To me shooting film is about the tactile nature of the whole process. You chose your film stock and load your camera, now you are stuck with that film until you use it up so it’s about adapting to that limitation. It’s then all about what where when and how - what aperture, where to focus & the subject, and how do I want the photo to look (over/under exposed). It’s also thinking more about what you want to achieve with your film photography because with digital it’s all immediate so if you don’t like something you can change it but with film you won’t know until your film is developed. We live in an “Instant gratification” age where you can take a photo on your phone, edit, and upload for the whole world to see in mere moments.
I shoot both film & digital. So for me, film photography is a way to get away from the complicated editing process i do with digital. I send my film to labs & let them scan since I don’t have the necessary tools to scan it myself. The scans I get back more than satisfy me & the only ‘editing’ i do is just adjust the contrast or brightness. So I feel like it just comes to what film photography is to us. Some find it as a novelty while others might use it for more professional work.
So glad you made this. I’ve always been a “pro” when it comes to editing film, but recently I’ve been tempted to take my edits further. I’ve been feeling surprisingly conflicted about it. Having you lay out all the variables and logic really helped me. It’s allowed me to reconcile my logic and feelings. I’ll be able to produce photos that make me happier, without worrying. Great work, as always 💛
This has been my exact thoughts for a long time now. When someone says “but that’s not what the film actually looks like”, and I’m like, you’re right, the negative is what the film actually looks like. Everything beyond that is some kind of processing to make it look how you want
What a great discussion! I am a strong advocate for each photographer doing what they want! That being said, I do some “light” editing. Some dust removal, a little added sharpness, a little bit of vibrance and saturation, and some exposure tweaking if needed.
Thank you for explaining your view on editing do clearly. I am not a professional photograph by any means, and I've just got back into film photography after 15 years as a hobby. Of course, the discussion about editing already had me thinking about it after shooting only about 15 rolls recently. At this point in my journey, I definitely have reasons why my workflow is the way it currently is. I personally don't edit my photographs after receiving the scans from the lab. While I fully agree with your perspective on the non-existence of a "true" photograph, I would like add a slightly different view to enlarge the picture (pun intended). If we think less about an elusive "purity" of the photo (which doesn't exist in our modern workflow), but about choice of tools, I would explain my reasoning as follows: A painter might choose to use only one type of medium to work with, for example oil paint, while another one might add several media, maybe even break out of the confines of the canvas itself. Does this make one of them a better artist? I would confidentially say no! An artist should choose their tools freely to achieve their vision. Thus, any form of editing to film or digital photographs as a valid form of art. If you want to challenge yourself and create a certain work of art by limiting your set of tools, that is a personal decision, and I admire the struggle and skills involved. But, let's face it, if we don't have a purely analog work flow and never scan our photos, we have to find a compromise somewhere in between, since there is never a "true" analog photograph. But I also understand someone who would fall on the "pro" side, since digital editing tools are so fast and powerful, that they almost feel like cheating compared to working exclusively in the dark room. Again, that is not my opinion, but I can understand why someone might feel this way. We should also remember that black and white photos need less editing to achieve the "neutral" stage. Scanning, inverting and then normalizing to the digital brightness level only touches one factor. Black and white relies more on brightness and contrast, so there is less to balance and the core aspect of the negative might be not seem to be altered as much. With color photos, the white balance is already changing so many factors, that the discussion can get sensitive very quickly. This is especially true, since color is the defining aspect of color photos, so balancing them against each other already touches the core of the negative. For me, comes down to resources being not available first, such as expensive scanning equipment, a dark room for analog editing, etc. And, as a hobbyist, another big factor is time. If I had all the time and resources available I want, then I might try to work fully analog, up until scanning larger format prints to show online. This would be the artistic choice I make, by limiting my set of tools and embrace the struggle. But in reality, I can't do that, at least not right now. I prefer to see it this way: I'm working my way up along the processing chain and learning what I can. Instead of digitally editing the lab scans, I try to learn first how to create technically decent pictures by choice of exposure, aperture, composition and film stock. The lab I choose claims to keep editing to a minimum, which results in slightly flatter looking images, that provide more freedom of editing later. However, I use this to learn how to get the maximum out of the film itself and become a better 'picture-taker" first. I am working on a scanning setup at home, but that will take some more time. For color pictures, I would prefer to scan them myself to have more control over the important part of the color balance. Black and white pictures being scanned by the lab is probably less "invasive".
I definitelly agree with your points. However, for me, shooting film is about the simplisity that comes with accepting the photo as it is, without spending lots of time "trying to make it perfect". It also challange me to improve on the photography part, rather than relying on editing.. I WOULD obviously have to do some editing if I, like you, scanned, or developed myself. But, I rather get a lab to do that. Mainly for two reasons - 1: I don't shoot film often enough, to justify the cost of buying what I would need for that proces. And 2: It's a bit nostaligic to me, as I grew up shooting film (I'm born in 1984, and started with photography as a hobby in the early 90's), and back then, labs were "everywhere", and was what most people where using.
The way you’re talking about the false belief in a “true photo” is reminding me of Albert Camus’ “myth of Sisyphus” and the idea of absurdity, or randomness. Part of why I shoot film is because it’s pretty, and part of why I shoot film is because it is random. It is unpredictable, temperamental, and in many ways very random. Which I love.
As usual, a well-reasoned take. We're blissfully unaware of our own realtime edits. We interpret the scene [colour, light, dynamic range, focal length, aperture] in our own way. « editing » in camera begins with the framing/lens/aperture/shutter speed/film/filter etc. The human visual system edits. With both eyes open, we remove the « lens hood » [our nose], filling in details. We interpret [edit] the scene in realtime - perspective correction, colour temperature, colour/white balancing, dynamic range etc. But unlike the camera, we « render » the scene by compositing small segments that are in focus, while keeping the scene in working memory.
