In the previous article, I discussed working with digital in the field. Now, I would like to expand the topic to include editing and post-processing of digital images. Before digital, image processing consisted of shipping film off to the lab. Since going digital, I have become the lab. Processing of images, proper "development", and retouching are entirely under my control. Streamlining the image processing workflow was perhaps the largest step in my ongoing effort to simplify the digital process.

There is a simple rule that digital photographers overlook. If the image doesn't look good out of the camera, throw it away! Too often poor images are kept with the intention of "fixing them in Photoshop." Photoshop is an amazing program, and I have brought poor images back from the dead with it, but the time investment is rarely worth the effort. On a recent weeklong trip to Florida, I shot over 5,000 images. Of those, I kept around 1,500 (more then I should, but we are talking about my babies here). Imagine if I had kept 1,000 additional images because it will only take five minutes to "fix it". That adds up to 83 hours of computer editing, not to mention the time I spend on the 1,500 good images. If I am not ruthless in my commitment to discarding bad images, I will spend the rest of my life sitting in front of the computer. I am a photographer, and I want to spend my time taking pictures. Once again, if the image isn't good out of the camera, delete it. Minor corrections are OK, but a bad shot is a bad shot. Accept it and move on.

Once I have downloaded a day's shoot, I spend the evening doing a rough edit on my laptop. With film, I would wait for a week to get my film back from the lab before going through it. With digital, I see my results the same day. Also, by reviewing my images each night, I can plan my next day. For example, let's say the main goal of my trip to Yellowstone is to get a stunning image of a bison standing in the snow. My nightly review lets me know if I got the shot. Once I have the image, I can focus on other subjects for the remainder of the trip. If, on the other hand, I didn't get it, I can go back the next day and try again. By prioritizing the images I want to bring home, I can focus my energy by reviewing my shoot at the end of each day.

My method of editing and processing images involves three programs: BreezeBrowser (www.breezesys.com), Capture 1 (www.c1dslr.com), and Adobe Photoshop CS (www.adobe.com). Other programs are available, but these are the three that I like to use.

BreezeBrowser is an image-viewing and RAW conversion program. While it offers a variety of options, I find it most useful for editing large groups of images. In BreezeBrowser, I open the folder containing the day's shoot and select the high quality option. This feature applies sharpening to the image, providing a more accurate impression of what the final image will look like. I then select all images in the folder and activate the slideshow feature. In the slideshow mode, images fill the screen. This is an excellent way to get a quick impression of how the day went. Using the keyboard's arrow keys, I move through the images. At this stage, my goal is to remove images that don't measure up in terms of composition, sharpness, or general impact. Any image that I do not want to keep I tag. Once the slideshow ends, I simply select the tagged images and delete them. Using this method, I can perform a rough edit of several hundred images in about 15 minutes.

Capture 1 (C1) is a RAW converter program that I highly recommend. Its conversion process is one of the best available with an interface that actually makes sense. After my initial edit in BreezeBrowser, C1 becomes my main program. My first step is to ascertain focus. This is similar to reviewing slides with an 8x loupe. In C1, I select the focus tab and use the eyedropper to select the key focus point of the image, which is usually the subject's eye. That portion of the image is enlarged to 100%, enabling me to evaluate critical focus. Any images that are not razor sharp are deleted. In most cases, the LCD monitor on my laptop is good enough to evaluate critical sharpness, however, when focus is difficult to judge I save the image and evaluate sharpness on the CRT monitor in my home office.

There is one more step to editing digital images. When I shot film, I would shoot in-camera duplicates or multiple images with only minor variations. Having multiple originals was important because slide duplicates were never as good as originals, and I liked having multiple copies in case of damage. This concern is negated by digital. With a digital file, I can make as many perfect copies as I want. While I still shoot multiple versions of the same scene, I no longer keep every copy. In fact, I only keep the best one. With this in mind, my editing now involves picking the best of a series and deleting the rest. I don't need ten copies of the same shot. Instead I keep the best shot and make a backup to cover my bases. This method also reduces the number of digital images I have to keep track of at a reasonable level.

With digital, editing is only the beginning. Unlike film, digital involves post-processing of images. Digital files rarely look their best straight out of the camera. With practice, it is possible to identify exceptional images the first time you look at them, but in almost every case those files require adjustments to be made before the image pops.

