*straight out of scanner users sometimes have a strange way to air their results without taking into consideration what was done before in the darkroom/photography. This video is to talk about it.

I absolutely agree that the trend of "no retouching" is a reaction on the increased focus given to collage and digital painting approach to photography. But to expand on that, I think there's the aspect of shining light on the artistry that happens in that first step of taking the picture. With digital it can sometimes almost feel like this step is seen just as "collecting visual information" and the real artistry is what you then do with it in Photoshop. Lot of people say they're drawn to film because it makes them "slow down" and focus on the actual picture taking part of photography, so it makes sense that with this viewpoint one might feel like post processing somehow takes away from that. I however agree that photography IS the whole process and every step deserves some attention.

You are either an artist or a machine operator. I prefer being an artist with my medium of choice being a camera and all it takes to make a finished image. Whether I’m shooting film or digital I will crop, color adjust and even clone something out of an image. I’ve never added anything but that is more my computer skills than an artistic take. I agree with everything you said. From which camera, format, film, developer and even which paper you print it on you making choices, editing if you will, on the finished image. Please keep doing these pieces. I do enjoy them even if I don’t always agree with them but please don’t stop doing them

Well said Nico! Artists have been "changing" their work for hundreds of years, photographs are no exception. I find it amusing when I see read "I don't retouch my film photography". Right, moving on.

I try to get as much done "in camera" as possible. However, I have no qualms about how much post processing it takes to get the image to the point to where "I" am happy with it. With my film I shoot and I mostly only shoot film for aspects I cannot get in FF Digital...medium format and with that mostly pano. I used to scan with my flatbed, but now use a copy stand and my GFX100 to scan the negatives, and once digitized, I use the full arsenal of tools as my disposal to edit the images. I respect those that do not like to edit, I believe "Fro" Polin doesn't even crop his digital images. Whatever floats your boat, but me? I do what it takes to get the image to my standards for release. I did read somewhere, and I'll destroy this by paraphrasing....that great art is enhanced by the limitations imposed upon it. I'll by that....but it is up to the individual artist as to how much limitations they wish to endure. Have a great day! CC

Very well laid out. I'm definitely adding this video to my collection of must watch photography lessons.

Love this. Couldn’t agree more. Well articulated.

Good points! People don't realize that when scanning, your lab is editing your pics - adding more magenta, less yellow, adjusting the brightness and exposure, setting the white and black points, etc. So there is no such thing as "straight from the scanner" in the process for the most part.

@akis.tsirogiannis

2 жыл бұрын

THAT'S the point! It's all an interpretation of the scanner, software and your own acttions in the end. There is not ONE/straight/correct/untouched way to interpret a negative - that's why they are the way they are as well. But people (in general) seem to have difficutlies leaving their matrix ;)

@Pollishus

2 жыл бұрын

Yep, there is no such thing as a perfect scan and the data has to be tonemapped to present it digitally, and tonemapping it multiple times is just tone mapping still

THIS is maybe the most important video you made so far imo and one that I was waiting for. People don't get that while even if they indeed may not "edit" their scans themselves - someone else did already and they have no clue - because they don't get how soft- and hardware work together. If it's the scanner (and it's limitations, technical specifications or configuration) or the software with a particular scanner, the driver or the color profiles or even the algorithms/code itself...It's a digital process and decisions are being made all the time - about colour, contrast, etc. There is not one/right/true/raw way of scanning a colour negative especially (different maybe with slide/b&w), but it's all a specific interpretation at that moment of all those parameters. So all this #unedited #straightfromthescanner #straightfromthelab movements are very hypcritical and also proove that people don't really get what happens due to lack of knowledge. It was always hard though to leave your own matrix on whatever narrative ;)

Great video on an important topic. I have only edited my photos to remove dust spots etc. I have never believed in manipulating the print in post or the darkroom.

I agree that everything is an artistic choice and there are many variables that affect the final image. You have to remember that every scanner is also a camera with it's own colour science that will interpret the film differently. Choosing not to further edit the photo as a way of staying 'truer to the film' is flawed thinking IMO, but if that is the look you like then enjoy! Photographic paper was literally designed to work with colour negative film and I do think it looks beautiful, but that is just another way of presenting of the photo you took.

