5 ms·

I still shoot a lot on film. I shoot a lot for publication and because of that, I really can't edit individual photos prior to using them, so a lot of what I do

I still shoot a lot on film. I shoot a lot for publication and because of that, I really can't edit individual photos prior to using them, so a lot of what I do to get the 'look' I want comes down to film stock and how I use it. Honestly, it ends up being a lot more time efficient than fiddling around with images in Photoshop or Lightroom. :) Yes, definitely more expensive than digital, but you can get some pretty nice film cameras for next to no money, which is nice.

staticautomatic 3y ago
So much this. Some years ago I was deep in the post-processing rabbit hole (and printing - thanks, Nick Brandt) and at one point after spending like 5 hours in PS I thought “why the hell am I doing this?” and never looked back. There’s something very freeing about giving yourself over to your materials, framing, and exposure, and being delighted by the results even if they aren’t exactly what you expect. Digital post is like Ansel Adams level darkroom work, and I just don’t enjoy being so exacting.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >Digital post is like Ansel Adams level darkroom work, and I just don’t enjoy being so exacting. Doesn't have to be though. You can go into Lightroom, apply some standard presets, maybe crop, see what autoexposure does and maybe tweak a bit, and maybe apply some effects preset, done. Maybe a couple minutes. (Yes, I sometimes spend more time but that's pretty much my good enough default workflow. Entering metadata and culling usually takes about as much time.) I was mostly not that exacting when I was printing B&W either. The yearbook did use photos I shot for the paper but they didn't really want me printing because I just wasn't into the spending 4 hours on a print.
- igouy 3y ago
  Isn't that just a matter of using default camera jpg without bothering with post-processing?
  - eschneider 3y ago
    Sure, one could do that, but that's not the look I'm aiming for, nor is it the look my editors are paying for.
    - igouy 3y ago
      That was evident from your comment and the reason I didn't pose the question to you. You are hardly "giving yourself over to your materials, framing, and exposure, and being delighted by the results even if they aren’t exactly what you expect."

staticautomatic 3y ago

So much this. Some years ago I was deep in the post-processing rabbit hole (and printing - thanks, Nick Brandt) and at one point after spending like 5 hours in PS I thought “why the hell am I doing this?” and never looked back. There’s something very freeing about giving yourself over to your materials, framing, and exposure, and being delighted by the results even if they aren’t exactly what you expect. Digital post is like Ansel Adams level darkroom work, and I just don’t enjoy being so exacting.

ghaff 3y ago
>Digital post is like Ansel Adams level darkroom work, and I just don’t enjoy being so exacting. Doesn't have to be though. You can go into Lightroom, apply some standard presets, maybe crop, see what autoexposure does and maybe tweak a bit, and maybe apply some effects preset, done. Maybe a couple minutes. (Yes, I sometimes spend more time but that's pretty much my good enough default workflow. Entering metadata and culling usually takes about as much time.) I was mostly not that exacting when I was printing B&W either. The yearbook did use photos I shot for the paper but they didn't really want me printing because I just wasn't into the spending 4 hours on a print.
igouy 3y ago
Isn't that just a matter of using default camera jpg without bothering with post-processing?
- eschneider 3y ago
  Sure, one could do that, but that's not the look I'm aiming for, nor is it the look my editors are paying for.
  - igouy 3y ago
    That was evident from your comment and the reason I didn't pose the question to you. You are hardly "giving yourself over to your materials, framing, and exposure, and being delighted by the results even if they aren’t exactly what you expect."