often also mean spending significant time cloning out awkwardly placed branches, or patches of bird poo in shot
Other times, if I was lucky with the capture, it won't need much work, just basic stuff.

Like Joe, I tend to use the Auto WB decided by the camera, if that looks wrong and the shot has white or grey in, I'll sample that, if not I might have to revert to a standard Daylight, Cloudy, Shade, or manually tweak. If I have a series of shots of the same bird in the same place, I'll decide on a CT and re-use those figures, numerically entered, on all subsequent shots to get consistency.

My workflow order is basically similar to Joe's, although I don't use LR or mess with TIFFs, because I use ACR in CS5 these days.

To get back on topic; Knowing when to stop is when it is as good as it can be and how much time I spend on PP depends on the quality of the capture (primarily subject sharpness, often related to how much cropping it needed to get a good composition), plus things like the bird's pose, etc.

Cheers,

[Ian Key]

Thank you all for your replies.
You have given me different outlooks on post processing and plenty to consider.

[Jeff S]

The person who is relatively new to postprocessing will surely learn about a particular technique a year from now that could be applied to images made years earlier. However, the more one studies the great tutorials at CiC from the very beginning, the less likely that is going to happen. Even so, there is a LOT to learn and sometimes it takes awhile for the proverbial light bulb to go on. So, be prepared for and excited about the idea of learning something really great even after you have become comfortable with your postprocessing skills.

The other night I was working on a photo when, after I had used my noise reduction tool, I decided to pick up a book I am reading to see if the authors had anything to say about noise reduction. They did, and I learned something new that I used in the same photo that was still open on my screen. All this is to say, I agree with you and it doesn't necessarily involve a year's interval to accomplish the learning.

I'm also confident that the tutorials I am reading on CiC will have the same effect.

[sleist]

How do you know when to stop post-processing to get that perfect picture, is it a case of less is more?
Or do you like me keep coming back to a favourite and try to tweak it just one last time?

You ask this question like there's a right answer. Art is hard. This question will have a different answer for everyone. The work is done when you feel it. And you'll take it someplace else on a different day because each day you're a different person. If you do what everyone else does your work will look like everyone else's work. I like to ramble down dead ends and see what I find. I never fail to learn something.

Time for dinner.

[dubaiphil]

When learning photography digitally, for me it's been a case of trial and error - the results are free and instant after all.

I've found that initially I was shooting like crazy. Over time I learnt from feedback what to look for when shooting and slowly became more considered, trying to get things right in camera. Exposing to the right and watching for clipped highlights in all the colour channels resulted in more consistent results straight off the bat.

With pp, initially I was trying as much as I could as I was learning. By trial and error in camera I had more consistent RAW files to play with and then developed a style that suited me in Photoshop with plug ins. I now have a regular workflow which produces results that I like quickly. So for me it's now a case of less is more as I know what I'm looking for in my results.

My advice would be to post your results on forums such as this and ask for as much cc as possible. Don't take everything that everyone says as read though as everyone's opinion varies (especially when it comes to the over saturated HDR look). If you have lightroom, then all your pp is non destructive and you'll always have your original file. Similarly in Photoshop you'll be able to create layers and still have your original file available. If you like vivid colours, make sure you have your monitor colour profiled so that you're not going too over the top and just practise and practise. Nik Software, Topaz Labs and others have plug ins which can help you quickly get pp results which can be consistent and tweakable to your liking. These might be a good way of not necessarily doing 'less is more', but quickly seeing results that you may or may not like and adding these into your workflow if desired.