Editing Photos to Bring Out What Matters Most!

[@herbertwebb7215]

Love your perspective and insight on this. One of your best presentations so far.

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@herbertwebb7215 thank you!!! Thanks!

[@williamshaffer9216]

In my opinion, YOU are a Master!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Well, an apprentice, maybe :-)

[@jovandevijver9400]

Brilliant, Very entertaining!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks, thanks!!

[@Vadim.vangog]

I completely agree, every photo should convey an emotion or tell a story, and editing can emphasize your story, which will make the photo more interesting)

[@ShootOnFilm]

True!

[@cmeluzzi]

As part of the creative process, I believe that the intention before editing is what really makes a difference. The greatest photography masters know how to make their public see what matters most. They can achieve this right in camera or - in case it is not possible - with the help of editing.

[@ShootOnFilm]

The intention is "what we want to do", whereas editing is "how we do it" (including taking the actual photo etc). Editing is only a means to the end. If your intention is to show James Dean, then you can do it by taking a photo and editing it. If your intention is to show Times Square on a rainy day, then you edit it differently. So yous, intention is before editing :-)

[@rossmansell5877]

Most of the well known photographs were more than likely manipulated in the darkrooom. A good darkroom printer in those days was worth his weight in gold!

[@ShootOnFilm]

True. Editing is hugely important!

[@brentbrown51]

Good stuff, Ansel.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Ha haa!! Thanks 🙂

[@ejorbe]

Interesting topic! I try to keep my edits to as close to life as possible, but it doesn’t mean that I don’t look at other edits and think wow! I think I keep my edits simple, because I lack the knowledge and/or vision to see my pictures any different. Super interesting to see if I can see differently, but don’t know where to start in the editing process! Thank you for a thought inspiring video!!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks for sharing! Generally speaking, I think there is too much editing going on in the world. Mostly AI assisted and stuff. Where already your phone or camera injects all kind of radical edits to your pictures, makes them vivid and bright even if more modest would serve the purpose much better. So little edit is often much better than too much. IMHO.

[@alvinbirdi6502]

really interesting video - thanks!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks for watching!

[@davidwalsh566]

Two very different processes, working with the negative in the darkroom or with a digital file in Lightroom. It is clear that you enjoy the much slower and less convenient analogue process much more; no doubt because it requires more planning and intentionality and the final product, because it is hard-won, feels much more valuable. The fully digital workflow, for all its advantages, feels much less of a 'craft'. A really interesting video Ari; thought-provoking as ever.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Exactly. Easy is bad, by definition :-). I want easy food, easy commute, easy bill payment, easy car wash etc etc. But I want meaningful photography, and that includes the whole process. I don't want easy photography.

[@ChrisConner1]

Love it. One of your best!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thank you!! Much appreciated.

[@spushnof]

Thank you! I always find something usefull in your videos! Great video, for sure!!!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Awesome! Thank you!

[@petergoodrum1607]

Great Vid as ususl Ari. I put my images both film and digital as tiffs into Camera Raw and treat them like I was back in my original B&W darkroom using Brush Masks dodging and burning. The most I've used was about 20 but that's was an exception.... Then I use PS to do the heavy lifting with dust and mark removal and some more dodging and burning, bit of cloning, spot removal etc etc. I like the hands on involvement with the process whereby everything done to the image is a product of my decisions/imagination and not that of a preset algorithm.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I like your approach. Letting AI or automation do the work for you is a little bit like playing a home organ by pressing the "Demo Song" -button. ;-)

[@gianlusc]

Great video as always 🙂👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks for the visit

[@carbonejack]

Enlightening video, as usual.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks for watching :-)

[@mikebaginy8731]

An interesting video, Ari and thanks for your views. I've been thinking in the same direction as you've explained and have found pleasure in some quite mundane motifs which, when photographed and processed "properly" possess a delightful presence. By the way, back in my darkroom days I was pleased to enlarge one good print a day. Remembering the dodging and burning and other manipulations, I'm very pleased using Lightroom.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks, thanks!!! I'm also very slow. I can create 2 decent prints in a good day. But I much rather do 2 than 20 pics in Lightroom. Slow and difficult is good. I'm not shooting on film because it is easy, but because it is hard. Dedication, difficulty, slowness, complexity, manual, and analog are all positive things. I don't enjoy using Lightroom and computer for photography at all - as I do software for a living :)

[@fbraakman]

Reminds me of Ansel Adams' Moonrise, Hernandez. That famous image was totally manipulated by Ansel in the darkroom. Totally burned in the sky. Great video as usual.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Good point. He was a master editor!