I’m adjusting the image to mirror the actual conditions and colors I’ve viewed with the naked eye. Adding or deleting objects digitally isn’t a technique I approve of and frown on. I’m all about true accuracy in my film and digital images.
Love this take. I’ll even add that the closest thing you get to a true photo is what you saw… and even then what you saw is not objective because we know human brains and eyes differ in their interpretation of the environment including colour. The only reason we can’t tell is that we can’t describe easily the granular differences. Blue is blue to everyone but one person may see the blue but with slightly more green or magenta, but we would never know. ( obviously colour blindness and other exceptions negate this)
Excellent take. I always considered film to be “what I get is what I get”. An escapee from the editing process. Getting back on scans kind of helps that but I get your points and agree
Another great post and question. I have also been thinking about this. There is a grey area beyond which you are not correcting and tweaking, but is a whole new art. AI changing a dull sky in a poor photograph to an amazing sunset is moving away from photography? But, using digital processes to highlight a great sunset captured is photography? However, is either is right or wrong? Obviously not… But a good photographer has intention when they take the photo and knows in advance the changes following capture that will be required for the audience the photo is for. I have photos on my wall printed in the darkroom with no digital editing (obviously); but, also love my photobooks as a way of displaying photos, such photos are optimised in Lightroom for that medium. Personally, I am not into placing a person in a lovely sunset using AI. For me that’s a stage too far…
Pheew I need to agree on that... replacements are too much for my taste as well. I admire how you still don't fail to view this question in a differentiated manner. Indeed it's not wrong, just not my jam :D
Great video! And timely too in my case. I recently started shooting film, I'm still only on my 2nd roll. I was just thinking about this the other day and eventually opted to edit my photos in Lightroom.
Totally agree to nearly all your arguments. After starting shooting color negative films, I went through a severe "colour crisis". What I experienced is the following: The real photo is only the non developed film, because the most impact to the result is not the scanning, but the developing process. C41 is extremely picky. Don't even trust the professional labs. For example compare the mask of different films of the same brand. They all should be orange, the exact same orange and never brownish. I got back so many and different brown ones. So the lab has shortened the blixing time more than it should. Many home developed C41 films are over-developed, over-agitated. Therefore, resulting in most uncontrollable colour shifts (as mine ). Now I develop my films at home, at 38deg C, not at 37.95 and not at 38.05, the blixer meets the film spot on the second it should, blixing time taken for the longer range but within the window, and so forth. The more precision, the better. The outcome are negatives that I do not have to correct in any way during scanning process,.The Portra has the Portra - look, the Ektar has the Ektar - look and the Fuji has the Fuji - look. If exposure was right, the photo is perfect in color, saturation, contrast, just everything. From there you have a solid starting point to tweak the pictures to you personal style, your personal look, to your kind of art. Without destroying the "soul" of the film stock. And yes, photography is art. So, we should edit our photos, if we want (accept these are productions for evidence in a crime)
Thank you for differentiating "editing" and "correcting." There *is* an overlap, but it's still good to know what one is specifically doing to one's photos; "editing" is just too broad and can be easily frowned upon. Also, as someone who just started film photography, I still haven't found a lab near enough my place that would be my go-to for development and scanning. I got my first set of negatives a few days ago, and was disappointed with how green the images were, and I was even using a Kodak film. So I *had* to color-correct my pictures.
On the pro editing side and agree with your viewpoint. The final product is whatever I want it to be. How I get there is my business. If someone else wants to work under the constraint of straight out of the camera/film lab, that's their choice. I often don't edit lab scans if what I got pleases me.
Thanks for the video. 100 % agree with your words. At the end of the day, do what makes you happy and not what makes others happy.... There are no rules so far I know :)
Thanks for the video! For me the process of taking the photo is just the start of making the photo. So editing to me is totally legal. In the end the result is what counts. It does not even matter if the result is what you intended to achieve in the beginning. But we all can grow in this perspective.
Nice video Teo. I am of the Pro mindset regardless of my opinion on editing film, who is to say what right looks like. However, I personally dislike when people compare film and digital, or plainly talk about the “film look” when their film photographs are very much edited. And if you dare bring up that point, they get offended and say it’s not edited, that it’s only had highlights and shadows tweaks, and color corrections 🤔🤷♂️
Thank you. A very interesting look at this subject. Perhaps you could have included a bit more about positive film (slide film) as to some extent the results there are more true than those obtained from negatives.
Absolut richtig. Diese "ehrliche" Fotografie kommt in erster Linie von Leuten, die den Prozess weder verstanden haben noch damit umgehen können. 3 verschiedene Labore = 3 Ergebnisse. Ein Grund warum ich früher nur noch Diafilme (slides) genutzt habe um zumindest keine farbstichigen Abzüge zu bekommen, heute würde man das wohlwollend Grading nennen ... . Achten die beim Entwickeln auf Zustand der Chemie und die Temperatur? Auch hier ändert die Lichtfarbe beim Durchleuchten alles. Ist der Monitor nicht kalibriert, habe ich beim Betrachten ein rotes T-Shirt an? ist meine Zimmerlampe gelbstichig? Welche Farbe hat mein Papier? Sind da sehr viele Weißmacher drin? Welchen Farbraum können meine ganzen Geräte und Ergebnisse überhaupt abbilden? Gilt also alles auch für digital und "ehrliche" jpgs. Wenn ich nicht weiß wie alles funktioniert kümmern sich eben andere darum, das Labor die Kamera beim jpg und ich bekomme irgendwas Entweder das Ergebnis ist am Ende gut oder nicht ob ich jetzt vorher Filter vor die Kamera setzen oder nachher digital ausgleiche, verändere. Und auch da wird man kaum mal ein Bild erleben, das alle "gut" finden. Alle paar Jahrzehnte die gleichen unsinnigen Diskussionen, wie die Maler damals zu den ersten Fotografen ...
