Whatever it takes to get the final image I want really... Purists can do what makes them happy as long as they leave me in peace 😎

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Haha exactly! I like that attitude 😃

purists: i don't edit my film film lab: am i a joke to you

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

LOLOL this is funny

@NorbiWhitney

3 жыл бұрын

literally the meme I posted on my story 😆

If we are being technical here: if it’s negative film then you’re “always” editing your film scans.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea! That’s what I said 😇

@andrewapperley

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy can you tell I haven’t watched the video yet? :p I was just so fired up after about the topic. Those purists don’t know what they’re talking about! Don’t worry I’ll watch the video shortly.

@EM-ve9bh

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewapperley yup. If you’re not editing your negative film, you’re literally looking at an orange negative base. Most don’t really realize that film came before digital. There was no other way of capturing an image. Editing was analog BEFORE it was digital. Before digital all we had was film. Nobody said “don’t edit that. We gotta maintain the analog vibes” no. We edited to get the image we wanted. Photoshop was invented to edit film scans.

I enjoy whatever content you make bro. its a very genuine discussion, glad to be here :D

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

thank you! really appreciate the support

I'm with you! I always make sure to edit my work, digital, scans, it helps to complete the process. When I edit, I make sure to adjust levels, clean up any dust and scratches plus a final crop. I take the same approach with my RAW digital images, less is more.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

less is def more! but some doesn't hurt haha

I have no problem editing film or digital, but generally in both cases I like to keep it simple! If I have to do too much to an image it probably wasn’t good to start with.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea I like to keep it simple too. Back in my digits days I used to go wild tho lol

I definitely edit my images, just a little bit to get the desired output that I want. Thanks for your channel. I'm learning a lot about editing shooting and developing film. Love from Kenya.

@ribsy

Жыл бұрын

Yea editing is def worth it! Thanks for watching 😃

I stared with film in the 1970s, spotting was part of the process in an analog print!!! I do similar in the digital work, I will do a minimal of color/contrast control but try my best to keep the feel of the negative and how I exposed it!!! Great video!!!

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Spotting is hard work!! Good for you

Exactly. You are editing from the moment you choose the framing, the moment you choose to fire the shutter. It is all about "this, not that"

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

interesting. def haven't thought about it that way

Great video - honestly spoken. And always love seeing you with your folding camera. Is that the original case?

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

thanks for watching

Great video, this is a very sensitive topic for many pple. I shoot film and digital, and always try to create the best photo from the camera, but in digital if I feel a little editing can help, I'll do it. With film, I do little or non editing. not for purist or anything else more than because I like and enjoy the imperfections of the film. Is part of the reason why I do it.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea agreed - I do enjoy the imperfections that arise. But color is something that begs to be edited imo

100% yes, and I've been making all these arguments for years. Kinda like you said at the end - if YOU are not editing your images... someone else is editing them for you. Might as well at least have control over the final look.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea for sure! May as well control it yourself

I clean up my scans with healing tools and also do basic edits such as color corrections, correcting exposure from the scanning process and sometimes getting some sky details and tones back. For me it is purely about the look I can achieve at the end and I really like the almost painterly quality a film image has, especially when shooting 35mm. Also I just enjoy the process of shooting less frames but then taking more time in post with scanning myself and doing clean up and edits as well. Usually I take Saturday for hiking and taking pictures (I mainly do landscape work) and scan and edit last Saturday's rolls on Sunday to relax.

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

Photography hikes are great

As a film shooter I had the same dilemma…edit or no edit? But after seeing Ansel Adam’s Moonrise over Hernandez before & after photo, it was clear you do need to edit your pics!

Yep. Every inverted color negative image is an interpretation. It’s either the scanner’s, or something you come up with in the darkroom or in Lightroom etc. But there is no right or wrong. Color positive slide film is a different story. That’s the manufacturer’s colors they decided on.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Good call on color positive. Should people edit those colors?

@bfs5113

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy Of course, hence there are/were positive and negative print papers. Not to mention many film photographers are masters in the darkroom, especially in the early days.

