3 ms·
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
by 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 agoIsn't that just a matter of using default camera jpg without bothering with post-processing?
- eschneider 3y agoSure, 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 agoThat 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."