I think digitizing film for the most part is ok. When photography first came about the painters complained that photography was cheating. And before photography artist would add items to their paintings to alter their images. And pictographs on cave walls were bad painting skills, but still told a story. All the best. Jim from Georgia
Thanks for the video. I tend to try to do as much of the "editing" as I can in-camera. Occasionally, I will dodge-and-burn my film scans in Photoshop, but I am always less satisfied with those versions. I spent years doing graphic design, and if I wanted to do more graphic design, I'd edit and manipulate my photos to my heart's content. That's not what interests me in photography or as a photographer. So, while I will color correct, as you describe it, cropping and extensively re-working the photo or making a collage of some kind doesn't really interest me. For me, doing as much as I can in-camera simply helps to improve my skills. This is a limitation I put on myself, and I don't try to impose it on anyone else.
tbh the more experience you get, the more you see how pointless these arguments are and the less Fs you start to give. Specially if this is a hobby, just do whatever you enjoy and whatever feels right to you.
I'm new to (film) photography in general, so thank you very much for the detailed breakdown! The things that drew me to film photography in the first place would definitely make me more of a 'con' man in this debate. But after this breakdown, I see why that argument is pretty meaningless. I'll try to start color-correcting my images, but not color-grade them. I feel like this is the right balance of staying 'true' to me. :)
After my lab being completely inept at a) scanning good (true?) colours and b) not being able to provide a decent resolution without breaking the bank I started converting with rawtherapee. There use a base setting for the entire roll, and then make minor tweaks to the separate negatives in order to (give myself the feeling) of having come close to the "true photo". But I have had the same thoughts as you had, and, striving to find the "true photo", I went down the rabbit hole of making my own autochrome glass plates. Ironically I didn't get a photo with any colour visible by eye on it with bumping up the saturation after scanning. So yeah... 😂
That said, the reason I've taken up shooting film again is that I create more memories on film. What I actually do or don't do with the photos after that is completely secondary. The most important thing is that I remember feeling, thoughts scenes and sights when looking at a *unique* picture I took, instead of editing another digital spray and pray photo I have 20 copies of with slight differences. For this reason, if I'm on holidays and need to travel lightly I'll take a film camera over a digital body, unless I know there's a certain photo I desperately want to get just how I imagine it. :) Brilliant video!
I suppose you might ask for whom do you take pictures? Is it for yourself? If so, why should you care what people think; do as you wish with your photos. On the other hand, if you are taking pictures for others' approval, you really need to respond to your audience's wishes or you won't have one (audience). As for me, I take photos because I enjoy the experience of taking pictures, and it makes no difference to me if they're digital or film. Sometimes I shoot my Minolta X700, and/or my Kodak brownie, and sometimes I shoot my digital cameras. They're just pictures, not life or death!
Even the greats such as Ansel Adams edited their film photography, all thats changed is the tools you can use. And as for the uniqueness of film stocks, as soon as you digitise them they are no longer "true" because there are no "affordable" digital sensors out there that can match the human eye and every screen shows colours (including black & white) slightly differently so the whole argument about digitising film is as far as I am concerned moot.
Exactly! I actually often find it quite depressing though, that even our screens are different. Because that means the edit on the photo or the colour grading on the video, only looks the way I intend it to look on my own screen and I have no influence on how others will see it... it sometimes makes me think editing and colour grading is pointless haha😅 I wonder whether even our eyes process colours differently (I lean towards the assumption that they do)?🤷🏻♂️
@@teocrawford We each perceive differently in our own reality so it's quite feedable to assume that we each see the world around us quite differently because we all live in our own unique individual realities.
If you mean defies then can you explain? Would you not do something to improve your image just because you think it defies the point of film photography? When printing on light sensitive paper there are things you can do to change your image. Doing that in software is just another way to achieve the same outcome.
@@rorycowieson5924 In this digital age we live in, many people shot digital because they are able manipulate their images with the power of editing which is perfectly fine, but if someone chooses to shoot film and digital enhancement the image afterwards with software then why shoot film in the first place if someone is not looking for that type of film look he/she is shooting, I shoot a lot of film and I do zero editing because I like the colour of film I’m shooting.
@@camedia7291 I shoot film because in my opinion, it looks far better. Also so I can have the depth of field of the Pentax 6x7 with the 105mm f2.4. I edit the images after by making slight adjustments to the contrast and saturation. Exactly as you would in a dark room. It’s pretty obvious.
@@camedia7291 much, maybe all of photography is subjective. Some could argue that after converting negatives using Negative Lab Pro and making a 2nd TIFF a copy, it renders even the converted film negative relatively “editable.” That said, I personally strive to minimally edit my film photos because I want the picture to look as true to the film stock as I can. But do what you want, it’s your art!
I wanted to type this comment all in capital letter with hundreds of !!!!! and add so many rage emojis! Joking aside! Awesome video, very informative and well thought out presentation. Having shot both film and digital, I aways tweak my photos to my liking. Really depends on the use of the images. Commercial images generally will be more edited and as for my personal stuff i limit the amount i do. Teo have a wonderful holiday season and a happy 2022!