I'm with you on this. If I shoot digitally then I seem to automatically spend a lot of time editing the image. When I shoot with film, then my edits are minimal, ie: crop, contrast, exposure etc. which only usually takes a couple of minutes. If a film image needs 1/2 hour edit, then I know that it won't work out.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea exactly! Just a chiller vibe overal

I agree with your style. I edit just enough to get my negatives to a good final product. Where I draw the line is composting. I don’t want to add items into my film work. Like a moon or clouds or fake lens flare. Etc. that is fine in digital but not for me. I strive to get the best I can out of film and that often requires manipulation of the digital file in post. Contrast, tones, sharpness (to compensate for scanner limitations) and dust scratch repair. That’s just me. I’m ok with people doing their own thing. I don’t have to like it, view it or buy it if I don’t want. Someone else might enjoy it though. Peace!!

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Peace indeed!

The only "pure" analog experience where you're truly ONLY seeing what's on the film is projecting slide film. IMO, do anything that makes you like taking pictures, and like the pictures you end up taking.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

yea thats what others have said. makes sense!

I edit my film scans, sometimes I need to do a lot of "dodging and burning" but other times just a few dust spots need to be removed. One day I will set up my own darkroom and do the same things with light and shadow puppets!

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Hahaha light shadow puppets

I just do “dodge and burn” and colour correct. Ektar can be quite magenta and pro image can come out with green sometimes. Also was that Parkhouse/Chrome Hill at the end? I do like a good walk in Derbyshire 👍🏼

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea chrome hill was cool! Very nice hike

thx for the video :) Yes i edit, although usualy just to get contrast and tonality where i want it (B&W). I do that with the digital scan and in the darkroom. And recently i did a perspective correction on one of my images. Still in the back of my head is the question, can i do this with the enlarger and how would i do it. As long as it is your own image to play with, do whatever rocks your boat ;) and if it's not your own image, get permission from the owner ;)

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea I like to keep it to a darkroom-like process

I don't always edit my film scans but do if I want to. If I shoot black and white I'm more likely to edit with contrast and shadows.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

yea def. BW i feel like invites a bit more creativity

You are spot on. Every scan or print of a negative involves editing. It has always been like that, and it always will. The purists are kidding themselves - if they are not making the decisions themselves, someone else has. For 35mm negatives I'll typically spend about 5 minutes or more on each negative scanned - for medium format it depends on the negative, but because there are fewer photos per roll of film, I tend to use more time. My scanner can produce TIFF files as the best option. I'll clean up any scratches - or dust and typically do a quick correction of shadows, highlights, contrast and saturation - and often levels too as needed and then save the result as TIFF, png and/or jpg files depending on what I want to use the file for. Oh, and I always print the finished result in standard size photos for my album, because flipping through the pages of my photo albums remembering places, seasons, people and shooting experiences has great value imho.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

printing is key! so nice to look back on images in physical form

As you mentioned already, you cannot get an image without editing. And to me, even the process of taking a photo is some kind of „pre-editing“ that you choose to define a style or what you have in mind. 35mm or 50mm? Color or BW? Filter or no filter? This all summs up to what I want to visualize.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

True! I didn’t even think about the choosing of the film

@abnerramos139

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy same goes for the film stock we choose. I tell my friends that I choose my “filter” before I take the picture when I shoot with Portra 400 vs Ektar 100 vs etc. I travelled to Big Sur (California) a few weeks back and decided I needed Ektar 100 to capture the intense colors of the ocean and the green hills and sky. I knew exactly what time of day would we would be driving through there and visualized my images weeks before I took them. Choosing the film stock was editing before I took the pictures.

I think my approach to editing is pretty similar to yours. Probably 80% of my scans are from dark room prints and most of the editing involved is to get it as close as possible to the original print. When I do scan from a negative, I rarely do much more than what could have been done in the darkroom. I do spot for dust and I’ll sometimes “help” the contrast a bit if I feel it presents better that way. But I also don’t object to photographers for whom Photoshop (or Gimp) is a major part of their work flow. It’s just another tool in the process of getting to a particular image. The only objection I have is when people randomly apply filters until the image “looks like they intended to do that” and even that’s perfectly fine if you are not trying to pass it off as some great work of art.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

i haven't gotten into scanning darkroom prints yet. but i hope to do that at some point

For negative I don't mind doing edits that match what you can do in the Darkroom. For my slides, I try to match the same look of the slide, I don't try to change the colors of my slides because if I decide to shoot slide it to have a slide that does not required any changes. So, color correction, dodging and burning and some healing is fine for me. I know that you can print your slides with a complex cibachrome print but it not really accessible.

