6 ms·
I quit editing photos
- zecg 8mo agoThis FLOSS RAW editor works really well, btw: http://www.rawtherapee.com/ http://www.rawtherapee.com/
- Topgamer7 8mo agoI tried rt, but it was really slow. I typically am taking pub league sports photos. So I try to get through them fast. Dark table really scratched the itch there. There are some bugs, like batched styles seem to be... order dependent. But its been suiting my needs for a few years.
- nozzlegear 8mo agoThat URL and product name have a real expertsexchange thing going on that's a bit unfortunate.
- graemep 8mo agoI agree, but giving up editing photos rather than using a different editor seems bizarre though.
- Copernicron 8mo agoIt works well provided your needs are simple. I rely on a lot of features in LR that simply don't exist in any open source tool. Even a lot of closed source ones lack them. As much as I would like to move to something else I'm kind of stuck.
- jmclnx 8mo agoI believe if you put photos out on the WEB, at the very least use exiv2 to add a some kind of copyright and strip out telemetry if any exists. Who knows any company pays attention to this, but at least I know it is "protected" :) This is the file I used for exiv2: # # To apply to a Pic do: # $ exiv2 -m copyright.txt <file> # # This should blank personal id info # set Exif.Image.Model " " set Exif.Image.Make " " add Exif.Image.Copyright Ascii "Copyright (c) 2026 MYNAME MYEMAIL" set Exif.Photo.UserComment "Can be shared using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
- rr808 8mo agoMe too, I figured I spent more time on the computer than taking pics. Now I shoot jpg and if I have some spare time I go out and shoot. If I take a good pic I share it with basic editing if any instead of waiting to get it "perfect".
- kvgr 8mo agoI started photography last year, i shoot raw because i dont like sony colors. But I have very quick process: "auto", little fidgeting with sliders, one in 10 photos gets a mask for sky and then i apply some preset that i like most for the photo. I just cant spend 30minutes on one photo. But the editing process is very subjective. even in era of film there was a lot of processing, colors with chemicals, fixing defects. Just manual photoshop. I understand the simplicity and joy of purists, but to each his own i guess.
- rickdg 8mo agoI just use Pixelmator Pro for a quick workflow. There's a nice feedback loop between taking the shot and editing it later.
- calebm 8mo agoPixelmator Pro is great and affordable.
- rpgbr 8mo agoI mostly try Apple Photos’ “magic” editing. It’s hit and miss, but when it hits, the photo gets way better. When not, I adjust a couple sliders (contrast, brightness, saturation). In both cases, only when I’ll use the photo. Otherwise, editing tools will be there for when (and if) I need them.
- alexalx666 8mo agoI had the same experience, I mostly import b/w photos after editing in Capture One, the magic stick raises brightness, sometimes adds sepia. Most of the time these edits improve the photo. I always check proposed edits for newly imported photos that I think look dull in Photos.app grid
- Retr0id 8mo agoI 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.
- ticulatedspline 8mo agoMyself 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 anyway - (Starts shooting only in raw) That's where I am now, though the final steps may definitely be -Eh, jpeg is good enough, I don't edit anymore anyway.
- alfyboy 8mo agoI do the same. Then group them in Digikam. Cull aggressively and put the best photos in an "external library" in Immich. Easy way to make them avaliable to my phone, without cluttering up my iCloud photos with duplicate JPEGs. The last issue with my workflow now is figure out a better way to cull my iCloud photos, as they are a mess, and it's a bit annoying doing it on my phone.
- arvinsim 8mo agoMy 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.
- some-guy 8mo agoThis 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.
- kylehotchkiss 8mo agoWith practice and patience, the aligning perfectly will come into your control :) Just get out there and shoot more!
- kylehotchkiss 8mo agoI 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.
- ratmeadow 8mo agoI used to take a lot of photos and then cull them afterwards before editing. It worked, although I was often loving shooting and dreading editing, because before doing any actual editing, I'd have 200 photos to sift through. After a lot of practice, I became better at culling in my head, before even taking the photos. This has shifted my relationship with photography to more of a cognitive exercise, with a different set of enjoyments. I take far fewer photos overall - often I go out with a camera and don't even take a single shot. Editing is more enjoyable because there's less to do and I already know what edits I want. It's less naively fun but more contently fulfilling.
