/p/ - Photography » Thread #4127269

[54 / 7 / 29]

Anonymous Fri 20 Jan 2023 18:13:11 No.4127269 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4127277 >>4127278 >>4127280 >>4127285 >>4127329 >>4127350 >>4127352 >>4127507 >>4128111 >>4128332

I fucking hate, haaate toning/editing my photos. Fuck that shit, taking photos is musical and entertaining but I don't enjoy the editing even a little bit. What should I do? I am too poor to buy film.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Jan 2023 18:16:26 No.4127271 Report

Quoted By:

honest to god, take photos and throw them in a folder. leave them alone, dont edit. just try to take the best photo you can right as you click the shutter button.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Jan 2023 18:41:48 No.4127277 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127269
You could use Fuji for its film sims or now Panasonic FF (with the onboard LUT feature) to get the most decent jpegs possible up front. many post processing programs also will have auto-edit options, or you can use presets or programs like Dehancer that try to emulate the film sim experience, etc. all for the purpose of quickly getting a usable "good enough" finished output without real effort.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Jan 2023 18:50:14 No.4127278 Report

Quoted By: >>4127448 >>4127686

>>4127269
Film required just as much editing, "dodging and burning" is what you did in the dark room.

Except you have to edit every copy of the photo you make, not just a master copy, unless you're talking about airbrushing, which was airbrushing special paints directly onto the film negative.

Editing has always been 90% of photography.

You can also edit for the shot by being in control of all the lighting in the scene, but that's even more work than doing things in post, and massively more restrictive and expensive.

hob !!gYXuSIvRykY

hob !!gYXuSIvRykY Fri 20 Jan 2023 18:52:08 No.4127280 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127269
>i am too poor to buy film
you have to edit film scans too doofus. unless you get an enlarger, which takes up even more time. just learn to like it, i enjoy printing much more than shooting.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Jan 2023 18:56:27 No.4127285 Report

Quoted By: >>4127288 >>4128329

>>4127269
Just click auto in lightroom bro

hob !!gYXuSIvRykY

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1663159862427276.jpg, 50KiB, 794x442

hob !!gYXuSIvRykY Fri 20 Jan 2023 19:02:22 No.4127288 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127285
kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Jan 2023 21:02:12 No.4127329 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127269
Use the Scene Intelligent Auto mode (or whatever it is called in your brand) and let the camera decide. Unless you got too old or too expensive camera to have that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Jan 2023 22:08:59 No.4127350 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127269
B&W and completely clueless? Just get that free version of silver efex pro.
Slightly less incompetent. Never use bw raw modes. Turn saturation to 0, and learn to use histogram.
Colour? lol, you're out of luck buddy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Jan 2023 22:24:32 No.4127352 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127269
Shoot JPG or only do light RAW edits in-camera?
I only edit on the computer for important events/trips or professional work.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 05:34:08 No.4127448 Report

Quoted By: >>4127494

>>4127278
>airbrushing, which was airbrushing special paints directly onto the film negative
I thought you painted the prints. People really painted their negs?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 06:35:52 No.4127457 Report

Quoted By: >>4127475

Don't worry, if you edit your photos you're bit a real photographer anyway as you're not capturing a moment, but fabricating one instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 06:52:39 No.4127468 Report

Quoted By: >>4127474

Your photography style should reflect who you are. Anything else and you will never be truely happy.
If you are the type of person who doesnt like editing hten your style wont involve much editing, you will have to rely on other things to make your photos good which will form part of your style.

Easy fixes=black and white and pump grain.
or dont shoot people.
Also get really good at metering and light so you can just use your shots straight out of camera.
Maybe consider just using a mobile phone too as it does fuckloads of editing instantly without you having to do anything.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 07:22:15 No.4127474 Report

Quoted By: >>4127475

>>4127468
How is it photography if you have to do so much after photographing. You're basically an editor not a photographer

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 07:33:53 No.4127475 Report

Quoted By: >>4127492

>>4127474
>>4127457

Lol, editing has always been a part of photography, whether film or digital, so any appeal to like "photographic purity" or "objectivity" is limp. But especially if digital, what the camera actually "sees" (which itself will have quirks based on it and the lens' physical properties) and builds from the sensor readout (the completely untuched raw) rarely looks as good as it should or like how it appears to the human eye, and whether you use in-camera auto jpegs or edit yourself, additional post processing is happening. Speaking of the human eye, even what we perceive is always being influenced by emotion and preconceptions and patterns our brains pick up on, etc. as visual processing is quite complex and not insular in the brain. You never really have access to the thing in itself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 07:54:35 No.4127480 Report

Quoted By:

so dont edit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 08:40:54 No.4127492 Report

Quoted By: >>4127498

>>4127475
It doesn't matter what you're saying. It's the problem of your time. If you spend so much time editing instead of taking photos you're not a photographer.

