[HN Gopher] I quit editing photos
___________________________________________________________________
I quit editing photos
Author : speckx
Score : 75 points
Date : 2026-03-20 19:44 UTC (4 days ago)
(HTM) web link (jamesbaker.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (jamesbaker.uk)
| zecg wrote:
| This FLOSS RAW editor works really well, btw:
| http://www.rawtherapee.com/
| Topgamer7 wrote:
| I tried rt, but it was really slow. I typically am taking pub
| league sports photos. So I try to get through them fast. Dark
| table really scratched the itch there.
|
| There are some bugs, like batched styles seem to be... order
| dependent. But its been suiting my needs for a few years.
| dobladov wrote:
| There's also RapidRAW https://github.com/CyberTimon/RapidRAW
| 10729287 wrote:
| Thanks for the link, this is exactly what I'm looking for
| as i've never been able to work with cataloguers like
| Lightroom or iTunes.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| That URL and product name have a real expertsexchange thing
| going on that's a bit unfortunate.
| graemep wrote:
| I agree, but giving up editing photos rather than using a
| different editor seems bizarre though.
| Copernicron wrote:
| It works well provided your needs are simple. I rely on a lot
| of features in LR that simply don't exist in any open source
| tool. Even a lot of closed source ones lack them. As much as I
| would like to move to something else I'm kind of stuck.
| jmclnx wrote:
| I believe if you put photos out on the WEB, at the very least use
| exiv2 to add a some kind of copyright and strip out telemetry if
| any exists. Who knows any company pays attention to this, but at
| least I know it is "protected" :)
|
| This is the file I used for exiv2: # #
| To apply to a Pic do: # $ exiv2 -m copyright.txt
| <file> # # This should blank personal id info
| # set Exif.Image.Model " " set Exif.Image.Make "
| " add Exif.Image.Copyright Ascii "Copyright (c) 2026
| MYNAME MYEMAIL" set Exif.Photo.UserComment "Can be shared
| using Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International
| Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
| rr808 wrote:
| Me too, I figured I spent more time on the computer than taking
| pics. Now I shoot jpg and if I have some spare time I go out and
| shoot. If I take a good pic I share it with basic editing if any
| instead of waiting to get it "perfect".
| kvgr wrote:
| I started photography last year, i shoot raw because i dont like
| sony colors. But I have very quick process: "auto", little
| fidgeting with sliders, one in 10 photos gets a mask for sky and
| then i apply some preset that i like most for the photo. I just
| cant spend 30minutes on one photo.
|
| But the editing process is very subjective. even in era of film
| there was a lot of processing, colors with chemicals, fixing
| defects. Just manual photoshop.
|
| I understand the simplicity and joy of purists, but to each his
| own i guess.
| rickdg wrote:
| I just use Pixelmator Pro for a quick workflow. There's a nice
| feedback loop between taking the shot and editing it later.
| calebm wrote:
| Pixelmator Pro is great and affordable.
| rpgbr wrote:
| I mostly try Apple Photos' "magic" editing. It's hit and miss,
| but when it hits, the photo gets way better. When not, I adjust a
| couple sliders (contrast, brightness, saturation). In both cases,
| only when I'll use the photo. Otherwise, editing tools will be
| there for when (and if) I need them.
| alexalx666 wrote:
| I had the same experience, I mostly import b/w photos after
| editing in Capture One, the magic stick raises brightness,
| sometimes adds sepia. Most of the time these edits improve the
| photo. I always check proposed edits for newly imported photos
| that I think look dull in Photos.app grid
| Retr0id wrote:
| I set my camera to save both JPEG and RAW. 95% of the time the
| camera's JPEG is fine so I just use that (maybe with some final
| adjustments in GIMP), but it's nice to have the RAW around in
| case more significant edits are needed.
| ticulatedspline wrote:
| Myself and some friends all went through the cycle:
|
| - Jpeg is fine, nice in-camera processing
|
| - Oh but I really want to edit this one to fix things only raw
| can do, raw is better anyway
|
| - (Starts shooting in raw) - man annoying to have to process
| all my photos jpeg is good a lot of the time
|
| - (shoots jpeg + raw)
|
| - ugh, so many files and it eats my card, I don't need both
| files all the time, also I'm editing more anyway
|
| - (Starts shooting only in raw)
|
| That's where I am now, though the final steps may definitely be
| -Eh, jpeg is good enough, I don't edit anymore anyway.
| wrboyce wrote:
| I took a similar path, but with an additional final step of
| moving to film and doing the development, scanning, and
| editing myself. Definitely more work per photo, but each
| photo taken is a lot more considered.
| Retr0id wrote:
| I just buy lots of SD cards
| alfyboy wrote:
| I do the same. Then group them in Digikam. Cull aggressively
| and put the best photos in an "external library" in Immich.
| Easy way to make them avaliable to my phone, without cluttering
| up my iCloud photos with duplicate JPEGs.
|
| The last issue with my workflow now is figure out a better way
| to cull my iCloud photos, as they are a mess, and it's a bit
| annoying doing it on my phone.
| arvinsim wrote:
| My process is to take a lot of photos, then ruthlessly cull them
| before I do any editing.
|
| I usually keep around 10% of the total photos for editing. After
| that, I do another round of culling and keep only the best.
|
| I also follow a philosophy of "good enough". If left to my own
| devices, I would probably endlessly edit photos.
|
| I edit a single photo for around 3 minutes. That way, I will not
| feel stuck.
| some-guy wrote:
| This is how I use my Canon t3i. Once in awhile everything will
| align perfectly, require very little editing and I feel a huge
| sense of accomplishment.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| With practice and patience, the aligning perfectly will come
| into your control :) Just get out there and shoot more!
