Sports Shooters and Post Processing Question.

[Croasdail]

I know some of you are just good enough that everything that comes out of the camera straight out perfect and you don't need to message the images... so you all can just tune out right now.

Ok, the rest of you left who don't take perfect images out of the box like me, I have a question for you all. I work my images after I shoot. The majority of people I have shot have not had any problems with the post work I have done. Most require the image sized somewhere around 7.5" by 10" at between 240 to 300 dpi. I will crop, correct for color, punch the colors when needed and hit it with USM (300, .2, 0) before I send it out. I am just a control freak. I never alter, dodge, clone or add anythnig. But a couple of places I have been asked to shoot for have asked to have the submitted shots untouched. I guess I am just not that good of a shooter that I feel comfortable with that. Right now I usually submit between 20 and 40 images of the events I shoot - so the work really isn't all that much taking less then 30 minutes to quickly add data in and do the post work - with the NCAA soccer tourney being the exception to that since there were so many matches. I know the work load on myself would be a lot less if I could trust to let my stuff go out naked..... but I just am not there yet.

So right now - if the buyer insist on images being untouched, I walk from the job. It hasn't been to big of an issue yet.... but I can see that someday it may be. My question to you all is how much post work do you feel is reasonable for sports pics - or do you all really send everything in plain vanilla and I am just being a paranoid control freak?

[IndyJeff]

Mark do you have a profile for each clients printer setup? That may be why they want the images being untouched.

You pop the blues and reds and it looks great, so you send it. Client A gets it and the reds are outrageously overblown, almost to an orange and the blues are almost a total different end of the spectrum to their printer profiles.
Ok that is exaggerated a bit but, you get the idea.

My guess is if the want original untouched they aren't expecting tack sharp, perfect color images. They will work them but to their specs for their printer profiles.

[transcend]

They do this because, as IndyJeff mentioned, they will all have different productio methods. I used to work in print, each commercial press will run on a different system, with different pre flight methods, different color profiles, different screen profiles etc.

Larger mags are usually much happier to have their own artists do the work as they know it will be correct.

[Cadwell]

Yeah, it's not unusual to ask for "untouched" pictures. Remember that the magazine staff work in the real world and they don't expect an untouched image to look as good as one that's been fully post processed. They understand that they need to do some work on the images to get them to their best.

An example of why they might do it? Say they get several photos from different photographers from an event all with different white balances... can you imagine how silly that would look on a page in print? If they can post process them so that they're consistent then it looks a lot better.

[PhotosGuy]

So right now - if the buyer insist on images being untouched, I walk from the job. Why? It's the same pay for less work? OK, so you feel a bit insecure about the exposure quality, etc, but do you think that they only get GREAT stuff from the other guys?
If they didn't like your work, they wouldn't hire you in the 1st place & if an image is really crappy, just don't send it off in the first place! ;)

[Croasdail]

I guess it is just personal insecurity. I get hired or invited to shoot based off of work the buyer has seen published - and 90+% of the time I did all the post work on the images.... and I know what the images were like before hand. The biggest difference between what I post here and what I submit to customers is those submitted are much looser cropped so their editors have more control. For example, when I do my best faked Gavenesque shooting into the sun style... it takes a fair amount of adjustment to bring the image back up as it looks very faded without any post work done.

I just need to have more faith in the editors and people behind the scenes. It just feels like I am exposing my dirty laundry.

[Rubi Jane]

Why not ask them why they want untouched. Perhaps understanding their needs will help you feel more at ease about delivering untouched images.

[Seefutlung]

If you are uncomfortable ... then give the editors a set of RAW/Un-Retouched images and a set of Croasdail Processed shots, with a brief explaination of what tools were used. I'm an old film guy so I typically only crop, dodge, burn, adjust contrast and sharpen.

[DaveG]

I know some of you are just good enough that everything that comes out of the camera straight out perfect and you don't need to message the images... so you all can just tune out right now.

Ok, the rest of you left who don't take perfect images out of the box like me, I have a question for you all. I work my images after I shoot. The majority of people I have shot have not had any problems with the post work I have done. Most require the image sized somewhere around 7.5" by 10" at between 240 to 300 dpi. I will crop, correct for color, punch the colors when needed and hit it with USM (300, .2, 0) before I send it out. I am just a control freak. I never alter, dodge, clone or add anythnig. But a couple of places I have been asked to shoot for have asked to have the submitted shots untouched. I guess I am just not that good of a shooter that I feel comfortable with that. Right now I usually submit between 20 and 40 images of the events I shoot - so the work really isn't all that much taking less then 30 minutes to quickly add data in and do the post work - with the NCAA soccer tourney being the exception to that since there were so many matches. I know the work load on myself would be a lot less if I could trust to let my stuff go out naked..... but I just am not there yet.

So right now - if the buyer insist on images being untouched, I walk from the job. It hasn't been to big of an issue yet.... but I can see that someday it may be. My question to you all is how much post work do you feel is reasonable for sports pics - or do you all really send everything in plain vanilla and I am just being a paranoid control freak?


