When I first started photography and before I was introduced to Lightroom, I used Nikon’s editing software. Looking back at those old photos, I felt disgusted at how I edited them.
I had a tendency to make everything look HDR (High Dynamic Range) and extremely contrasty. Anyway, I met a photography hobbyist who told me it’s a must to edit digital photos.
Then, I attended a photography class by Keith who is a photographer that doesn’t edit his photos. And he said it’s the same for Nat Geo’s photographers.
Nonetheless, I do edit my digital photos to adjust the brightness, and to increase/decrease ‘temperature’ to my liking. I feel that editing a photo is like adding a cherry on top of your ice cream dessert.
But I am lazy. That’s one of the reasons why I started shooting film because I thought film photos doesn’t require editing.
Well, I am both right and wrong.
First, people do edit their film photos. The result of your film look depends on the person/lab who scans it.
Secondly, it’s true that you do not need to digitally edit the film photos.
It’s all about personal preference.
For example, none of the film can give the natural Japanese vibe look. None! To achieve that, you got to edit the scanned film by adjusting colours, highlight and many more in Lightroom or Photoshop.
On average, it might take you 1-2 hours to edit a shot (I heard).
Then, there are debate from people that resent editing film.
‘So why the hell shoot film? Why don’t you just shoot digital?’
I had the same thought at first. Then, I realised there shouldn’t be a fixed rule in photography and I have to be open-minded.
It’s totally alright to shoot and edit film photos. For all you know, the person might also hate the editing part because it’s time consuming. However, he/she loves the film medium and the solid, 3D look only film can offer. So, they just had to ‘digitalised’ and edit the film photos.
At least if they do a good job, it fetches them money! Ultimately, clients don’t care whether the photos are edited or not, all they want is a good portrait of them looking slim and pretty.
Personally, I don’t edit my film shots. For now, I take whatever comes out from the lab. But I guess I might want to learn how to do editing so perhaps there’s a chance I can charge money to edit film photos, muahaha!
But I heard scanner is an essential part in deciding your editing efficiency. I don’t know how true it is. And they say my Epson V600 sucks and the free Epson software sucks even more.
Well, I don’t want to give a damn about scanner right now because I just want to enjoy my film camera, improve my composition and not end up ditching film because of money issue.
What’s your thought about this?