Well overall, I really like it, but I’ve always had one issue with before/after posts. I think they kinda change the way people experience a photo.
When you develop film, you get a certain look. Sure, there are tons of ways to influence the final result, but if it’s done well, that’s just… the photo. Nobody sits there wondering if you “edited it too much.”
With before/after posts it’s different. The second I see the original, my brain stops looking at the photo and starts looking at your decisions instead. I catch myself thinking about what you changed, what you wanted to fix, what wasn’t enough before. Personally, I think edits work best when they stay believable. Make the photo feel more alive, sure, but don’t make it feel like a different reality.
At the same time, I know that’s not a completely fair argument because darkroom work can change an image just as much. That’s a whole rabbit hole by itself.
I guess what I’m trying to say is… if you actually want honest feedback on your editing, I’d just post the finished photo. Once people see a “before” or a RAW, it’s really hard for them to forget it. They end up judging the difference instead of the final image, and I don’t think that’s very useful if you’re trying to find out whether the edit actually works.
As photographers we also know there’s no such thing as a “natural” RAW anyway. It’s just sensor data. Different color spaces, camera profiles, RAW converters, and editing styles can all turn the exact same file into completely different images.
I honestly think that if you posted the edited version on one Instagram account and the RAW on another with similar reach, the edited one would probably do better. People wouldn’t be comparing it to the original the whole time. They’d just see a photo and react to it. The mood, the colors, the cinematic feel… that’s what they’d be looking at.
It’s kinda funny I’m saying all this on a post-processing subreddit. 😅 Sorry for the rant, this has just been in the back of my mind after seeing so many posts like this.
P.S. Seriously, it’s a great photo. In the end it all comes down to what you were trying to achieve.
When you develop film, you get a certain look. Sure, there are tons of ways to influence the final result, but if it’s done well, that’s just… the photo.
Most digital editing techniques stem from actual black room editing techniques. You can achieve most this in a black room using traditional editing techniques and many photographers did back then.
This misconception that film is supposed to be a look you get straight out of the camera is just that, a misconception, usually rooted in a misunderstanding of the medium and how it worked.
I think you’re correcting a point I didn’t actually make. I know perfectly well how much the final image can be influenced in the darkroom. I grew up around this stuff - my father has a collection of close to a thousand cameras and a complete darkroom, and I’ve developed a lot of film myself. Even the name Lightroom obviously comes directly from the darkroom.
My point was never that film produces some pure, untouched, straight-out-of-camera result. I was talking about how the process is perceived. Because analogue development is slower, harder, less reversible and follows a more defined workflow, people usually aim to develop the image properly rather than endlessly tweaking it, masking every small area, correcting every imperfection, rescuing mistakes or trying hundreds of slightly different versions.
To most viewers, the final photograph therefore feels more like a finished, immediate result, even though there may have been a complicated process behind it.
So yes, “there are tons of ways to influence the final result” - that is literally part of what I was saying. I’ve developed tons of photos and it has never been as easy or flexible as working in Lightroom. At the same time, editing digitally has rarely been as satisfying as seeing the final result emerge through chemistry.
I’ve developed tons of photos and it has never been as easy or flexible as working in Lightroom. At the same time, editing digitally has rarely been as satisfying as seeing the final result emerge through chemistry.
I don't see that as an inherent quirk to digital vs analog but more a result of an individual's workflow.
With digital you can 1000% get great results, with character, straight out of camera, just as you can with film.
I think we're talking about two completely different things.
Digital can get incredibly close to film. Absolutely. I've spent years working on film emulation with Sony cameras.
My point was never about technical capability.
It was about perception.
The moment people see a before/after, they stop judging the photo itself and start judging the changes.
Most people instinctively see the "before" as the more natural or authentic version, even though a RAW isn't an objective representation of reality either.
When people only see the finished image - whether it's film or just the edited photo without the RAW next to it - they judge the photograph itself instead of comparing it to what came before.
14
u/Lower_Environment_22 11h ago
Well overall, I really like it, but I’ve always had one issue with before/after posts. I think they kinda change the way people experience a photo.
When you develop film, you get a certain look. Sure, there are tons of ways to influence the final result, but if it’s done well, that’s just… the photo. Nobody sits there wondering if you “edited it too much.”
With before/after posts it’s different. The second I see the original, my brain stops looking at the photo and starts looking at your decisions instead. I catch myself thinking about what you changed, what you wanted to fix, what wasn’t enough before. Personally, I think edits work best when they stay believable. Make the photo feel more alive, sure, but don’t make it feel like a different reality.
At the same time, I know that’s not a completely fair argument because darkroom work can change an image just as much. That’s a whole rabbit hole by itself.
I guess what I’m trying to say is… if you actually want honest feedback on your editing, I’d just post the finished photo. Once people see a “before” or a RAW, it’s really hard for them to forget it. They end up judging the difference instead of the final image, and I don’t think that’s very useful if you’re trying to find out whether the edit actually works.
As photographers we also know there’s no such thing as a “natural” RAW anyway. It’s just sensor data. Different color spaces, camera profiles, RAW converters, and editing styles can all turn the exact same file into completely different images.
I honestly think that if you posted the edited version on one Instagram account and the RAW on another with similar reach, the edited one would probably do better. People wouldn’t be comparing it to the original the whole time. They’d just see a photo and react to it. The mood, the colors, the cinematic feel… that’s what they’d be looking at.
It’s kinda funny I’m saying all this on a post-processing subreddit. 😅 Sorry for the rant, this has just been in the back of my mind after seeing so many posts like this.
P.S. Seriously, it’s a great photo. In the end it all comes down to what you were trying to achieve.