[@urbanimage]

Very interesting as always.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Glad you think so!

[@darrelltheriault5793]

Truly interesting discussion. Certainly editing can totally change the story and feel of a photo and I understand the self imposed limitations you put on your digital editing, to restrict modifications to those attainable by you in the darkroom. If one considers tin types and wet plate photography, where the final photo is created in camera, even these modifications might seem heavy handed. At the other end of the spectrum one can create an image digitally without even using a “ camera” of any sort. I’ve seen many discussions and opinions on how much editing is too much, cheating or no longer representing reality while others say artistic license is unlimited. I think there is no right answer, As the artist, how you create your art is up to you. I do feel however that there comes a time when the art can no longer be called a photograph. Thanks Ari, have a pleasant week.

[@ShootOnFilm]

True. However, if you create an image without a camera (e.g., AI or drawing), it is not a photograph. IMHO.

[@darrelltheriault5793]

IMHO at some point even a camera taken image stops being a photograph at some point. Let’s say you photoshopped a polar bear into your street scene. You might call it art but it’s not a photograph, to me at least.

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@darrelltheriault5793 I agree. Digital compositions are hardly ever photographs to me.

[@Brackcycle]

Many things to think about this winter in the darkroom.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Awesome. See you there then. 😅

[@buyaport]

Very nice! Recommended reading: Steve Macloed: The Master Printer's Black & White Workbook. Although I'd probably never come to apply these techniques in the darkroom, I find it very inspiring when working in LR, and it is just good fun to read! ( He has also written other books on this subject.)

[@ShootOnFilm]

Yes. Also the good old The Print by A. Adams is good bedtime reading 😊

[@stephenm103]

@ 1:22 "... as photographs, they are worthless . . . " And I have to wonder why that is. Why can't a photograph of your child get the same attention to technical/artistic details (choice of film, exposure, depth of field, contrast, processing, etc., etc., etc. ) as a forest scene of new-fallen snow? I need to be careful here, but I think I hear you saying that some subjects command your best efforts as an artist and photographer - and others do not. 🤔🤔🤔 Very coincidentally, I spent the better part of the morning yesterday, shooting my grandson at his soccer competition. All the while I was aware of where the sun was, which background I was most likely to be shooting into, and the position he was playing. At times I was attempting to capture some motion with a slower shutter and at times, I was hoping to freeze action. I rechecked my metering at half-time and as the shadows encroached on the field chose a new vantage point. It occurs to me that while my photography is - first - about my subject and - second - about the technical merits of the exposure, any time I grab a camera - I am going to try to do the very best I can with the situations that present themselves. And, to your point - while those "snapshots" do not consistently rise to the technical competency and creative artistry of your work they arent bad and some I am very proud of. More importantly, I am confident that many decades from now, long after I am gone, they will still be putting a smile on someone's face.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Thanks thanks!! Many things. Firts you asked: as photographs, they are worthless . . . " And I have to wonder why that is. ==> That is only because back then, I did not put any effort into photography. Just snapshots with no effort with composition, lightning, or any of that. I simply was not interested in photography and that shows. You then continue: "Why can't a photograph of your child get the same attention to technical/artistic details (choice of film, exposure, depth of field, contrast, processing, etc., etc., etc. ) as a forest scene of new-fallen snow?" It certainly could have -- but it did not. I have not a single fallen-snow-forest picture from that time as I was not the slightest bit interested in photography. So, my point is that my kid's photos are bad photographs not because my kids are in them but because they are badly executed snapshots with lousy equipment. Unfortunately. I got interested in photography only very recently, you see. So they are -- like probably the recent pictures of your grandson very valuable to us. Priceless. But they are not -- or at least my photos are not -- good photographs. There is no way I'd put them on the wall, offer them to an exhibition, or try to sell them to anybody. Every time I look at them, I think: cute kids, bad photograph!

