Hi Ted, I've followed you for quite a while now, and first want to thank you for broadening my overall art education. Your many examples of painters, photographers, printing techniques, and so on is great food for thought. I also appreciate that everything you do is done with a balance of confidence and humility. Thanks for taking this individual approach, rather than the constant "tech talk" that so many others have taken to, as "gear reviewers"!
This is a topic near and dear to my heart! I spent years as a darkroom technician; processing film & printing images for studios. I actually started as a sophmore in high school assisting a photographer who went on to become a Kodak Tech Rep in the darly 1970's. Throughout my life I've had darkrooms where ever I lived. Around 12 years ago, I think I had a instance of temporary insanity because I sold off all of my darkroom equipment thinking that digital was going to keep me happy. Two 4x5 enlargers, a densitometer, dozens of trays, a half dozen stainless steel tanks and 20+ reels, custom enlarger stand and sink....all for $100 to a college student. It took him two trips with a pickup truck to haul out all of the equipment. Now....I'm trying to build up equipment for setting up my darkroom again as I've gotten back in to film in a large way in addition to my digital work. If you don't print your work you're short changing yourself. Until you see a photograph of yours printed to at least 11x14, mounted and framed and hung on a wall you'll never really know what your work means. Learn to shoot & process film, even if you don't have a darkroom. You can scan the negatives and share them that way, but you can also print them on an inkjet printer. Master your intent!
John Wilkinson I did the same thing back in the mid-1980s because I needed the money (though my asking price was higher than yours). I still regret it. You are correct: a well done silver gelatin print is so much more than just a “print”...it’s transcendent.
Amen brother! If it's in a phone or on a computer it's not a photograph yet. It's still a digital image. Holding a print in your hand is real. Most kids these days don't even know.
Ted Forbes teaching is the man I've come to know and respect through his videos. This is, in my humble opinion, when you are at your best! More please.
Thanks Ted. That IS the question. I have a school photography club and at the first meeting we take a walk without cameras and I ask students to think about what they would photograph, and why, and ask, "What is your intention? What are you trying to capture here. Think about it, before you shoot." Thanks for the affirmation that this is the foundation of what we do. Past students always remember this class. Cheers.
Finally!!!! It’s about time somebody brought this topic to light. I’ve been struggling with this since I started with photography... Very insightful and thought provoking. Can’t thank you enough for making a video on this. Would love to see more on this
Ted.. more of this...stuff like this is you.. it's your thing...I love these type of videos,and my ears perked up when I heard you mention Eggleston..small confession I don't even watch gear reviews anymore..I got what I need pretty much and nowadays I just look for stuff like this..I want to learn photography,the who's the when's,how and why..I rewatch these types of videos,and mostly skip the gear reviews..you might lose a few people but this stuff you are doing will stand the test of time.. tortoise not the hare brother
SabanWorshipper is right. This is what makes you unique Ted. You introduced me to photography books, film development and even a bit on printing. Gear videos are so simple to make, you can do so much better, and have!
Coming from paint brushes and a point-and-shoot, I just spent a very long time watching videos in order to make an informed decision on what camera and lenses to buy as I start taking photography more seriously. Your philosophy reminds me why I did all that and your decision to create your own profiles is a superb means of creative expression. Thank you for sharing your thought process, I look forward to seeing more content like this!
Wow I am really excited that you are getting back to your roots with this sort of videos. I am not that much into gear or vlogging style videos, but I love these ones, thanks!
To answer your question - I have the same issue with postprocessing and having too many options. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by all the color and its possibilities that I go back to bw, where I have already found my style and it is very easy and fast to get the look that I aim for and like.
Ted, I've been a fan of your videos for awhile. Starting with stumbling across your series on individual photography artists and what makes each of their bodies of work significant. IMHO, yours are some of the best, most valuable photography instruction-related videos out there. The tech stuff and camera reviews come and go, but the artistic quest continues at the core of it. Thanks for all your thought and effort! Craig
I love your presentations about photography and its history, photographer's work and their images, leave the reviews about the latest tools, cameras and lenses to other channels, there are already too many, I think your perspectives on the work photographer do and have done is more important and appreciated. Thank you!
I would LOVE some Lightroom tutorials. I've watched hours and hours of them and I feel just barely above adequate with Lightroom. But the very thing I feel that all (or most) of those videos are missing is intention. So many feel like: "here, let's make this picture feel like Instagram". They miss theory, and how one slider is going to add one thing, subtract from the photo in another, but most importantly how to achieve the intention that you are setting out for. Another awesome video by the way. Thank you for continuing to lift photography discussion above basic settings and composition and showing how photography shows depth, breadth, and soul.
Gaming Pastor a lot of people learn how to use photoshop, lightroom or how to take photos that look good, but they dont learn what the composition, colors says and how to communicate with it. They learn how to do something, not why do something. Thats kind of a fundemental mistake these days
“What I want to talk about is how to achieve different looks and how to use the software to your advantage to do that” YES YES YES!!! My perfect vid/tut would be what visual components to consider and perhaps in what order. I feel like I’m juggling exposure, dodge/burn, contrast, grain, saturation / lightness / hues, toning, colour casts, so many things all at once and I’m never sure if I remembered the right ones or what I could leave out or be sure to use. Eventually I get a bit discouraged and dislike what I’ve created as I’m just overwhelmed at the myriad of visual adjustments I can make and the endless tools available to make them, sometimes unsure if I’m repeating myself etc or using the wrong tool for a given purpose. Would love to watch you take a RAW file to a desired final image, and be clear on what aspects you adjusted along the way, why, and how. Cheers Ted! All the best.
I realize that this episode is one year old or more. I really like your idea of using software to develop your own look as opposed to emulating a film look or the look of well known artists. Please continue to challenge us to do so Ted. Appreciate your work.
Ted - I am an Electrical Engineer so I LOVE how you break down your artistry observations into analytical stories focusing on the results but also the steps to get there! You could EASILY spin another group of videos out of this one on the people, processes, and print results. You are just DAMN good at what you do! MORE PLEASE!
Excellent video Ted, one that focuses on concepts I relate to. First, I must say we have quite the same taste in color photography, because you’ve pick four color photographers that are on my top ten list. And I think this is not just a coincidence, because I too search for the photographer’s intention when I look at one’s portfolio. I think too many people look for a style they can identify with but failed to see the intention behind a style. That maybe why so many people just apply presets without thinking. They just go for the atmosphere without thinking what it is that THEY WANT. Learning the basics of whatever editing software is a must. No one should ever use PRESETS without knowing what each controls does. It is only when you know the basics that you have the power to go WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. Misunderstanding that is a handicap. When I EDIT a photo, I use the same approach as when I WRITE. I ask these questions: What is it that I’m trying to say and what do I need to do to get there. Which is just another way of saying “Why do I write?” or “Why do I take photographs?” - Will my writings and my photos show who I am, reflect my stimuli? Before I capture an image, I will frame it so as to manifest my primary intention. I will use the tools of the trade to do so, like composition (and much more), and I will eliminated whatever distracts the viewer from my objective. Once I capture that image, I already foresee how I will edit it. I will emphasize all the elements that STIMULATED me when I took the image. When one cannot foresee where he wants to go with a photograph it is much like someone who wants to write and has the White Page Syndrome. Maybe the photo has not the elements needed to allow the intent of the photographer. Remember, not all photos render the intent we desire. I can’t wait to see where your INTENTIONS will lead us Ted.
Thanks for that, Ted. I'm looking forward to what you have to say/show about colour work. It's a matter I'm constantly furrowing my brow over, so the more I hear/see from you, the better.
Hi Ted, Thanks so much for raising this topic. I currently shoot both film and digital. While I have film emulation software as part of my digital workflow, I went back to the darkroom last year with the intent of developing my skills with darkroom technique and seeing for myself what various films actually looked like. It has added so much enjoyment and depth to my work. I now have more confidence and versatility in my work and I am developing my own style.
This video is so incredibly timely for me. I'm at the stage where I've managed to get a darkroom print that's essentially a flat reproduction of my negative but I'd love to be able to express myself in print the way I've learned to wrangle Lightroom and Capture One. Ultimately, it is about intent, as your video so aptly put it. I agree that presents are a very one-sided simulation of a film 'look' that never really compares to scan of a colour or B&W negative - there is so much interpretation carried out when shooting and developing that no single preset can match an arbitrary look for any film - once again, what matters is intent. Can't wait to see where this discussion goes.
Thank you really much for the Video. I'm a 19y old amateur, who had been reading into photography for 2 years now, before that i've been working with photoshop for 4 years. Well for me it's more like an approach to what i wanna get before opening it up in an application. Photoshop can turn a good picture into something great, but not an bad picture into good. Many people tend to "get the film look" by applying premade filters on their stuff, which will only result in a big cesspool of Pictures that look identical. In my opinion, improving the technology of something correlates directly with the death of creativity. I know my young mind probably cannot comprehend the full spectrum of such a vast topic, but i've experienced it that people just go by the approach to "fix things up in post". For me, photoshop, or more like the camera raw tool was always my way to go, since it had all the tools i "needed". LR or Capture One are great of course, but i feel like they take away the freedom of expressing my own photography. I loved your video and the insight you gave us to this complex topic, which is why i would love to see more videos about "the philosophy behind it". I'm kinda new to this channel, so i don't know if you talked about some "must have" photobooks, but some information regarding this would also be welcomed! Investing in material to understand photography is far more important than any software or hardware. At the end, the creative mind behind the camera is also the person who creates the picture.
