photoshop is akin to developing in the darkroom. i've read about a developing process called "Push developing" that enables you to shoot up to +3 stops depending on the film you use - making, let's say, a Portra 400VC, typically shot at 400ASA, to be able to expose photos up to 3200ASA! all you have to do is simply manipulate how the developing process is carried out, depending on the film's specifications, and you'll have that magnificent contrast in your pictures as well as the ability to shoot at night with faster shutter speeds!
hows is that any different than shooting in RAW and developing them in digital darkroom softwares such as Lightroom? how is it that not being able to achieve that look in your black and white films due to the lack of darkroom know-how and dependency on photolabs that develop films not to your preference a bad thing? i've come to learn of people who are analogue snobs that keep away from photoshop like the bubonic plague, and people who "rely" on their expensive vintage cameras to achieve the ever so highly romanticized vintage feel of a vintage SLR or rangefinder. it is mostly people like this that find DSLRs to be simply uninteresting and would shy away from where they started and foolishly claim that the film format is far more superior that anything else in the photography realm. and these are the people who take photos using their iPhone's Instamatic app in order to emulate the "feel" of a lomography camera.
i find that this kind of snobbery, especially in Flickr, such a let down in this day and age. i feel that for many photographers, they either started out with their digital PnS or DSLRs, and slowly made their way into this niche known as film snobbery - immediately forgetting that they had started shooting with DSLRs and digital PnSs in the first place. and users that take snobbery to a whole new level by stating that photoshop doth not make the photographer, but the photographer doth.
i honestly couldn't agree with that statement more - even if you happen to be the proud owner of a Canon EOS 5D MKII, it's just a waste of glass when the user doesn't know jack shit about the rule of thirds, the golden ratio, or even subject focusing.
which brings me to my latest conundrum regarding photoshop - to be a snob and not bring up the contrast to make the blacks in my recently photolab developed Lucky SHD 100 black and white film to pop up, or to "betray the teachings of film" and succumb to the plasticity and fakeness of utilizing photoshop. in light of my lack of knowledge in film developing chemistry, i depend solely on photolabs, and thus, my unable to determine how much contrast i want in my roll of film. i reckon regular Johns and Janes who aren't fluent in photography would not really care about this trivial existential crisis, but the pictures will tell you, and all the regular Johns and Janes out there, the importance of getting the look of your photos a photographer is aiming for right.
for that, my latest roll of film - the Lucky SHD 100 - has been slightly touched up with photoshop to increase the contrast. i wasn't too happy with how the photos turned out from the photolab - they were slightly washed out and all they needed was a little bit of adjustment in the contrast slider to make the black pop out. and it made quite a huge difference in how my photos looked - they became how i wanted them to look. i was satisfied with my photos.
regardless of whether a photographer has access to his own darkroom or photoshop, i believe that the end product is the most important aspect of photography. if your readers appreciate your photos, then you have done well in presenting how you view the world in your works (sans the political correctness). and though i believe that photo manipulation, regardless whether it is done in the darkroom or in the digital darkroom, is essential, there is absolutely no need in fetishizing the greatness of the two. as long as you don't "unperson" an individual in your photos a la Nineteen Eighty-Four, you're good.
No comments:
Post a Comment