People who don't edit their film photos either shoot B&W, consider what they're doing art, or simply don't take shooting too serious. There are 100s of videos talking about "finding your style," and the only way to do this is by messing around with editing. Through editing you'll learn what compositions you enjoy with your edits - and before you know it you'll be out shooting more (because you're excited about how cool your photos are looking), editing more, refining your style, and ultimately getting better as a photographer.
Besides the main topic I have no interest to comment since I don't do analog photography 😉, your videos are so cool presented (colours, backgrounds, visual elements, cool retro look) ...recommend everybody to subscribe 🤟... all the best in new year.
The belief that film is "pure" and "authentic" is only prevalent because we exist in the digital age. If you were to tell someone in the 80's that they shouldn't be touching or altering their film negatives, they would look at you as if you were crazy. You would get the same crazy looks if you were telling everybody that they aren't allowed to touch their RAW images because it is the most authentic version of what the digital sensor captured. Post-processing is part of the process in getting a final image.
This is why the idea of digital film emulation isn't valid. There are so many variables in the analog process that there is no universal "film stock look" for any given film stock. I've always edited my analog photos in the darkroom both color and black and white. I shoot and develop both negatives and positives in order to gather as much information as possible which then gives me maximum choices in the darkroom under an enlarger. I do exactly the same when converting analog to digital through scanning and editing in order to replicate as near as possible my darkroom results. I find it impossible to replicate my "film Look" through initial digital capture in exactly the same way that I cannot replicate the "look" of any given film stock by another, so IMO there is no one single genuine "Film Look" for any given film stock. Feel free to edit both digitally and in the darkroom. :) To get the best out of film you really need to develop your own films, modifying the film processing to get what you the artist wants. It's not expensive or difficult and black and white is orders of magnitude less expensive. Pennies to develop a film to your own subjective taste. .
hey teo, i recently got a lumix gx85 and i would like to attach an external mic, but obviously it doesn’t have the 3.5mm jack, would an external mic work if I used some sort of adapter like hdmi to 3.5mm jack or the charging port to 3.5mm jack
Ahh I thought of trying that before, but haven't gotten around to doing it. But honestly I think it wouldn't work, because I imagine that the hdmi is set to transfer visual information and the usb is set to transfer energy🤷🏻♂️ But these are only guesses☝🏼
There is not even point for discussion on this. If its your art, do whatever you want with it. Thats what art is about, experiment, do what makes your happy, try to make it resonate with others.
I am old school, I learned photography in the 70s of last century, way before the advent of digital. I learned that a photo is made in the moment you press the shutter of the camera, with only minuscule possibilities to alter the outcome afterwards in the lab. You could not add things to a photo which haven't been there and you could not remove things from a photo. That's the reason why in its day a photo was regarded as evidence at court. I still do that kind of photography today. When I shoot digital, what is becoming more and more rare since I'm going back to film photography for some time now, I do only JPGs. Thus, I was always looking for the perfect JPG-camera which produced photos representing either film as good as possible or the reality as good as possible, till I found the Olympus Pen-F. This camera can tweak JPG-output in a way, that _I_ define the outcome, not some algorithm from a factory. I don't detest people who manipulate their photos digitally. To me, it is simply a different way to express oneself. I call those people digital artists to distinguish them from photographers. Both create pictures, but using totally different intentions and methods. They are as different among each other as a painter is different from a photographer. The painter produces pictures too, but also with totally different intentions and methods. I'm a photographer, not a digital artist. My photos represent the reality as it was when I pressed the shutter, not my idea of a reality I would have liked to see at this moment. I don't use digital data as raw material to create a picture, I use digital data to (re)create a representation of reality. I don't change colors, I don't remove or add things which are not in the negative, I don't alter the picture to be different from what has been at the moment I pressed the shutter. My main course of photography is creating paper positives with large format cameras in 5x7 or 11x14. I scan those pictures and my challenge is to create prints, which look exactly like the original positive which came out of the camera, what often really is not that easy. I would never have the idea to "improve" those pictures in one way or the other, because it then would no longer be a representation of reality, a photo. It would turn into digital art. And I won't do that, because I'm a photographer, not a digital artist. Maybe, in some future, I change my mind and start editing this photos of mine, and turn into a digital artist. I then would no longer call this pictures photos but digital art, and I would start to call myself a digital artist. It's possible but unlikely, I don't rule this out. I would never turn into a painter, though.
To me shooting film is about the tactile nature of the whole process. You chose your film stock and load your camera, now you are stuck with that film until you use it up so it’s about adapting to that limitation. It’s then all about what where when and how - what aperture, where to focus & the subject, and how do I want the photo to look (over/under exposed). It’s also thinking more about what you want to achieve with your film photography because with digital it’s all immediate so if you don’t like something you can change it but with film you won’t know until your film is developed. We live in an “Instant gratification” age where you can take a photo on your phone, edit, and upload for the whole world to see in mere moments.
This is an amazing summary, yes! Thanks for sharing your thoughts🤗
I shoot both film & digital. So for me, film photography is a way to get away from the complicated editing process i do with digital. I send my film to labs & let them scan since I don’t have the necessary tools to scan it myself. The scans I get back more than satisfy me & the only ‘editing’ i do is just adjust the contrast or brightness.
So I feel like it just comes to what film photography is to us. Some find it as a novelty while others might use it for more professional work.
Good point!☝🏼
So glad you made this. I’ve always been a “pro” when it comes to editing film, but recently I’ve been tempted to take my edits further. I’ve been feeling surprisingly conflicted about it.