I'm having happy flashbacks, I've been going back and binging (again) all the Photographers and composition videos. It's still the best photography content on youtube
Ted - I've followed you presentations for some time and enjoy them all - very educational and though-provoking. But this one really hit the button for me. I can't over-emphasize my concurrence with your intent; this is exactly what I've been looking for in helping me advance my photographic visual art forward. I fully support this thrust on your part - keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing the outputs from this.
This is such an amazing episode! I know that philosophical episodes like this one gets far less views than gear review but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep posting videos like this!
This is such an important topic.One reason I stay away from color, is that it is so overwhelming trying to realize my vision without just copying current cliches and trends on instagram. A thoughtful discussion on why we post process and how we post process will be an excellent resource, rather than just a video showing the steps to achieve a specific look.
Great thoughts... For the first time in a while you made me think about the WHY not the HOW. Its the end results that I see but I sometimes get off course on the how of this lens or that filter. Great topic and thanks for presenting it!
Thank you for sharing this knowledge. Im so inspired to shoot and to educate myself about all these wonderful photographers you talk about in your videos. Thanks man!
I kept trying to get up and get things done that I had planned. I was captured by this video and your comments. You are a keen observer, a good storyteller, and an essential source of thought for photographers. Thank you.
Intent... such a huge concept and so very important to the photographer who wants to bring their own unique vision to their work. I love this direction and I look forward to more of this. With the exception of my own presets, I have not used those from other photographers because I feel it would not be authentically my own intent/vision. I do understand using them as a starting point but my “starting point” starts when I scout the location or take the photo and observe the what and why of my capture. Hope that makes sense.
Great, I love these classic Ted episodes. I have been trying to figure out how to break down Saul Leiters colour work, so I look forward to seeing your upcoming episodes. Thanks Ted.
Perfect topic for me. Film emulations/presets leave me a bit empty when trying to realize the intent of the creative process with a given image I might be working on. A resource which focuses in this area would be fantastic...instead of wading through endless hours of tutorials that are on a different topic where you hope to extract enough understanding to apply differently for my own purpose. Being able to tie that back into a printed result is exactly the area of help I’m searching for.
Quite interesting. I have seen a lot that's going to require additional research! and I'm Saving this for future reference. It's a guide, in my ART115 Digital Photography course, toward understanding the photographers' intentions. Spring Semester, 2023.
Excellent video Ted. Intention and presentation are so important. I hope you stay with this subject as its one of the weakest links/platforms in photography today.
Personally, shooting film is rather akin to painting in the aspect of deciding the "colour palette" to be used, pre-creation - not the entirety of the colours used, as they are heavily dependent on the subject and lighting, but the way film interprets those colours is not insignificant. Thus, likened to a painter selecting a "colour palette", having developed a relationship and an understanding of how different filmstocks interpret colour, I pick out, as a painter would, the colours to match or express said intent I'm aiming at. The joys of film. It is very much different than simply editing colours in post. You are right, sir Ted, that it does feel like there is an air of chance/whimsicality perhaps, to merely tweaking in post. Great discussion!
I agree when you say that we do not intend to "chance" our way to a photograph. When I take a photo I want people who wee it afterwards to have some sort of reaction to it, whether different or similar to the one I had when the composition appeared before me. And would also love to have your presets, as I mainly use them as a starting point for any of the pictures I apply them too. Keep up the great work I learn so much every time!!!
I've been deleting presets recently because I end up with decision paralysis. I "finish" a photo faster if I just do it from scratch. It has helped me zero in on what I like and what I don't though. Super excited for that content!
As a photo lab tech we had so much fun playing around with processing and printing. underexposing c41 and turning the processing machine off to increase contrast and colour. running c41 through e6 and vice versa, pushing slide, playing with different types of filmstock, papers and printers. There was a lot you could do and that was the fun. Now I love software as much as wet process but it is THE PROCESS of creating the image is where magic happens regardless of whether it be wet or electronic. I don't really go for presets.
Ted, I love this. You have verbalized what I have been struggling with and didn't realise. I love the presets you can get, but they ALWAYS become my starting point and not the finished, previsualised, image. I'd really enjoy seeing some of the process to get from Instagram to Mind's Eye.
This is an important Topic! I totally agree with your point of view. This should be discussed more. Especially in the context of what Susan Sontag already wrote in the 60/70ties of the last century (On Photography)!!!! I would love to see more videos like this on your channel … Thumbs up - love to follow your channel!
This is great news. And exactly where I (and a few friends I have who also shoot digitally) am right now. Choice paralysis is a nightmare in software. Personally I tend to go down the "less is usually more" route - so I play around in Lightroom with a few different virtual copies of an image, work out where I think I want to go and then come back to the start and do as little as possible to get the photo I want. I don't know if this counts as "intent". But I do know the more we discuss all this, share ideas and best practice, the closer we all get to places where we want to be. Great idea Ted. More power to your (printing) elbow.
Hi Ted; first, thanks for what you do. Secondly, any excuse to get to O’Keefe country is a good one! Finally, the whole “master printer” notion in the digital age is intriguing. I’ve owned a string of large format printers and the holy grail is achieving color management from the screen to the print. If you accept that, then the printer’s intent is realized in paper choice and Photoshop/Lightroom/etc. For me, lately, digital post has been all about 3D luts and various blending modes. I just got a copy of 3D Lut Creator and am looking forward to unlocking its potential. Like care and feeding of a large format printer, it’s always a learning curve. Bonus round: film look. I recently began developing my own film at home, using my digital camera to “scan” the medium format work and using my trusty old Nikon LS 50 for 35. After scanning a very few frames of color negative film it becomes obvious that the look of film has as much to do with the skill of the person operating the scanner as it does film itself. The baseline scans I was having done by a commercial lab tended to mask differences between film types. Using silver fast with my own scanned input lets me actually see what the film itself recorded. My number one take away from this whole experience is that there is a lot of latitude available going from negative to digital file. Much of the character of the output depends on the person controlling the software.
I've gone and replicated looks from photographers I like, and I find that in emulating their work, I'm dissecting it to figure out how different settings affect my images. I shoot on Fujifilm and I base a lot of the presets I have made to shorten my workflow are based on the base presets built into Lightroom that Fujifilm provided but they just serve as a starting point that I build on.
Thank you very much, I hate LUTs and presets. I appreciate your contribution to the art. I am not a formally trained photographer and I find valuable information from your videos.
That's very interesting but I can't help but think there's something a bit sad about it. If people want the "film look" and if they're willing to spend hours to get it, they should just shoot film. Not only would they get the real deal, but this would also keep the film industry alive, so our children will be able to shoot and enjoy film like we did, instead of just artificially imitating something they will never know for real. It's a bit like trying to create ultra-realistic 3D holograms of pandas and elephants, instead of trying to save these species for real and keep them from going extinct. Anyway, keep up the good work! I always love when you talk about old school photographers and their work! Cheers!
LeBrigand People tend to forget that film is alive and even cheaper to get in to than digital stuff. Dont pay lightroom and put the money into rolls of film. Photography was a master class back in the days and a really tricky art form - today everybodys like "I want to get a great image, so i just sit there on the pc tweeking the image for hours" insted of just shooting it. How fake can we make a photo without anyone noticing it? How far can i push the brightness lever without anyone noticing that i cant even expose my photos correct?
But majority people who are into film photography are scanning their stuff and process and enhance these images like they were taken with digital cameras. They're doing the same adjustments with white/middle grey/black point, white balance, sharpening, adding some bokeh, vignetting, sharpening eyes, straightening lines and correcting perspective. Scanning is also a very time consuming process, and to get the satisfying results - you have to put a lot of work into it and also work around color adjustments. No one is going to spend additional 50$ (to film and developing costs) to drum scan ONE frame. Maybe if you're an artist with publishing deal or gallery contract - you might do that. Flatbed scanners sucks with small frame and they're almost descent with medium format material. Film photography is time consuming, very expensive in terms of high-end quality printing (from digital source or traditionally in darkroom), or even to get just a digital file from it. For Instagram? Sure! Buy a 50$ Nikon, Kodak Gold film in bundles and process it for 6-8$ a roll with basic lab scanning, and you're good with your trip photos, and images of your super-cute girl on a flower field. For you - it's cheap, for a teenager or a student, not so much. I can see the point to apps, filters and presets. I can't see the point where someone is spending 5x as much time adjusting some basic stuff, then thinking and learning while taking picture. The key is to slow down, to think, to know your tools, no matter what camera or medium you're using. I bought a 2000$ film camera a year ago, and I've spent another 2k for films, processing and chemicals to my darkroom through the year. That's 4k in one year. You can buy a semi-pro digital camera for it and achieve - very easily - better quality than my medium-format Hasselblad. And it hurts me, in some way. BUT! I love film! I work as a photographer and graphic designer and I can do almost anything with a picture in digital processing and I work with digital gear every time. I had a client who was looking for a "vintage look" in terms of color and certain old school feeling from photographs. And I did the job with my Hassy, with developing on my own and scanning. I could've done it with my digital Nikon and Adobe Ps, but i choose not to do that. And I loved every step of this process, even if it took a lot of time, stress (exciting though) and energy from me. I've started with film cameras and darkroom 16 years ago, I know this medium, I know what I can expect from film, and it's refreshing to me to get back there "after hours". For me, who's working with digital images it's a steppingstone and it gives me joy. I never leave my home without a film camera, never been on vacation without my Nikon F100. But in my work - there's no place to use this gear. See the image in your mind before your release the shutter and know the tools that you're using. The rest should be tweaking, not (re)creating.
