PDA

View Full Version : Is this wasted time?


mattograph
2nd of May 2008 (Fri), 12:52
At my day job, I work in sales. We sell consumer electronics, and do our own photography in house. We manufacture the products, so all images originate with us.

Our graphics department has set up a small studio in house. The studio consists of a continuous monolight into a large softbox, a Rebel 400 with kit lens, and a big shooting table done all in BLACK!

Initially, we were advised to do everything in black by the graphics department because we do some wood speakers, and the black helped "bring out the grain." That made some sense to me. But now I just watched a photo shoot where they did five point n shoot cameras, all in black plastic. I asked them, out of curiousity, how long it would take to get the images back. They told me it would take about a "day or two in photoshop".

Now, I am no PS expert, but I do know how to light a still life. I could light these suckers and shoot them so they were pretty much usable right out of the camera -- these aren't lifestyle shots.

Am I crazy, or are these guys making things harder than they have to be? Am I missing something?

zagiace
2nd of May 2008 (Fri), 14:35
speaking from a work flow perspective that is not unreasonable.
I do not think they mean they intend on working in photoshop on 7 images to take 8-16 hours.
just as it only takes 2 minutes to make a grilled cheese sandwich but if you have to make 30 of them you may take a little longer.

_aravena
2nd of May 2008 (Fri), 14:38
^Yeah...although I have spent like 30mins working on one photo with little interruption from my addiction to this site.

It all depends but that was for a wedding and a complicated edit. Like what photos?

ryant35
2nd of May 2008 (Fri), 15:39
mmm grilled cheese.

zagiace
2nd of May 2008 (Fri), 15:48
yes, a perfect example. simple and effective

mattograph
3rd of May 2008 (Sat), 09:03
Some clarification.

I don't doubt that they aren't spending valuable time in photoshop, but I wonder if they were lighting correctly, if it would not be saying them alot of time. They spend about an average of 4 hours per image.

I bring up the lighting because they use that as an explanation for the challenges they face.

If we spend $2000 on lighting- nice, solid easy to use stuff, and we cut their photoshop time in half, those lights would pay for themselves in about 3 months, based on what they make and how much shooting we do.

PhotosGuy
3rd of May 2008 (Sat), 20:17
and we cut their photoshop time in half, Sounds to me as if the graphics department people are building in some job security. ;)

breal101
3rd of May 2008 (Sat), 22:47
Is the pooch pregnant yet?

zagiace
4th of May 2008 (Sun), 03:55
4 hours an image seems excessive. That would be longer then 1-2 days for 7 images.
what are they doing to these images?
Are you shooting black objects on black backgrounds?
where exactly does a pregnant pooch come into this thread.. lol

mattograph
4th of May 2008 (Sun), 15:00
4 hours an image seems excessive. That would be longer then 1-2 days for 7 images.
what are they doing to these images?
Are you shooting black objects on black backgrounds?
where exactly does a pregnant pooch come into this thread.. lol


Actually, they were shooting black objects against black backgrounds.

breal101
4th of May 2008 (Sun), 15:23
Black on black really isn't that tough, especially with digital. Hence my comment.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=545154

Third definition

New lights probably won't help these guys, a new way of thinking about it might and that is free.

mattograph
4th of May 2008 (Sun), 21:04
Black on black really isn't that tough, especially with digital. Hence my comment.

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=545154

Third definition

New lights probably won't help these guys, a new way of thinking about it might and that is free.

ROFL!!!!