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

Makes sense!

A bit late to this discussion but here's my take on this: First: What works for me is not the same as what works for you. Second: Simply choosing one format over another is editing, simply choosing one lens or focal length is editing. Third: Deciding where to point your camera is editing. So, I tend to disregard those "experts" who proclaim that they never edit photos. For my photography, I generally try to minimize what I need to do after taking the shot. Mot because I have some "purist" approach to this but because it is easier: if I keep my negatives as clean as I can that means less work spotting for dust after. If I get the exposure correct that means less time and effort spent correcting that. How much editing is too much? The answer to that is a very decisive "it depends." :) Because I am not making news photography, I have a different answer than a photojournalist will have. For me, I edit until the photo represents what I want to show. More than that is too much. Less is not enough.

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

Fully agree. The experts need to chill lol

I acknowledge the argument for both sides. Personally i hardly ever edit and when i do its very light. It is a little confusing to me when i see someone buy expensive colour/bw film and then edit the photo to the point where its unrecognizable. But to each their own!

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea I do appreciate that each film has its own flavor

I used to be much more oriented towards minimal editing, but my attitude towards it has starting to change recently. One of my family friends was one of Ansel Adam's print men. Adams would expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, which would often lead to very bland, garbage looking negatives but his intent was to capture as much information as possible. Of course, his images were legendary and not garbage. They were adjusted through the print making process and with proper dodging and burning to create what he had truly envisioned. I now ask myself "what makes editing images digitally all that different?" Purist attitudes can often distract one from creating the best product available, as sometimes it can be rationalized justification for a lesser product. Purity can have its own places in many fields, but purity should not be conflated with superiority as it often can be.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

well said! the processes really aren't that different - they are simply technological progressions of each other

I learned on film so have alway set digital shots up in the camera the same as I would with film so always have minimal work to do, but I wet print as well, so I do also scan film then use photoshop but only edit to the same degree as I would in wet printing.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

yea makes sense!

I get those specks a lot on my negatives. Say its something to do with chemicals in developing process. Specks can be distracting tend to do very little apart from maybe contrast, shadows, highlights as I find digital scans very flat to begin with.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Hmmm I usually don’t deal with that. But something happened this tome

My process is to develop, scan the negatives and spot in PS. Then print on my epson using my own b&w carbon based ink and paper to suit the image. I never do anything other than spot in PS. Then again, I'll wait a few hours for that perfect light, i shoot 4x5. That's my way. But given that my ink mix or push/pull or water temp or warmth or coolness of paper changes the image as shot, who am I to say?

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

makes sense! especially since you are controlling the images a lot prior to shooting

If you don't want to edit your scans, that's fine, it's your art, not mine and far be it for me to tell someone else how to do their art. For me, I like what Ansel Adams said: "Photography is like music. The negative is the composition, the print is the performance." Raw scans always need some kind of adjustment, and I can play with those adjustments and come up with several different variations on the same theme.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Agreee! Ansel was correct 😀

When I’m using more neutral film stocks I’ll often do pretty thorough edits, but for things that have more unique character I usually like to let those elements stand out.

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

yea makes sense! that's the beauty of the more neutral ones

I’m new to this, but my assumption would be that the main reason for shooting film and not digital is because of the characteristics of the way film responds to exposure, as opposed to a digital sensor. If that’s the reason for shooting film, then it kind of feels like digitally editing the film photo is taking you further away from the way the film responded to that particular exposure of light in that particular moment on that day. In that case, why not just shoot digital? I’d appreciate your thoughts on this!

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

Partly. Yea def shoot film for the aesthetic but regardless, film shooters edited their images plenty even before photoshop. A negative has no correct interpretation. Every positive image is an always an interpretation

Editing the source material to the way I like it part of the process so yes I edit my photos!

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

haha keep on editing!

I think too much editing of any kind can be bad for creativity if you're relying on it to fix later what you aren't putting the effort in to get right as you're shooting, but shooting for the edit and consciously using the editing techniques as creative tools is completely different to just spraying and hoping you can "fix it in post". There's also a danger that too much editing can dilute your creativity as it can easily push you to second guess every creative decision if you're not careful. Beyond that, whether you're using digital editing or darkroom techniques, your only duty as an artist to the "purity" of the art form is to do whatever's needed to make the image in the print or on the screen look the way it does in your head.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

yea agreed. editing is kind of limitless so i think its good to have some boundaries.