I very seldom, if ever, use presets. Each photo is different, even in the same shoot of the same subject, and I address them on an individual basis. To me, for my photographs, presets and lutz, etc., are gimmicks. Others have a different intent, but for me, it's not getting a look, it's expressing what I experienced when I viewed the scene or subject as accurately as I can. Content is king. I got my first camera in about 1953, and I shot film until 1998. Now with digital, I can take a subject and portray my intent better than I could with film. I love the flexibility available between shots that is not possible with film without wasting a lot of the stuff.
Ted: I think you are on a productive tac with this line of thinking and instruction. Perhaps it will help more folks get beyond prettiness, beyond making their photographs "look like" some other medium's age, and get them to start their imagery with an idea. Been occasionally catching your videos for a while. It's intelligent, not gear fetishism (like most others). Well done, man.
Very interesting talk on the intent. I think that emulating a film look can, as you say, be a good starting point. But digital is not film, and that's a good thing. It's different ways of making images. The digital "raw material" (pun intended) is now more flexible than what we had before, and that's something to take advantage of. Looking forward to where you're going with this!
I would love to see you talk about photography artist statement and how you start writing them. I loved your content for the past two years especially more theory based videos
Ted, you're so eloquent in all your videos. I wonder how many takes it usually takes you to record these videos. This channel is a rare occurrence in which I'm actually compelled to hit the like button.
Ted .. Thanks a lot for this Video ... There are literally tons of tutorials or camera reviews on youtube, however; only you come in mind when I want to learn about the artistic side of photography. I really learned a lot from you as a hobbyist who shoots digital and film and preparing to print these days. Thanks Ted and waiting for your next video :)
We've come a long way since we started reproducing the desired effects in prints, I'm talking about the techniques used by master photographers in the past, colour or black and white and they toiled in the dark room, the hardfactor is only known to those who independently did their best to amaze us but it was always obscure to photographers in general and you never know a few people, who despite their intents to deliver, failed for lack of not knowing how to get the desired effects. But gradually the know-how became available to almost all and we've got a swarm of photographers with punch in their pictures. Now is the time we can have it done in computer through softwares and we are able to achieve the desired effects with the help of these wonderful softwares. Yes softwares have to be practised and if the raw images are processed properly one can fulfill his intentions and obviously this requires expert help to hone the skills. I'm eager getting the same but I've got certain hindrances and stringent conditions but I believe in near future I'll be able to be there you guys. Till then, merry Christmas, take care.
Yes! This is exactly my issue with film emulation. On the one hand I love it for quick instagram type shots but if I am taking the time to deal with one photo at a time there is invariably more work to be done.
I’m probably a very atypical subscriber and so tailoring anything to my preferences is almost a certain recipe for disaster. However, I think you’ve commented many times on people making their own ‘journey’ in photography, so I thought I would share a little of mine. I work on computers all day, which really means I work on broken systems all day. I’ve come to a point where I absolutely despise computers. The last thing I want to do is spend hours working on a computer to touch up an image. I especially don’t want to invest 30-40 hours learning an application, menu system, and interface, only to have to re-learn all of it 6 months later when Adobe decides to randomly move everything around. I did buy ON1 - because I’m not interested in becoming a subscription slave to Adobe - but I use less than 5% of the software’s capabilities. Photography, especially film photography with pre-war cameras, represents an opportunity for me to escape computers. The process is tangible and tactile. I’ll never be great, but I can hone my skills to become somewhat proficient with the gear, allowing me to express whatever limited artistic ability I might have. Maybe, along the way, I can make a decent image or two. I am sure creating software tutorials will be very popular and successful for you. You are a talented and naturally gifted teacher with a rare ability to speak with authority without sounding condescending and to show humility in your presentation without losing confidence. Watching your composition, artist series, and process videos is more educational than many college-level art appreciation and art history classes. You introduced me to Fan Ho, who quickly became my favorite photographer. You introduced me to many others I know by name and can at least vaguely identify their style. I know the artist series videos require tremendous effort and preparation without the prospect of even covering your expenses. Thank you so much for all that work. For me, I will continue to shoot much more film than digital. I don’t even want to do scanning - and I have some awesome, expensive scanners - I found a little lab in Chiang Mai that makes far better scans than I can make at a very low cost (now I just need one in Texas, or at least the US). As you know, not every video will appeal to every subscriber. In my case, I won’t have much reason to watch the software videos any more than the digital gear videos. Of course I’ll still watch all your videos that do pique my interest or promise to give me another great art/artist class. Thanks again for all your hard work. I am truly grateful for all you’ve shown me and taught me. I wish you great success on the software videos. Cheers
Presets seem like a good way to learn what settings result in a look you like, but in terms of making actual decisions for my images, I think I'll always start from scratch for each image, using what I may have picked up from studying presets.
Hi Ted, It's like you were reading my mind. Because lately, I've been thinking about exactly how to learn to use my Capture One to give images a "look"..."my look". Because like you said it's easy to use Presets and maybe get "lucky" and find one that may match what I am going for. But if I could learn to use my software... i.e. Levels help with this part of the processing, Curves help with this other part. Maybe you can start with an image and say this is my "vision/intent" for these images and talk us through the different tools that help create that look. And do these for a few different images/lighting condition and looks. It's like that saying "Give a man a fish...teach him how to fish, etc, etc." Now, I am very excited to see the tutorials that you come up with!! Very excited!!
As for content...I find this MUCH MORE interesting than the previous video on the Sony RX-whatever. Looking forward to tutorials about not how to get a certain look, but as you say, how to achieve that intent. I've been venturing in this area lately, of how to create the vision I had in terms of colour in post. I know I have this look and feel I want to go for in the image, and I am trying to get close to that, as you say, intent, in camera, but having raw files means that intent (when not looking at a film simulation on the back of the camera) needs to be pushed and pulled and nudged to show that intent, and I am just not knowledgeable regarding that in LR.
This kind of thing is closer to why I started watching you. It seems like 99.99999999% of what is TALKED about in photography is either technique or technology. I know, I know, ads pay for people to do stuff etc etc. And really that IS FINE for... 99% of photographers? There is nothing wrong with it. But... the "why", the meaning, the harnessing of all of that technique and technology, and converting it into a statement, not just a image someone will give a like, that I think is a direction the photography community needs. I think this is a good start for sure. I wish I was able to be someone to talk about it, but I suck. lol.
It amazes me that we'd put this much time, effort, and money into developing film emulations when we could use the same amount of resources to develop film. Keep film alive!
The intention thing is essential - I think it has to be there in the frame to begin with before getting into the editing or printing stage - For me the biggest challenge is still in getting the camera set up in such a way that it will best convey my intent.
A cool idea but as a young person who only shoots on film I think it could be neat to dive deep into how those 4 photographers made their Kodachrome images so different to begin with
Jason Langford ... If you missed out on shooting Kodachrome, then you missed out on a totally unique way of shooting / approaching / thinking about colour photography. Most of the stock from the Imagebank library were shot on Kodachrome.
Ditto what John Taylor said. Kodachrome was an amazing and beautiful film, unsurpassed by anything. It was basically a silver-rich black and white film that had color added during processing. The other color reversal films do not hold a candle to it. It was common to use a polarizing filter when shooting color (positive or negative) to cut down on glare from reflective surfaces, increase saturation, darken a blue sky. IOW what sunglasses do. And to Ted’s point, the print is where the magic happens. William Eggleston uses the dye transfer process because of the resulting control in the color balance.
I would love to see lightroom tutorials on how to develop like this. Or at least to see how you do it. This is exactly what ive been looking for and havent been able to find. I have a love hate relationship with lightroom as i often struggle to get the look that i want from it.
