Will anyone photoshop my images for me?

September 20, 2005 7:30 AM

Is there such a thing as an online professional digital photography processing service?

I am a fairly keen amateur photographer. I shoot mostly in RAW with my Canon EOS 350D (Digital Rebel). Currently I process my own shots using Photoshop CS2. I have developed a pretty good working knowledge of the techniques - cropping, straightening, sharpening, adjusting exposures and colour balance, etc. However I rarely am that satisfied with my results, and it takes an awful lot of time to get anything I am happy with. I also have trouble achieving some consistent style across all my images.

What I would like is to be able to farm this process out. Basically I would upload my RAW files to the web, and pay for someone suitably qualified and proficient to process them and send them back. I would be able to state a preferred style, say B&W conversion or whatever. Or I could also post a sample image which I want the other shots to resemble in terms of style.

Does such a service exit anywhere on the web?

posted by juniorbonner to computers & internet (12 comments total)

not an answer to your question, but maybe you shouldn't be shooting RAW if you can't get pumped up for post-processing.

RAW for RAW's sake is stupid, unless you complete the cycle (i.e. do the post-processing to get the image you want)
posted by misterbrandt at 8:43 AM on September 20, 2005

Depending on how much you're willing to pay: www.westcoastimaging.com. Will do their "standard" and "archival" prints not just from tango drum scans they'll do from your negs/slides, but will also deal with files from your camera. Starts at $35 for 8x10, $49 for 11x14, etc. (but reprints are normal print prices and you can request a copy of the file they work on).
posted by availablelight at 8:54 AM on September 20, 2005

There are professional services that cater to digital post-processing, normally as an adjunct to printing for exhibitions. For example, there have been discussions about who prepared Nachtway's prints in his most recent exhibition, as those who attended reported seeing astoundingly good 4-foot+ prints that were coaxed out of 8-megapixel Canon 1Dmk2 files. These services would be priced well out of the budget for any amateur though.

If your shots were made under similar conditions/settings, batch processing is the key to getting consistent results.

On preview: If you shoot jpegs instead of raw, you can also bracket exposures and set white balance manually (for example, via an ExpoDisc) to save you a lot of time during post-processing. To get better jpegs out of the camera, the 350D also has additional parameter settings for contrast, saturation, sharpness, various b&w settings, etc (even manual tweaking of white balance presets if, for example, you prefer a slightly "warm" look). The big difference between jpeg and raw is not the image quality issues, but that settings have to be nailed at the time of shooting for jpeg, whereas they can be fudged and manipulated later on in raw. Paradoxically, it requires more skill to shoot in a "lesser" format like jpeg than it takes with raw, since the trade-off for less post-processing is that you have to be much more disciplined about visualizing the shot before you release the shutter.
posted by DaShiv at 8:56 AM on September 20, 2005

RAW for RAW's sake is stupid, unless you complete the cycle (i.e. do the post-processing to get the image you want)

This is a rather ignorant and judgemental statement. To my mind there is no difference between this and shooting a film negative and taking it to a pro developer with instructions on how to crop/print/etc, which is a highly common and standard practice among working photographers both commercial and fine art. A RAW file is simply an unprocessed negative, and asking a professional developer to process and print it according to instructions seems pretty standard to me. So maybe take a step off the high horse?
posted by spicynuts at 10:38 AM on September 20, 2005

This may be too late but Mpix is an online professional digital photography processing service.
posted by ryanissuper at 12:30 PM on September 20, 2005

spicynuts, did you read the page I linked to?

for example:

I take a lot of flack from tweakers because I, like other photographers, prefer to make my adjustments in-camera and use the JPGs directly. Others prefer to spend even more time later twiddling in RAW, but that's not for me. I get the look I need with JPGs and prefer to spend my time making more photos. If you're the sort of person who likes to twiddle and redo than by all means RAW is for you.

Everyone's needs vary. For many hobbyists tweaking is part of the fun and I don't want to spoil that.