- arvinsim 8mo ago
- anta40 8mo agoWhatever 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 camera) philosophy. Fine tuning in Photoshop is a must.
- vile_wretch 8mo agoPrintmaking 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.
- buildbot 8mo agoYep a physical print is a totally different experience too, compared to an image on the screen. With good printing software like imageprint RED/Black (NB very expensive and overkill for most) you can actually see the effect different papers, settings, and lighting will have before the print. Very fun!
- anta40 8mo ago"Shoot and scan" is convenient. Hard to argue with it. But hey, if you want convenience, why are still using film? :D But anyway, yes print making is both art and science on its own. Finding local labs to develop and scan films is pretty easy. But darkroom to print your photos the old school way? Happy to find a new one (I'm on Jakarta, btw).
- bborud 8mo agoI'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)
- CarVac 8mo agoI 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 https://filmulator.org The current builds there are quite old but we've got new ones coming.
- sanitycheck 8mo agoThis is great, I discovered it a year or two ago - nice work! Excited to hear there might be more development happening.
- jbellis 8mo agoI'm interested if you're GPU-native and actually fast with my a7 IV raw images. Edit: oh wow, this is much older than I thought. Never mind. :)
- CarVac 8mo agoIt's not GPU-native… that's a goal but it'll certainly take some time. Back when I was last working heavily on it there commonly wasn't enough vram but now there should be on most machines. 33 megapixels is not a lot. I'd consider that fast on my 9800X3D gaming machine but moderate on my older 2700X dev machine. But of course, what you consider fast depends on your computer and your expectations. Zooming and panning is much faster on Filmulator than most other software because it caches full-res images throughout much of the pipeline. On my gaming monitor I can rapidly zoom in and out at a buttery-smooth 240Hz refresh rate. But actually changing settings is a bit slower. The earliest settings are the slowest to respond since they only operate on full resolution raw data, but they're non-creative, technical decisions on highlight recovery and demosaicing and such that do not need tweaking. Additionally, you get early feedback from these in the form of early-pipeline histograms interspersed among the tools, helping you tune these settings quickly. Noise reduction adds a lot of processing time but once you figure that out the full-res image gets cached and doesn't interfere with later steps. It has fast (~100ms) screen-resolution response to sliders in the filmulation tools mid-pipeline but it'll take a second or two for the full resolution image to process. Late pipeline editing (post-filmulation) is near instant even for the full resolution. So is it fast? Yes and no. But it tries to always be responsive and provide useful information as quickly as possible.
- bix6 8mo agoI’m almost done moving from Lightroom to Darktable. Lightroom is amazing but I don’t edit enough these days to justify $20/mo.
- exoro 8mo agoIf the straw that broke the camel's back is the nagging Adobe subscription, why not just learn Darktable or Raw Therappee?
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- sanitycheck 8mo agoI'll be sticking with Lightroom 6 (non-subscription) and the old cameras it supports, until the sad but inevitable day I can no longer run it. I don't find editing takes much time, because I now have so many custom presets I can apply on import or in bulk that do 90% of the work. What does take ages is picking out the best shots, but really the only way to make that quicker is to take fewer photos. Which I suppose shooting film actually does force you to do. (But so would a 2GB SD card.)
- 10729287 8mo agoNever been a fan of editing photos, especially as I have difficulties dealing with the infinite possibilities. I just stick with default output from the camera and just fix backlight or some minor adjustments required. I'm a big fan of Foveon sensor (sigma dp, sigma sd) and lately fp and BF, it helped a lot as they really know color and I love how they deal with it. I also shot and process black and white film, and appreciate the "deal with film/developper characteristics" approach too.
- wesleyd 8mo agoI admire what this person is doing, but some reasons I prefer raw + lightroom over eg camera jpeg are: * Lightroom’s noise reduction is WAY better than what my camera (a D500) can do. I shoot sports, usually indoors, with highish iso, so NR’s gonna have to happen at some point. * If I’m going to lug around a dedicated camera, I’m gonna have it do its best. I have my iPhone for everything else. * I can apply today’s lightroom NR to raws I shot years ago. Similarly, I expect to be able to apply future lightroom’s NR to today’s raws. * Lightroom Classic is a superb program - it has many warts and clunks and oddities but it achieved product market fit and it stayed there, doing what its users want. Adobe keep making small improvements, and yet they don’t fuck it up!! This is vanishingly rare in big tech!!! (Promos gonna promo!) I grudgingly pay for this. (My theory as to how they have managed to resist the institutional imperative to destroy Lightroom classic is that they created a fork, named just “Lightroom”, on which the promo can wreak its destruction, it’s kind of a second golgafrinchan ark, leaving Lightroom classic alone. I pay for Lightroom classic as a way of saying: keep leaving it alone!)
