Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I quit editing photos

jamesbaker.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 160 posts

Re: I quit editing photos

#71

Post by dbt00 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #66
chromacity wrote: post #34

I don't want to dunk on people who are discovering the charms of retro tech, but as someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom, I was delighted to discover the hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography, so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the old way of doing things for their everyday snaps. It reminds me of people buying vinyl, using VH…

Vinyl (IMO) isn't about it being retro or having "better" sound quality (whatever that means, it's mostly subjective), but about having a collectable, physical item. I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and fragile; I've never owned any music CDs. Digital music is neat for listening to music, but it also feels like it lowers the value of it.

Jewel cases may be fragile but LPs are far more vulnerable to damage than CDs are. There are much better ways to hold a CD collection.

Re: I quit editing photos

#72

Post by CarVac »

NanoCoaster wrote: post #67
CarVac wrote: post #22

I got tired of in depth fiddly editing and wrote Filmulator to minimize the decision-making and streamline editing. I rarely spend more than 20-30 seconds per image. You get a clean, basic look, no weird colors or overly creative "looks", but with adjustability and great highlight handling that JPEG doesn't get you. https://filmulator.org The current builds there are quite old but we've got new ones coming.

Oh, great to see this on HN! I found Filmulator a few years ago and used it for most of my raw photography (which, admittedly, isn't a lot) and found it amazing. Exactly what I wanted. Streamlined, easy to get into, fun. And I really like the way my pictures come out at the end. Thank you for your work :)

I'm always glad to hear that people are enjoying Filmulator. I don't track downloads or anything so I have no idea how many people out there use it.

Re: I quit editing photos

#73

Post by Bratmon »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #66
chromacity wrote: post #34

I don't want to dunk on people who are discovering the charms of retro tech, but as someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom, I was delighted to discover the hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography, so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the old way of doing things for their everyday snaps. It reminds me of people buying vinyl, using VH…

Vinyl (IMO) isn't about it being retro or having "better" sound quality (whatever that means, it's mostly subjective), but about having a collectable, physical item. I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and fragile; I've never owned any music CDs. Digital music is neat for listening to music, but it also feels like it lowers the value of it.

Most people buying vinyl in 2026 don't own a record player. Because that's not the point.

Re: I quit editing photos

#74

Post by Someone »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #66
chromacity wrote: post #34

I don't want to dunk on people who are discovering the charms of retro tech, but as someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom, I was delighted to discover the hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography, so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the old way of doing things for their everyday snaps. It reminds me of people buying vinyl, using VH…

Vinyl (IMO) isn't about it being retro or having "better" sound quality (whatever that means, it's mostly subjective), but about having a collectable, physical item. I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and fragile; I've never owned any music CDs. Digital music is neat for listening to music, but it also feels like it lowers the value of it.

> I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and fragile

Smaller, yes, but fragile? Certainly not more fragile than Vinyl.

Re: I quit editing photos

#75

Post by bix6 »

chromacity wrote: post #34

I don't want to dunk on people who are discovering the charms of retro tech, but as someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom, I was delighted to discover the hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography, so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the old way of doing things for their everyday snaps. It reminds me of people buying vinyl, using VH…

Can’t forget the cost of all that film. That’ll easily outpace the Lightroom sub.

Re: I quit editing photos

#76

Post by hootz »

qsera wrote: post #54
chromacity wrote: post #34

I don't want to dunk on people who are discovering the charms of retro tech, but as someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom, I was delighted to discover the hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography, so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the old way of doing things for their everyday snaps. It reminds me of people buying vinyl, using VH…

I am not a professional. But I had done some film photography in its last days. The photos that I took during the time, just casually, tops any photo that I take now a days with by DSLR. It is not in raw "quality". But what are we trying to capture when we take a picture? Is it raw pixels? or is it some emotion that we originally got when we were looking at something. For some reason, I think film captures and regene…

Have you tried putting your digital photos through a film simulation software such as Dehancer?

Re: I quit editing photos

#77

Post by captainclam »

chromacity wrote: post #64
captainclam wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of people who sincerely enjoy the aspects that make older tech less convenient or practical. Maybe it's an appreciation for the engineering or "comprehensibility," often it's because older tech produces unique outputs that can't be adequately captured by newer technology. Reducing people's interest to "social signalling" comes off as dismissive.

Come on. This article isn't about the joys of doing things the hard way. To quote: "Then, at the start of 2022 I got my first analogue film camera: a Leica M6. (I know... I dived straight in the deep end.) This was my first introduction to how editing could be easier." It isn't easier. Film is pain. Pain can be good, but this is selling a mirage.

Just to be clear, your comment had a general statement about how you perceived the motivations of "people buying vinyl". That's what I was responding to. (People using VHS filters on social media is by definition social signalling so no comment there lol).

And I completely agree with your point about touting film as "easier" than digital. That's a stretch.

Re: I quit editing photos

#78

Post by Retr0id »

ticulatedspline wrote: post #18
Retr0id wrote: post #13

I set my camera to save both JPEG and RAW. 95% of the time the camera's JPEG is fine so I just use that (maybe with some final adjustments in GIMP), but it's nice to have the RAW around in case more significant edits are needed.

Myself and some friends all went through the cycle: - Jpeg is fine, nice in-camera processing - Oh but I really want to edit this one to fix things only raw can do, raw is better anyway - (Starts shooting in raw) - man annoying to have to process all my photos jpeg is good a lot of the time - (shoots jpeg + raw) - ugh, so many files and it eats my card, I don't need both files all the time, also I'm editing more anyw…

I just buy lots of SD cards

Re: I quit editing photos

#79

Post by specproc »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #66
chromacity wrote: post #34

I don't want to dunk on people who are discovering the charms of retro tech, but as someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time in the darkroom, I was delighted to discover the hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography, so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the old way of doing things for their everyday snaps. It reminds me of people buying vinyl, using VH…

Vinyl (IMO) isn't about it being retro or having "better" sound quality (whatever that means, it's mostly subjective), but about having a collectable, physical item. I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and fragile; I've never owned any music CDs. Digital music is neat for listening to music, but it also feels like it lowers the value of it.

I think there's something to be said for _any_ physical media when it comes to audio.

I hate opening my phone/laptop to put music on, inadvertently opening HN/lichess, and watching the next few hours vanish in silence.

Also deeper engagement, and a big second hand and artist-driven markets keeping my money out of the hands of NastyCorp.

Vinyl is just the nicest.

Re: I quit editing photos

#80

Post by packetlost »

Someone wrote: post #74
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vinyl (IMO) isn't about it being retro or having "better" sound quality (whatever that means, it's mostly subjective), but about having a collectable, physical item. I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and fragile; I've never owned any music CDs. Digital music is neat for listening to music, but it also feels like it lowers the value of it.

> I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and fragile Smaller, yes, but fragile? Certainly not more fragile than Vinyl.

The jewel cases absolutely were more fragile than the cardboard that was typical of vinyl, but vinyl itself is more fragile than CDs, though the failure modes are completely different.
Post reply on HN