Having you lay out all the variables and logic really helped me. It’s allowed me to reconcile my logic and feelings. I’ll be able to produce photos that make me happier, without worrying. Great work, as always 💛
Ohh great, glad this could help you out🤗
This has been my exact thoughts for a long time now. When someone says “but that’s not what the film actually looks like”, and I’m like, you’re right, the negative is what the film actually looks like. Everything beyond that is some kind of processing to make it look how you want
What a great discussion! I am a strong advocate for each photographer doing what they want! That being said, I do some “light” editing. Some dust removal, a little added sharpness, a little bit of vibrance and saturation, and some exposure tweaking if needed.
Gosh the bloody dust ey! That's always part of my process haha I just can't scan a roll without getting dust on at least half of the photos😅😂
Thank you for explaining your view on editing do clearly.
I am not a professional photograph by any means, and I've just got back into film photography after 15 years as a hobby. Of course, the discussion about editing already had me thinking about it after shooting only about 15 rolls recently. At this point in my journey, I definitely have reasons why my workflow is the way it currently is.
I personally don't edit my photographs after receiving the scans from the lab. While I fully agree with your perspective on the non-existence of a "true" photograph, I would like add a slightly different view to enlarge the picture (pun intended).
If we think less about an elusive "purity" of the photo (which doesn't exist in our modern workflow), but about choice of tools, I would explain my reasoning as follows: A painter might choose to use only one type of medium to work with, for example oil paint, while another one might add several media, maybe even break out of the confines of the canvas itself. Does this make one of them a better artist? I would confidentially say no! An artist should choose their tools freely to achieve their vision. Thus, any form of editing to film or digital photographs as a valid form of art. If you want to challenge yourself and create a certain work of art by limiting your set of tools, that is a personal decision, and I admire the struggle and skills involved.
But, let's face it, if we don't have a purely analog work flow and never scan our photos, we have to find a compromise somewhere in between, since there is never a "true" analog photograph. But I also understand someone who would fall on the "pro" side, since digital editing tools are so fast and powerful, that they almost feel like cheating compared to working exclusively in the dark room. Again, that is not my opinion, but I can understand why someone might feel this way.
We should also remember that black and white photos need less editing to achieve the "neutral" stage. Scanning, inverting and then normalizing to the digital brightness level only touches one factor. Black and white relies more on brightness and contrast, so there is less to balance and the core aspect of the negative might be not seem to be altered as much.
With color photos, the white balance is already changing so many factors, that the discussion can get sensitive very quickly. This is especially true, since color is the defining aspect of color photos, so balancing them against each other already touches the core of the negative.
For me, comes down to resources being not available first, such as expensive scanning equipment, a dark room for analog editing, etc. And, as a hobbyist, another big factor is time.
If I had all the time and resources available I want, then I might try to work fully analog, up until scanning larger format prints to show online. This would be the artistic choice I make, by limiting my set of tools and embrace the struggle. But in reality, I can't do that, at least not right now.
I prefer to see it this way: I'm working my way up along the processing chain and learning what I can. Instead of digitally editing the lab scans, I try to learn first how to create technically decent pictures by choice of exposure, aperture, composition and film stock.
The lab I choose claims to keep editing to a minimum, which results in slightly flatter looking images, that provide more freedom of editing later. However, I use this to learn how to get the maximum out of the film itself and become a better 'picture-taker" first.
I am working on a scanning setup at home, but that will take some more time. For color pictures, I would prefer to scan them myself to have more control over the important part of the color balance. Black and white pictures being scanned by the lab is probably less "invasive".
I definitelly agree with your points. However, for me, shooting film is about the simplisity that comes with accepting the photo as it is, without spending lots of time "trying to make it perfect". It also challange me to improve on the photography part, rather than relying on editing..
I WOULD obviously have to do some editing if I, like you, scanned, or developed myself. But, I rather get a lab to do that. Mainly for two reasons - 1: I don't shoot film often enough, to justify the cost of buying what I would need for that proces. And 2: It's a bit nostaligic to me, as I grew up shooting film (I'm born in 1984, and started with photography as a hobby in the early 90's), and back then, labs were "everywhere", and was what most people where using.
The way you’re talking about the false belief in a “true photo” is reminding me of Albert Camus’ “myth of Sisyphus” and the idea of absurdity, or randomness. Part of why I shoot film is because it’s pretty, and part of why I shoot film is because it is random. It is unpredictable, temperamental, and in many ways very random. Which I love.
As usual, a well-reasoned take. We're blissfully unaware of our own realtime edits. We interpret the scene [colour, light, dynamic range, focal length, aperture] in our own way. « editing » in camera begins with the framing/lens/aperture/shutter speed/film/filter etc. The human visual system edits. With both eyes open, we remove the « lens hood » [our nose], filling in details. We interpret [edit] the scene in realtime - perspective correction, colour temperature, colour/white balancing, dynamic range etc. But unlike the camera, we « render » the scene by compositing small segments that are in focus, while keeping the scene in working memory.
I’m adjusting the image to mirror the actual conditions and colors I’ve viewed with the naked eye. Adding or deleting objects digitally isn’t a technique I approve of and frown on. I’m all about true accuracy in my film and digital images.
I used to be a hardcore con back when I started film photography!! I've been editing my photos for the last 2 years and I regret not doing it before!!
Thank you for this wonderful breakdown and nuanced take!
