One of the processing tips I have found very helpful is that when you think you have achieved a satisfactory result, you should put the photo aside, take your time and do something else, then get back to the photo and see if it is still a satisfactory result for you. The reason is that human eye tends to adapt itself for what it sees. The longer you look a scene (a picture), your eye gets adapted more. This particularly happens for the color information.
Today I saw a visual illusion that demonstrates this very well. If you stare at the following image for long enough (a few seconds), its colors will disappear! (Credit: NightBreeze13/Reddit)
OK, I can see where this goes, but the fact that the colors get blinded-out after some time without eye-movement desnât really proof anything for image-treatment. We generally donât stare on a single spot in our photos for a long time without eye-movement.
When you treat images just after taking them, you might tend to enhancen some aspects that were important to you during the shooting (example: the smile of the model, the smell of some flowers in the foreground). This can make you emphasize on those details (chose pictures with âthatâ smile rather than pictures with a good pose, overdo color on those flowers in the foreground because you want them be very prominent, even if you canât smell them anymore). So there is benefit in putting a week or a month between taking the pictures and treating them in post-prod. But I donât see an advantage in keeping time between post-prod and ⌠second round of post-prod.
You get better at judging pictures and post-processing with time. Just like a kid with a guitar wants to play whatever rubbish for everyone opposed to a seasoned musician who wouldnât want you to hear anything except the finished and polished work. You get used to some "standards ", you get used to your camera and itâs color-rendition, to your software, to your monitor / laptop and how it always is a tad too dark or bright. Everybody âoverdoesâ post-prod at least once, maybe twice, but thatâs it.
Taking a âgoodâ picture is a question of preparation. When the model is in the mood, when you are at the right place at the right time, sun at the perfect angle, then itâs just a matter of manipulating the gear. I personally find it very hard to eliminate the âgood onesâ, the ones that are âvery close, but no cigarâ from the real top photos. And if you happen to bring such a picture home, you donât need a lot of post-prod. Itâs already great.
I keep my photos âin the fridgeâ for several weeks. Then they arenât mine any longer and I can look at them with impartiality (âimpartialityâ is a nickname for the Del key). The same is true for post-processing, you focus on one area, and totally overlook something else. Put it aside, forget about it, and a few weeks later the problems will jump at you.
The pros get all my admiration, they canât afford the timeâŚ
The biggest difference between most professionals and advanced amateurs is the time the pros spend in the office prospecting clients, writing invoices - and chasing the late payments.
Nikon traditionally comes up with a new âSportsâ Camera every four years, a few months before the olympic games (D3 2008, D4 2012, D5 2016) and the âsâ model comes up inbetween for the Fottball WC (D3s 2010, D4s 2014 and so on). some official from Nikon has said that 95% of the D4 series has been sold to amateurs, the remaining 5% are split between agencies/newspapers and the very few professionals who buy such a camera for their business.
A lot of pro work is made with quite âoutdatedâ gear.
.