Ted, just discovered you via your excellent piece on Wynn Bullock’s, ‘Girl in Forest’. Refreshing to find highly articulate, informed, original and intelligent commentary on photography...and without the baggage of pretensions that so often accompany it! :)
The question is not about film looks or presets. It is about choices, what are they and how do you get there. I print b&w in a home darkroom. It took me quite some time to learn what my choices in the darkroom were and how they connected to my pre-visualization of the image. As I got better at printing, I got better at making decisions when pressing the shutter. I am a complete neophyte when it comes to Light Room and color adjustment. What I would like to learn, if it is not too basic for your audience, is what are the choices? What, in a practical sense, was changed to achieve a certain look. If I knew this, I could replicate if necessary any preset or at least appreciate what the presets are doing for me. I want to go from saying “I want this to look like a 1960s Polaroid” to I adjusted the magenta..... Charlie
Wow, Ted, that was odd. I shot film and part of my intent was around choice of film stock for conditions and subject. It was about the mind’s eye. It was about tonal range and how the film rendered detail at different levels. Choosing to meter the same stock 2/3 of a stop up or, down and then metering for the subject to hold detail or, to crush the tonal range. The stock behaved in particular ways that made the image better. The stock applied limitations to the image making. Sometimes I wanted grain as a picture element, sometimes just tones. The in-camera decisions started with stock choice and what the stock would do in the field in response to how I treated it in situ. Then specifying how the stock was developed. The chemicals, temperature and agitation. The treatment and chemicals change the outcome. Then, I am a photographer responding to the recorded image as a recording containing my original intent. My intent in the field becomes rounds of paper stock and, sequences of exposure and, iterative changes working the image and, manipulating the print medium physically and chemically. All in my mind’s eye? I could always change my mind because there is something that the image projected onto the print medium is saying to me that is more compelling than my original intent and needs to be given power in the process. I liked working with my favourite professional print labs in London because, suddenly colour film was never disappointing it was a world of excitement and possibilities. The normal commercial machine prints from normal retail outlets were a disappointment and disheartening. Usually nothing was corrected, it was muddy, blurred, the negatives could be scratched with tramlines often cropped-in destroying composition. I didn’t use colour print film for a long time because it looked so far removed from the effort I had put in. It felt like pot luck. Reversal film for colour was really amazing. The first time I shot Kodachrome 64, I was mind blown. It showed what I saw when I composed the shot and contained detail and colours! The first time I saw r-types and Cibachrome The idea that colour film was too hard changed to thinking about the possibilities. Machine prints improved when they went digital and then print film was compelling the potential was more available and I could start thinking about what the finishe image could look like. Especially when I took my film to a pro lab. I could use their machine prints as proofs and at a pro lab, the digital proof print, the negative, the enlarged contact sheet, a loupe and a professional printer to talk to, meant I could exploit colour film’s potential and exhibit work that fulfilled my intent when I loaded the film, lifted the camera to my eye and decided how I wanted to record the image the focusing screen was letting me see. The “oddity” I dare suppose is that our digital medium is very malleable now. The act of adding a preset to make it look like film seems to be a madness. Film as I described was malleable; any film stock has a range of possibilities that will make it behave differently. Most of the “film-look” is produced by people who have never shot film or, worked within its constraints or, lived with particular films learning how that film stock behaves or, what it can give you. Many of the people who haven’t shot film but want the “film look” continually get it wrong. Their intent is not the same as the person who knows the medium and applies the image to the medium to get it recorded so that it is on the way to the final finished image. A plug in doesn’t replicate what would really happen if you shot that film stock with intent. There are way more variables than the plug-in overlaid on a digital file could begin to address. That workshop you ran must have been amazing.
I recently listened to an NPR podcast called "making Oprah" in which they pointed out that the motivating force behind everything Oprah did was the word "intention." She originally got the idea from a book, "The Seat of the Soul' by Gary Zukav," in which he says, "before there's even a thought or an action, there is an intention." This idea became the organizing principal in Oprah's life and everything about her show had to have an intention before they went ahead with it. Just thought it was interesting.
I guess the sensor is kind of a film philosophically. You need an algorithm that is going to read the light and the algorithm kind of makes a digital sensor unique per manufacturer based on the algorithms that 'interpret' the light. Since there are more variables in the analog film you have film choice and print choice. So the "look" of say a digital Sony, Canon, Nikon RAW file kind of makes each set of algorithms the "film". You then have to try and emulate the 'look' of a particular analog film. I guess by the time you get to print everything can change again even when you start with a sensor. What a photographer really needs is your knowledge, and other film photographers knowledge of film in order to leverage the digital data more effectively. I think in order to be the most complete photographer you can be today you need to know about the history of the film process and the history of the print process. I mean Ansel wrote an entire 3rd book on 'The Print.' I've tried the emulation presets in software but since I have no original knowledge of most of the film I am stabbing in the dark. I get a "look" wrong more than I get it right. I think you should do an entire revised series on how to leverage the presets. We need you as an artist to help distill it down for us as a starting point. I'm excited about where you're going here :)
Hey Ted. I would like to see your approach via Lightroom to get your specific look. I myself am struggling with color settings and feel kind of the same when it comes down to filter and film simulations. That's nothing you do on purpose, just applying a filter is a purpose, yes, but this is not everything in terms of personal touch you can give an image. So keep it rolling, you're doing a great job in the masses of tech-related photography shows. Focusing on the thinking behind photography in all different kinds of fields, is why I'm still stuck to your channel. Cheers
Never thought of film simulations as of being less intentional but it's a good point. I've used film simulations in RawTherapee for a while. At one point they kind of helped me speed up my workflow (the struggle never ends) or at least I thought so. I'm quite sure the variety of options just slowed me down at times. Then I mostly used one as a base line. And then recently as I learned more about color management and got better camera profiles I ditched the film simulations again because it seemed counterproductive to add a random base line after setting the actual base line to match my hardware.
I'm pretty much on the same page when it comes to what you said about emulating film and so forth. - I have a very specific philosphy on why I like film and it's not so much to "get the film look", but it has something to do with it. - Anyway; I will also often apply a "film filter", not to my dSRL-photos, but like phone-pictures that are of questionable quality. Film-filters, even those in mobile apps, tend to smooth things out a bit. - Anyhow; I do feel that when I do that to a digital photo, it feels a bit cheap and it just begs the question "What's wrong with the original??". And again, I do it to shoddy quality phone-pictures, but when you have beautifully clean digital images, why muck it up with a film-filter? That's why I went back to film, because I also got ironically bored of digital with the many options. I fell in love with digital photography because it gave me all the freedom, which should be heaven for a creative. But after a few years I didn't know what to go for anymore. I'm the type of creative who wants to do it all, and honestly I don't have enough discipline, so it ends up with me running around trying to get multiple outcomes on the same single image or series of images, which is just inefficient and it holds you back from getting work done. Now, I just want to actually leave it up to "chance" whenever I throw an exposure onto a piece of film, except of course you can (or have to) choose the style ahead of time.- So I'll go out with a specific type of film, I will have to keep in mind what its characteristics are, and then I'll have to shoot accordingly. - This also actually helps me creatively, as it forces me to make a freaking decision. As opposed to just shooting away and only bothering with the style of it later. That's a cool and relaxed way of working and all, but... indeed the intent becomes an afterthought, and I don't like that part. - I think it's better to be more concise, as with intent you get more meaningful results.
Great video Ted! I’m from Waco, TX and I’ve been a subscriber for a while now. I would love to see lightroom tutorials. I’ve been using only VSCO for some time now because I feel I’m in adequate at using lightroom and it’s easier to find the look I’m wanting by browsing VSCO, but I want to be able to achieve these looks and vibes on my own through lightroom and even make my own looks by experimenting and using techniques that you could show us.
Great video! I would love to see more videos like this, where you discuss philosophical questions. It would be awesome to see videos purely about discussing artists work from a philosophical perspective or just diving deep into compositions of photos and the history of them and how combining those rules of composition can play out in an image (similar to the composition series) Big fan of your videos and photos! Keep it up
I don't use Lightroom presets at all. I manually adjust my phone pictures instead of using filters. I was trained as a painter, and that informs my personal taste in color rendition. My taste is maybe a little more expressionist than some; but that was my painting style. So, my landscapes probably push the chroma and contrast, but I work to keep it looking "naturalistic" if not absolutely "natural". I use a more subtle palette with wildlife and flowers.
Hi Ted, I think if you are going to mention great American photographic colorists you should include Pete Turner not just for the images he took in New York when he was starting out but the historic work in Africa in his book 'African Journey' shot around 1959-1960 (on an epic journey North starting in Cape Town) but only published more than two decades later. In many ways I see Pete's book as a colorist's parrallel to another seminal book on Africa, 'African Image' (published in 1967) by Sam Haskins which pushed the boundaries of Black and White photography while documenting a "parting love letter" to Sub-Saharan Afriica when Sam had already made the decision to leave South Africa. He moved with his family to London in 1968. Sam Haskins was my father.
In my video, the seven steps to becoming a great photographer, I mention the second step as being the most important step in the evolution of any photographer, far more important than any tool or trick; Take pictures of things you care about".
This sounds like a really cool idea. Replicating a look and creating a look are so different. Digal as great as it is, has never replaced shooting with Kodachrome 64 during the 80s for me. 👍🏻
Hi,I use Lightroom and have recently been incorporating Nik Effects. I started with the presets,but now am using the individual sliders to get the effects I am visualizing. I am just learning now, so I would enjoy workshops addressing this subject.
Intent is literally everything. It’s the foundation of everything we do!
Hi Ted, I've followed you for quite a while now, and first want to thank you for broadening my overall art education. Your many examples of painters, photographers, printing techniques, and so on is great food for thought. I also appreciate that everything you do is done with a balance of confidence and humility. Thanks for taking this individual approach, rather than the constant "tech talk" that so many others have taken to, as "gear reviewers"!
Podcasts like this is why you are so important to us.
This is a topic near and dear to my heart! I spent years as a darkroom technician; processing film & printing images for studios. I actually started as a sophmore in high school assisting a photographer who went on to become a Kodak Tech Rep in the darly 1970's. Throughout my life I've had darkrooms where ever I lived. Around 12 years ago, I think I had a instance of temporary insanity because I sold off all of my darkroom equipment thinking that digital was going to keep me happy. Two 4x5 enlargers, a densitometer, dozens of trays, a half dozen stainless steel tanks and 20+ reels, custom enlarger stand and sink....all for $100 to a college student. It took him two trips with a pickup truck to haul out all of the equipment. Now....I'm trying to build up equipment for setting up my darkroom again as I've gotten back in to film in a large way in addition to my digital work. If you don't print your work you're short changing yourself. Until you see a photograph of yours printed to at least 11x14, mounted and framed and hung on a wall you'll never really know what your work means. Learn to shoot & process film, even if you don't have a darkroom. You can scan the negatives and share them that way, but you can also print them on an inkjet printer. Master your intent!