My point was merely to suggest that for those who shoot RAW, a lot of the creative control comes in the post-processing phase. If that is not something you are interested in, then you will probably not get much out of shooting RAW. I don't think that is a high-horse, but I apologize if I sounded high-horsey.

Shooting in a format that requires post-processing to correct for white balance, sharpness, etc., has extremely large file sizes, often requires vendor-specific software to read properly, etc., without a clear reason for doing so, in my opinion, is, for lack of a better term, "stupid."

The goal of my original post was to present an alternative scenario (other than paying money to post-process images rather than having the camera do it for free) as something of a devil's advocate. Your opinion may be different than mine, but I think that both have a valid right to exist in the same discussion.
posted by misterbrandt at 1:01 PM on September 20, 2005

On further reading, I have another suggestion:

shoot JPEG+RAW. the JPEG will be an on-the-cheap fair approximation of a generically processed RAW image, and you have the RAW for future archival purposes.

I was swayed by this comment on a previous AskMe thread:

The reason you want to shoot RAW is simple. RAW conversion techniques are an inexact science, and they're improving rapidly. If you shoot jpeg, that's the best picture you'll ever get out of that camera. If you shoo[t] RAW, you have the option to redo the conversion at a later point with better conversion software.

Okay, enough from me.
posted by misterbrandt at 1:11 PM on September 20, 2005

This guy is just all over the place:
RAW is designed for people who intend to spend a lot of time twiddling with one image at a time. For these applications I use large format 4x5" film instead for much better quality, thus you see why I don't use RAW. RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for.

What is he talking about? I don't have a camera that shoots on 4x5" negatives, and why exactly are digitals not "for" landscapes?!

He might have had a point, but I've lost it in the bullshit.
posted by odinsdream at 4:10 PM on September 20, 2005

Digitals are not for landscapes because 4x5" film is for landscapes. Duh!

The guy's just an elitist snob, you can safely ignore him. If you are a working pro then perhaps you can take some of his advice, but you probably already know it anyway, in which case who the hell is his audience supposed to be?
posted by kindall at 5:10 PM on September 20, 2005

I'm a professional photographer and also provide post-production services to a few studios around me and from my experience I don't think there are any labs that speficially do the actual post-production (ie processing the raw files and tweaking them). Not at an affordable cost anyway.

To my knowledge places like Mpix (which I have used and like) will only do printing.

Unless your photography is making you money, it's not going to be financially viable for you to have someone else working on your files (other than printing them). Usually this services is contracted out to either pre-press shops, or post-production studios or even independent freelance techs (like myself) and because they are budgeted for in the advertising or editorial shoot, the clients can afford to pay to have someone else do the work.

So I guess what I'm saying is you can either to love working on your files and learn how to do it better and more efficiently or if you can afford it, pay someone to work on them.

On a side note - if you do want to spend money email me. I do great work and I'd love to have another client :)
posted by eatcake at 6:55 PM on September 20, 2005

www.westcoastimaging.com DOES work with RAW files, last I checked---- www.mpix.com (while a great lab for prints if the papers they use work for you; they are the consumerish arm of one of the better professional labs in the country) just prints what you give 'em, like most online services. I've actually used West Coast Imaging for prints from slides but I agree, unless you love the image so much it's priceless to you or you anticipate selling it at a 3x markup or so, it's a real extravagance. Best of luck! I have thus far resisted any temptation to go digital, but (maybe as a darkroom person) I do sympathize with your interest in shooting RAW from what I've read elsewhere.
posted by availablelight at 8:24 AM on September 21, 2005

Ha! misterbrandt - Logic trumps!

I should add to my previous comment, which you've graciously already noted:

Not only is RAW software getting better, your own style may change down the road and you'll want something different out of the original shot. With RAW, you can.

Also, there is NO difference between shooting jpeg out of the camera and batch converting RAW images using preset settings - you're just letting your computer do the conversion instead of the camera. Except, of course, that you can go back and reconvert later with different settings if you want.

But back to the original question - juniorbonner, how much would you pay for such a service?
posted by Caviar at 9:01 AM on September 21, 2005