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I found myself noticing the 10% keep rate a few months back and
| now keep that as as shooting target. I want 30 photos from
| today, better capture 300 times.
| mcdeltat wrote:
| I used to take a lot of photos and then cull them afterwards
| before editing. It worked, although I was often loving shooting
| and dreading editing, because before doing any actual editing,
| I'd have 200 photos to sift through.
|
| After a _lot_ of practice, I became better at culling in my
| head, before even taking the photos. This has shifted my
| relationship with photography to more of a cognitive exercise,
| with a different set of enjoyments. I take far fewer photos
| overall - often I go out with a camera and don 't even take a
| single shot. Editing is more enjoyable because there's less to
| do and I already know what edits I want. It's less naively fun
| but more contently fulfilling.
| anta40 wrote:
| Whatever floats the boat.
|
| Even back to film/analog era, taking a photo is just the 1st
| step. Then apply some darkroom work (dodge/burn/use some filters
| to adjust the highlight/shadow etc etc). Image editing softwares
| like Photoshop simplify the process.
|
| I mostly shoot in black & white (both film and digital). Since
| once of my biggest inspirations is Ansel Adams, then no I don't
| adhere to "SOOC" (straight out of camera) philosophy. Fine tuning
| in Photoshop is a must.
| vile_wretch wrote:
| Printmaking is a huge part of the art form. I think a lot of
| people miss this fact in the "shoot and scan" age of film
| photography. Not everyone cares, or even needs to care, but
| those who do really should read the Ansel Adams trilogy.
| buildbot wrote:
| Yep a physical print is a totally different experience too,
| compared to an image on the screen.
|
| With good printing software like imageprint RED/Black (NB
| very expensive and overkill for most) you can actually see
| the effect different papers, settings, and lighting will have
| before the print. Very fun!
| anta40 wrote:
| "Shoot and scan" is convenient. Hard to argue with it. But
| hey, if you want convenience, why are still using film?
|
| :D
|
| But anyway, yes print making is both art and science on its
| own. Finding local labs to develop and scan films is pretty
| easy. But darkroom to print your photos the old school way?
| Happy to find a new one (I'm on Jakarta, btw).
| bborud wrote:
| I've spent a lot of time in the past 15 years turning photos
| into various kinds of prints. From Cyanotypes using printed
| contact negatives, via multi-layer stencil art to my current
| obsession: vectorizing images, separating the layers,
| machining linoleum blocks and then doing multi-layer prints.
| Once I have a stable workflow for lino prints the next think
| I'm going to try is to use mokuhanga instead of linoleum.
|
| (I also plan to try platinum/palladium prints. They look
| gorgeous. But first I need to get better at shooting for B/W)
| miladyincontrol wrote:
| Yeah, its kinda telling those who treat everything after
| shooting film as some sort of binary process.
|
| I feel a lot of them would benefit more from just processing
| all their photos through some basic profile that ends with
| running it through a film simulator.
| fainpul wrote:
| You probably know this, but shooting in color and then
| converting to b/w afterwards gives you more artistic options
| than letting the camera do the b/w conversion.
| brokensegue wrote:
| I think b/w film has a different grain than color. It isn't
| identical to grayscale color
| anta40 wrote:
| Yes this is my workflow when shooting digitally. Always in
| RAW & color for greater flexibility during B/W conversion.
| CarVac wrote:
| I got tired of in depth fiddly editing and wrote Filmulator to
| minimize the decision-making and streamline editing. I rarely
| spend more than 20-30 seconds per image.
|
| You get a clean, basic look, no weird colors or overly creative
| "looks", but with adjustability and great highlight handling that
| JPEG doesn't get you.
|
| https://filmulator.org
|
| The current builds there are quite old but we've got new ones
| coming.
| sanitycheck wrote:
| This is great, I discovered it a year or two ago - nice work!
| Excited to hear there might be more development happening.
| jbellis wrote:
| I'm interested if you're GPU-native and actually fast with my
| a7 IV raw images.
|
| Edit: oh wow, this is much older than I thought. Never mind. :)
| CarVac wrote:
| It's not GPU-native... that's a goal but it'll certainly take
| some time. Back when I was last working heavily on it there
| commonly wasn't enough vram but now there should be on most
| machines.
|
| 33 megapixels is not a lot. I'd consider that fast on my
| 9800X3D gaming machine but moderate on my older 2700X dev
| machine. But of course, what you consider fast depends on
| your computer and your expectations.
|
| Zooming and panning is much faster on Filmulator than most
| other software because it caches full-res images throughout
| much of the pipeline. On my gaming monitor I can rapidly zoom
| in and out at a buttery-smooth 240Hz refresh rate.
|
| But actually changing settings is a bit slower.
|
| The earliest settings are the slowest to respond since they
| only operate on full resolution raw data, but they're non-
| creative, technical decisions on highlight recovery and
| demosaicing and such that do not need tweaking. Additionally,
| you get early feedback from these in the form of early-
| pipeline histograms interspersed among the tools, helping you
| tune these settings quickly.
|
| Noise reduction adds a lot of processing time but once you
| figure that out the full-res image gets cached and doesn't
| interfere with later steps.
|
| It has fast (~100ms) screen-resolution response to sliders in
| the filmulation tools mid-pipeline but it'll take a second or
| two for the full resolution image to process.
|
| Late pipeline editing (post-filmulation) is near instant even
| for the full resolution.
|
| So is it fast? Yes and no. But it tries to always be
| responsive and provide useful information as quickly as
| possible.
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| This looks right up my alley. Does it properly support true
| monochrome raw DNG files? I.E., cameras that don't have a bayer
| filter and don't require a debayering pass. I'm shooting a
| Pentax K3 Mark III Monochrome, although Leica has a couple true
| monochrome cameras and there are services that will de-bayer
| cameras and modify the firmware to achieve similar ends.
| CarVac wrote:
| Yes, it properly supports monochrome DNG and disables (and
| hides) tools that are not applicable such as demosaicing, CA
| correction, highlight recovery, white balance, etc.
|
| I didn't know such firmware hacking was available. I'd been
| waiting for the GR Monochrome for years but it's a bit
| expensive for me.
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| Thanks for the quick reply! I'm sold. It's punching way
| above its weight class with those features. Have to try
| this out tonight.
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| I don't know if the firmware mods are public but I saw one
| conversion service offer it when I was researching. If I
| can find the link I'll post it here this evening.
| buildbot wrote:
| Also there are the Phase One Achromatic backs. Which
| Lightroom does not even support :(
| CarVac wrote:
| I need to fix Phase One support in Filmulator. LibRaw has
| some additional processing steps required that I didn't
| manage to figure out last time I worked on it.
| buildbot wrote:
| Lightroom doesn't even process IQ4 150 (RGB) files
| correctly either, there's in back calibration that is
| missing, resulting in a bunch of lower right corner amp
| glow(?).
|
| Capture One with the same back is fine/the back went to
| Japan to get repaired only a few months ago and has a
| brand new main controller board/calibration...
| NanoCoaster wrote:
| Oh, great to see this on HN! I found Filmulator a few years ago
| and used it for most of my raw photography (which, admittedly,
| isn't a lot) and found it amazing. Exactly what I wanted.
| Streamlined, easy to get into, fun. And I really like the way
| my pictures come out at the end. Thank you for your work :)
| CarVac wrote:
| I'm always glad to hear that people are enjoying Filmulator.
| I don't track downloads or anything so I have no idea how
| many people out there use it.
| bix6 wrote:
| I'm almost done moving from Lightroom to Darktable. Lightroom is
| amazing but I don't edit enough these days to justify $20/mo.
| exoro wrote:
| If the straw that broke the camel's back is the nagging Adobe
| subscription, why not just learn Darktable or Raw Therappee?
| sanitycheck wrote:
| I'll be sticking with Lightroom 6 (non-subscription) and the old
| cameras it supports, until the sad but inevitable day I can no
| longer run it.
|
| I don't find editing takes much time, because I now have so many
| custom presets I can apply on import or in bulk that do 90% of
| the work.
|
| What does take ages is picking out the best shots, but really the
| only way to make that quicker is to take fewer photos. Which I
| suppose shooting film actually does force you to do. (But so
| would a 2GB SD card.)
| 10729287 wrote:
| Never been a fan of editing photos, especially as I have
| difficulties dealing with the infinite possibilities. I just
| stick with default output from the camera and just fix backlight
| or some minor adjustments required. I'm a big fan of Foveon
| sensor (sigma dp, sigma sd) and lately fp and BF, it helped a lot
| as they really know color and I love how they deal with it. I
| also shot and process black and white film, and appreciate the
| "deal with film/developper characteristics" approach too.
| wesleyd wrote:
| I admire what this person is doing, but some reasons I prefer raw
| + lightroom over eg camera jpeg are:
|
| * Lightroom's noise reduction is WAY better than what my camera
| (a D500) can do. I shoot sports, usually indoors, with highish
| iso, so NR's gonna have to happen at some point.
|
| * If I'm going to lug around a dedicated camera, I'm gonna have
| it do its _best_. I have my iPhone for everything else.
|
| * I can apply today's lightroom NR to raws I shot years ago.
| Similarly, I expect to be able to apply future lightroom's NR to
| today's raws.
|
| * Lightroom Classic is a superb program - it has many warts and
| clunks and oddities but it achieved product market fit _and it
| stayed there_ , doing what its users want. Adobe keep making
| small improvements, and yet they don't fuck it up!! This is
| vanishingly rare in big tech!!! (Promos gonna promo!) I
| grudgingly pay for this.
|
| (My theory as to how they have managed to resist the
| institutional imperative to destroy Lightroom classic is that
| they created a fork, named just "Lightroom", on which the promo
| can wreak its destruction, it's kind of a second golgafrinchan
| ark, leaving Lightroom classic alone. I pay for Lightroom classic
| as a way of saying: keep leaving it alone!)
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| I'm also a LR classic user. I think it's pretty terrible by
| certain aspects, but I haven't found anything better. No idea
| why the UI lags on a pretty high-end machine, even with test
| catalogs. And I'm talking about scrolling, or showing and
| hiding panels. Plus, the worst offender is making me use
| Windows (on this point, only Darktable is better - no, I won't
| buy a mac, it's way too expensive for my needs).
|
| Price-wise, it's kinda expensive, but the buy-it-for-life
| alternatives aren't exactly cheap, either. You should hold off
| updating for multiple years to save money compared to the LR
| subscription.
|
| Now, I haven't used the alternatives for more than just a short
| test-drive, but the recent improvements in LRc would have made
| me upgrade anyway. I'm thinking specifically about the noise
| reduction you mentioned, but there's also all the object
| detection in masking which saves a ton of time, and the ai
| object removal which is pretty great when I need it - saves
| time compared to fiddling with the old healing brush.
|
| I think the alternatives have also gained similar features
| recently, which would have likely required a new (expensive!)
| purchase. But, I guess if you figure we've reached some kind of
| plateau and don't expect to have a new camera in the next 3-4
| years, going for Capture One or similar may be a better bang
| for your buck.
| qingcharles wrote:
| Adobe's AI noise reduction is absolutely first class. The AI
| adaptive color feature has also saved me on a ton of old photos
| taken on older DSLRs and smartphones.
| chromacity wrote:
| I don't want to dunk on people who are discovering the charms of
| retro tech, but as someone who started with film and spent a fair
| amount of time in the darkroom, I was delighted to discover the
| hassle-free simplicity and dependability of digital photography,
| so it is a bit mind-boggling that people want to go back to the
| old way of doing things for their everyday snaps.
|
| It reminds me of people buying vinyl, using VHS filters on social
| media, etc. I think it's more about signaling some cultural
| identity than any objective benefits of the "retro" process. It's
| not like digital cameras make you give up creative control. If
| you want to limit yourself to 36 unreviewed shots, you can do
| that with digital too.
|
| That said, I agree with one thing: you shouldn't be paying for an
| Adobe subscription. Use Darktable, Capture One, or some other
| equivalent that you're not just renting for life.
| asow92 wrote:
| For me, trying film after growing up in the post-digital world
| was more about exploring the experience of the medium and why
| we ended up where we are. It's given me an appreciation for why
| slowing down with your subject can increase "keepers".
| tartoran wrote:
| > I think it's more about signaling some cultural identity than
| any objective benefits of the "retro" process.
|
| I think it could be that, or simply that people want to try a
| different experience. Digital photography started out as the
| easier, faster, and cheaper option, but the experience of using
| it and even the culture around photography itself has changed
| over time. Going back to the roots once in a while can feel
| refreshing. And paying for a monthly subscription is probably
| overkill for most casual photographers.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > And paying for a monthly subscription is probably overkill
| for most casual photographers.
|
| But film (the actual roll + development + scan) is _very_
| expensive, at least in my parts. Sure, you may mean "casual"
| as in "maybe shoots a roll a film a year", in which case I
| guess it's quite cheaper than an Adobe LR subscription. But
| if you shoot a roll a month or more? Then Adobe wins hands
| down (I'm talking the photography plan here, not the whole
| thing).
|
| The cheapest stock I could find is a C-41 negative, b&w Agfa
| APX 400 iso, 36 pictures for 7.90 EUR. Color C-41 starts at
| 11 EUR with a 24 picture Kodak Ultra Max, bought as a set of
| 3 rolls. Developing and scanning costs 12 EUR for 2000x3000
| px or 20 EUR for 4500x6700 px. That's 19.90 EUR, or the price
| of the base Adobe Photography plan.
| tartoran wrote:
| Yes, financially doesn't make much sense to go from digital
| to film. Film costs, absolutely. But you end up shooting
| less, thinking more, waiting for the right shot and so on.
| You also move sliders/tweak less and mistakes teach you
| lessons that you quickly learn from. Sometimes there are
| happy accidents as well. Taking a shot becomes a deliberate
| action since you don't have unlimited frames. It's a
| different experience. Yes, the Adobe light room seems cheap
| in comparison to film but, that's the wrong comparison IMO.
| There are other tools out there that are much cheaper than
| Adobe's offerings if not completely free. Digital has made
| photography available to the masses, everybody's got a
| camera nowadays. However, it did kill something and what it
| killed is what these folk are looking for (that something
| that got lost in the process).
|
| I'm not into photography anymore and will stick to cheap
| digital photography for convenience (smart phone) but I
| could see how this works out for these folks and I believe
| it's not just a fad or signaling. Similarly, for music,
| analog instruments could be replicated and enhanced
| digitally/electronically and yet they're what you're after
| sometimes.
| dpark wrote:
| > Taking a shot becomes a deliberate action since you
| don't have unlimited frames. It's a different experience.
|
| It's a very different experience. Whether you enjoy that
| depends a lot on why you are engaging in photography. Do
| you prize the ritual, the act of taking photographs in
| the moment? Then you might love film. Might also love
| working in a dark room and doing your own development and
| prints.
|
| Personally I don't care about any of that. I care about
| the resulting photo. I'll take upwards of 800 photos when
| I'm shooting one of my kids' soccer games. I'll get 100
| photos max that are worth keeping, and a much smaller
| number I'm really happy with. Some will miss focus. Some
| will miss the moment. But I'll have a few great photos
| for the trouble.
|
| There's nothing wrong with enjoying the ritual. Also
| nothing wrong with just enjoying the product.
| tartoran wrote:
| I used to do that when I was a teenager and it was truly
| wonderful. I had my own darkroom and was even developing
| my own film (BW only). As tech evolved I moved on to
| digital but took so many photos that somehow I stopped
| caring about photographs at all. It even became a bit
| overwhelming to look at photos and to some extent it
| still is to this day. I took on many other hobbies so
| it's not a huge loss for me. But I can totally get why
| some folks would get back to film from digital, they're
| going for the experience and not the end result as
| photos, which I agree would be more efficient to process
| digitally. But same goes with other arts. Why are people
| still painting? All can be done digitally in Krita or
| some other software and a lot more efficiently and faster
| and so on. And yet people pay money for canvases, oil
| paints, brushes, and spend hours and hours painting.
| captainclam wrote:
| There are plenty of people who sincerely enjoy the aspects that
| make older tech less convenient or practical. Maybe it's an
| appreciation for the engineering or "comprehensibility," often
| it's because older tech produces unique outputs that can't be
| adequately captured by newer technology.
|
| Reducing people's interest to "social signalling" comes off as
| dismissive.
| chromacity wrote:
| Come on. This article isn't about the joys of doing things
| the hard way. To quote: "Then, at the start of 2022 I got my
| first analogue film camera: a Leica M6. (I know... I dived
| straight in the deep end.) This was my first introduction to
| how editing could be easier."
|
| It isn't easier. Film is pain. Pain can be good, but this is
| selling a mirage.
| captainclam wrote:
| Just to be clear, your comment had a general statement
| about how you perceived the motivations of "people buying
| vinyl". That's what I was responding to. (People using VHS
| filters on social media is by definition social signalling
| so no comment there lol).
|
| And I completely agree with your point about touting film
| as "easier" than digital. That's a stretch.
| rusticflare wrote:
| Hello, original author here. What I meant by "easier":
|
| Consumer film is designed to be developed and
| scanned/printed by your lab. You then get a finished image.
|
| Most modern interchangeable-lens digital cameras are
| designed for you to shoot RAW and edit in software like
| Lightroom.
|
| Because I first started photography around 2010, I was
| taught at school to take pictures, then edit them on a
| computer.
|
| Shooting film for the first time was originally about
| trying something new in a hobby I enjoy. As stated, it
| removed the need to sit in front of a computer. "Easier".
|
| I wish I'd stopped shooting RAW sooner. Trying film led to
| that realisation.
|
| (And I agree film can be a pain. I've ruined several rolls
| through both stupidity and cameras breaking. I still enjoy
| it.)
| whiplash451 wrote:
| > If you want to limit yourself to 36 unreviewed shots, you can
| do that with digital too.
|
| I'm not sure that's true. At least, not nearly as hard-
| constrained as with film.
|
| I agree with your broader point, but let's be completely
| honest. Digital is not a free lunch. You do lose something
| somewhere.
|
| The medium you use "leaks" deeply into the whole experience of
| life (be it a vacation trip or something else). So all of this
| is a big deal.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| >> > If you want to limit yourself to 36 unreviewed shots,
| you can do that with digital too.
|
| > I'm not sure that's true. At least, not nearly as hard-
| constrained as with film.
|
| Just grab your camera of choice, look at the average file
| size, multiply it by 36, and format a partition on your
| memory card of that size. Bonus points if your camera uses
| adaptive compression, so maybe you'll get a bit fewer or a
| bit more photos per card depending on what you shot! Isn't
| that even more interesting than film? You know exactly how
| many exposures you get up front with a roll, now you'll have
| to wait and find out!
|
| > Digital is not a free lunch. You do lose something
| somewhere.
|
| Right. But I bet that, just like the OP, most people will
| outsource development and scanning of their film rolls,
| meaning they don't control the process. That's just digital
| with extra steps.
| alistairSH wrote:
| _It reminds me of people buying vinyl... signaling..._
|
| It's absolutely partly this.
|
| But, for me today, as a sometimes hobbyist, it's also about the
| process...
|
| Digital is too good. The cameras are too good. The results are
| too good. There's no anticipation.
|
| The analog experience is, to be trite, so much more analog. A
| good vintage film camera (and probably new Leica too) feels so
| good in the hand. Like a nice watch, it's a piece of mechanical
| art. It takes time to focus and set exposure. Sometimes is goes
| horribly wrong, but sometimes whatever went wrong produces an
| unexpectedly delightful result. There's also something to be
| said about receiving the negatives and scans weeks or months
| after shooting the film - the delayed gratification is
| something that's lacking in today's instant-everything world.
| Plus, the cost of film and processing makes me slow down a beat
| and think about what I'm doing - no spray and pray when a roll
| of Portra 400 + processing is $25 or more.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's this, and also simple nostalgia. Getting out my vinyl
| records reminds me of my teenage and early adult years.
| Responsibilites were few, life was pretty simple, I could
| spend hours with them and the only consequence was delayed
| homework. I was into film photography during that same time,
| and the occasional urges to take it up again are filled with
| memories of those days. The reality of what film photography
| costs now kills that pretty quickly.
| spinningarrow wrote:
| Personally, I've spent a lot of time on both film and digital
| and currently I'm a lot happier with the results of my film
| work. Is it a combination of the camera, lens, medium, and
| process? I'm sure it is. Could I get similar _artifacts_ out of
| digital? Probably but the key difference is that I don't and
| the medium for me doesn't make me want to. In the end creative
| work like photography has as many manifestations as people and
| your comment reads as rather dismissive than curious.
| qsera wrote:
| I am not a professional. But I had done some film photography
| in its last days. The photos that I took during the time, just
| casually, tops any photo that I take now a days with by DSLR.
|
| It is not in raw "quality". But what are we trying to capture
| when we take a picture? Is it raw pixels? or is it some emotion
| that we originally got when we were looking at something.
|
| For some reason, I think film captures and regenerate that
| emotion when you look at the photograph in a way that a digital
| capture cannot.
|
| I cannot explain it, but the the closest thing that I have
| found that could explain it is..It is in the context of b/w but
| I think the same applies to color as well..
|
| https://leicaphilia.com/the-difference-between-black-and-whi...
| packetlost wrote:
| That emotion is nostalgia, whether real or perceived. It's
| not a bad thing, some of my favorite photos are on b&w film.
| Film has a _texture_ and (inaccurate) colors /tones that
| aren't really reproduced in digital cameras but are all over
| the place in media we consume and personal/family photos,
| usually from an older time.
| 98codes wrote:
| > That emotion is nostalgia, whether real or perceived.
|
| Absolutely. One of my prized possessions is a book I had
| made from digital pictures I took on a family trip when my
| kids were 3 & 4 years old. The pictures are of single-digit
| megapixel quality, but are perfect for what they needed to
| be: a reminder of that trip, and the memories contained
| within.
|
| It seems to me that the slightly fuzzy aspect of old
| pictures better matches our fuzzy memories of that time.
| hootz wrote:
| Have you tried putting your digital photos through a film
| simulation software such as Dehancer?
| FpUser wrote:
| This is like looking at old b/w photos of people for example.
| This feels like art. Brings memories and has zero relation to
| a physical quality of material.
| bambax wrote:
| I use Lightroom 6 that I paid for, it still works and is still
| useful for my needs.
|
| But as said needs are mostly general curve + highlights down +
| shadows up, it's possible they could simply be a jpeg preset in
| camera.
|
| This line made me chuckle as well:
|
| > _Since I was a teenager I've used digital cameras_
|
| Digital cameras didn't exist when I was a teenager; and they
| cost about as much as a car when I was in my twenties. Overall
| I don't miss film cameras, although the scarcity was
| interesting. Taking a picture was an actual decision, unlike
| today.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Vinyl (IMO) isn't about it being retro or having "better" sound
| quality (whatever that means, it's mostly subjective), but
| about having a collectable, physical item. I think CDs were a
| step backwards, not because the sound quality was off but
| because the boxes were smaller and fragile; I've never owned
| any music CDs.
|
| Digital music is neat for listening to music, but it also feels
| like it lowers the value of it.
| dbt00 wrote:
| Jewel cases may be fragile but LPs are far more vulnerable to
| damage than CDs are. There are much better ways to hold a CD
| collection.
| Bratmon wrote:
| Most people buying vinyl in 2026 don't own a record player.
| Because that's not the point.