If I was a stock agency or a newspaper/magazine I'd want this from you: The best possible (and small) jpeg you can make. That means colour corrected, sharpened and burned and dodged. Then I'd also want your RAW file as well. I just assume that you or anyone with a brain is shooting RAW.

The reason for that double submission is that editing can be done at a glance with your small jpegs. They look like finished prints and that would give me (the editor) a quick look at their potential. After I made a choice I would give the RAW file to one of my in-house people who should be able to do a RAW conversion to obtain a .psd or .tif file that should be of the highest standard.

Just sending a unprocessed (no sidecar) RAW file alone isn't all that great. Mine can look quite dismal until Camera RAW has been at 'em a bit. So those files could look like crap to an editor and especially a digitally illiterate one. Yet the assumption that I would make for them is that for every shooter out there that sends in a .tif that's exactly the right everything, there are going to be tens of photogs who mess things up.

Now that messing up may not be all the photographer's fault as they process soccer under both a deadline, and on a notebook's crappy LCD screen. The agency's/paper's monitors should be of a much higher standard (LaCie?) and they know what they need to do to output the images most effectively. ("Our press prints things a little cyan so we have to tweek ..."). Even a top notch monitor at home is likely to be worse than what they (should) have. But they can't count on anything can they?

Now I don't know anyone who is actually doing this. Most places that I deal with just want jpegs, and not all that big either. If anyone who is asking for "untouched" images then I'd suggest the workflow above.

[PhotosGuy]

It just feels like I am exposing my dirty laundry. Well, I do it all the time! http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/smilies/rotfl2.gif

[Croasdail]

If you are uncomfortable ... then give the editors a set of RAW/Un-Retouched images and a set of Croasdail Processed shots, with a brief explaination of what tools were used. I'm an old film guy so I typically only crop, dodge, burn, adjust contrast and sharpen.

Funny thing is when I used to do this professionally 20+ years ago I would come in with my rolls of film and perl tape and toss them in and interoffice envelope, had them off to a lab tech and be done with it - happy I didn't have to process them. I would just get a contact sheet back and was as happy as a clam. I generally never saw them any larger then you could see them through a loop or they got used. It is weird how it is different now.

[Croasdail]

Now I don't know anyone who is actually doing this. Most places that I deal with just want jpegs, and not all that big either. If anyone who is asking for "untouched" images then I'd suggest the workflow above.

hey David - I was actually freaked out more last year when I sent one client some emailable proofs with the expectation that they would let me know which one they wanted in the normal submission format. When I all I got back was a "thanks" and no request for the larger image- I got a little paranoid the shots were not good enough... so I pinged them back. They replied - no, everything was fine and that they had already sent them down to press..... to my surprise the images turned out just fine... but I would have never guessed it before. So to your point - yes the pre-press people can do wonders with images.

[DaveG]

hey David - I was actually freaked out more last year when I sent one client some emailable proofs with the expectation that they would let me know which one they wanted in the normal submission format. When I all I got back was a "thanks" and no request for the larger image- I got a little paranoid the shots were not good enough... so I pinged them back. They replied - no, everything was fine and that they had already sent them down to press..... to my surprise the images turned out just fine... but I would have never guessed it before. So to your point - yes the pre-press people can do wonders with images.

I think that I'd add "Small files. NOT FOR REPRODUCTION" to the front of every proof. Not that it'd help. I just know that clients will find a way to screw themselves and then blame me.

I just completed a portrait shoot and gave the client about forty full sized jepgs (saved as 12's). I pointed out to him that these were reproduction quality files and that he'd have to resize them, and make them a lot smaller if he wanted to email them. Of course he didn't know how to do that so I agreed to do it for him. But I pointed out that these new files would be for web or email only and that even a 4x6 print would be awful. I then wrote that same warning on the CD.

Now in about six months I'm going to get a call from this guy. He will have lost the large file CD and sent the small one out for prints. They're going to suck and it's all my fault!

[primoz]

I actually understand both options... Why I preffer not to send straight out of camera shoots for clients I don't know good enough (or I know good enough that I know they are not capable of decent pp) is pretty simple. Afterall there's my name in byline. And I really don't want screwed up photos with my name in byline... even if they pay for that.
Why on other side I have no problems sending straight out of camera photos to other clients. I know they will do much better job on their calibrated monitors in controled environment then I will do on my crapy laptop located in press center or even worse in moving car. And usually that's reason why they usually want straight out of camera shoots. They have better work conditions, and usually they actually do have people who know helluva lot more about pp then some photographer does. But even in 99% of such cases I do cropping myself. At least over here in Europe editors still consider cropping (we do biggest part of it with lens selection already) as photographers job, since it's photographers way of showing what we meant to photograph and to present.

[Croasdail]

hey primoz... I guess that is the crux of it..... I am still relatively new to digital (only 1 year) so I am not totally comfortable with the workflow with some of these customers - and many of them I haven't really don't that much work for, so it is a learning process.

And I really don't want screwed up photos with my name in byline... even if they pay for that.

This is the point I am really wrestling with... I am new enough to some of these sports I don't have a lot of history yet with the buyers - and I want to make sure what I do have out there is quality - first impressions and all that.