Totally agree with everything you said here. I think sometimes, some folks get caught up in the “authenticity” debate that they forget that editing tools are artistic tools that are simply used to realize one’s artistic vision. Use them or not, it’s up to the artist. I personally edit my film photos minimally but it really depends on how I want the final image to look like. I think the only danger is falling into the pitfall where I end up never happy with the final image so I end re-editing photos every now and then 😅

Why care what other people think? All the greats did things their way because they wanted to and all of them used all the tools available and some created new tools to make new and exciting images. If your image needs a bit of editing then edit, film or digital. It is your image to do with what you want. That includes doing nothing to it also. Be you, because you are what counts.

Really nice take! Everything is an artistic choice. Choosing to NOT change something equally as choosing to DO so. There are no moral high grounds in photography (or art for that). The variety of approaches and interpretations is precisely what makes it that wonderful. We get to - just for an instance - see the world through someone else’s eyes and ain't that just something marvellous, huh!

Great discussion, Nico. I try to get the latest scan possible, so I can make adjustments, to create my B&W art. KB

I can only speak as a "born again" hobbyist who is returning to film for fun and, arguably, learning film for the first time and I think both you and comments below add a lot of great commentary, I only want to add my extremely novice perspective that this idea of little or no retouching has been less of a conscious choice for me and more of just plain surprise. When I take a photo with my phone or a digital camera I'm still trying hard to do everything "in camera" but I still find myself spending a lot of times tweaking a photo in Lightroom or whatever, and yet when I approach that same expected workflow with a scanned film image I import the image, stare at it in awe a bit, and then leave it alone or with very minimal touchups to get rid of dust or whatever. I am cognizant and appreciative of the folk who help along the way as I don't home develop or scan, I know they tweak along the way and that helps, but man I'm shocked how often I'll look at something I took on film and NOT feel motivated to touch it up. Spellbound by the medium I guess.

Every photograph is processed. It's either completed by the photographer/technician or software engineer's algorithm.

I work in IT. After dealing with broken computers all day, every day, every year, I've grown to despise computers. Having to relearn an interface when some programmer does a pointless redesign -- rendering all my experience obsolete -- only compounds my frustration. Photography is a hobby for me; an activity to decompress, relax, and nurture my creative side. I shoot film to slow down, work for a good shot, and force myself to think about the shots I am taking. I want to avoid spending 7 hours at a monitor going through 539 images of bees alighting on a flower. The absolute last think I want to do is pay Adobe a small fortune to "rent" software so I can learn another interface that will be discarded in 18 months so I can spend another 4 hours manipulating images. I've developed my own film, with mostly decent results. Unfortunately, without dedicated space, I have issues keeping the negative clean and free of cat hair. I own three very nice photo scanners on two continents, but again, one has to learn the software to get good results. Some labs do a fantastic job - I found several in Bangkok. Others are horrible. I was in Kyoto and dropped off some rolls at a store, but they messed up the choice for middle gray. My gray cat looked black and all the photos ended up with blown out highlights. Fortunately, the negatives were okay and a rescan in Thailand resulted in good images. I appreciate Ansel Adams greatest artistry was performed in his darkroom, dodging and burning to yield thousands of shades of gray. That is not something I am in a position to do, even if I wanted to. What I do want to do is build a collection of what I think are my best images and have prints made. Thanks for this video.

I like your opinions, thank you

Very well formulated.

This needed to be said, Thank You!! I personally have removed all my work from all social media platforms. Thinking back, I have no regrets doing so. If someone shows interest in viewing my portfolio, I make arrangements for a in person meeting to show them the final darkroom prints. Because even scanning prints to post just isn't the same thing as a hands on viewing.

I agree with you 100%, I scan my film after I develop it, but I will adjust contrast the same way I would in the darkroom and spot dust ... digital is definitely easier for spotting than trad prints!!! I am not a fan of people scanning dusty negs and leaving the dust and hairs in it!!! I also am full frame-ish ... back in the 70s when i started, we were taught to compose and print full frame!!!

