| Joined: | Tue Apr 10th, 2012 |
| Location: | Melbourne, Australia |
| Posts: | 525 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Ok. let me rephrase.
It pays well enough provided you spend an hour shooting and no more than 30 minutes in post production (lets say this would work out to $400/hour)
1 hour shooting plus 2 Hours in post brings it down to only $200/hour
Anyway, the challenge wasn't 'would you shoot it' but 'HOW would you shoot it'?
Rich. In your experience does the approach you have suggested provide results that don't require each file to then be tweaked by inconsistent amounts?
Honestly Doug I tweak everything! :thumbsup:
I would expect the majority to be OK and would probably find batches taken in a similar area that all required similar tweaking. For this type of job I'd load all into Lightroom and apply the portrait camera calibration with a slight vignette and sharpening on the way in (I have a preset for this). I'd also rename with something suitable at the import and apply a couple of keywords here to identify the job.
I'd expecting most to be OK with just this, however I'd run through a quick slide show (select all then Cmd + Return) and then use the ''X' key to flag those for deletion, and hitting '6' to flag anything that needs further work with a red label.
I'd then delete the rejected and filter the red.
My first stop here given the stingy client would be auto correct, and often that would be enough. If there are a batch in very weird lighting where this all has still not combined for a usable photo I'd adjust one to taste (and I can do this very quickly these days) and use synch settings on it's neighbors.
All in all I'd not expect it to take too long and I believe the camera would produce pretty good results with the flash as a starting point.
I'd then use Lightroom to do the output, whether that be to a CD/DVD/Thumb drive as a Jpg or to a printer.
Given the low fee Photoshop would not get opened! (Unless there was a shot in there I liked for personal reasons).