Change this to /e/ - editing

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1414414353725_wps_31_Pic_By_HotS (...).jpg, 59KiB, 634x423

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 09:00:37 No.4127494 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127448
Yep, here's a rig from the 50's used to do this more easily.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 09:09:45 No.4127498 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127492
Good thing ways around that have already been raised: use a camera with jpeg processing you enjoy, use auto-edit features in programs that support it, or use presets, whether shit like Dehancer/Snapseed/whatever, or ones you buy/develop yourself. Editing doesn't have to be laborious and as someone who enjoys the process myself, I can tell you there's sharp diminishing returns for the effort after just making sure the exposure and white balance aren't way off, and ensuring shadows, highlights, and colors are sensibly weighted which for most images I can do in like 30 seconds in streamlined programs like Lightroom (maybe a little longer in Darktable). Accept "good enough" (when it's all a matter of subjective taste anyways) and I don't know why the quick process of performing basic image-finalizing should be seen as a burden.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 09:45:16 No.4127507 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127269
i'd get yourself a D700, always shoot at ISO800 and enjoy the beautiful film-like SOOC jpegs

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Jan 2023 19:00:31 No.4127686 Report

Quoted By: >>4127933

>>4127278
>Editing has always been 90% of photography
this is such a bullshit statement
a good photo will be good with or without editing
a shit photo will always be shit
90% of photography is photography, and you edit exposure, crop in post, set saturation and change colors.
editing will only make a good photo better

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 01:52:25 No.4127870 Report

Quoted By: >>4127872

Dragging sliders in lightroom is for faggots who don't know how to compose or expose.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 01:56:29 No.4127872 Report

Quoted By: >>4127931

>>4127870
You expose in post-process, nice of you to show how much of a newfag cumslurping photographer you are

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 06:29:00 No.4127931 Report

Quoted By: >>4127932 >>4127952

>>4127872
Lmao, so bad he must correct his mistake post-photography

Actual nophoto, and more like yesedit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 06:32:14 No.4127932 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127931
>just never shoot a scene with more dynamic range than your technological doo-dad bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 06:42:06 No.4127933 Report

Quoted By: >>4127978

>>4127686
All the "good photos" you've seen have spent hours in editing. Suck it up copium boy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 07:29:31 No.4127952 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127931
retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 09:16:18 No.4127978 Report

Quoted By: >>4128021 >>4128078

>>4127933
are you a sony user by chance?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 11:55:38 No.4128014 Report

Quoted By:

I enjoy editing. What I hate is the process of choosing selects because after awhile lose objectivity and everything starts blending together.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 12:28:01 No.4128021 Report

Quoted By: >>4128078

>>4127978
Are you triggered by chance?

Show me 5 famous photographers that didn't extensively edit their photos.

The most expensive photo ever solds whole point was that every photo is edited, you absolute clown.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 15:43:43 No.4128078 Report

Quoted By: >>4128079 >>4128081 >>4128082 >>4128084 >>4128087

>>4127978
>>4128021
>doesnt deny it
snoy shooters never fail to suprise me

>Show me 5 famous photographers that didn't extensively edit their photos.
Henri Cartier-Bresson
Bruce Gilden
William Eggleston
Bernd and Hilla Bercher
Robert Capa
of course you might crop, change exposure and dogde and burn, but this again only serves to make a good photo better

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20230122-154632.png, 1MiB, 1079x1555

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 15:47:19 No.4128079 Report

Quoted By: >>4128085 >>4128092 >>4128136 >>4128226

>>4128078
>Hcb
Here's his editing notes for one of his shots you ignorant cunt

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO download-7.jpg, 63KiB, 300x452

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 15:49:07 No.4128081 Report

Quoted By: >>4128085 >>4128136 >>4128226

>>4128078
>Gilden
If you can't see the halation from fucking with sliders in this magnum archive shot of his, you're fucking blind

You dumb cunt

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 15:51:30 No.4128082 Report

Quoted By: >>4128085 >>4128226

>>4128078
>Eggleston

Became famous for using dye transfer prints, the equivalent of slapping an Instagram filter on his photos because he was a talentless hack fuelled by nepotism

You moronic twat

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 960x0.jpg, 95KiB, 711x912

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 16:00:52 No.4128084 Report

Quoted By: >>4128136 >>4128226

>>4128078
You really think that these buildings shot and edited by the Bercher's were this consistent in all their tones? Are you stupid or blind?