I'm coming to film from digital. While I have a sometimes irrational dislike for composite and over edited images, to me the end result is my art and I'll crop and I'll edit to get what I want. I tend to be quite minimal about it for the most part, but as far as I am concerned LR is my dark room and I'll change the WB and contrast if I feel it's warranted to get the picture I want. I'm still using a lab for my film photography for now, and my philosophy for the scans is the same as for digital as stated above: I'll edit to get what I want, but quite minimally. When I eventually start processing myself, that philosophy will continue, and again when I start printing. What anybody else does is entirely up to them and I won't butt in. But for me the rules are what I make them.

To me I’ve always had this unwritten rule when it comes to editing and it’s as simple as is this edit which I’m about to apply beneficial or does it detract from the eventual photo. Obviously things like sharpening, contrast and some color correction here or there are necessary because yes my Epson V550 is just one interpretation. I think leaving a shot as is right out of the scanner won’t do it justice but that is simply my opinion and everyone has to do what they enjoy doing. I feel that a discussion like this has to be prefaced with who are you shooting for. If you truly shoot for yourself than no explanation should be required as to what you edit or not but too many out there shoot for likes and followers. It’s also often really funny that some say well I never edit any photos right out of the scanner and with the same breath they confess Ansel Adams is their great hero. Not editing photos out of the scanner has become Gatekeepers City!

I don't do much when I scan, big dust or hairs I remove, but some small dust is fine, I don't care, or actually I want to keep it, it add some character to it, I am fine with people changing as much as they want but when you start to replacing skies and add things to the photo, it's not a photo any more, it should be called something else, but I don't scan much, most are dark room prints, but I do crop all the time.

I don’t edit much i do work in the Darkroom and edit for burn and dodge and contrast filter etc. But I don’t go all Peter Lik even with my Digital shots. To each their own

interesting video! I'm okay with either approach. I just think that people who claim un-edited Photo's are more pure or true or something don't understand the history of the whole process. Besides, like you said, there is 'editing' being done at every step of the process (developing, scanning). If you like your pictures straight out the scan that's fine, but editing has always been a part of photography.

As someone who just added the umpteenth potatoshop layer to a scan of a negative I'm working on, I'm in no position to comment on the purity of analogue art. But I'll comment anyway. You got your raw materials. You got you artwork. What those are and what goes on in between is your own business. That's the joy of art and what makes it personal.

I would like to make an observation: Any external representation made of an inner sensory experience has been edited at least three times. In the case of images this would be once by the optic nerve and the person's eyes, which vary in color and light representation, once by their memory, and once again by physically manifesting this art in the world. View a Curtis platinotype in person, if you can. No scan/screen can convey how deep and complex the colors are. Looking at one of these online bears the same similarity that eating pot roast has to looking at a picture of pot roast. I was going to subscribe to a fairly expensive high end digital art magazine, and asked if the magazine would consider including a calibration shot with a grey card and color chart image with each location shoot, so I could have an idea of what the photographer intended the viewer to see. They were puzzled that I would even ask why it is important to see the image the way the photographer wanted me to see their image. I make physical prints by hand coating emulsions on art paper. I calibrate the shots and edit minimally out of choice and necessity. The only photo club within two plus hours has a "jpeg only" policy on image submission since film doesn't even exist anymore, and even if it did, Paper Prints Are Dead And Buried As A Part of Photography.

Speakin the true true!

A have seen two examples of how wrong scanners can be. One is when you scan colour positive film and the scan looks nothing like the slide and it takes some effort with adjusting the digital file to give a reasonable representation of the slide. The other situation is if you take a negative and scan it through different scanners and or scanning software they will all look different

well said!

Thanks for this.

Totally right! Obviously many people don't understand the technicalities of photography and/or are outright lazy. Darkroom work is a creative proces! And scanning means you take a digital picture of your film picture. Accidentally I am just scanning slide film. Without adjusting the scanner settings all my pictures would be way "off"! To get decent results you need to understand what you are doing and put some effort into it.