| BuildTheRobots wrote:
| This probably isn't the point either, but I get an almost
| perverse level of calm knowing that for my most favourite
| albums, I own a physical representation of the waveform
| trapped in a medium.
|
| I very rarely listen to them in that form, but I honestly
| like the idea that in a post-Carrington event, zombie
| apocalypse or mad-max style future where electricity or
| electronics become scarce, I can (if desperate enough)
| listen to them with a nail and a cone.
| Someone wrote:
| > I think CDs were a step backwards, not because the sound
| quality was off but because the boxes were smaller and
| fragile
|
| Smaller, yes, but fragile? Certainly not more fragile than
| Vinyl.
| packetlost wrote:
| The jewel cases absolutely were more fragile than the
| cardboard that was typical of vinyl, but vinyl itself is
| more fragile than CDs, though the failure modes are
| completely different.
| giobox wrote:
| The jewel case does have the advantage of being easily
| replaceable too though - you can transfer album
| art/booklets and in most cases the result looks the same
| as the original.
|
| With vinyl, album artwork and the case are the same thing
| and damaging or destroying the case also damages or
| destroys the album art - you can't really replace the
| case without repurchasing the record if the art matters
| to you.
| Someone wrote:
| > The jewel cases absolutely were more fragile than the
| cardboard
|
| CD cases more easily break catastrophically but I think
| that, for most kinds of impacts, CD cases are less easily
| damaged than vinyl sleeves.
|
| Water damages them less easily, they're less susceptible
| to smudges, corners don't get creased, etc.
| specproc wrote:
| I think there's something to be said for _any_ physical media
| when it comes to audio.
|
| I hate opening my phone/laptop to put music on, inadvertently
| opening HN/lichess, and watching the next few hours vanish in
| silence.
|
| Also deeper engagement, and a big second hand and artist-
| driven markets keeping my money out of the hands of
| NastyCorp.
|
| Vinyl is just the nicest.
| HerbManic wrote:
| Like retro PC game collectors, they realpy just want that
| giant box! Most of their games are probably just ISOs on an
| SSD.
| bix6 wrote:
| Can't forget the cost of all that film. That'll easily outpace
| the Lightroom sub.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"It reminds me of people buying vinyl"
|
| Myself - I do not use vinyl but being close to start using it
| again. Not like every day but when in a mood. The whole process
| is like coming back to a better and forgotten times. Definitely
| touches some strings.
| te_chris wrote:
| Film gets better results with less effort - but more money.
| htx80nerd wrote:
| I started on 35mm and dark rooms then went to digital. 35mm is
| more fun and more rewarding.
| mcdeltat wrote:
| On the point of film, I agree, although I won't say it's
| necessarily a bad thing overall. Just a bit silly when people
| try to claim film is somehow "superior" or whatever.
|
| Film is absolutely a cultural experience for many people
| shooting it today. The main argument I have to confirm this is
| to consider that most people's photos are not good, to start
| with. (Talking about the average joe, not pro photographers.)
| So any comment about film's technical capabilities is moot. You
| can take bad photos on film or digital. Also you can take good
| photos on film or digital! Unless you're really doing some good
| experimental photography, you gotta admit that the film
| motivation is vibes.
|
| Also on editing applications, Lightroom does have pretty good
| all round features , which is hard to find elsewhere. For
| example Darktable technically works, but the UI is poor, the
| performance is poor, and it's generally slower to achieve the
| same results. If someone wants to make an open source Lightroom
| clone, I'll be all for it!
| fenykep wrote:
| > someone who started with film and spent a fair amount of time
| in the darkroom
|
| This is a very important part of your message. You did have the
| opportunity of "being thought by the slow medium" simply by
| those being the default. Taking the "teachings" of more
| limiting, analog (in these cases) technologies became part of
| your process, your underastanding of the core principles, your
| motivation, your subjects and something deeper about
| photography.
|
| In a time where basicaly limitless technologies are the
| default, for generations that were born into a world where
| decision fatigue is a bigger issue than scarcity artificial
| limitations are still a great path to learning something
| meaningful and having fun.
|
| There is zero intrinsic value to taking pictures, listening to
| or making music or any of the activities that see a revival of
| their "retro" versions - analog or otherwise.
|
| I was born when digital photography was the default and my
| first cameras were digital. I have had way more fun taking my
| <1000 analog photos, have way more connection to them (partly
| because I physically had to touch those photos developing and
| retouching them) than my 100k+ digital photos sitting on some
| zfs pool. Sure, digital photography is more _efficient_ in
| every way but -eapecially as commercial photography is dying
| out to AI - if we strip the commercial element of things that
| humans are doing for shits and giggles - the analog
| /retro/slow/whatever version of these activities might prove to
| be better at serving the basic human needs (the shits and the
| giggles).
| lizknope wrote:
| Do whatever you want that makes you happy.
|
| I take thousands of photos a year with my phone and less than 1%
| of them get edited.
|
| I take thousands of photos with my Nikon in RAW / NEF format. I
| have over 50 large photos printed in my house and editing
| absolutely helps when you print 20x30" or higher.
| asow92 wrote:
| I've come to the same realization after shooting digital, film,
| and back to digital again.
|
| I've found that if I apply "recipes" or "presets" to my camera
| and shoot jpg I get roughly what I want straight out of camera.
| In fact, I find that shooting jpg exclusively with a preset
| _almost_ scratches that film itch: there is a kind of permanency
| to the rendered output, and that forces me to slow down and think
| about what I want to render with this subject like one does with
| film.
|
| Once I'm done shooting I simply import to Apple photos and make
| very light edits from there if any before sharing.
|
| It's liberating to embrace constraints and reduce tooling. You
| might even have fun.
| notcodingtoday wrote:
| I also went this route once I concluded that I enjoy the process
| of taking photos (getting the 'composition right') rather than
| editing. I've never heard of Camp Snap until now, looks
| interesting!