Love this take. I’ll even add that the closest thing you get to a true photo is what you saw… and even then what you saw is not objective because we know human brains and eyes differ in their interpretation of the environment including colour. The only reason we can’t tell is that we can’t describe easily the granular differences. Blue is blue to everyone but one person may see the blue but with slightly more green or magenta, but we would never know. ( obviously colour blindness and other exceptions negate this)
Excellent take. I always considered film to be “what I get is what I get”. An escapee from the editing process. Getting back on scans kind of helps that but I get your points and agree
So well put together! Well done, I loved your point about the “true photograph” that was such a creative analogy. Your vids are a joy to watch
Another great post and question. I have also been thinking about this. There is a grey area beyond which you are not correcting and tweaking, but is a whole new art. AI changing a dull sky in a poor photograph to an amazing sunset is moving away from photography? But, using digital processes to highlight a great sunset captured is photography? However, is either is right or wrong? Obviously not… But a good photographer has intention when they take the photo and knows in advance the changes following capture that will be required for the audience the photo is for. I have photos on my wall printed in the darkroom with no digital editing (obviously); but, also love my photobooks as a way of displaying photos, such photos are optimised in Lightroom for that medium. Personally, I am not into placing a person in a lovely sunset using AI. For me that’s a stage too far…
Pheew I need to agree on that... replacements are too much for my taste as well. I admire how you still don't fail to view this question in a differentiated manner. Indeed it's not wrong, just not my jam :D
Great video! And timely too in my case. I recently started shooting film, I'm still only on my 2nd roll. I was just thinking about this the other day and eventually opted to edit my photos in Lightroom.
Ohh sweet, thanks!🙌🏼 Glad I could provide some thoughts :D
Totally agree to nearly all your arguments. After starting shooting color negative films, I went through a severe "colour crisis".
What I experienced is the following: The real photo is only the non developed film, because the most impact to the result is not the scanning, but the developing process. C41 is extremely picky. Don't even trust the professional labs. For example compare the mask of different films of the same brand. They all should be orange, the exact same orange and never brownish. I got back so many and different brown ones. So the lab has shortened the blixing time more than it should.
Many home developed C41 films are over-developed, over-agitated. Therefore, resulting in most uncontrollable colour shifts (as mine ).
Now I develop my films at home, at 38deg C, not at 37.95 and not at 38.05, the blixer meets the film spot on the second it should, blixing time taken for the longer range but within the window, and so forth. The more precision, the better.
The outcome are negatives that I do not have to correct in any way during scanning process,.The Portra has the Portra - look, the Ektar has the Ektar - look and the Fuji has the Fuji - look. If exposure was right, the photo is perfect in color, saturation, contrast, just everything.
From there you have a solid starting point to tweak the pictures to you personal style, your personal look, to your kind of art. Without destroying the "soul" of the film stock. And yes, photography is art. So, we should edit our photos, if we want (accept these are productions for evidence in a crime)
Thank you for differentiating "editing" and "correcting." There *is* an overlap, but it's still good to know what one is specifically doing to one's photos; "editing" is just too broad and can be easily frowned upon. Also, as someone who just started film photography, I still haven't found a lab near enough my place that would be my go-to for development and scanning. I got my first set of negatives a few days ago, and was disappointed with how green the images were, and I was even using a Kodak film. So I *had* to color-correct my pictures.
On the pro editing side and agree with your viewpoint. The final product is whatever I want it to be. How I get there is my business. If someone else wants to work under the constraint of straight out of the camera/film lab, that's their choice. I often don't edit lab scans if what I got pleases me.
Thanks for the video. 100 % agree with your words. At the end of the day, do what makes you happy and not what makes others happy.... There are no rules so far I know :)
Thanks for the video!
For me the process of taking the photo is just the start of making the photo. So editing to me is totally legal.
In the end the result is what counts.
It does not even matter if the result is what you intended to achieve in the beginning. But we all can grow in this perspective.
Thanks for your thoughts on this subject, I’m on the pro side as well.
Nice video Teo. I am of the Pro mindset regardless of my opinion on editing film, who is to say what right looks like. However, I personally dislike when people compare film and digital, or plainly talk about the “film look” when their film photographs are very much edited. And if you dare bring up that point, they get offended and say it’s not edited, that it’s only had highlights and shadows tweaks, and color corrections 🤔🤷♂️
Nice way of bringing this discussion to the table! You’ve just got an extra sub!
Thank you. A very interesting look at this subject. Perhaps you could have included a bit more about positive film (slide film) as to some extent the results there are more true than those obtained from negatives.
Was purely paying attention to your video editing skill lmao. Nice job！
Hahah thank you!🙇🏻♂️🤗
Absolut richtig. Diese "ehrliche" Fotografie kommt in erster Linie von Leuten, die den Prozess weder verstanden haben noch damit umgehen können. 3 verschiedene Labore = 3 Ergebnisse. Ein Grund warum ich früher nur noch Diafilme (slides) genutzt habe um zumindest keine farbstichigen Abzüge zu bekommen, heute würde man das wohlwollend Grading nennen ... . Achten die beim Entwickeln auf Zustand der Chemie und die Temperatur? Auch hier ändert die Lichtfarbe beim Durchleuchten alles. Ist der Monitor nicht kalibriert, habe ich beim Betrachten ein rotes T-Shirt an? ist meine Zimmerlampe gelbstichig? Welche Farbe hat mein Papier? Sind da sehr viele Weißmacher drin? Welchen Farbraum können meine ganzen Geräte und Ergebnisse überhaupt abbilden? Gilt also alles auch für digital und "ehrliche" jpgs. Wenn ich nicht weiß wie alles funktioniert kümmern sich eben andere darum, das Labor die Kamera beim jpg und ich bekomme irgendwas
Entweder das Ergebnis ist am Ende gut oder nicht ob ich jetzt vorher Filter vor die Kamera setzen oder nachher digital ausgleiche, verändere. Und auch da wird man kaum mal ein Bild erleben, das alle "gut" finden.