I work as a retoucher since 1988. We edited pictures and made composings in the film era as well did later with paintbox chromacom, scitex and at least Photoshop. I like editing. I earn my living with it...😉

8:36 🤤🤤🤤 great shutter sound

A good freind and fellow co-host from the Classic Camera Revival James Lee, has this one mantra, which I agree with 100%, "Finish your work." This "I don't edit film photos" seems to be an offshoot of some sort of obesssion with authenticity. Please, are you going to hang a print in a gallery that's not cropped and has ton of dust specs/space junk? It tells me one doesn't care about their work if they take a file straight from the scanner?

There's a big difference between processing and photo montage. Digital or analog, processing is about predictively realising your captured photo pre vision. Photo montage is about reactively changing the pictorial elements within the frame. One's predictive (before the event), the others reactive (after the event). My film photography is mostly predictive. My digital photography is mostly reactive. Do whatever it takes to realise your artistic vision.

FACTS.

I treat my scans as a raw file, and then process.

Thank you!

@NicosPhotographyShow

2 жыл бұрын

You're welcome!

@otherSmallCities

2 жыл бұрын

@@NicosPhotographyShow really quite enjoy your commentary every time and this one hit home particularly, because I am often hearing from friends (who do not shoot film) that they don’t understand why I actually put work into developing and scanning (cannot fit an enlarger into my place yet). I’ll just send them this video if it comes up again!!🙌🏻

negative has an expansive latitude. you need to have the initial image be as flat and open as possible. then one would time and light the print. or today, edit it in ps.

Well... A scanner is a tool. I don't shoot digital, apart from random family pictures. The scanner saves me from spending a lot of money in darkroom. I do digitally exactly what I later do in the darkroom. This lets me edit the roll, distinguish trash from well-exposed pictures and plan what I will try later while printing. Of course, a scan and a print are never the same things, but, you know, dodging, burning, cropping... Those are the operations you can anticipate digitally. Most of the time, I don't want to face an impossible-to-print shot. To me, it is just a step before the enlarger. So digitally I just crop always preserving the original format, burn and dodge, add contrast if needed, and finally spot the dust. The same thing I do in the darkroom. The difference is I can share negatives and prints if I want, and I don't waste time and paper on a picture that is too hard to print. Maybe by bypassing the scanner, I could become a better printer. But I would be a better photographer instead. So I agree with you, but also don't :)

Amen

We said nico

Who is saying you can’t edit your scans? I haven’t seen or heard any of my favourite photographers or any people I follow say this?

some dodge and burn for me is not editing, is easy and can help you picture being understood better

I think one of the starkest examples of how cropping changes an image is Nick Ute's "Napalm Girl," showing a young Kim Phuc running and burned from a napalm attack by South Vietnamese forces (which everyone has probably seen). But the famous image is actually a cropped version of the full frame, which you can now find on-line. It's just such a different photo before and after. But the crop is what Nick Ute wanted to tell the story he saw, and the rest is photography history.

I can see me back in the 70's going to my high school or college photography instructor and hand in a unedited 8x10. Would of saved me many hours in the darkroom and touching up tiny specs of dust with a tiny pointed brush. Kind of explains some of the photo's I see on flicker where the image is covered in dust and scratched. Cleaning a negative isn't editing.

@jeremyfielding2333

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, but I never understand the problems people have with dust. I have 40 years old negatives with no dust on them. Are people storing their negatives on the kitchen table?

Just did a short video about expired vericolor. If I wouldn't have edited those pictures the colour casts would've made the photos unusable.

I think most of us who don't edit photos know all that stuff you and everyone is saying, I have heard that many times. And I will still not like over edited photos. I mean, I understand editing for correcting little details, but if you use editing to make a picture look amazing, that is not photography to me

The only real problem is folks who think "their way" is "the right way." Do what you do and be proud of your work without apologies to anyone else, and by the same token, recognize another person's freedom to do the same. Just don't pretend to do or be something you are not. To thine own self be true, as Shakespeare famously wrote! Great video! Cheers!

Personally I wet print every film photo I take so I don’t care of scaning or editing.I don’t have enough time even to scan all my film photo.Editing?Just forget it.I have a lot of films never being scanned,but I don’t care about it because I already have the negative and the wet print photo.If I want a bigger print or I want to send a photo for gift,I just do another wet print.I am not a computer man,I don’t really like or appreciate digital images and for my precious free time,I prefer to go out to shoot than to be in front of a monitor.I am a photographer.

