[deleted]
I quit editing photos
111–120 of 160 posts
Re: I quit editing photos
#112Original author here! Thank you speckx for sharing. I’m not a professional photographer, I just wanted to write about where I’m at with a hobby I’ve had for ~15 years. I love using a camera, I don’t love editing at a computer. So now I’m choosing digital cameras that have decent editing options in-camera. It’s comparable to choosing the roll in your film camera. If there are any questions, I may get around to answeri…
Hey James! I made the same choice 5 years back. Fujifilm XPro3 and now X-H2. I've been enjoying photography so much more knowing I don't need to stare at Lightroom for hours after a day out. I also use my iPad (photos app, USB-C UHS-II reader, albums strategy) to do all my culling now, and couldn't be happier.
Re: I quit editing photos
#113The 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…
The software on Sony Cameras is known for being very bad, but that's not the only brand. All the other brands are definitely better in that regard (but I prefer my Sony because of other aspects). And Blackmagic is in my opinion the best and most modern.
Re: I quit editing photos
#114My process is to take a lot of photos, then ruthlessly cull them before I do any editing. I usually keep around 10% of the total photos for editing. After that, I do another round of culling and keep only the best. I also follow a philosophy of "good enough". If left to my own devices, I would probably endlessly edit photos. I edit a single photo for around 3 minutes. That way, I will not feel stuck.
I found myself noticing the 10% keep rate a few months back and now keep that as as shooting target. I want 30 photos from today, better capture 300 times.
Re: I quit editing photos
#115My process is to take a lot of photos, then ruthlessly cull them before I do any editing. I usually keep around 10% of the total photos for editing. After that, I do another round of culling and keep only the best. I also follow a philosophy of "good enough". If left to my own devices, I would probably endlessly edit photos. I edit a single photo for around 3 minutes. That way, I will not feel stuck.
This is how I use my Canon t3i. Once in awhile everything will align perfectly, require very little editing and I feel a huge sense of accomplishment.
With practice and patience, the aligning perfectly will come into your control :) Just get out there and shoot more!
Re: I quit editing photos
#116The 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…
lol, not at all. It's a new category, people can take loads more shitpics and store them indefinitely which is a fantastic capability. People who had no photos of their family now have hundreds.
At the end of the day, light is a physical property and the more of it you get into your lens, the more of that light can fill your sensor. Phones are still doing a lot of guesswork, post-processing that create photos that aren't underexposed, but are quite unnatural.
Plus gen-z is running around with all the point and shoot cameras we threw away 15 years ago
Re: I quit editing photos
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Yes, financially doesn't make much sense to go from digital to film. Film costs, absolutely. But you end up shooting less, thinking more, waiting for the right shot and so on. You also move sliders/tweak less and mistakes teach you lessons that you quickly learn from. Sometimes there are happy accidents as well. Taking a shot becomes a deliberate action since you don't have unlimited frames. It's a different experien…
> Taking a shot becomes a deliberate action since you don't have unlimited frames. It's a different experience.
It’s a very different experience. Whether you enjoy that depends a lot on why you are engaging in photography. Do you prize the ritual, the act of taking photographs in the moment? Then you might love film. Might also love working in a dark room and doing your own development and prints.
Personally I don’t care about any of that. I care about the resulting photo. I’ll take upwards of 800 photos when I’m shooting one of my kids’ soccer games. I’ll get 100 photos max that are worth keeping, and a much smaller number I’m really happy with. Some will miss focus. Some will miss the moment. But I’ll have a few great photos for the trouble.
There’s nothing wrong with enjoying the ritual. Also nothing wrong with just enjoying the product.
Re: I quit editing photos
#118Earlier 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.
Most people buying vinyl in 2026 don't own a record player. Because that's not the point.
This probably isn't the point either, but I get an almost perverse level of calm knowing that for my most favourite albums, I own a physical representation of the waveform trapped in a medium.
I very rarely listen to them in that form, but I honestly like the idea that in a post-Carrington event, zombie apocalypse or mad-max style future where electricity or electronics become scarce, I can (if desperate enough) listen to them with a nail and a cone.
Re: I quit editing photos
#119I just use Rawtherapee. No need to pay Adobe and no need to ditch editing completely.
Re: I quit editing photos
#120Earlier 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 cases absolutely were more fragile than the cardboard
CD cases more easily break catastrophically but I think that, for most kinds of impacts, CD cases are less easily damaged than vinyl sleeves.
Water damages them less easily, they’re less susceptible to smudges, corners don’t get creased, etc.