Just sayin'

[drwex]

One of the ADVANTAGES of film over digital is that one is not able to be tempted to spend hours on the resulting images trying to improve lighting, remove bad shadows, hide obtrusive background objects or otherwise improve the image.

I think O-C perfectionists should probably not own digital cameras. Or at least have their copies of Photoshop confiscated.

EDIT: Plan B - learn to take better pictures in the first place so I won't have to do all this post-production work.

Comments

[bluegargantua]

That's because you suck at Photoshop (video, naughty language).

later
Tom

[drwex]

Uh, thanks for sharing?

[bluegargantua]

It's part of a series. I find them kind of amusing.

later
Tom

[awfief.livejournal.com]

Really? There are plenty of folks who don't use digital and spend hours futzing with the photos. They have their own darkrooms, but yeah. I think the idea is more "if you know a bit of photoshop and are a perfectionist, you might be dangerous with a digital camera when it comes to post-processing." I'm awful with Photoshop, and I don't seem to have the problem of post-processing....

[taura-g.livejournal.com]

I think O-C perfectionists should probably not own digital cameras. Or at least have their copies of Photoshop confiscated.

Probably, yes.


Thank you for the icon, babe.

[sunspiral.livejournal.com]

Having Photoshop kept me from building a darkroom in the basement.

[c1.livejournal.com]

That's so totally not my experience. I've spent hours in the darkroom on a single print, and I've spent hours in Photoshop, whether the source image was digital or analog. When you have a scanner, why not work with film the same way as digital?
Either way, spending time beforehand on lighting, cleaning up the background, and so on will result in less post-production of the image. The "Garbage In-Garbage Out" rule applies here as in everything else.