John Wilkinson I did the same thing back in the mid-1980s because I needed the money (though my asking price was higher than yours). I still regret it. You are correct: a well done silver gelatin print is so much more than just a “print”...it’s transcendent.
I bet that was a very happy college student. He got a great deal. :-P
Amen brother! If it's in a phone or on a computer it's not a photograph yet. It's still a digital image. Holding a print in your hand is real. Most kids these days don't even know.
Ted Forbes teaching is the man I've come to know and respect through his videos. This is, in my humble opinion, when you are at your best! More please.
Thanks Ted. That IS the question. I have a school photography club and at the first meeting we take a walk without cameras and I ask students to think about what they would photograph, and why, and ask, "What is your intention? What are you trying to capture here. Think about it, before you shoot." Thanks for the affirmation that this is the foundation of what we do. Past students always remember this class. Cheers.
Thanks for bringing videos like this back to the channel.
Finally!!!!
It’s about time somebody brought this topic to light.
I’ve been struggling with this since I started with photography... Very insightful and thought provoking. Can’t thank you enough for making a video on this. Would love to see more on this
Another 15min of my life, which was well worth it. Thank you for all the good stuff you bring across. 👍🏻🙏🙏🙏
Best photo channel in the world. Thank you
Ted.. more of this...stuff like this is you.. it's your thing...I love these type of videos,and my ears perked up when I heard you mention Eggleston..small confession I don't even watch gear reviews anymore..I got what I need pretty much and nowadays I just look for stuff like this..I want to learn photography,the who's the when's,how and why..I rewatch these types of videos,and mostly skip the gear reviews..you might lose a few people but this stuff you are doing will stand the test of time.. tortoise not the hare brother
SabanWorshipper is right. This is what makes you unique Ted. You introduced me to photography books, film development and even a bit on printing. Gear videos are so simple to make, you can do so much better, and have!
He would lose around 160,000 people. Latest lens review got 180,000, this video got a little over 20,000.
This is so fascinating. I was listening to the video while getting some work done and realized this would be a perfect podcast.
Coming from paint brushes and a point-and-shoot, I just spent a very long time watching videos in order to make an informed decision on what camera and lenses to buy as I start taking photography more seriously. Your philosophy reminds me why I did all that and your decision to create your own profiles is a superb means of creative expression. Thank you for sharing your thought process, I look forward to seeing more content like this!
Fantastic, very thought provoking. Can’t wait...
Wow I am really excited that you are getting back to your roots with this sort of videos. I am not that much into gear or vlogging style videos, but I love these ones, thanks!
To answer your question - I have the same issue with postprocessing and having too many options. Sometimes I feel overwhelmed by all the color and its possibilities that I go back to bw, where I have already found my style and it is very easy and fast to get the look that I aim for and like.
Your channel is pure gold! Thanks for everything.
Ted, I've been a fan of your videos for awhile. Starting with stumbling across your series on individual photography artists and what makes each of their bodies of work significant. IMHO, yours are some of the best, most valuable photography instruction-related videos out there. The tech stuff and camera reviews come and go, but the artistic quest continues at the core of it. Thanks for all your thought and effort! Craig
I love your presentations about photography and its history, photographer's work and their images, leave the reviews about the latest tools, cameras and lenses to other channels, there are already too many, I think your perspectives on the work photographer do and have done is more important and appreciated. Thank you!
I would LOVE some Lightroom tutorials. I've watched hours and hours of them and I feel just barely above adequate with Lightroom. But the very thing I feel that all (or most) of those videos are missing is intention. So many feel like: "here, let's make this picture feel like Instagram". They miss theory, and how one slider is going to add one thing, subtract from the photo in another, but most importantly how to achieve the intention that you are setting out for. Another awesome video by the way. Thank you for continuing to lift photography discussion above basic settings and composition and showing how photography shows depth, breadth, and soul.
Gaming Pastor a lot of people learn how to use photoshop, lightroom or how to take photos that look good, but they dont learn what the composition, colors says and how to communicate with it. They learn how to do something, not why do something. Thats kind of a fundemental mistake these days
Francis Belte agree...agree... agreed..
Love these kinds of content much more than oversaturated gear review.. Really inspiring!
My favourite video you've done, easily.
“What I want to talk about is how to achieve different looks and how to use the software to your advantage to do that”
YES YES YES!!!
My perfect vid/tut would be what visual components to consider and perhaps in what order. I feel like I’m juggling exposure, dodge/burn, contrast, grain, saturation / lightness / hues, toning, colour casts, so many things all at once and I’m never sure if I remembered the right ones or what I could leave out or be sure to use. Eventually I get a bit discouraged and dislike what I’ve created as I’m just overwhelmed at the myriad of visual adjustments I can make and the endless tools available to make them, sometimes unsure if I’m repeating myself etc or using the wrong tool for a given purpose.
Would love to watch you take a RAW file to a desired final image, and be clear on what aspects you adjusted along the way, why, and how.
Cheers Ted! All the best.
One of the best youtuber when it comes to photography.
I enjoy wathcing these.
I realize that this episode is one year old or more. I really like your idea of using software to develop your own look as opposed to emulating a film look or the look of well known artists. Please continue to challenge us to do so Ted. Appreciate your work.
Ted - I am an Electrical Engineer so I LOVE how you break down your artistry observations into analytical stories focusing on the results but also the steps to get there! You could EASILY spin another group of videos out of this one on the people, processes, and print results. You are just DAMN good at what you do! MORE PLEASE!
Excellent video Ted, one that focuses on concepts I relate to.
First, I must say we have quite the same taste in color photography, because you’ve pick four color photographers that are on my top ten list. And I think this is not just a coincidence, because I too search for the photographer’s intention when I look at one’s portfolio.
I think too many people look for a style they can identify with but failed to see the intention behind a style. That maybe why so many people just apply presets without thinking. They just go for the atmosphere without thinking what it is that THEY WANT.
Learning the basics of whatever editing software is a must. No one should ever use PRESETS without knowing what each controls does. It is only when you know the basics that you have the power to go WHERE YOU WANT TO GO. Misunderstanding that is a handicap.
When I EDIT a photo, I use the same approach as when I WRITE. I ask these questions: What is it that I’m trying to say and what do I need to do to get there. Which is just another way of saying “Why do I write?” or “Why do I take photographs?” - Will my writings and my photos show who I am, reflect my stimuli?
Before I capture an image, I will frame it so as to manifest my primary intention. I will use the tools of the trade to do so, like composition (and much more), and I will eliminated whatever distracts the viewer from my objective. Once I capture that image, I already foresee how I will edit it. I will emphasize all the elements that STIMULATED me when I took the image.
When one cannot foresee where he wants to go with a photograph it is much like someone who wants to write and has the White Page Syndrome. Maybe the photo has not the elements needed to allow the intent of the photographer. Remember, not all photos render the intent we desire.
I can’t wait to see where your INTENTIONS will lead us Ted.
Thanks for that, Ted. I'm looking forward to what you have to say/show about colour work. It's a matter I'm constantly furrowing my brow over, so the more I hear/see from you, the better.
Hi Ted,
Thanks so much for raising this topic. I currently shoot both film and digital. While I have film emulation software as part of my digital workflow, I went back to the darkroom last year with the intent of developing my skills with darkroom technique and seeing for myself what various films actually looked like. It has added so much enjoyment and depth to my work. I now have more confidence and versatility in my work and I am developing my own style.
This video is so incredibly timely for me. I'm at the stage where I've managed to get a darkroom print that's essentially a flat reproduction of my negative but I'd love to be able to express myself in print the way I've learned to wrangle Lightroom and Capture One. Ultimately, it is about intent, as your video so aptly put it. I agree that presents are a very one-sided simulation of a film 'look' that never really compares to scan of a colour or B&W negative - there is so much interpretation carried out when shooting and developing that no single preset can match an arbitrary look for any film - once again, what matters is intent. Can't wait to see where this discussion goes.
Thank you really much for the Video. I'm a 19y old amateur, who had been reading into photography for 2 years now, before that i've been working with photoshop for 4 years. Well for me it's more like an approach to what i wanna get before opening it up in an application. Photoshop can turn a good picture into something great, but not an bad picture into good. Many people tend to "get the film look" by applying premade filters on their stuff, which will only result in a big cesspool of Pictures that look identical. In my opinion, improving the technology of something correlates directly with the death of creativity. I know my young mind probably cannot comprehend the full spectrum of such a vast topic, but i've experienced it that people just go by the approach to "fix things up in post". For me, photoshop, or more like the camera raw tool was always my way to go, since it had all the tools i "needed". LR or Capture One are great of course, but i feel like they take away the freedom of expressing my own photography. I loved your video and the insight you gave us to this complex topic, which is why i would love to see more videos about "the philosophy behind it". I'm kinda new to this channel, so i don't know if you talked about some "must have" photobooks, but some information regarding this would also be welcomed! Investing in material to understand photography is far more important than any software or hardware. At the end, the creative mind behind the camera is also the person who creates the picture.
