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

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: I quit editing photos

#81

Post by vladvasiliu »

tartoran wrote: post #40
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 think it's more about signaling some cultural identity than any objective benefits of the "retro" process. I think it could be that, or simply that people want to try a different experience. Digital photography started out as the easier, faster, and cheaper option, but the experience of using it and even the culture around photography itself has changed over time. Going back to the roots once in a while can feel…

> And paying for a monthly subscription is probably overkill for most casual photographers.

But film (the actual roll + development + scan) is very expensive, at least in my parts. Sure, you may mean "casual" as in "maybe shoots a roll a film a year", in which case I guess it's quite cheaper than an Adobe LR subscription. But if you shoot a roll a month or more? Then Adobe wins hands down (I'm talking the photography plan here, not the whole thing).

The cheapest stock I could find is a C-41 negative, b&w Agfa APX 400 iso, 36 pictures for 7.90 €. Color C-41 starts at 11 € with a 24 picture Kodak Ultra Max, bought as a set of 3 rolls. Developing and scanning costs 12 € for 2000x3000 px or 20 € for 4500x6700 px. That's 19.90 €, or the price of the base Adobe Photography plan.

Re: I quit editing photos

#82

Post by 98codes »

packetlost wrote: post #62
qsera wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That emotion is nostalgia, whether real or perceived. It's not a bad thing, some of my favorite photos are on b&w film. Film has a texture and (inaccurate) colors/tones that aren't really reproduced in digital cameras but are all over the place in media we consume and personal/family photos, usually from an older time.

> That emotion is nostalgia, whether real or perceived.

Absolutely. One of my prized possessions is a book I had made from digital pictures I took on a family trip when my kids were 3 & 4 years old. The pictures are of single-digit megapixel quality, but are perfect for what they needed to be: a reminder of that trip, and the memories contained within.

It seems to me that the slightly fuzzy aspect of old pictures better matches our fuzzy memories of that time.

Re: I quit editing photos

#83

Post by tmountain »

ageitgey wrote: post #46

The dark truth no one wants to say out loud is that 'real' cameras are dying to cell phones not just because phones are more convenient to carry, but because phones take 'better' photos for 99% of people than they can manage with any other camera - and that's without any editing. It's all software. Yes, enthusiasts here are spending hours editing RAW files and most think cell phone pics are over-HDRed messes. But pho…

Not sure what you mean by real cameras. If you're talking about DSLR, then I would agree that they're in decline, but if you're talking about any non-phone camera, I would disagree. The mirrorless market is still quite healthy. Smartphones fill 80-90% of demand, the majority of the dedicated camera market is mirrorless. Commodity cameras are less popular, but demand for higher end dedicated cameras remains strong with new cameras (and innovations) coming out all the time.

Re: I quit editing photos

#84

Post by bborud »

The problem isn't that keepers necessarily need editing, the problem is that it is tempting (to some) to spend more time than they need simply because they can. Or because they feel they should. (Don't watch people ruining photos and making up for their lack of talent on youtube)

I shoot with post-processing in mind because I have years of experience with the cameras I use, so I know how they work. I rarely do that much more than just "normalizing" the pictures to what I wanted to capture (fix one, apply to whole batch) and apply some look that I've saved as a preset. Perhaps 1-5 seconds of tweaks per photo. If you need more, you probably didn't get the shot in the first place and you'll do better next time.

For me the time spent "editing" photos is marginal compared to the time I spend looking at the photos to decide which ones are keepers.

I can't understand what the youtubers who edit photos are doing. Most of them take mediocre to bad shots and then somehow manage to make them worse. And then people believe that this is what they're supposed to be doing

Then again, most photo-influencers don't actually understand even something as basic as focal length (no, a 105mm is a 105mm regardless of whether you put it in front of a tiny sensor or a big honking medium format)

Re: I quit editing photos

#85

Post by WA »

bborud wrote: post #84

The problem isn't that keepers necessarily need editing, the problem is that it is tempting (to some) to spend more time than they need simply because they can. Or because they feel they should. (Don't watch people ruining photos and making up for their lack of talent on youtube) I shoot with post-processing in mind because I have years of experience with the cameras I use, so I know how they work. I rarely do that m…

> Most of them take mediocre to bad shots and then somehow manage to make them worse.

Examples of this? What do you consider mediocre, but is still hugely popular?

Re: I quit editing photos

#86

Post by bborud »

vile_wretch wrote: post #20
anta40 wrote: post #17

Whatever floats the boat. Even back to film/analog era, taking a photo is just the 1st step. Then apply some darkroom work (dodge/burn/use some filters to adjust the highlight/shadow etc etc). Image editing softwares like Photoshop simplify the process. I mostly shoot in black & white (both film and digital). Since once of my biggest inspirations is Ansel Adams, then no I don't adhere to "SOOC" (straight out of camer…

Printmaking is a huge part of the art form. I think a lot of people miss this fact in the "shoot and scan" age of film photography. Not everyone cares, or even needs to care, but those who do really should read the Ansel Adams trilogy.

I've spent a lot of time in the past 15 years turning photos into various kinds of prints. From Cyanotypes using printed contact negatives, via multi-layer stencil art to my current obsession: vectorizing images, separating the layers, machining linoleum blocks and then doing multi-layer prints. Once I have a stable workflow for lino prints the next think I'm going to try is to use mokuhanga instead of linoleum.

(I also plan to try platinum/palladium prints. They look gorgeous. But first I need to get better at shooting for B/W)

Re: I quit editing photos

#87

Post by buildbot »

TehCorwiz wrote: post #44
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.

This looks right up my alley. Does it properly support true monochrome raw DNG files? I.E., cameras that don't have a bayer filter and don't require a debayering pass. I'm shooting a Pentax K3 Mark III Monochrome, although Leica has a couple true monochrome cameras and there are services that will de-bayer cameras and modify the firmware to achieve similar ends.

Also there are the Phase One Achromatic backs. Which Lightroom does not even support :(

Re: I quit editing photos

#88

Post by FpUser »

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…

>"It reminds me of people buying vinyl"

Myself - I do not use vinyl but being close to start using it again. Not like every day but when in a mood. The whole process is like coming back to a better and forgotten times. Definitely touches some strings.

Re: I quit editing photos

#89

Post by FpUser »

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…

This is like looking at old b/w photos of people for example. This feels like art. Brings memories and has zero relation to a physical quality of material.

Re: I quit editing photos

#90

Post by giobox »

packetlost wrote: post #80
Someone wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The jewel case does have the advantage of being easily replaceable too though - you can transfer album art/booklets and in most cases the result looks the same as the original.

With vinyl, album artwork and the case are the same thing and damaging or destroying the case also damages or destroys the album art - you can’t really replace the case without repurchasing the record if the art matters to you.

Post reply on HN