>Why does almost every photographer feel the need to edit their photos in photoshop? >Why are edited the photos the default now in every facet of life?I do not understand this, 5k cameras that are supposedly the best ever and yet the pics get such heavy editing in various softwares.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpi
>>4336182>pay thousand(s) for camera>decide you know better than the finely tuned manufacturer's jpeg engine >contrast/saturation? swipe right>crush shadows for even more contrast and vibe>throw film sim or lut on top (maybe both!) for good measureYeah idk OP I guess people want to feel like they are smart
>>4336182Because they will NEVER look as good as film.
film chads stay winning
Because you might want a certain look from what the camera gives you.
>>4336195>wow photography allows for the exact capturing of what we see over painting, this is such a ground breaking thing>yea bro I dont want the camera to show reality, I want it to show what I thought was real
>>4336201>cameras show realityimagine being this imbecile
>>4336194That shot is out of focus, meh snapshit
>>4336182post some unedited photos you've taken, since they're perfect out of camera right?
>>4336210Ive never claimed to be a professional. A pro, at anything, should be able to get it done right
>>4336213Post any photos you've taken unedited, don't need to be a pro to have a in-focus shot right?You are aware of color grading and post processing even in film right? You are aware every scanned film shot is also post processed especially when scanning the negatives right?>A pro, at anything, should be able to get it done rightUhuh, that's why every professional never do any post processing, especially in cinema.
Are you complaining about JPEGs / post processing RAWs, or photoshoping artifical bullshit? There's a difference between wanting to process a RAW yourself instead of relying on a JPEG, and photoshopping shit until it's """"asthetic""""
>>4336182All cameras including your phone have a mode where they produce non-editied photos called jpegsit is universally agreed upon that these do not look good. Shooting jpeg is the fastest way to delude yourself into thinking digital is unusably bad and only film looks good. It's not even a "lol, anime land sucks at creativity and aesthetics" thing because iphone cameras are US designed and their jpegs still look like shit.With film, the only people who "shot jpeg" were slide film users. Slide film, like jpeg, looks really fucking awful with garish colors and makes using a camera a more nerdy and less artistic activity. Negative film users were the photo-editing raw shooters of the day, and like today, most "used a preset" (had someone else color grade their scans or do their prints)A camera can not produce a good looking copy of reality because camera technology is still centuries behind the mammalian eyeball. Every photo needs adjusted by a conscious actor (human being, not AI). Cameras can't even see the color of light correctly. You can try it yourself. On film, or digital, light will always be too blue, too orange, or green tinted, but your eyeballs will see more balanced colors instead of neon vomit. This is why most professional photography is done with a controlled light source (flash).
>>4336217He's a retard frogposter that probably doesn't even have a camera, it's why he won't post a photo.Every other day a new post pops up with a retarded statement.
>>4336210>he didn't get it right in camera
>>4336219>non-editied photos called jpegsImbecile
>>4336226Post a unedited photo you got perfect in camera :^)
>>4336220>>4336217>>4336215>>4336210This proves nothing except you are a retarded faggot
>>4336237Good on you for posting pics.>filmtard complaining about post processingClassic. Any film processors usually do some exposure compensations with PD lighting, same with color correction. Even more so when scanned. If you process and scan your own, you have more control in it, but usually still needs some post processing and needs dedicated post processing for scanning negatives if returning to color.This has been a thing since before computers were even created. You're the retard trying to say it's dumb.Hell they even did different affects with chemical treatment of film as post processing.Things like the hazeltine color analyzer and dedicated RBG setups have been around since the 60s for color grading.Shit Chris Nolan still only does chemical post processing on film for his movies.
>>4336242NTA, but if scanning positive film, does it not reduce the amount of leeway the software has since its not inverting the colors as you would on negative.