I'm having happy flashbacks, I've been going back and binging (again) all the Photographers and composition videos. It's still the best photography content on youtube
Ted - I've followed you presentations for some time and enjoy them all - very educational and though-provoking. But this one really hit the button for me. I can't over-emphasize my concurrence with your intent; this is exactly what I've been looking for in helping me advance my photographic visual art forward. I fully support this thrust on your part - keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing the outputs from this.
This is such an amazing episode! I know that philosophical episodes like this one gets far less views than gear review but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE keep posting videos like this!
This is such an important topic.One reason I stay away from color, is that it is so overwhelming trying to realize my vision without just copying current cliches and trends on instagram. A thoughtful discussion on why we post process and how we post process will be an excellent resource, rather than just a video showing the steps to achieve a specific look.
Great thoughts... For the first time in a while you made me think about the WHY not the HOW. Its the end results that I see but I sometimes get off course on the how of this lens or that filter.
Great topic and thanks for presenting it!
Thank you for sharing this knowledge. Im so inspired to shoot and to educate myself about all these wonderful photographers you talk about in your videos. Thanks man!
I kept trying to get up and get things done that I had planned. I was captured by this video and your comments. You are a keen observer, a good storyteller, and an essential source of thought for photographers. Thank you.
Intent... such a huge concept and so very important to the photographer who wants to bring their own unique vision to their work. I love this direction and I look forward to more of this. With the exception of my own presets, I have not used those from other photographers because I feel it would not be authentically my own intent/vision. I do understand using them as a starting point but my “starting point” starts when I scout the location or take the photo and observe the what and why of my capture. Hope that makes sense.
Great, I love these classic Ted episodes. I have been trying to figure out how to break down Saul Leiters colour work, so I look forward to seeing your upcoming episodes. Thanks Ted.
This is a great video. Love YOUR intention in this one.
Perfect topic for me. Film emulations/presets leave me a bit empty when trying to realize the intent of the creative process with a given image I might be working on. A resource which focuses in this area would be fantastic...instead of wading through endless hours of tutorials that are on a different topic where you hope to extract enough understanding to apply differently for my own purpose. Being able to tie that back into a printed result is exactly the area of help I’m searching for.
Great subject today Ted.. thanks for sharing.
Thank you, Ted! I always learn so much!
Quite interesting. I have seen a lot that's going to require additional research! and I'm Saving this for future reference. It's a guide, in my ART115 Digital Photography course, toward understanding the photographers' intentions.
Spring Semester, 2023.
Excellent video Ted. Intention and presentation are so important. I hope you stay with this subject as its one of the weakest links/platforms in photography today.
Personally, shooting film is rather akin to painting in the aspect of deciding the "colour palette" to be used, pre-creation - not the entirety of the colours used, as they are heavily dependent on the subject and lighting, but the way film interprets those colours is not insignificant. Thus, likened to a painter selecting a "colour palette", having developed a relationship and an understanding of how different filmstocks interpret colour, I pick out, as a painter would, the colours to match or express said intent I'm aiming at. The joys of film. It is very much different than simply editing colours in post. You are right, sir Ted, that it does feel like there is an air of chance/whimsicality perhaps, to merely tweaking in post. Great discussion!
I agree when you say that we do not intend to "chance" our way to a photograph. When I take a photo I want people who wee it afterwards to have some sort of reaction to it, whether different or similar to the one I had when the composition appeared before me. And would also love to have your presets, as I mainly use them as a starting point for any of the pictures I apply them too. Keep up the great work I learn so much every time!!!
I've been deleting presets recently because I end up with decision paralysis. I "finish" a photo faster if I just do it from scratch. It has helped me zero in on what I like and what I don't though. Super excited for that content!
As a photo lab tech we had so much fun playing around with processing and printing. underexposing c41 and turning the processing machine off to increase contrast and colour. running c41 through e6 and vice versa, pushing slide, playing with different types of filmstock, papers and printers. There was a lot you could do and that was the fun. Now I love software as much as wet process but it is THE PROCESS of creating the image is where magic happens regardless of whether it be wet or electronic. I don't really go for presets.
Ted, I love this. You have verbalized what I have been struggling with and didn't realise. I love the presets you can get, but they ALWAYS become my starting point and not the finished, previsualised, image. I'd really enjoy seeing some of the process to get from Instagram to Mind's Eye.
This is an important Topic! I totally agree with your point of view. This should be discussed more. Especially in the context of what Susan Sontag already wrote in the 60/70ties of the last century (On Photography)!!!! I would love to see more videos like this on your channel …
Thumbs up - love to follow your channel!
This is great news. And exactly where I (and a few friends I have who also shoot digitally) am right now. Choice paralysis is a nightmare in software. Personally I tend to go down the "less is usually more" route - so I play around in Lightroom with a few different virtual copies of an image, work out where I think I want to go and then come back to the start and do as little as possible to get the photo I want. I don't know if this counts as "intent". But I do know the more we discuss all this, share ideas and best practice, the closer we all get to places where we want to be. Great idea Ted. More power to your (printing) elbow.
Hi Ted; first, thanks for what you do. Secondly, any excuse to get to O’Keefe country is a good one! Finally, the whole “master printer” notion in the digital age is intriguing. I’ve owned a string of large format printers and the holy grail is achieving color management from the screen to the print. If you accept that, then the printer’s intent is realized in paper choice and Photoshop/Lightroom/etc. For me, lately, digital post has been all about 3D luts and various blending modes. I just got a copy of 3D Lut Creator and am looking forward to unlocking its potential. Like care and feeding of a large format printer, it’s always a learning curve. Bonus round: film look. I recently began developing my own film at home, using my digital camera to “scan” the medium format work and using my trusty old Nikon LS 50 for 35. After scanning a very few frames of color negative film it becomes obvious that the look of film has as much to do with the skill of the person operating the scanner as it does film itself. The baseline scans I was having done by a commercial lab tended to mask differences between film types. Using silver fast with my own scanned input lets me actually see what the film itself recorded. My number one take away from this whole experience is that there is a lot of latitude available going from negative to digital file. Much of the character of the output depends on the person controlling the software.
I've gone and replicated looks from photographers I like, and I find that in emulating their work, I'm dissecting it to figure out how different settings affect my images. I shoot on Fujifilm and I base a lot of the presets I have made to shorten my workflow are based on the base presets built into Lightroom that Fujifilm provided but they just serve as a starting point that I build on.
Excellent video, Ted. Thank you!
Thank you very much, I hate LUTs and presets. I appreciate your contribution to the art. I am not a formally trained photographer and I find valuable information from your videos.
That's very interesting but I can't help but think there's something a bit sad about it. If people want the "film look" and if they're willing to spend hours to get it, they should just shoot film. Not only would they get the real deal, but this would also keep the film industry alive, so our children will be able to shoot and enjoy film like we did, instead of just artificially imitating something they will never know for real. It's a bit like trying to create ultra-realistic 3D holograms of pandas and elephants, instead of trying to save these species for real and keep them from going extinct.
Anyway, keep up the good work! I always love when you talk about old school photographers and their work!
Cheers!
LeBrigand People tend to forget that film is alive and even cheaper to get in to than digital stuff. Dont pay lightroom and put the money into rolls of film.
Photography was a master class back in the days and a really tricky art form - today everybodys like "I want to get a great image, so i just sit there on the pc tweeking the image for hours" insted of just shooting it. How fake can we make a photo without anyone noticing it? How far can i push the brightness lever without anyone noticing that i cant even expose my photos correct?
But majority people who are into film photography are scanning their stuff and process and enhance these images like they were taken with digital cameras. They're doing the same adjustments with white/middle grey/black point, white balance, sharpening, adding some bokeh, vignetting, sharpening eyes, straightening lines and correcting perspective. Scanning is also a very time consuming process, and to get the satisfying results - you have to put a lot of work into it and also work around color adjustments. No one is going to spend additional 50$ (to film and developing costs) to drum scan ONE frame. Maybe if you're an artist with publishing deal or gallery contract - you might do that. Flatbed scanners sucks with small frame and they're almost descent with medium format material. Film photography is time consuming, very expensive in terms of high-end quality printing (from digital source or traditionally in darkroom), or even to get just a digital file from it.
For Instagram? Sure! Buy a 50$ Nikon, Kodak Gold film in bundles and process it for 6-8$ a roll with basic lab scanning, and you're good with your trip photos, and images of your super-cute girl on a flower field. For you - it's cheap, for a teenager or a student, not so much. I can see the point to apps, filters and presets. I can't see the point where someone is spending 5x as much time adjusting some basic stuff, then thinking and learning while taking picture. The key is to slow down, to think, to know your tools, no matter what camera or medium you're using.
I bought a 2000$ film camera a year ago, and I've spent another 2k for films, processing and chemicals to my darkroom through the year. That's 4k in one year. You can buy a semi-pro digital camera for it and achieve - very easily - better quality than my medium-format Hasselblad. And it hurts me, in some way.
BUT!