To me this "no edit" or #nofilter has something of "I am more honest than you lot" attitude. I think it was Ansel Adams who said: My photos do not show reality but how I remember reality. Thus saying you see what I want you to see and how I MADE the picture to show that.

Yeah, I just love seeing pubes and dirt on the negatives. Some people need to get a grip and give their head a wobble.

@NicosPhotographyShow

2 жыл бұрын

They sell dust filters for digital pics, its a thing people seem to enjoy. Not my thing

Like looking at a time traveler. Me 35 years ago before I became a professional.

Even your eyes view the world distorted. Why try to present the world when you can present how you want to see the world? That's the artistic component in photography.

Absolut richtig das sind ja alles Fakten und keine Meinungen. Mal abgesehen davon, dass jeder mit seinen Bildern natürlich sowieso tun kann was er will, schick deine Filme zum Scannen in 5 Labore und du bekommst 5 Ergebnisse. Was sollte das also sein "direkt aus der Kamera"? Eigentlich nur ein Hinweis, dass man den Prozess nicht verstanden hat oder ihn schlicht nicht bedienen kann.

As a rule, I try not to edit any of my film photos. I feel that film allows you to get good results out of the camera, so really no need to edit. Now the caveat, I will edit for level. But to each his own!

I always hear from people who think this way that "the greats didn't edit man!" Ansel Adams was known for going crazy dodging and burning in the Darkroom. To think you can't edit photos now a days it has always been a part of the process just in a slightly different way.

By the few complaints about editing photos that I've ever seen I've drawn the conclusion that people dislike the word "photography" to also contain a whole range of other (related) art forms such as photo editing. Editing being limited to all the things that would've been impossible to do with the camera in the first place. I agree wholly with that stance. I think the art of photography stops at the mechanical work you do using your photography gear. The rest is called post process for a reason: It's after (post) the primary process which is the photography. It's very good that people make things in all kinds of art forms, but they can't call it photography just because they want to.

Shake it alllllll the time

Alright, I'll just post my dusty, negative images from now on

I hardly edit my photos because it’s MY PHOTO who cares what anyone thinks. If you’re happy with your photo however you want good. Done

You taking pictures without a lens attached, the ultimate crop 😊

@CertainExposures

2 жыл бұрын

Gives you better tones 😃

do as you want... dont be a hipster

I think the concept of not retouching is - rubbish. If you go into the darkroom you dodge and burn. You use different filters. You even adjust development time of the film if required. That is all influencing the look of the image. It´s about how you use them in order to extend the image quality and message you try to send. And yes, cropping is fine too. Period.

I edit everything and crop (if needed), that's how I enjoy my experience and find my voice!

Everyone edits. I call BS if you don't.

There is no such thing as an unedited photo, whether it's taken on a digital camera or film. Either you take charge of the editing workflow, controlling all variables or an engineer/technician does it for you and I'm not strictly talking about the lab technician which operates the scanner here. Whenever you scan, the default values are simply what an engineer has determined some years or even decades ago, not to bring the best (or the most natural) out of an image but just to serve as a starting point. It's like trying to look for a default shutter speed on a camera, it doesn't even make sense. You use different values depending on the result you want or put it on auto mode and let an algorithm an engineer came up with make a choice. We don't argue 1/60 being the best shutter speed because it's what's selected on the camera when you take it out of the box, we should not argue that an image is unedited because it's developed and scanned using the suggested/default values in a manual/software.

@obican

2 жыл бұрын

Of course, as you've said so clearly in the video, not caring about any of this is a choice as well. Caring too much about the technical stuff won't give you better photos, just as leaving everything as is won't give you something more authentic.

I have never used a clone brush, healing brush, or unsharp mask in the darkroom. Retouching with these digital tools is not replicating what was done in the darkroom. Film interprets while digital retouching interpolates. A percentage of pixels created by a digital camera are created thru interpolation i.e. invented by a computer. Retouching also creates information while film and darkroom do not. No new information is created by pushing/pulling, agitation, or adjusting the exposure and contrast. Raising the enlarger head creates a larger photograph without creating information since all the information must already exist on the negative. "Straight out of film camera" means that the image was created using light i.e. "photography" and not created by a computer i.e. "CGI" (Computer Generated Imagery). Finally, those who shoot film are not rebelling against digital cameras; they just don't like the way digital looks.