I was half expecting First Man Photography to show up in those hiking clips lol, seems up his alley. Any purist mindset comes from a place of gate-keeping (whether or not the person promoting the "purity" is intending to gate-keep or not) so I leave it, completely, as well.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

haha i love hiking. its "fun" exercise

I edit most of my film in photoshop to add a little personal sazón but I only use 3 tools. Color Balance, Curves and Hue Saturation and it only takes a few minutes

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

a little sazon goes a long way! flavor baby!

You bought the film, you do what you want.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Sometimes I get it for free tho 🤣

@JammiYork

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy Even better. :)

Yep. Edit but not over the top. Even crop to any aspect ratios too

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea crop is the most powerful one! Can really transform an image

I don’t even edit my digital pics I take. A soft glow or hdr effect on occasions. But other than that no, and I use SnapSeed to do the majority of that. I’m just not a fan of editing. But that is just me. Each their own I say.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

yea def, to each their own

I'm a halfway purist. I usually adjust contrast, brightness, and remove dust. But it doesn't make sense to me to make film photos look like digital; at that point I might just pull out my Sony A5100 and be done.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

What does looking digital mean?

@kerc

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy Making them look so "perfect" that they don't even resemble film photography, basically removing all the character that film brings in like grain, the film stock's "natural colors" (for lack of a better term), and so on.

Print film was designed to be edited. Digitally speaking, the reversal process of a negative is a massive edit as it is. PS. Just thought I’d edit my comment as I commented before watching until the end! It just surprises me when people say that they are posting unedited scans. Massive contradiction if I’ve ever heard one!

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Haha I feel you!

I shoot everything portra 400 two stops overexposed on my t3. I never edit. Or scan. Or develop. Every roll I shoot gets thrown straight into the Thames. My images are so pure that nobody has even seen them.

@DI-cm5xc

3 жыл бұрын

I do hope you're selling frames with empty mats that contain your "pure" images. Sounds very "arty". Probably could pull it off with the right marketing.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

LOLOL photo god status

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

anything is possible nowadays!

Yes, Like you walking stick.. hope you got some good photos after the walk!!

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

i did! only shot a roll of medium format but saving that for another video 😊

I never understood the I dont edit my film crowd. Every decision I make in the process is about making the final image look the way I want it to look. I make a conscious choice about the film stock, lens, camera, developer, and edit to reach the look I want for the image. Why would you not use every tool available? Plus, you've already impacted the image in some way with every other decision you made. There is nothing "pure" about the process.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

I feel you. But I do think it’s ok to leave some variables up to randomness. It’s part of the fun

Couldn’t agree more. A scan is just a numerical interpretation of what that scanner “thinks” it should be so yes you have to edit. Personally I also do not edit much. And yes then you have the analog printing process which a totally different beast altogether but equally an interpretation of the person who prints so yes, this “purity” thing does not exist. It’s rather silly.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

for sure! to be fair i hear this less and less nowadays

@TheFilmFellow

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy Thankfully.

@TheFilmFellow

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy Cool video BTW, glad you’ve picked up that subject!

I edit just a very few of my photos cause I don't really know what should I do at that. And I think many people edit their photos in a very fake way

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

yea i see what you mean. too many options

Came for “EDIT vs NO EDIT”, stayed for the hiking.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

you a real fan 💪🏽

The funny thing is this argument was going on in the film days. Ansel Adams and the f/64 gang more or less wrote William Mortensen out of the photography history books because they didn't care for his editing techniques and subject matter.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Hahaha that’s amazing. Even without digital this was a fight 😄

That’s so wack! We edited so much in the darkroom in photo class! Change the filter, dodge here, burn this in.

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

Haha yuo

I don't consider a scan to be an edit. If I scan a negative on my own at home, and the only color correction I deliberately make is to switch the negative scan into a positive digital, then I wouldn't consider that an edit, as the negative image is made from a positive exposure. Also, there's no artistic creativity going into that change. I'm simply using the default, built in, automatic color reversal function of the software. Even the software engineers didn't get creative with it. In my opinion, the definition of editing is permanently removing information from, or adding information to the original image or a copy of it. Making a copy is not editing. Even if in the process, some information does not get replicated in the copy, this does not count as a loss, because the copy was not a perfect copy to begin with. Changing a negative image to positive also does not count as an edit, because there is no information loss or gain in this process. Cropping the image is an edit, because it involves removing parts of the image, and double exposures also count as editing, in my view, because it involves adding more information to an existing image. I wouldn't call myself a purist, however, I don't see the point in shooting analog if I'm going to edit the image beyond cropping. Of course I don't really use photography as an art. For me, it's more of a utilitarian undertaking. Function over form. I simply want to record information for later viewing.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for your view! Altho I do disagree that there is no point in editing when shooting analog. For me is a question of how much, not yes or no.

