Some Olympic Photographers Have to Shoot without Doing their Own Postproduction. Could you?

[Brian Stoppee]

Does Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) complete your vision? (That includes the ACR within Adobe Lightroom, too, of course.) How about the editing of your shoot in Adobe Bridge and Lightroom?

In a digital capture environment, can you record an image in your camera without the postproduction component?

That’s what many photographers at the Olympics have to do. Some photographers have to shoot and shoot as events are happening. Their captured images are transmitted from camera to editors and postproduction (“post”) people via WiFi or other secure methods.

Such a workflow isn’t that different from the days of shooting on film.

Admittedly, we shoot on our digital Single Lens Reflex cameras just like the film days. We strive to capture the best image possible. However, we have never met a raw image we could not improve in post.

So could we shoot at the Olympics and let someone else do the post? We could… if we had to.

[D Fosse]

This is a great example of how new technologies shift expectations. In principle it's no different than shooting transparency film - but, and it's a big but:

Today, perfection is possible in a way it never was with film. Back then, a color cast was just "the light". Blocked up shadows were just below the film's threshold, because it was much more important not to blow out the highlights. Color and contrast was a property of the film, not the photographer. There was no noise reduction, at high ISO you got grain, period.

This was all accepted as natural limitations of the medium, and no one questioned them. Today those limitations are gone.

Then, phones and social media changed the rules all over again. Now it became possible, even desirable, to instantly share images. Nevermind the technical quality - now is all that matters, this is what's happening right now. So that became the new paradigm.

As a photographer today you have a dilemma. Everybody expects top quality, because that's what photographers do - but they also want it immediately, because that's what they get everywhere else.

I have on occasion been forced to shoot jpeg, make my picks, and post immediately. Yes, I hate it, and I prefer to not look at those images again.

[Brian Stoppee]

I have on occasion been forced to shoot jpeg, make my picks, and post immediately. Yes, I hate it, and I prefer to not look at those images again.

That is a new dilemma you raise D. I once researched how Getty Images shooters worked at the Rio Olympics. I could be remembering this incorrectly but I think they shoot both JPEG and raw. The raw images are cataloged and processed later, it needed. But the news side of the operation has to work quickly.

That would hurt Janet & I.

[Brian Stoppee]

As a photographer today you have a dilemma. Everybody expects top quality, because that's what photographers do - but they also want it immediately, because that's what they get everywhere else.

Some photographers use this as a competitive edge. Many newer wedding photographers have gotten away from proof books and gone to online interaction with families. Some post the proofs to a secure website the night of the wedding.

But, yes, "media" has become "immediate".

[D Fosse]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Brian+Stoppee  wrote

Some post the proofs to a secure website the night of the wedding.

Yes, that's doable, as long as you get a few hours to pick and make basic tonal adjustments.

Working fast is one thing. Culling a 1000-frame shoot down to, say, 50 or 100 is half the job, and then you should be able to whip any decent shot into shape inside five minutes or less. If you can't do that, leave it for later or ditch it.

But no post whatsoever - that feels wrong in a way. That's against all my instincts. Which is funny, because I did shoot transparency film back in the day, and I remember I was entirely comfortable with that.

[Brian Stoppee]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse  wrote

But no post whatsoever - that feels wrong in a way. That's against all my instincts. Which is funny, because I did shoot transparency film back in the day, and I remember I was entirely comfortable with that.

That is the core of this thread.

Ektachrome 100 used to run in our veins.f

I'm told Getty has no time for extensive retouching. I think it's 4 or 5 minutes until a full array of image sizes are online

[Brian Stoppee]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/D+Fosse  wrote

Working fast is one thing. Culling a 1000-frame shoot down to, say, 50 or 100 is half the job, and then you should be able to whip any decent shot into shape inside five minutes or less. If you can't do that, leave it for later or ditch it.

The more I think about this, the more comfortable I get with a very well trained set of eyes doing a rough edit of my shoot and culling it down to what's needed for the marketplace.

The rough edits are easy for Janet & I both for stills or footage.

That said, we learn from those rough edits. Shooting without that visual feedback would take a while to get used to. That's part of our process. We shoot a bunch, assess and shoot some more.

Adobe Bridge and Adobe Prelude are our rough edit tools.