- vladvasiliu 8mo agoI'm also a LR classic user. I think it's pretty terrible by certain aspects, but I haven't found anything better. No idea why the UI lags on a pretty high-end machine, even with test catalogs. And I'm talking about scrolling, or showing and hiding panels. Plus, the worst offender is making me use Windows (on this point, only Darktable is better – no, I won't buy a mac, it's way too expensive for my needs). Price-wise, it's kinda expensive, but the buy-it-for-life alternatives aren't exactly cheap, either. You should hold off updating for multiple years to save money compared to the LR subscription. Now, I haven't used the alternatives for more than just a short test-drive, but the recent improvements in LRc would have made me upgrade anyway. I'm thinking specifically about the noise reduction you mentioned, but there's also all the object detection in masking which saves a ton of time, and the ai object removal which is pretty great when I need it – saves time compared to fiddling with the old healing brush. I think the alternatives have also gained similar features recently, which would have likely required a new (expensive!) purchase. But, I guess if you figure we've reached some kind of plateau and don't expect to have a new camera in the next 3-4 years, going for Capture One or similar may be a better bang for your buck.
- chromacity 8mo agoI 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 VHS filters on social media, etc. I think it's more about signaling some cultural identity than any objective benefits of the "retro" process. It's not like digital cameras make you give up creative control. If you want to limit yourself to 36 unreviewed shots, you can do that with digital too. That said, I agree with one thing: you shouldn't be paying for an Adobe subscription. Use Darktable, Capture One, or some other equivalent that you're not just renting for life.
- yeah879846 8mo agoAnalog technology is infinitely complex, as is the real world. Digital is not. AS within as without. If you want to lack soul and wonder, why.
- tekne 8mo agoA human genome fits on a single hard drive -- think of all the ways you could fill it?
- yeah879846 8mo agoIrrelevant. Genetic code is a human interpreted construct. It lacks infinite complexity because it is a mirror that we can understand and use. Like a code for a computer. You are not looking far enough into the real world.
- asow92 8mo agoFor me, trying film after growing up in the post-digital world was more about exploring the experience of the medium and why we ended up where we are. It's given me an appreciation for why slowing down with your subject can increase "keepers".
- 8mo ago
- lizknope 8mo agoDo whatever you want that makes you happy. I take thousands of photos a year with my phone and less than 1% of them get edited. I take thousands of photos with my Nikon in RAW / NEF format. I have over 50 large photos printed in my house and editing absolutely helps when you print 20x30" or higher.
- asow92 8mo agoI've come to the same realization after shooting digital, film, and back to digital again. I've found that if I apply "recipes" or "presets" to my camera and shoot jpg I get roughly what I want straight out of camera. In fact, I find that shooting jpg exclusively with a preset _almost_ scratches that film itch: there is a kind of permanency to the rendered output, and that forces me to slow down and think about what I want to render with this subject like one does with film. Once I'm done shooting I simply import to Apple photos and make very light edits from there if any before sharing. It's liberating to embrace constraints and reduce tooling. You might even have fun.
- notcodingtoday 8mo agoI also went this route once I concluded that I enjoy the process of taking photos (getting the 'composition right') rather than editing. I've never heard of Camp Snap until now, looks interesting!
- ageitgey 8mo agoThe 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 phone software is so advanced now that it takes real talent and skill to replicate the perceived quality of what users get with their cell phone's software automatically. Most people are at a disadvantage with a DLSR/mirror less, not an advantage. That leads to ever-declining sales. Why can't someone make a traditional camera with modern software instead of something that looks like it is out of 1994? The software on a Sony DLSR, for example, looks like the on-screen menu of a VHS player, but is somehow slower and dumber to use. The number of overlapping, incompatible picture adjustments on a Fuji is just as ridiculous.
- tmountain 8mo agoNot 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.
- patchymcnoodles 8mo agoThe 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.