Alle paar Jahrzehnte die gleichen unsinnigen Diskussionen, wie die Maler damals zu den ersten Fotografen ...
Thank you for sharing!!!Thank you and happy holidays!!! I would love to edit my films photography.
Sure thing! Have a good start into the new year👊🏼
@@teocrawford Thanks man...Happy new year👍👍👍
I think digitizing film for the most part is ok. When photography first came about the painters complained that photography was cheating. And before photography artist would add items to their paintings to alter their images. And pictographs on cave walls were bad painting skills, but still told a story. All the best. Jim from Georgia
Thanks for the video. I tend to try to do as much of the "editing" as I can in-camera. Occasionally, I will dodge-and-burn my film scans in Photoshop, but I am always less satisfied with those versions. I spent years doing graphic design, and if I wanted to do more graphic design, I'd edit and manipulate my photos to my heart's content. That's not what interests me in photography or as a photographer. So, while I will color correct, as you describe it, cropping and extensively re-working the photo or making a collage of some kind doesn't really interest me. For me, doing as much as I can in-camera simply helps to improve my skills. This is a limitation I put on myself, and I don't try to impose it on anyone else.
tbh the more experience you get, the more you see how pointless these arguments are and the less Fs you start to give. Specially if this is a hobby, just do whatever you enjoy and whatever feels right to you.
I'm new to (film) photography in general, so thank you very much for the detailed breakdown! The things that drew me to film photography in the first place would definitely make me more of a 'con' man in this debate. But after this breakdown, I see why that argument is pretty meaningless.
I'll try to start color-correcting my images, but not color-grade them. I feel like this is the right balance of staying 'true' to me. :)
Ahh that's great, I'm happy this video could help you in that regard! Thank you for the kind comment :)
After my lab being completely inept at a) scanning good (true?) colours and b) not being able to provide a decent resolution without breaking the bank I started converting with rawtherapee. There use a base setting for the entire roll, and then make minor tweaks to the separate negatives in order to (give myself the feeling) of having come close to the "true photo".
But I have had the same thoughts as you had, and, striving to find the "true photo", I went down the rabbit hole of making my own autochrome glass plates.
Ironically I didn't get a photo with any colour visible by eye on it with bumping up the saturation after scanning. So yeah... 😂
That said, the reason I've taken up shooting film again is that I create more memories on film. What I actually do or don't do with the photos after that is completely secondary. The most important thing is that I remember feeling, thoughts scenes and sights when looking at a *unique* picture I took, instead of editing another digital spray and pray photo I have 20 copies of with slight differences. For this reason, if I'm on holidays and need to travel lightly I'll take a film camera over a digital body, unless I know there's a certain photo I desperately want to get just how I imagine it. :)
Brilliant video!
I suppose you might ask for whom do you take pictures? Is it for yourself? If so, why should you care what people think; do as you wish with your photos. On the other hand, if you are taking pictures for others' approval, you really need to respond to your audience's wishes or you won't have one (audience). As for me, I take photos because I enjoy the experience of taking pictures, and it makes no difference to me if they're digital or film. Sometimes I shoot my Minolta X700, and/or my Kodak brownie, and sometimes I shoot my digital cameras. They're just pictures, not life or death!
Very nice video on this topic :)
Even the greats such as Ansel Adams edited their film photography, all thats changed is the tools you can use. And as for the uniqueness of film stocks, as soon as you digitise them they are no longer "true" because there are no "affordable" digital sensors out there that can match the human eye and every screen shows colours (including black & white) slightly differently so the whole argument about digitising film is as far as I am concerned moot.
Exactly! I actually often find it quite depressing though, that even our screens are different. Because that means the edit on the photo or the colour grading on the video, only looks the way I intend it to look on my own screen and I have no influence on how others will see it... it sometimes makes me think editing and colour grading is pointless haha😅 I wonder whether even our eyes process colours differently (I lean towards the assumption that they do)?🤷🏻♂️
@@teocrawford We each perceive differently in our own reality so it's quite feedable to assume that we each see the world around us quite differently because we all live in our own unique individual realities.
I personally believe editing images on Film completely defines the point of Film photography… just my personal opinion.👍
You mean defies?
If you mean defies then can you explain? Would you not do something to improve your image just because you think it defies the point of film photography? When printing on light sensitive paper there are things you can do to change your image. Doing that in software is just another way to achieve the same outcome.
@@rorycowieson5924 In this digital age we live in, many people shot digital because they are able manipulate their images with the power of editing which is perfectly fine, but if someone chooses to shoot film and digital enhancement the image afterwards with software then why shoot film in the first place if someone is not looking for that type of film look he/she is shooting, I shoot a lot of film and I do zero editing because I like the colour of film I’m shooting.
@@camedia7291 I shoot film because in my opinion, it looks far better. Also so I can have the depth of field of the Pentax 6x7 with the 105mm f2.4. I edit the images after by making slight adjustments to the contrast and saturation. Exactly as you would in a dark room. It’s pretty obvious.
@@camedia7291 much, maybe all of photography is subjective. Some could argue that after converting negatives using Negative Lab Pro and making a 2nd TIFF a copy, it renders even the converted film negative relatively “editable.” That said, I personally strive to minimally edit my film photos because I want the picture to look as true to the film stock as I can. But do what you want, it’s your art!