I shoot in the RAW file format. While they require more work, RAW files offer more options in the post-processing stage. I save time by limiting my post-processing to those images I want to use immediately. Other images are processed when and if I need them.

Post-processing begins by adjusting white balance in C1. While I use the camera's auto white balance setting, sometimes the camera's selection needs a little tweaking. If there is a neutral part of the image, I select that point with the eyedropper and the image will be adjusted automatically. More often, however, I find myself selecting a white balance from the menu options (daylight, shade, cloudy, etc.). Once a white balance is selected I can play around with the image if I want. Many times, nature images benefit from the addition of a warming filter. Since switching to digital, I no longer carry warming filters. By increasing the white balance to a higher Kelvin temperature, I simulate the effect of a warming filter. Best of all, I can fine-tune my "filter" for the results I want. One of the nice features of C1 is that as changes are made to the image, the preview changes to show the effect. This allows greater control over an image as I make adjustments.

The next step involves adjusting exposure. RAW files offer the amazing option to adjust exposure by +/- 2 stops! Of course, small changes usually produce the highest quality results. I try not to use the exposure compensation control as an alternative to proper exposure, but I often find that adjustments on the scale of ½ - ¼ stops can have a dramatic impact on the final image. Having this option available is one of the advantages of using the RAW file format.

Of course, exposure adjustment is not just about correcting your mistakes. Digital cameras have an exposure latitude that is slightly wider then slide film. In low contrast situations, the different between white and black is not as extreme as the camera can record. The result is that pixels do not cover the entire range of the histogram. These images have a washed out look and do little to capture the viewer's attention. The solution is to stretch the pixels so they cover the entire histogram.

Using C1's levels dialog box, I am confronted by a histogram with three arrows under it. The right most arrow represents white, the left most arrow represents black, and the center arrow is the mid-tones. By moving the right arrow until just before the right edge of the histogram begins, I am telling the computer to render these pixels as white. Moving the left arrow to the left edge of the histogram makes these pixels appear black. Once the computer knows where white and black are, it distributes the remaining pixels between those two points. I can than brighten or darken the overall image by sliding the center arrow left or right. By observing the preview image as I adjust exposure, I can fine-tune the results to have the most impact.

My final step in C1 is to convert the RAW image file into a format that can be opened in other programs. The two options available include TIFF and jpg file types. TIFF files are large and fill computer harddrives at an alarming rate but they use a lossless compression format that maintains excellent detail. JPG files are small but use lossy compression that discards detail every time the image is saved. Most of the time, I convert files into the 16-bit TIFF format. I reason that if I want a jpg down the road, I can always convert the TIFF file. While some versions of C1 allow me to change the output size of the RAW file, I prefer to create full sized TIFFs. This serves as my master file. If I ever want a smaller image I can downsize it later, but I want to start out with the best image possible. Perhaps the greatest feature of the C1 software is that it remembers the settings for that particular image. The next time I look at a file, all my adjustments are still there and I can convert with a single click of the button.

Once I have a master TIFF file I move to Photoshop. This imaging program enables me to fine tune my digital images for output. While the variety of adjustments that can be performed in Photoshop are astounding, most of my images only undergo minor adjustments. Using adjustment layers, I open levels and double check that the white and black points of the image are set properly. Once this is complete, I ascertain if the image needs an increase in contrast. Digital cameras generally produce low contrast images. When a boost in contrast is desired, I open the curves dialog box and reshape the curve until it has a slight S-shape. By clicking on the preview box, I can turn the effect on and off to evaluate the effect. As a lover of saturated films like Fuji Velvia and Kodak 100VS, I feel that digital images have boring color pallets. To compensate, I increase the saturation of each image by approximately +15. This increases the visual impact of the image and more closely resembles the films I prefer.

Now the image is ready. The final steps are to resize the image and sharpening for output. While others declare third party software to be superior, I find that the bicubic algorithms in Photoshop do a good job of resampling images to a larger size. For sharpening unsharp mask (doesn't that name sound contradictory?) is an excellent tool once the controls are understood.

Editor's Comment: Let us know what you think! Please email the Editor to let us know your thoughts.