- kylehotchkiss 8mo agolol, 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
- neogodless 8mo agoA few lessons hidden in here: Perfect is the enemy of good: Don't obsessively edit. Cull obviously bad photos. Find a few pretty good ones. Pick one at random. Edit lightly. Photography can focus on captures or edits: analog photography necessitates a focus on the capture. Be in that moment, frame the shot you want, and your only edit might be some color correction. While the above might not make you a 99th percentile photographer, that probably isn't a goal you need concern yourself with. I always find photos online that blow me away. Artists with the patience to plan and wait for the perfect shot, possibly for hours. Artists that meticulously cull until they find an exceptional photo. Artists that spend a half hour editing a single photo adjusting sliders. If that's not you, you still don't have to give up editing photos if you like the result better than the camera's JPG. You just have to focus on the parts you enjoy, and find balance in the quality of the end results. (And personally I love DxO PhotoLab. Purchased once on sale, no subscription. Fun to use, and I love the results!)
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- SoftTalker 8mo agoI went one step farther and quit taking photos. And this is after many years of hobbiest photography in the film era, had a darkroom at home, SLR with several lenses. Early digital cameras were underwhelming, basically the equivalent of a 110 film snapshot camera. By the time they got good I had started to reflect on the fact that I almost never went back and looked at any of the photos I'd taken, so I just stopped. Now although with my mobile phone I have a quite decent camera in my pocket all the time, I rarely use it. The "ohh I should take a picture of this" impulse just never enters my mind anymore. I enjoy the moment, and have the memories.
- CarVac 8mo agoIt really depends on the person. I do not take photos for the memories, I take photos for art and I do go back and look at them.
- xfil 8mo agoI'm in the same boat. My phone is used to record 'memories', but I rarely ever look at the shots I capture with it. I'd probably be better off dropping this habit. My camera is for art, and in my mind this an entirely different thing than recording stuff with my phone. These are as different as using writing utensils to briefly write notes vs. using them to make a complex drawing.
- ratmeadow 8mo agoSame! For me this has had the unfortunate side effect of ruining non-art photo-taking. Someone shows me a regular phone photo and the photographer part of my brain is thinking "why did you even take this...?" Yes I'm a terrible friend
- bambax 8mo ago> Early digital cameras were underwhelming, basically the equivalent of a 110 film snapshot camera. One of the first digital Ixus (IV maybe? from 2000?) made images of just one megapixels, but they were amazing. I miss that thing.
- tombert 8mo ago
- 999900000999 8mo agoFilm is cool up until you waste 60$ on film and development to get blank rolls. I have a very cheap mirrorless camera that I've taken around the world. I accidentally dropped it, it bounced and was fine. As for editing, I generally use mobile Lightroom to tweak lighting and that's it. Their is a camera conundrum. What good is a camera so expensive you're afraid to use it ?
- cickpass_broken 8mo agoI wrote a lil memento to my Fuji x pro awhile back along similar lines as this. Minimal post-processing and much more convenient than the film I was shooting, especially after moving to a town that didn’t have a local lab. https://staydecent.ca/blog/my-digital-film-camera/ https://staydecent.ca/blog/my-digital-film-camera/
- bborud 8mo agoThe 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)
- WA 8mo ago> 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?
