nothing is unedited

Nothing is unedited.

Even the photos that appear on your camera roll straight out of your phone camera. In fact, there's countless operations which take place behind the scenes just to transform the raw data captured by the sensor into a pleasing image for human perception. Demosaicing, gamma correction, and white balancing are such operations that are just the tip of the iceberg.

I think there's kind of an unspoken disdain among some in the photography community for editing film photos or in general just 'overediting' - which I really don’t get. Film that comes out of the darkroom is technically already edited. The amount of time you leave the film in the chemical bath affects the final result. There's a reason behind why the Adobe Lightroom application was given its name. Also when you scan a film negative, the scanner applies its own sequence of operations to first invert the colors and then apply its own white balance and exposure adjustment based on a preset. “Straight out of the scanner” really means nothing and same goes for “straight out of camera”.

In my view, film stocks are essentially a customized combination of split toning, contrast, tone curve, and white balancing. Using the same film, the results you get from different scanners and even scanner software can look miles apart. I’m a firm believer that post-processing is just as much an expressive form as the act of framing a scene in real time and pressing the shutter. Just imagine if a film or show you liked wasn’t color graded.

There's no shame in editing if it makes what you’re trying to convey more coherent. On the contrary, own it. If you ‘destroy' a photo and end up making it more beautiful, why be shy about it? Plus, it’s not easy. I think captivating art sometimes breaks existing frameworks of how we understand or perceive that medium. The thought of "how did they do that/how did they even come up with that" is a common thread among the work of legends across mediums. It's work to be challenged by but also to admire.

The next time you see something odd you vibe with, hold onto it.

PAINTED BY DUSK

PAINTED BY DUSK is a photo project shot in Alviso of San Jose, California. Like the name suggests, the dimming light in the evening sky was the driving element behind the photos.

Unlike my previous projects where the photos were made in multiple trips, this one was made all in one go.  

I've shot around the Alviso community a couple times so I had a decent idea of where to walk.

The purpose of this project was not actually found in the final photos but in the process of shooting. Working with limited light and time, I had to get in the flow and trust my instincts as the sky was getting darker and darker.  

It's honestly so interesting how creative projects come about - sometimes it's planned and other times it's completely spontaneous, as was the case this time.

When in the flow, I'm finding myself shooting a sequence of images rather than focusing on a particular standalone.  I haven't really figured out why this is the case but it'll be something to think about for a while.  It's probably having to do with being fixated on the present rather than being fixated on an idea, where the present is dynamic and ideas are static.

Leaning into the moment for inspiration.  

BLURRY DAYS // intentionality

Late last year I started a photo project titled Blurry Days, which has been completed and can be found here.

My previous projects have been more documentary-style -- I wanted to try something more overtly stylistic. Something less serious with a bit more pop.

With the exception of one set, these photos were shot on digital (a number of them on my iPhone). That year I had become quite comfortable with the way I've been doing color correction and I needed to push myself to try something different. Blurry Days was the perfect exercise.

This project focuses mostly on color and the relationship an image has on the other when viewed together.

Curation is something I've been finding to be more and more crucial, especially while working on this project and at the same time redesigning this website - the effect a neighboring photo has is significant. For this project, I felt like having each set of images as a pair enhanced the overall experience compared to if each photo was standalone.

Each set required some sense of order or proper contrast. Unlike my previous projects, I feel like the bulk of the work in this project was in post-process and curation. I'd go as far to say this project was born out of the question - is curation an art form in itself?

Neighboring photos have the ability to make or break a photo viewing experience.

When it comes to social media platforms such as Instagram, you only have so much control over how your audience is going to consume your content. A post is viewed alongside all the other things that could possibly make their way onto someone's home page. Yes, you’re gaining exposure for your content, but is this actually the kind of exposure you want? Do you really want your work to be presented in this sort of nondeterministic fashion? There's this emphasis on selling a single post or photo as a standalone, maximizing engagement. It makes sense though - shorter attention spans, less expectations. No context needed.

As a creative, this just seems like an unhealthy mindset to be in -- compromising your ideas for exposure (where people still aren't even giving your work full attention). Do the likes and views actually add value and meaning to your work?

For an image to be viewed either in isolation or as a part of a whole, that requires intentionality. I genuinely believe that photos can be enjoyed on a deeper level when consumed in an intentional manner, where the context (neighboring photos & content) matters and enhances the overall experience.