| ageitgey wrote:
| The dark truth no one wants to say out loud is that 'real'
| cameras are dying to cell phones not just because phones are more
| convenient to carry, but because phones take 'better' photos for
| 99% of people than they can manage with any other camera - and
| that's without any editing. It's all software.
|
| Yes, enthusiasts here are spending hours editing RAW files and
| most think cell phone pics are over-HDRed messes. But phone
| software is so advanced now that it takes real talent and skill
| to replicate the perceived quality of what users get with their
| cell phone's software automatically. Most people are at a
| disadvantage with a DLSR/mirror less, not an advantage. That
| leads to ever-declining sales.
|
| Why can't someone make a traditional camera with modern software
| instead of something that looks like it is out of 1994? The
| software on a Sony DLSR, for example, looks like the on-screen
| menu of a VHS player, but is somehow slower and dumber to use.
| The number of overlapping, incompatible picture adjustments on a
| Fuji is just as ridiculous.
| tmountain wrote:
| Not sure what you mean by real cameras. If you're talking about
| DSLR, then I would agree that they're in decline, but if you're
| talking about any non-phone camera, I would disagree. The
| mirrorless market is still quite healthy. Smartphones fill
| 80-90% of demand, the majority of the dedicated camera market
| is mirrorless. Commodity cameras are less popular, but demand
| for higher end dedicated cameras remains strong with new
| cameras (and innovations) coming out all the time.
| patchymcnoodles wrote:
| The software on Sony Cameras is known for being very bad, but
| that's not the only brand. All the other brands are definitely
| better in that regard (but I prefer my Sony because of other
| aspects). And Blackmagic is in my opinion the best and most
| modern.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| lol, not at all. It's a new category, people can take loads
| more shitpics and store them indefinitely which is a fantastic
| capability. People who had no photos of their family now have
| hundreds.
|
| At the end of the day, light is a physical property and the
| more of it you get into your lens, the more of that light can
| fill your sensor. Phones are still doing a lot of guesswork,
| post-processing that create photos that aren't underexposed,
| but are quite unnatural.
|
| Plus gen-z is running around with all the point and shoot
| cameras we threw away 15 years ago
| neogodless wrote:
| A few lessons hidden in here:
|
| Perfect is the enemy of good: Don't obsessively edit. Cull
| obviously bad photos. Find a few pretty good ones. Pick one at
| random. Edit lightly.
|
| Photography can focus on captures or edits: analog photography
| necessitates a focus on the capture. Be in that moment, frame the
| shot you want, and your only edit might be some color correction.
|
| While the above might not make you a 99th percentile
| photographer, that probably isn't a goal you need concern
| yourself with. I always find photos online that blow me away.
| Artists with the patience to plan and wait for the perfect shot,
| possibly for hours. Artists that meticulously cull until they
| find an exceptional photo. Artists that spend a half hour editing
| a single photo adjusting sliders.
|
| If that's not you, you still don't have to give up editing photos
| if you like the result better than the camera's JPG. You just
| have to focus on the parts you enjoy, and find balance in the
| quality of the end results.
|
| (And personally I love DxO PhotoLab. Purchased once on sale, no
| subscription. Fun to use, and I love the results!)
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I went one step farther and quit _taking_ photos. And this is
| after many years of hobbiest photography in the film era, had a
| darkroom at home, SLR with several lenses. Early digital cameras
| were underwhelming, basically the equivalent of a 110 film
| snapshot camera. By the time they got good I had started to
| reflect on the fact that I almost never went back and looked at
| any of the photos I 'd taken, so I just stopped. Now although
| with my mobile phone I have a quite decent camera in my pocket
| all the time, I rarely use it. The "ohh I should take a picture
| of this" impulse just never enters my mind anymore. I enjoy the
| moment, and have the memories.
| CarVac wrote:
| It really depends on the person.
|
| I do _not_ take photos for the memories, I take photos for art
| and I do go back and look at them.
| xfil wrote:
| I'm in the same boat. My phone is used to record 'memories',
| but I rarely ever look at the shots I capture with it. I'd
| probably be better off dropping this habit.
|
| My camera is for art, and in my mind this an entirely
| different thing than recording stuff with my phone. These are
| as different as using writing utensils to briefly write notes
| vs. using them to make a complex drawing.
| mcdeltat wrote:
| Same! For me this has had the unfortunate side effect of
| ruining non-art photo-taking. Someone shows me a regular
| phone photo and the photographer part of my brain is thinking
| "why did you even take this...?" Yes I'm a terrible friend
| bambax wrote:
| > _Early digital cameras were underwhelming, basically the
| equivalent of a 110 film snapshot camera._
|
| One of the first digital Ixus (IV maybe? from 2000?) made
| images of just one megapixels, but they were amazing. I miss
| that thing.
| tombert wrote:
| My phone camera is often just a very utilitarian thing, like
| taking a picture of a receipt and stuff like that. When I do
| take pictures for fun, it's almost always just a selfie to send
| people when I'm on vacation.
|
| I don't really see the point of taking vacation photos that
| don't have me (or whomever I'm traveling with) in them; you can
| find higher quality photos of virtually anything I'd take a
| picture of on the internet for free; the _only_ thing I can
| realistically add to the photo is me!
| RankingMember wrote:
| > I enjoy the moment, and have the memories.
|
| I don't disagree with your "enjoy the moment" thesis, but I
| also envy your memory recall capability. For me, photos can
| resurrect memories I don't have access to normally.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| Film is cool up until you waste 60$ on film and development to
| get blank rolls.
|
| I have a very cheap mirrorless camera that I've taken around the
| world.
|
| I accidentally dropped it, it bounced and was fine.
|
| As for editing, I generally use mobile Lightroom to tweak
| lighting and that's it.
|
| Their is a camera conundrum. What good is a camera so expensive
| you're afraid to use it ?
| cickpass_broken wrote:
| I wrote a lil memento to my Fuji x pro awhile back along similar
| lines as this. Minimal post-processing and much more convenient
| than the film I was shooting, especially after moving to a town
| that didn't have a local lab.
