This is not a recording, it hardly matters whether the thing is real or imaginary, that's not its point.
I do whatever needs doing whether its film or digital. Ansel Adams could spend weeks in the darkroom getting a print exactly how he saw it in his mind and post processing has been going on almost as long as photography itself so knock yerself out kiddo .
I'm exactly the same, I use film and digital for different things but if I take a photo on Portra then I want the end result to look like Portra. If that means tweaking the image then I'll do so without even a hint of hesitation.
Anyway, it's the digital lot that try emulate certain films that confuddle me...
Where is it written in stone photography can't be more than a mere recording and who dictates what the point of it is? I completely fail to understand that perspective.
Edit - Hang on... Or were you saying it doesn't actually matter whether it's a simple recording or more than that? I may have jumped the gun a little there!
It doesn't matter, because being real or made up is not its focus, its focus is to be an artwork that provokes a response.
I'm exactly the same, I use film and digital for different things but if I take a photo on Portra then I want the end result to look like Portra. If that means tweaking the image then I'll do so without even a hint of hesitation.
Anyway, it's the digital lot that try emulate certain films that confuddle me...
haha..yes. We had a thread a while back about some cameras having a velvia mode.....yikes.
I know it doesn't matter, I was asking for clarification of what you were saying because it wasn't entirely clear!
If you don't think so, say so, its your opinion but like mine, it won't be written in stone
and fix that av.......sending me bogeyed ere....slike looking through frosted glass...
A photo is essentially a recording of something that exists, whereas a painting/sculpture/whatever can be a recording, pure fictitious fantasy or anything in between, that is what I am saying..
no one seems to have mentioned the idea of getting your technique right so you don't need to much if any post processing
Ah silly me i shouldn't have posted the thread i should just get it right in camera... doh why didn't i think of that
Don't get too hung up on discussions like this! Whether you shoot digital or film a degree of post-processing is sometimes necessary to get the results you want, and personally I consider the idea that absolutely everything can be made 100% right in-camera to be somewhat ridiculous. I spend time getting my images as 'correct' as I can when I take them and I spend time getting my scans right, but that doesn't mean they don't sometimes need tweaking afterwards. If they do need tweaking, who cares?
Possibly because no-one's made the assumption that people post-process to get round having poor technique? I certainly don't understand why you'd assume that.
From the large number of threads asking how can I do this that or the other to an image.
However as you say it is not always possible to do what you want in camera I am merely suggesting it is often worth the attempt to if you can because a, it might not be possible in post processing or b, the result will be better or a lot less effort and not correcting for daylight film under artificaill lighting is a good case in point.
But don't you think most people are attempting to get it right?!....quite often people ask how because they are learning
What struck me most about this thread was no one seems to have mentioned the idea of getting your technique right so you don't need to much if any post processing after all its a lot better if you can get it right in camera
So pretty much as titled... how many of you when shooting film keep it to the basics and don't do anything? Or do you treat ALL your photos the same and PP regardless of whether its film or digital and if so do you have different limits, like real basic for film and fill ya boots for digital? I assumed it taboo to be honest but reading the odd thread i think i maybe wrong?
Sorry if this has been asked, i did go back and do random page searches to have a look...
*looks for the unsubscribe button*
Exactly the same here. For the most part the scan comes into the computer being pretty much what I want (because I make it that way), but I don't think twice if I need to tweak stuff.
It makes no difference whether I shoot film or digital. I have a pre-conceived idea of what I want... and whether I shoot on film or digital depends on the results I envisage. Ostensibly however... there's not a great deal of difference when it comes to processing.
If you'd like to see what a difference you can make with the scanning, there is an example on my flickr account which I put up to illustrate the point. The names are the imaginative "scan good" and "scan bad".
obviously asking this question i know now that's not true and it really is personal choice
Now this is where i don't have a clue, if i got that back i would assume i had done something wrong or something... can someone tell me what you mean or what has happened?
you can get uncorrectable colour casts, but only in unusual circumstances