"Only image I ever trust to be original/as is/as was... is black and white 2inch screw photographed on white background" - Socrates
I wanted to type this comment all in capital letter with hundreds of !!!!! and add so many rage emojis! Joking aside! Awesome video, very informative and well thought out presentation. Having shot both film and digital, I aways tweak my photos to my liking. Really depends on the use of the images. Commercial images generally will be more edited and as for my personal stuff i limit the amount i do. Teo have a wonderful holiday season and a happy 2022!
I see, thanks for sharing your thoughts!🙌🏼 Thanks, wish you the best for 2022!🤗
"Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships!"
-- Ansel Adams
for me it all boils down to one thing, can I do It in the darkroom? if yes, it's fair game to do in the lightroom for me!
Sir, may I know what are you doing at this time 4:23 like I wanna know what is it and why it is related to film photography?
People who don't edit their film photos either shoot B&W, consider what they're doing art, or simply don't take shooting too serious. There are 100s of videos talking about "finding your style," and the only way to do this is by messing around with editing. Through editing you'll learn what compositions you enjoy with your edits - and before you know it you'll be out shooting more (because you're excited about how cool your photos are looking), editing more, refining your style, and ultimately getting better as a photographer.
Ahh I like this perspective, thanks for sharing!👊🏼
Besides the main topic I have no interest to comment since I don't do analog photography 😉, your videos are so cool presented (colours, backgrounds, visual elements, cool retro look) ...recommend everybody to subscribe 🤟... all the best in new year.
Aww thank you so much🥺🙇🏻♂️ All the best to you too!👊🏼
Philosophical explanation ! 😂
Hehe :D
The belief that film is "pure" and "authentic" is only prevalent because we exist in the digital age. If you were to tell someone in the 80's that they shouldn't be touching or altering their film negatives, they would look at you as if you were crazy. You would get the same crazy looks if you were telling everybody that they aren't allowed to touch their RAW images because it is the most authentic version of what the digital sensor captured.
Post-processing is part of the process in getting a final image.
This is why the idea of digital film emulation isn't valid. There are so many variables in the analog process that there is no universal "film stock look" for any given film stock. I've always edited my analog photos in the darkroom both color and black and white. I shoot and develop both negatives and positives in order to gather as much information as possible which then gives me maximum choices in the darkroom under an enlarger. I do exactly the same when converting analog to digital through scanning and editing in order to replicate as near as possible my darkroom results. I find it impossible to replicate my "film Look" through initial digital capture in exactly the same way that I cannot replicate the "look" of any given film stock by another, so IMO there is no one single genuine "Film Look" for any given film stock.
Feel free to edit both digitally and in the darkroom. :) To get the best out of film you really need to develop your own films, modifying the film processing to get what you the artist wants. It's not expensive or difficult and black and white is orders of magnitude less expensive. Pennies to develop a film to your own subjective taste.
.
Indeed, good point you write there☝🏼
My opinion of the "true photograph" is the one that best represent our reality.
Nice
hey teo, i recently got a lumix gx85 and i would like to attach an external mic, but obviously it doesn’t have the 3.5mm jack, would an external mic work if I used some sort of adapter like hdmi to 3.5mm jack or the charging port to 3.5mm jack
Ahh I thought of trying that before, but haven't gotten around to doing it. But honestly I think it wouldn't work, because I imagine that the hdmi is set to transfer visual information and the usb is set to transfer energy🤷🏻♂️
But these are only guesses☝🏼
The statement of film not being a true photo does contradict the authenticity characteristics given to film...!
There is not even point for discussion on this. If its your art, do whatever you want with it. Thats what art is about, experiment, do what makes your happy, try to make it resonate with others.
I am old school, I learned photography in the 70s of last century, way before the advent of digital. I learned that a photo is made in the moment you press the shutter of the camera, with only minuscule possibilities to alter the outcome afterwards in the lab. You could not add things to a photo which haven't been there and you could not remove things from a photo. That's the reason why in its day a photo was regarded as evidence at court.
I still do that kind of photography today. When I shoot digital, what is becoming more and more rare since I'm going back to film photography for some time now, I do only JPGs. Thus, I was always looking for the perfect JPG-camera which produced photos representing either film as good as possible or the reality as good as possible, till I found the Olympus Pen-F. This camera can tweak JPG-output in a way, that _I_ define the outcome, not some algorithm from a factory.
I don't detest people who manipulate their photos digitally. To me, it is simply a different way to express oneself. I call those people digital artists to distinguish them from photographers. Both create pictures, but using totally different intentions and methods. They are as different among each other as a painter is different from a photographer. The painter produces pictures too, but also with totally different intentions and methods.
I'm a photographer, not a digital artist. My photos represent the reality as it was when I pressed the shutter, not my idea of a reality I would have liked to see at this moment. I don't use digital data as raw material to create a picture, I use digital data to (re)create a representation of reality. I don't change colors, I don't remove or add things which are not in the negative, I don't alter the picture to be different from what has been at the moment I pressed the shutter.
My main course of photography is creating paper positives with large format cameras in 5x7 or 11x14. I scan those pictures and my challenge is to create prints, which look exactly like the original positive which came out of the camera, what often really is not that easy. I would never have the idea to "improve" those pictures in one way or the other, because it then would no longer be a representation of reality, a photo. It would turn into digital art. And I won't do that, because I'm a photographer, not a digital artist.
Maybe, in some future, I change my mind and start editing this photos of mine, and turn into a digital artist. I then would no longer call this pictures photos but digital art, and I would start to call myself a digital artist. It's possible but unlikely, I don't rule this out. I would never turn into a painter, though.
all photographs are manipulation of light, not about reproduction of light