[@stephenm103]

Ahh yeah, yeah … reminds me of a quote “ Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst” - Cartier Bresson

[@ShootOnFilm]

@@stephenm103 exactly!!! 😁

[@MarcoRoepers]

Thank you. The conclusion is what is the story you wanna tell with your photo. Sometimes the subject matters, sometimes not.

[@ShootOnFilm]

True. And, editing is an essential means of showing it!

[@liveinaweorg]

Love seeing you in the darkroom, Ari.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I should be there more, though :-)

[@davidottman9501]

Thanks Ari! So what you're saying is that the photo isn't done when the shutter closes, that's only one part of the process. Good thoughts!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Exactly!! Thanks for watching!

[@CharlesOConnor-q9k]

I always wonder if those Magnum print maps were real or just marked up nonsense. You touched on it, but I think cropping is top of my list in darkroom. Regardless, perhaps try crop and zoom in on umbrella guy, burn in the lower portion of the buildings on right, burn subject.

[@ShootOnFilm]

That's a good question. I always thought they are real, but of course I don't know!!

[@m-focus]

My Zenit 60 is dead, ifound a Arax60 so i am happy again . 🌞

[@ShootOnFilm]

Excellent. With those cameras, you gotta give them some slack. But they take awesome pictures!

[@Bea-y7y]

A medium of photography has the ability to do two different things. tend to think of photographs are either photographs of documentation where in you’re trying to preserve memories. (For example; photographs family or events in your life. ) The other being photographs of art where in you trying to express a thought or emotion. It is possible to make a photograph convey different things by how it is edited. (For example, is it a photo of James Dean or rainy gloomy day?)

[@ShootOnFilm]

Totally agree!

[@rossmansell5877]

I thought it looked like a photo of an ordinary guy walking in the rain....🤭

[@xaosgeist]

This brings me to the question; What is better? A: An image that is highly processed and therefore really good, or B: An image that is really good photographed in the first place (aka. the camera)? And I think, it needs both. And I also think, this particular image of James Dean, is a good processed image, but not a good photograph.

[@ShootOnFilm]

I don’t think I’ve taken a single photo that could not benefit from editing. But yes, you need both I believe.

[@chriscard6544]

what is the goal ? get the most of the negative or interpret something. Like a novel and poetry. or sth. Truth or illusion ?

[@ShootOnFilm]

Good questions. For me personally, getting everything of the negative is never the goal. It’s like saying that for my solo the goal is to play all available notes. 😅

[@SRC1711]

Now let us have your honest opinion about "Mona Lisa". Overrated or underrated?😇

[@ShootOnFilm]

That's actually an excellent point. We'd judge Mona Lisa based on the artifact, based on the painting -- not based on who this model is, is a good singer or maybe even a famous actor. We do not care -- it's the painting that matters.

[@chriscard6544]

About Mona Lisa, read René Girard, a french anthropologist, about 'mimetic desire'. It will answer this question

[@jasongold6751]

Great video. I never seen the greatness of James Dean. Sorry. I thought Life, Dennis Stock were making him a star. The photo you used, I believe was done with Leica-M and 21mm lens (28?). So foreground dominates.. The printing instructions are crazy! seen Similar from Avedon, who didn't print himself! I always use basics in wet room or laptop. Nothing! except lighter darker and contrast. I can, but I not interested! Eugene Smith went nuts in darkroom..! Better expsosures are simply better! see you next week! Thank You!

[@ShootOnFilm]

Simple is better also in the darkroom. Easy modern digital tools are also a slippery slope and easily push you too far in editing. Editing becomes the thing -- not the photograph!

[@paullacotta5645]

You can learn a lot about photography if you try to draw and paint. Don’t take that lightly.

[@stephenmason5682]

A picture of a famouse person doesn't make it a famous picture! It doesnt even make it a good picture.

[@ShootOnFilm]

Exactly. It like mentioning Stevie Wonder in the lyrics won't make my song any better :-)