You uneducated buffoon

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 16:03:16 No.4128085 Report

Quoted By: >>4128089

>>4128079
nig

>>4128081
checkout his old portfolio nig

>>4128082
>because he was a talentless hack fuelled by nepotism
nig

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 16:07:42 No.4128087 Report

Quoted By: >>4128090 >>4128226

>>4128078
And capa was a photojournalist, not a photographer, editing wouldn't have been his decision to make, he couldn't even develop his own film.

That's 5 out of 5 you completely failed on. Lmfao.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 16:09:05 No.4128089 Report

Quoted By: >>4128091

>>4128085
>When you get outed as a fucking moron, so resort to racist buzzwords and completely give up on your argument

Classic peabrained talentless poverty riddled loser move.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 16:11:11 No.4128090 Report

Quoted By:

>>4128087
>a photojournalist, not a photographer
1/10 bait

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 16:12:23 No.4128091 Report

Quoted By:

>>4128089
don't wanna waste my chromosomes on ye, fag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 16:14:20 No.4128092 Report

Quoted By:

>>4128079
Kino pic. Do you have any more? Maybe more modern fashion type ones?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 17:02:56 No.4128111 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127269
yea so I don't do it unless the jpeg isn't right, and then i have a minimalist procedure

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 17:54:53 No.4128136 Report

Quoted By: >>4128142 >>4128143

>>4128084
>>4128081
>>4128079
if you think any of these edits would take someone experienced more than 20 minutes (and thats the high end) you might be projecting your learning disability onto them anon
also re-investigate the origin of your hcb image, he only made the original

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 18:06:45 No.4128142 Report

Quoted By: >>4128418

>>4128136
>But hcb paid someone to edit his photos

So you're saying the version we all saw was still edited? Funny that eh ;)

And why do you think editing a digital photo takes longer than 20 minutes? Even if you're doing some airbrushing it shouldn't take any longer. Airbrushing back in the film days took MUCH longer.

You must be VERY bad at editing if it takes you 20 minutes a photo. Lol.

Have some of these, sprinkle them in your angry paragraphs, it will make you look less uneducated and poor .....................................

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 18:12:24 No.4128143 Report

Quoted By:

>>4128136
If you think doing the same digitally takes more than 20 minutes (and thats the high end) you might be projecting your learning disability onto them anon

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO yikes.png, 97KiB, 900x1240

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 22:03:07 No.4128226 Report

Quoted By: >>4128230 >>4128266

>>4128079
>>4128081
>>4128082
>>4128084
>>4128087
>Show me 5 famous photographers that didn't extensively edit their photos.
>extensively
you people have a fucking reading defect
none of these "edits" took hours to do. its basic shit and you should all kill yourselves for being fucking moronic inbred retards

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 22:34:57 No.4128230 Report

Quoted By: >>4128231

>>4128226
>noooo
>editing over half the photo isn't extensive
End your life you narcissistic retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 22:38:16 No.4128231 Report

Quoted By: >>4128232 >>4128266 >>4128390

>>4128230
138.128.97.140

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jan 2023 22:39:52 No.4128232 Report

Quoted By:

>>4128231
Not even close

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Jan 2023 00:03:16 No.4128266 Report

Quoted By:

>>4128231
There's nothing more cringe than the 1337 hackermans losers on 4chan.

No one lives in Wisconsin bro.

>>4128226

>I am the arbitrator of what "extensive" means , and when it's my only line of defense against losing this argument, I decide that it means what I want it to mean >:(

Lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Jan 2023 03:35:17 No.4128329 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127285
this but unironically

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Jan 2023 03:42:37 No.4128332 Report

Quoted By:

>>4127269
Hire a Filipino freelancer to edit them for you.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Jan 2023 07:06:26 No.4128390 Report

Quoted By:

>>4128231
Remember this is the sort of person giving you c&c and gear advice.

Colin

Colin Mon 23 Jan 2023 08:41:00 No.4128418 Report

Quoted By:

>>4128142
whats with this unhinged reply, did the learning disability bit hit a nerve?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches