Talked to a retired photojournalist last weekend and he wrecked my view of digital editing

I was at a coffee shop in Portland flipping through some scans from a roll of Tri-X I shot at a punk show. This older guy next to me asked if he could look, so I handed them over. He shot for the Associated Press back in the 80s and 90s, covered wars and presidents and stuff. He told me that back then, if your exposure was off or you clipped a highlight, you just lost the shot. No fixing it in post. He said every time he sees someone scanning a negative and then spending an hour fixing it in Lightroom, it makes him laugh because the whole point of film is that it forces you to get it right in camera. I argued that dodging and burning in a darkroom is basically editing too, but he said there's a difference between making a print and rescuing a bad negative. Honestly, it kinda stung because I've definitely scanned stuff and fixed it later. But now I'm wondering if I'm just getting lazy with my metering. Has anyone else had a old timer make you question your whole workflow?

2 comments

2 Comments

wyattbennett7d ago

Got a buddy who shoots medium format. He spent three hours in the darkroom once trying to save a roll he underexposed by two stops. Came out looking like a muddy mess. Said he realized then that the old guy was right about one thing - film punishes you fast. But he also said the darkroom let him do things digital can't touch. So maybe it's not about lazy metering. Maybe it's just different tools for different jobs.

faith_perez7d ago

That whole "it forces you to get it right" thing feels like gatekeeping with extra steps. If the photo looks good in the end, who cares if you tweaked it for a few minutes?