|
| https://staydecent.ca/blog/my-digital-film-camera/
| bborud wrote:
| The problem isn't that keepers necessarily need editing, the
| problem is that it is tempting (to some) to spend more time than
| they need simply because they can. Or because they feel they
| should. (Don't watch people ruining photos and making up for
| their lack of talent on youtube)
|
| I shoot with post-processing in mind because I have years of
| experience with the cameras I use, so I know how they work. I
| rarely do that much more than just "normalizing" the pictures to
| what I wanted to capture (fix one, apply to whole batch) and
| apply some look that I've saved as a preset. Perhaps 1-5 seconds
| of tweaks per photo. If you need more, you probably didn't get
| the shot in the first place and you'll do better next time.
|
| For me the time spent "editing" photos is marginal compared to
| the time I spend looking at the photos to decide which ones are
| keepers.
|
| I can't understand what the youtubers who edit photos are doing.
| Most of them take mediocre to bad shots and then somehow manage
| to make them worse. And then people believe that this is what
| they're supposed to be doing
|
| Then again, most photo-influencers don't actually understand even
| something as basic as focal length (no, a 105mm is a 105mm
| regardless of whether you put it in front of a tiny sensor or a
| big honking medium format)
| WA wrote:
| > Most of them take mediocre to bad shots and then somehow
| manage to make them worse.
|
| Examples of this? What do you consider mediocre, but is still
| hugely popular?
| bborud wrote:
| It would be unkind to single anyone out so I am not going to.
| The thing is, I can for the life of me not think of a single
| photo influencer/youtuber who is also a popular
| _photographer_. They're popular influencers/youtubers.
|
| As for what I mean by mediocre: let's say you are looking at
| a portrait of someone you don't know. If you can't remember
| it 10-30 minutes later, it was probably mediocre or worse.
| Would you recognize the subject if you met them on the a
| street one day later?
|
| Most portraits tend to be bad because they completely fail to
| capture the subject. People fuss over lighting and editing
| and color grading and whatnot, but they don't actually pay
| attention to the person they are shooting. I see quite a few
| of these people with huge social media followings who can't,
| for the life of them, take pictures of humans. And yet, they
| teach their inability to make portraits to others.
|
| I also know professional photographers who are genuinely
| _bad_ at taking portraits. And then there are those rare
| people who just nail it most of the time. Notice this when
| looking at a portrait of someone you know. Is it "them"?
|
| Another category where you see a lot of bad photos is
| wildlife photography. You will see endless pictures of birds
| that _possibly_ could go in a bird-spotting book purely for
| identification purposes. But, to steal a line from my wife
| after looking at a certain facebook group "it's just a bunch
| of tack sharp ducks set against blurred out sky". And my wife
| spends an inordinate amount of time looking at birds.
|
| All you need to make bad nature photography is a big lens, a
| location and some time. It takes no talent. All you need to
| make technically good, but completely pointless nature photos
| is a big lens, a location, time and a decent modern camera.
| Then turn on 3D tracking and spray whenever something moves.
| Animals live in nature -- they belong in context -- they do
| things. Good nature photographers manage to communicate this.
|
| (I was actually tempted to name the "it's just a bunch of
| tack sharp ducks..."-group, but I'm not going to. Though it
| isn't that hard to guess).
|
| We drown in technically excellent images that are dull as
| crap.
|
| (To be clear: I'm a mediocre photographer. I'm very aware of
| it. I occasionally shoot something that may be worth looking
| at -- but still rarely something you'd remember)
| WA wrote:
| Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| The question I why did you edit photos? What was goal? Why were
| you doing it in the first place?
|
| I guess the thing you have discovered shooting analog is that
| each click is a finite resource so you spend more time composing
| and being aware of the scene before you take the photo.
|
| Saving PS20 is nice.
|
| Having your 36 snapshots developed at a decent lab will cost you
| more.
|
| In you are paying them additionally for edits as well you are on
| longer saving money. You just pay someone else.
|
| Or are you giving it to a company that runs it through an
| automated usually digital these days sometimes analog machine
| that develops them automatically? Those machines usually do edits
| as well. But highly automated ones. (I am not sure they make them
| anymore)
|
| Having my medium format film developed is far from cheap.
|
| Lightroom is far from the only editor out there and it is not a
| great editor to start with. Lightroom is a Frankenstein
| combination of of a DAM and an editor.
|
| You probably will want some form of DAM to organize your photos
| regardless.
| esafak wrote:
| The development I'm most excited about these days is AI
| restoration; I can denoise and upscale my pictures to my
| satisfaction. The next developments I'd like to see are
| refocusing (with depth maps) and retiming (with video) in post.
| twic wrote:
| My version of this workflow is, i take digital photos, and don't
| edit them.
|
| Turns out, it's fine! The photos aren't perfect, but no amount of
| editing could make them perfect anyway. They look like the thing
| they're a picture of. That does the job. And with the time i save
| by not doing any editing, i have time to take more photos! Or
| read a book! Or sleep!
| rusticflare wrote:
| Original author here! Thank you speckx for sharing.
|
| I'm not a professional photographer, I just wanted to write about
| where I'm at with a hobby I've had for ~15 years.
|
| I love using a camera, I don't love editing at a computer. So now
| I'm choosing digital cameras that have decent editing options in-
| camera. It's comparable to choosing the roll in your film camera.
|
| If there are any questions, I may get around to answering them.
| (No promises.)
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Hey James! I made the same choice 5 years back. Fujifilm XPro3
| and now X-H2. I've been enjoying photography so much more
| knowing I don't need to stare at Lightroom for hours after a
| day out. I also use my iPad (photos app, USB-C UHS-II reader,
| albums strategy) to do all my culling now, and couldn't be
| happier.
| weezing wrote:
| I just use Rawtherapee. No need to pay Adobe and no need to ditch
| editing completely.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-24 23:01 UTC)