I love film! I work as a photographer and graphic designer and I can do almost anything with a picture in digital processing and I work with digital gear every time. I had a client who was looking for a "vintage look" in terms of color and certain old school feeling from photographs. And I did the job with my Hassy, with developing on my own and scanning. I could've done it with my digital Nikon and Adobe Ps, but i choose not to do that. And I loved every step of this process, even if it took a lot of time, stress (exciting though) and energy from me. I've started with film cameras and darkroom 16 years ago, I know this medium, I know what I can expect from film, and it's refreshing to me to get back there "after hours". For me, who's working with digital images it's a steppingstone and it gives me joy. I never leave my home without a film camera, never been on vacation without my Nikon F100. But in my work - there's no place to use this gear.
See the image in your mind before your release the shutter and know the tools that you're using. The rest should be tweaking, not (re)creating.
I very seldom, if ever, use presets. Each photo is different, even in the same shoot of the same subject, and I address them on an individual basis. To me, for my photographs, presets and lutz, etc., are gimmicks. Others have a different intent, but for me, it's not getting a look, it's expressing what I experienced when I viewed the scene or subject as accurately as I can. Content is king. I got my first camera in about 1953, and I shot film until 1998. Now with digital, I can take a subject and portray my intent better than I could with film. I love the flexibility available between shots that is not possible with film without wasting a lot of the stuff.
Ted: I think you are on a productive tac with this line of thinking and instruction. Perhaps it will help more folks get beyond prettiness, beyond making their photographs "look like" some other medium's age, and get them to start their imagery with an idea.
Been occasionally catching your videos for a while. It's intelligent, not gear fetishism (like most others). Well done, man.
Sounds great! I find I way more satisfying to actually understand what I do in Lighroom...
Very interesting talk on the intent. I think that emulating a film look can, as you say, be a good starting point. But digital is not film, and that's a good thing. It's different ways of making images. The digital "raw material" (pun intended) is now more flexible than what we had before, and that's something to take advantage of.
Looking forward to where you're going with this!
Great video Ted! The art of photography is back🙂
The thing about trying to achieve that look rather than what you want to show 😯. It just hit me hard.
I would love to see you talk about photography artist statement and how you start writing them. I loved your content for the past two years especially more theory based videos
Ted, you're so eloquent in all your videos. I wonder how many takes it usually takes you to record these videos. This channel is a rare occurrence in which I'm actually compelled to hit the like button.
Thank you so much for this video!
You've introduced me to so many important people in photography.
Ted .. Thanks a lot for this Video ... There are literally tons of tutorials or camera reviews on youtube, however; only you come in mind when I want to learn about the artistic side of photography. I really learned a lot from you as a hobbyist who shoots digital and film and preparing to print these days. Thanks Ted and waiting for your next video :)
We've come a long way since we started reproducing the desired effects in prints, I'm talking about the techniques used by master photographers in the past, colour or black and white and they toiled in the dark room, the hardfactor is only known to those who independently did their best to amaze us but it was always obscure to photographers in general and you never know a few people, who despite their intents to deliver, failed for lack of not knowing how to get the desired effects. But gradually the know-how became available to almost all and we've got a swarm of photographers with punch in their pictures. Now is the time we can have it done in computer through softwares and we are able to achieve the desired effects with the help of these wonderful softwares. Yes softwares have to be practised and if the raw images are processed properly one can fulfill his intentions and obviously this requires expert help to hone the skills. I'm eager getting the same but I've got certain hindrances and stringent conditions but I believe in near future I'll be able to be there you guys.
Till then, merry Christmas, take care.
Yes! This is exactly my issue with film emulation. On the one hand I love it for quick instagram type shots but if I am taking the time to deal with one photo at a time there is invariably more work to be done.
I’m probably a very atypical subscriber and so tailoring anything to my preferences is almost a certain recipe for disaster. However, I think you’ve commented many times on people making their own ‘journey’ in photography, so I thought I would share a little of mine.
I work on computers all day, which really means I work on broken systems all day. I’ve come to a point where I absolutely despise computers. The last thing I want to do is spend hours working on a computer to touch up an image. I especially don’t want to invest 30-40 hours learning an application, menu system, and interface, only to have to re-learn all of it 6 months later when Adobe decides to randomly move everything around. I did buy ON1 - because I’m not interested in becoming a subscription slave to Adobe - but I use less than 5% of the software’s capabilities.
Photography, especially film photography with pre-war cameras, represents an opportunity for me to escape computers. The process is tangible and tactile. I’ll never be great, but I can hone my skills to become somewhat proficient with the gear, allowing me to express whatever limited artistic ability I might have. Maybe, along the way, I can make a decent image or two.
I am sure creating software tutorials will be very popular and successful for you. You are a talented and naturally gifted teacher with a rare ability to speak with authority without sounding condescending and to show humility in your presentation without losing confidence. Watching your composition, artist series, and process videos is more educational than many college-level art appreciation and art history classes.
You introduced me to Fan Ho, who quickly became my favorite photographer. You introduced me to many others I know by name and can at least vaguely identify their style. I know the artist series videos require tremendous effort and preparation without the prospect of even covering your expenses. Thank you so much for all that work.
For me, I will continue to shoot much more film than digital. I don’t even want to do scanning - and I have some awesome, expensive scanners - I found a little lab in Chiang Mai that makes far better scans than I can make at a very low cost (now I just need one in Texas, or at least the US).
As you know, not every video will appeal to every subscriber. In my case, I won’t have much reason to watch the software videos any more than the digital gear videos. Of course I’ll still watch all your videos that do pique my interest or promise to give me another great art/artist class.
Thanks again for all your hard work. I am truly grateful for all you’ve shown me and taught me. I wish you great success on the software videos. Cheers
Presets seem like a good way to learn what settings result in a look you like, but in terms of making actual decisions for my images, I think I'll always start from scratch for each image, using what I may have picked up from studying presets.
Yes. Would love if you did 'tutorials' to show techniques in lightroom to communicate different intents or emotions
Hi Ted,
It's like you were reading my mind. Because lately, I've been thinking about exactly how to learn to use my Capture One to give images a "look"..."my look". Because like you said it's easy to use Presets and maybe get "lucky" and find one that may match what I am going for.
But if I could learn to use my software... i.e. Levels help with this part of the processing, Curves help with this other part. Maybe you can start with an image and say this is my "vision/intent" for these images and talk us through the different tools that help create that look. And do these for a few different images/lighting condition and looks.
It's like that saying "Give a man a fish...teach him how to fish, etc, etc."
Now, I am very excited to see the tutorials that you come up with!! Very excited!!
As for content...I find this MUCH MORE interesting than the previous video on the Sony RX-whatever. Looking forward to tutorials about not how to get a certain look, but as you say, how to achieve that intent. I've been venturing in this area lately, of how to create the vision I had in terms of colour in post. I know I have this look and feel I want to go for in the image, and I am trying to get close to that, as you say, intent, in camera, but having raw files means that intent (when not looking at a film simulation on the back of the camera) needs to be pushed and pulled and nudged to show that intent, and I am just not knowledgeable regarding that in LR.
This kind of thing is closer to why I started watching you. It seems like 99.99999999% of what is TALKED about in photography is either technique or technology. I know, I know, ads pay for people to do stuff etc etc. And really that IS FINE for... 99% of photographers? There is nothing wrong with it. But... the "why", the meaning, the harnessing of all of that technique and technology, and converting it into a statement, not just a image someone will give a like, that I think is a direction the photography community needs. I think this is a good start for sure. I wish I was able to be someone to talk about it, but I suck. lol.
It amazes me that we'd put this much time, effort, and money into developing film emulations when we could use the same amount of resources to develop film. Keep film alive!
The intention thing is essential - I think it has to be there in the frame to begin with before getting into the editing or printing stage - For me the biggest challenge is still in getting the camera set up in such a way that it will best convey my intent.
A cool idea but as a young person who only shoots on film I think it could be neat to dive deep into how those 4 photographers made their Kodachrome images so different to begin with
Jason Langford ... If you missed out on shooting Kodachrome, then you missed out on a totally unique way of shooting / approaching / thinking about colour photography. Most of the stock from the Imagebank library were shot on Kodachrome.
Ditto what John Taylor said. Kodachrome was an amazing and beautiful film, unsurpassed by anything. It was basically a silver-rich black and white film that had color added during processing. The other color reversal films do not hold a candle to it. It was common to use a polarizing filter when shooting color (positive or negative) to cut down on glare from reflective surfaces, increase saturation, darken a blue sky. IOW what sunglasses do. And to Ted’s point, the print is where the magic happens. William Eggleston uses the dye transfer process because of the resulting control in the color balance.
I would love to see lightroom tutorials on how to develop like this. Or at least to see how you do it. This is exactly what ive been looking for and havent been able to find. I have a love hate relationship with lightroom as i often struggle to get the look that i want from it.
Ted, just discovered you via your excellent piece on Wynn Bullock’s, ‘Girl in Forest’. Refreshing to find highly articulate, informed, original and intelligent commentary on photography...and without the baggage of pretensions that so often accompany it! :)
thank you for this Ted!
The question is not about film looks or presets. It is about choices, what are they and how do you get there. I print b&w in a home darkroom. It took me quite some time to learn what my choices in the darkroom were and how they connected to my pre-visualization of the image. As I got better at printing, I got better at making decisions when pressing the shutter.