- bborud 8mo agoIt would be unkind to single anyone out so I am not going to. The thing is, I can for the life of me not think of a single photo influencer/youtuber who is also a popular _photographer_. They're popular influencers/youtubers. As for what I mean by mediocre: let's say you are looking at a portrait of someone you don't know. If you can't remember it 10-30 minutes later, it was probably mediocre or worse. Would you recognize the subject if you met them on the a street one day later? Most portraits tend to be bad because they completely fail to capture the subject. People fuss over lighting and editing and color grading and whatnot, but they don't actually pay attention to the person they are shooting. I see quite a few of these people with huge social media followings who can't, for the life of them, take pictures of humans. And yet, they teach their inability to make portraits to others. I also know professional photographers who are genuinely bad at taking portraits. And then there are those rare people who just nail it most of the time. Notice this when looking at a portrait of someone you know. Is it "them"? Another category where you see a lot of bad photos is wildlife photography. You will see endless pictures of birds that possibly could go in a bird-spotting book purely for identification purposes. But, to steal a line from my wife after looking at a certain facebook group "it's just a bunch of tack sharp ducks set against blurred out sky". And my wife spends an inordinate amount of time looking at birds. All you need to make bad nature photography is a big lens, a location and some time. It takes no talent. All you need to make technically good, but completely pointless nature photos is a big lens, a location, time and a decent modern camera. Then turn on 3D tracking and spray whenever something moves. Animals live in nature -- they belong in context -- they do things. Good nature photographers manage to communicate this. (I was actually tempted to name the "it's just a bunch of tack sharp ducks..."-group, but I'm not going to. Though it isn't that hard to guess). We drown in technically excellent images that are dull as crap. (To be clear: I'm a mediocre photographer. I'm very aware of it. I occasionally shoot something that may be worth looking at -- but still rarely something you'd remember)
- ThinkBeat 8mo agoThe question I why did you edit photos? What was goal? Why were you doing it in the first place? I guess the thing you have discovered shooting analog is that each click is a finite resource so you spend more time composing and being aware of the scene before you take the photo. Saving £20 is nice. Having your 36 snapshots developed at a decent lab will cost you more. In you are paying them additionally for edits as well you are on longer saving money. You just pay someone else. Or are you giving it to a company that runs it through an automated usually digital these days sometimes analog machine that develops them automatically? Those machines usually do edits as well. But highly automated ones. (I am not sure they make them anymore) Having my medium format film developed is far from cheap. Lightroom is far from the only editor out there and it is not a great editor to start with. Lightroom is a Frankenstein combination of of a DAM and an editor. You probably will want some form of DAM to organize your photos regardless.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- Yash16 8mo ago[dead]
- esafak 8mo agoThe development I'm most excited about these days is AI restoration; I can denoise and upscale my pictures to my satisfaction. The next developments I'd like to see are refocusing (with depth maps) and retiming (with video) in post.
- twic 8mo agoMy version of this workflow is, i take digital photos, and don't edit them. Turns out, it's fine! The photos aren't perfect, but no amount of editing could make them perfect anyway. They look like the thing they're a picture of. That does the job. And with the time i save by not doing any editing, i have time to take more photos! Or read a book! Or sleep!
- rusticflare 8mo agoOriginal 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 answering them. (No promises.)
- kylehotchkiss 8mo agoHey 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.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- weezing 8mo agoI just use Rawtherapee. No need to pay Adobe and no need to ditch editing completely.
- patrakov 8mo agoHere is my take, as a person who attended multiple photo editing courses from professional award-winning photographers: * Shooting intentionally for further processing is not the same as shooting for the best out-of-camera look. * One needs to critique a photo before editing it. This YouTube video comes with a good-enough checklist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0tQB6BVpc4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0tQB6BVpc4 * ART (https://artraweditor.github.io/ https://artraweditor.github.io/) at this point, if the AI masking and denoising one-time setup has been done (see https://artraweditor.github.io/AItools https://artraweditor.github.io/AItools), is so good that many Lightroom courses apply almost 1:1 to it.
- ebbi 8mo agoI'm mostly the same now, but leaning more towards a hybrid flow. My Fuji is set to JPEG + RAW. I will apply the sim most suited to the occasion, and only edit the RAWs when I've got a shot that I think is worthy of editing - i.e. something that will end up as a wallpaper/printed out/a feature shot. I got tired of editing photos, and I ended up editing them sometimes years after the photos were shot. As for my phone, I just use an app called Analogue on my iPhone for everyday shots (the built in LUTs are beautiful), and then for shots I think may warrant some editing later, I'll use the new Moment cam app.
- robertclaus 8mo agoI went through a similar transition. Used to spend hours in dark table each shoot, but for a hobby it got tedious. Eventually I got my in-camera configuration right enough and haven't touched a raw in months. I'll still sort and crop; but no need to fiddle with things the camera is good enough at already.
- ramenos 8mo agoThanks for your feedback on your post. I reach your thought for these 2 items: - Paying an unlimited annual subscription to an online service that does the same job as the one-time paid version you really own is madness. - With years going on an family growing, spending too much time on editing is not ideal. I have a Fuji as well and it's true that out of the box JPEG are quite great, but there is always this little thing I want to edit (unless it's black and white): light is too bright, or a part of the photo is a bit dark. Curious to see your camera setting in your next post =]
- rusticflare 8mo agoHere’s the follow up https://jamesbaker.uk/my-fujifilm-x100vi-setup/ https://jamesbaker.uk/my-fujifilm-x100vi-setup/
- yeah879846 8mo ago"edited in Lightroom." All I need to know.