@pulpufictione

2 жыл бұрын

Maybe YOU haven't used an unsharp mask in the darkroom, but you're implying that it's purely a digital construct, which it is not. And maybe to you digital is inventing detail, but there's only so many silver grains per unit area, no different than pixels. The traditional medium of photography takes a 3D world and interprets it onto a 2D plane... So, in that regard, neither digital nor film has any fidelity to the original.

@OneMadPhotographer

2 жыл бұрын

@@pulpufictione Every pixel of an "off the camera" image can be traced to a silver grain on the film. This is not the case for digital. While film photography may darken, lighten, or change the hue of a bit of color, film can not invent grains the way a digital camera invents (interpolates) pixels. True, both film and digital twist and distort 3D (even 4D) onto a 2D plane but digital goes the extra mile to invent information as well. Is this bad? Not necessarily; but, the topic we're discussing is why do some insist on "off the camera" images. It is the difference between fresh squeezed OJ vs. from concentrate. Some can't tell the difference.

@pulpufictione

2 жыл бұрын

@@OneMadPhotographer "interpolate" probably sounds like "invent" to someone outside of the STEM field, it's actually a linear, mathematical process, which is reversible (given an uncompressed image debayered image). The raw file from camera contains just that: pixel data, in discrete levels, based on the number of photons of a specific energy that hit that photosite. With sensors with high spatial resolution, the result is able to handily overcome the limitations of the Bayer array. Indeed, even silver grains at the microscopic level do not exactly overlay each other (Foveon sensor probably achieves better color resolution in that regard). Your misgivings about digital are essentially non-existent with a Foveon sensor, since no interpolation is necessary. Thankfully, the human visual system is able to fill in or ignore the gaps when our eyes are unable to resolve the minutae between a well executed film or digital print at reasonable viewing distances.

87% of old film images are rubbish ! light leaks, grain .. ... all sort of crud.

@amr4211

2 жыл бұрын

You do know those are also artistic choices that people include on purpose as well, though, right? Who wants perfection? Give me grain. Give me light leaks. Give me dust. Snapshot photography (which is what you’re talking about) was meant to capture life moments, not to be art (although some of it was).

@truetothegame2928

2 жыл бұрын

@@amr421187% of film pictures scanned onto the web are absolute turd,, hipsters hyping up the process,, film fiim film, blah blah blah ! people just use what you have in front of you, just take pictures and stop pretending film makes anything better,,, it doesn't ! a person can’t be just as thoughtful and purposeful and fab with a digital camera. Tell a film twerp about the environmental issues that processing film involves (chemicals in the water) and watch them look into their Konica Hexar and whisper I am going to eat my mustard colour beanie hat !

@amr4211

2 жыл бұрын

@@truetothegame2928, digital cameras are amazing. I am still in awe of the photos I first took on a 1.3mp in 2001. My point was not that film is better (though I totally see how my comment sounded like that), but that we shouldn’t devalue either type of artistic choice. And I fully admit that most of my film photos are complete dross (as are most of my digital photos, to be fair). My own enjoyment of film might come from being tactile and enjoying the physical aspects of film photography and development vs. using computer programs to edit photos. From an artistic perspective, I think both are equally valid. (This does mean that I also think it’s perfectly valid and a legitimate art exercise to choose to include grain, dust, and light leaks in a photo as much as it is to create a stunningly beautiful photo masterpiece.)

@ratinthehat_

2 жыл бұрын

@@amr4211 right on

This loud minority really only has 3 kinds of people: those with resentment over edited photos getting more engagement on social media, those who truly just don’t have the drive/patience/skill to edit properly, and those with expensive gear not getting as good results as people with “inferior” gear. You’re right, Nico. It’s wrong and I wouldn’t even say just a little bit, but totally wrong. Those that feel privately that they prefer not to edit, that’s fine. This is aimed at those who publicly express that editing is this unnatural thing untrue to photography.. probably someone new to film, too.