I am a complete neophyte when it comes to Light Room and color adjustment. What I would like to learn, if it is not too basic for your audience, is what are the choices? What, in a practical sense, was changed to achieve a certain look. If I knew this, I could replicate if necessary any preset or at least appreciate what the presets are doing for me. I want to go from saying “I want this to look like a 1960s Polaroid” to I adjusted the magenta.....
Charlie
Wow, Ted, that was odd. I shot film and part of my intent was around choice of film stock for conditions and subject. It was about the mind’s eye. It was about tonal range and how the film rendered detail at different levels. Choosing to meter the same stock 2/3 of a stop up or, down and then metering for the subject to hold detail or, to crush the tonal range. The stock behaved in particular ways that made the image better. The stock applied limitations to the image making. Sometimes I wanted grain as a picture element, sometimes just tones. The in-camera decisions started with stock choice and what the stock would do in the field in response to how I treated it in situ. Then specifying how the stock was developed. The chemicals, temperature and agitation. The treatment and chemicals change the outcome. Then, I am a photographer responding to the recorded image as a recording containing my original intent. My intent in the field becomes rounds of paper stock and, sequences of exposure and, iterative changes working the image and, manipulating the print medium physically and chemically. All in my mind’s eye? I could always change my mind because there is something that the image projected onto the print medium is saying to me that is more compelling than my original intent and needs to be given power in the process.
I liked working with my favourite professional print labs in London because, suddenly colour film was never disappointing it was a world of excitement and possibilities. The normal commercial machine prints from normal retail outlets were a disappointment and disheartening. Usually nothing was corrected, it was muddy, blurred, the negatives could be scratched with tramlines often cropped-in destroying composition. I didn’t use colour print film for a long time because it looked so far removed from the effort I had put in. It felt like pot luck.
Reversal film for colour was really amazing. The first time I shot Kodachrome 64, I was mind blown. It showed what I saw when I composed the shot and contained detail and colours! The first time I saw r-types and Cibachrome The idea that colour film was too hard changed to thinking about the possibilities.
Machine prints improved when they went digital and then print film was compelling the potential was more available and I could start thinking about what the finishe image could look like. Especially when I took my film to a pro lab. I could use their machine prints as proofs and at a pro lab, the digital proof print, the negative, the enlarged contact sheet, a loupe and a professional printer to talk to, meant I could exploit colour film’s potential and exhibit work that fulfilled my intent when I loaded the film, lifted the camera to my eye and decided how I wanted to record the image the focusing screen was letting me see.
The “oddity” I dare suppose is that our digital medium is very malleable now. The act of adding a preset to make it look like film seems to be a madness. Film as I described was malleable; any film stock has a range of possibilities that will make it behave differently. Most of the “film-look” is produced by people who have never shot film or, worked within its constraints or, lived with particular films learning how that film stock behaves or, what it can give you.
Many of the people who haven’t shot film but want the “film look” continually get it wrong. Their intent is not the same as the person who knows the medium and applies the image to the medium to get it recorded so that it is on the way to the final finished image. A plug in doesn’t replicate what would really happen if you shot that film stock with intent. There are way more variables than the plug-in overlaid on a digital file could begin to address.
That workshop you ran must have been amazing.
I recently listened to an NPR podcast called "making Oprah" in which they pointed out that the motivating force behind everything Oprah did was the word "intention." She originally got the idea from a book, "The Seat of the Soul' by Gary Zukav," in which he says, "before there's even a thought or an action, there is an intention." This idea became the organizing principal in Oprah's life and everything about her show had to have an intention before they went ahead with it. Just thought it was interesting.
I guess the sensor is kind of a film philosophically. You need an algorithm that is going to read the light and the algorithm kind of makes a digital sensor unique per manufacturer based on the algorithms that 'interpret' the light. Since there are more variables in the analog film you have film choice and print choice. So the "look" of say a digital Sony, Canon, Nikon RAW file kind of makes each set of algorithms the "film". You then have to try and emulate the 'look' of a particular analog film. I guess by the time you get to print everything can change again even when you start with a sensor. What a photographer really needs is your knowledge, and other film photographers knowledge of film in order to leverage the digital data more effectively. I think in order to be the most complete photographer you can be today you need to know about the history of the film process and the history of the print process. I mean Ansel wrote an entire 3rd book on 'The Print.' I've tried the emulation presets in software but since I have no original knowledge of most of the film I am stabbing in the dark. I get a "look" wrong more than I get it right. I think you should do an entire revised series on how to leverage the presets. We need you as an artist to help distill it down for us as a starting point. I'm excited about where you're going here :)
Hey Ted. I would like to see your approach via Lightroom to get your specific look. I myself am struggling with color settings and feel kind of the same when it comes down to filter and film simulations. That's nothing you do on purpose, just applying a filter is a purpose, yes, but this is not everything in terms of personal touch you can give an image.
So keep it rolling, you're doing a great job in the masses of tech-related photography shows. Focusing on the thinking behind photography in all different kinds of fields, is why I'm still stuck to your channel.
Cheers
Never thought of film simulations as of being less intentional but it's a good point. I've used film simulations in RawTherapee for a while. At one point they kind of helped me speed up my workflow (the struggle never ends) or at least I thought so. I'm quite sure the variety of options just slowed me down at times. Then I mostly used one as a base line. And then recently as I learned more about color management and got better camera profiles I ditched the film simulations again because it seemed counterproductive to add a random base line after setting the actual base line to match my hardware.
Awesome video Mr Forbes, plenty to think about now 👍
I'm pretty much on the same page when it comes to what you said about emulating film and so forth. - I have a very specific philosphy on why I like film and it's not so much to "get the film look", but it has something to do with it. - Anyway; I will also often apply a "film filter", not to my dSRL-photos, but like phone-pictures that are of questionable quality. Film-filters, even those in mobile apps, tend to smooth things out a bit. - Anyhow; I do feel that when I do that to a digital photo, it feels a bit cheap and it just begs the question "What's wrong with the original??". And again, I do it to shoddy quality phone-pictures, but when you have beautifully clean digital images, why muck it up with a film-filter?
That's why I went back to film, because I also got ironically bored of digital with the many options. I fell in love with digital photography because it gave me all the freedom, which should be heaven for a creative. But after a few years I didn't know what to go for anymore. I'm the type of creative who wants to do it all, and honestly I don't have enough discipline, so it ends up with me running around trying to get multiple outcomes on the same single image or series of images, which is just inefficient and it holds you back from getting work done.
Now, I just want to actually leave it up to "chance" whenever I throw an exposure onto a piece of film, except of course you can (or have to) choose the style ahead of time.- So I'll go out with a specific type of film, I will have to keep in mind what its characteristics are, and then I'll have to shoot accordingly. - This also actually helps me creatively, as it forces me to make a freaking decision. As opposed to just shooting away and only bothering with the style of it later. That's a cool and relaxed way of working and all, but... indeed the intent becomes an afterthought, and I don't like that part. - I think it's better to be more concise, as with intent you get more meaningful results.
Nice. Segment Ted. Richard Jackson is an extremely kind and patient fella. He was very helpful to me at Hidden Light in Flagstaff.
Great video Ted! I’m from Waco, TX and I’ve been a subscriber for a while now. I would love to see lightroom tutorials. I’ve been using only VSCO for some time now because I feel I’m in adequate at using lightroom and it’s easier to find the look I’m wanting by browsing VSCO, but I want to be able to achieve these looks and vibes on my own through lightroom and even make my own looks by experimenting and using techniques that you could show us.
Great video! I would love to see more videos like this, where you discuss philosophical questions. It would be awesome to see videos purely about discussing artists work from a philosophical perspective or just diving deep into compositions of photos and the history of them and how combining those rules of composition can play out in an image (similar to the composition series)
Big fan of your videos and photos! Keep it up
who did the covershoot with the octopus? Great inspirational presentation of ernst haas work. merci ted 😊
I don't use Lightroom presets at all. I manually adjust my phone pictures instead of using filters. I was trained as a painter, and that informs my personal taste in color rendition. My taste is maybe a little more expressionist than some; but that was my painting style. So, my landscapes probably push the chroma and contrast, but I work to keep it looking "naturalistic" if not absolutely "natural". I use a more subtle palette with wildlife and flowers.
Hi Ted, I think if you are going to mention great American photographic colorists you should include Pete Turner not just for the images he took in New York when he was starting out but the historic work in Africa in his book 'African Journey' shot around 1959-1960 (on an epic journey North starting in Cape Town) but only published more than two decades later. In many ways I see Pete's book as a colorist's parrallel to another seminal book on Africa, 'African Image' (published in 1967) by Sam Haskins which pushed the boundaries of Black and White photography while documenting a "parting love letter" to Sub-Saharan Afriica when Sam had already made the decision to leave South Africa. He moved with his family to London in 1968. Sam Haskins was my father.
In my video, the seven steps to becoming a great photographer, I mention the second step as being the most important step in the evolution of any photographer, far more important than any tool or trick; Take pictures of things you care about".
More, yes please
I love the octopus. The colours…
This sounds like a really cool idea. Replicating a look and creating a look are so different. Digal as great as it is, has never replaced shooting with Kodachrome 64 during the 80s for me. 👍🏻
Hi,I use Lightroom and have recently been incorporating Nik Effects. I started with the presets,but now am using the individual sliders to get the effects I am visualizing. I am just learning now, so I would enjoy workshops addressing this subject.