>>4336245Honestly I cannot speak to that as I have never scanned positives, or done any film shooting in over a decade.Some color grading wise yes but exposure I don't think so, usually this is done by the film processor when receiving scans, not including the lighting/exposure compensation the processors do when processing the film in the fist place. So the "get it perfect in camera" rarely happens. It's why there's an entire industry in film/digital for color grading and processing and generally an entirely different workflow for professional work. Film is cool, and the process is neat, and it's great people still use it. It can have really interesting effects and texture, but people like op who don't know that film actually has post processing done, are pretty ridiculous on their high horse.It's where the term pushing/pulling came from for longer chem rest times or shorter, for fixing exposure.
>>4336248>Film is cool, and the process is neat, and it's great people still use it. It can have really interesting effects and texture, but people like op who don't know that film actually has post processing done, are pretty ridiculous on their high horse.You are being disingenuous. The amount of post processing you can do on film is way smaller than the shit typically done in digital. I am not speaking about retards who scan film and then manipulate it in photoshop.
>>4336249>The amount of post processing you can do on film is way smaller than the shit typically done in digital.I'm not disagreeing at all, it's a lot more restricted, negative scanning you can get a lot more crazy with it however.The whole point of OP's post was editing photos in general which is what I called out as if there's 0 editing in film processing.>Why are edited the photos the default now in every facet of life?They always have been.
>>4336201Yeah?
>>4336201A camera sensor is a piece of data gathering equipment and you can do whatever you want with it
Wet plate is the answer
>>4336182Photoshop is the digital darkroom. Photography is more than pressing a button.
>>4336182I'll tell you something so that you realize photography doesn't equal truth. Allegedly in 1969 a crew of American astronauts went to the Moon. There's photos of them on the "Moon". And yet, you can't see a landing site from Earth. Even though they allegedly left stuff.
>>4336342>>4336348We're reaching levels of cope I didn't think we're possible.
Just shoot film, I wish I never even brought a digital camera. I wasted years before buying a film camera and realising the photos look a lot nicer and I spend 95% less time editing.
>>4336242>different affectsYou are the dumb one, opinion discarded
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1500Image Height1100Scene Capture TypeStandard
Photographers have always spent time improving the photo after capture. Pretending to be superior because you don’t put in the time to learn techniques to better your work is churlish behavior.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width640Image Height360Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4336187That's not how it works. You load your raw files into PS or Capture One and export them using the default settings, not moving any sliders. Why? Because the sharpening, noise reduction etc is much better/more powerful in your PC than on your camera.
>>4336182well, if your aim is to just document and not be artistic with it, then i understand your gripe.
>>4336182That's why I'll never take digifags seriously.
>>4336220Touched a nerve, heh?
>>4336535it's just low effort bullshit multiple times a week on a slow board, it's obnoxious and OP clearly doesn't know what he's talking about.>>4336391>what is film bleaching>what is engraving >what is soap/detergent film mods>what is heating/freezing to get film cracksYou're the retard nigga.
>>4336182>who do people stuff I don't like>reeeeget fucked, tranny
>photography doesn't equal truthWhy bother with photography then? Just pick up painting and drawing, don't be a talentless button-presser
>>4336579To fulfill a vision
>>4336579>don't be a talentless button-presser>He said, as he pressed the buttons on his keyboard to express the sentiment
>>4336506Camera uses ASICs so it might give same result.
>>4336784I used the pencil of my drawing tablet, retard
I have no idea OP. Most snapshits look fine enough out of the camera using the presets for the lighting conditions for me. Very rarely do i feel the need to drag sliders in software.
>>4336249Major edits can and were done with entirely analog workflows, same for motion picture. Film has just as many editing decisions that impact the final image. B/w, color neg, or slide? Which stock? What size format? what printing method? Push/pull? Dodging and burning? etc. Digital allows for more, and makes it easier/cheaper, but there is largely nothing new.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerWeston HarbyImage-Specific Properties:
>>4336529This is my problem. You will have photos "documenting life" be is street photos, or people doing bizarre jobs or whatever. And people will edit out random shit like power lines, or airbrush peoples face. Why? You're no longer documenting anything,and what you're capturing has nothing to gain with these edits so why do it.
>>4338318Sometimes stuff can be distracting. Editing something out that could reasonably never be there in the first place that would never be noticed is perfectly fine