'It's art' - the end imo. the purity ends the moment we press that shutter :p As usual, people tend to get their panties in a bunch for nothing ;)

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

haha plain and simple

Every images should be edited no matter film or digital but to a certain extend. Heavy editing is disgusting!

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Haha I feel you!

My only gripe is I don't think that your disagreements with the "do whatever you want" argument is counter to the actual argument. Do whatever you want because it's your photo and artistic vision means just that. It encompasses whether you like to only remove dust in the photo all the way up to completely compositing the scene and manipulating the colors to be wild. At the end of the day, the product you make is just that and I don't think it has any sort of pressure on the artist to make something grand and spend a lot of time on it. Everyone should just have fun.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

yea i don't necessarily disagree. i more want to explain how film does give me the comfort of not feeling like i have to edit tons

just my opinion, I don't say it is the right one. People who don't edit their film don't understand how scanning works (it is the same about printing). It is like when people say editing digital photographs is cheating, they don't understand how photography works or digital cameras work. But in the end, people do what they want, but they can't say that their photographs are 100% the reality

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

fair point!

No editing. Slides are pure little pieces of art. Projecting them on a big canvas makes the effort extra worthwile.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Projection is cool, cuz there is not choice in the matter. It’s the “purest” way to see a slide

@tmuntenmaker5203

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy Love it! And loving your channel. Original stuff

slide projector + slide film = the only "pure" process

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting view! Seen it come up a couple of times - I’m intrigued by it

*fix it in post*

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

LOL / I can hear the “do it in camera” crowd yelling at you

@nicksucio

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy 🥲

I've said this to many many a person who have said to me that they use the files straight from camera! You may not of edited your photo's but someone or something somewhere has! Sleeping Giant? :-D

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

LOL i forgot the name of the hill and so i called it sleeping giant 😂

@IainHC1

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy :-D

Once upon a time you took your film to a lab they did their thing and you got your photos and that was it. For generations this was done without Lightroom. In my opinions that in itself is analog photography. Once you do additional work in Lightroom you take away the “analog” and it is now just “photography.” Once you make changes in Lightroom then that’s is no longer reality captured. It’s a lie.

@ribsy

Ай бұрын

The lab techs were using computers with very primitive Lightroom style software. If you are ok with that, you must be ok with all of it. If you want full analog, gotta print in the darkroom

"TEACH THESE DEVILS!"

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

LOLOL preach! 🤣

Every famous photographer that these purist dudes reference as inspiration are laughing

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

LOLOL good point

Photography isn't Art...it can be but isn't automatically.

@ribsy

2 жыл бұрын

hmmmm not sure if i agree

@dimaermolenko98

2 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy you are not an Artist just because you do photography! Why is your photography Art? Why do you photograph?

I don't edit my film = what ever my lab tech did is good enough

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Basically!

I edit everything LOL

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Haha word!

Less is more. It's like makeup 💄

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

I don’t disagree! Haha

I think more of what purists mean is that editing film SCANS isn't really fair. I don't agree, but then film was made to be printed in the darkroom anyways, so in some ways editing scans on Lightroom is "wrong". But obviously, the scanner needs color corrections and digital files can be manipulated in many ways that would be only achieved by a master in the darkroom, the simplest saturation ajustment cannot be made in the darkroom, as different RA-4 papers were meant for higher or lower saturation/contrast. The CMY values in the enlarger only ajust the color, not contrast or saturation, which depends on the film you're using.

@ribsy

3 жыл бұрын

Yea totally agree. Saturation and contrast are lucky tools of ours in digital edits

@Ryan-lu9km

3 жыл бұрын

@@ribsy For sure they're. Maybe back in the old days of different contrast/saturation RA-4 papers it was possible to somewhat control this aspect, but not in a "refined" way. They had to be very skilled to do this.