Thanks very much for responding.

[Seefutlung]

If the photos are intended for publication ...the editors may wish to see un-retouched just to make sure you didn't PS somthing in there that wasn't in the original.

[Seefutlung]

Funny thing is when I used to do this professionally 20+ years ago I would come in with my rolls of film and perl tape and toss them in and interoffice envelope, had them off to a lab tech and be done with it - happy I didn't have to process them. I would just get a contact sheet back and was as happy as a clam. I generally never saw them any larger then you could see them through a loop or they got used. It is weird how it is different now.

When I was doing this professionally 20-30 years ago ... I would develop the snaps myself as I developed for how I snapped the shots (if another devloped for me I'd always provide development instructions). Then I'd print what I felt suited the story and tossed the prints on the city desk or sports desk ... about the same workflow as you're doing now.

[PhotosGuy]

Funny thing is when I used to do this professionally 20+ years ago I would come in with my rolls of film and perl tape and toss them in and interoffice envelope, had them off to a lab tech and be done with it - happy I didn't have to process them. I would just get a contact sheet back and was as happy as a clam. I generally never saw them any larger then you could see them through a loop or they got used. It is weird how it is different now. Quite a shock, isn't it! 99% of what I shot was slides & I could sort them in about a half-hour on a big light table. Now it takes a half-hour just to get the files off the cards & into the computer! :D

[Jon, The Elder]

Frank- That light table makes a great backdrop for tabletop product shots....take it out of your living room !!

[jj1987]

I work for a publications department, and the reason that we like the untouched image is because most photographers oversharpen, over saturate, and overdo every setting they can thinking the images look better. I dont mind oversaturation as long as the image dosnt have broken up gradients from it, but over saturated, or over noise reduction, or overshparpening I hate.

So thats what they're concerned about.

[Croasdail]

JJ - thanks. I am working really hard on being self critical and not trying to save images that just are unfortunately not print worthy by pulling out the old sharpener. I shoot basketball a lot, and one thing I notce even in the best of them - this weeks SI for example - is an image will sneak through with green tinted players - something that is a 20 second fix but still makes it to print. Of course the big full page or 2 pagers are always tac on, but the inline stuff seems to get less attention and they get skipped. I would get really torqued if I had an image with that much visibilty make it through wrong with something that I could have easily fixed in a few seconds.

I am just in the process of submitting my images for next years football annuals and this is really good feedback. Thanks.

[PhotosGuy]

Frank- That light table makes a great backdrop for tabletop product shots....take it out of your living room !! BTDT! ;)

[burntbizzkit]

I try to chimp as much as I can during time-outs and other breaks in the game so I can determine what 2-3 shots I will submit. Since I shoot in RAW and the papers need jpeg, I have to process the shots anyway. I already know what shots I'm sending at the end of the game so I run those through adobe raw and do any adjustments to white balance, exposure, do a rotation to fix the horizon if needed, and and quick crop. The jpegs are ready to go in just a few minutes after the game and are of a quality that I'm proud to say is my work. Shooting in raw actually makes the workflow easier for me because the most important things like white balance and exposure can be corrected easily and quickly.

[DaveG]

Quite a shock, isn't it! 99% of what I shot was slides & I could sort them in about a half-hour on a big light table. Now it takes a half-hour just to get the files off the cards & into the computer! :D

I think that you are forgetting the part where you drove the film to the lab and waited either a couple of hours (great lab) or a few days (typical lab) before you even got to see the slides. Having digital is like having an in-house E6 lab where the operational costs processing are free. The film is also "free" and I didn't have to bracket my exposures.

E6 on a light table was indeed pretty, but it also happened about two days after I have my post production completed now.

[PhotosGuy]

We had a great lab 1 mile from where I lived, so 2 hours that I could do whatever I wanted in. Bracketing was just another way to get almost right shots for my portfolio, too! ;)

[DaveG]

We had a great lab 1 mile from where I lived, so 2 hours that I could do whatever I wanted in. Bracketing was just another way to get almost right shots for my portfolio, too! ;)

You win. Slide film was so much better. When are you selling your digital gear?

[PhotosGuy]

When are you selling your digital gear? We all win, & I've still got my Nikons for backup. (Actually, I still use some of the lenses on the Canon!) :D

[johneric8]

I cant imagine walking from a job because they want untouched images.. Dude, thats fine you go right ahead if so inclined but, thats bad buisness.

[Croasdail]

I cant imagine walking from a job because they want untouched images.. Dude, thats fine you go right ahead if so inclined but, thats bad buisness.

Totally agreed.... and if I relied on photography as my sole source of income I would be in dire shape. But right now I have the luxary of being able to work on only projects I want to. Since the Duke Lacrosse team shut down, I haven't shot anything - today will be the first in a couple of weeks and I only accepted it because it was something different. A some point I hope my crap to keeper ratio is at a point where I would feel comfortable uploading everything as shot... but until then I will just keep taking assignments well inside my comfort zone. I need to keep my artificially inflated image\brand up there - as it needs all the help it can get.

Thanks for your honest advice.