[kdazzle]

Exactly - film photographers heavily process(ed) their images from the film processing through to the print. Ansel Adams wrote a few books on the topic and they’re great reads.

And different films and photo papers can have totally different looks, defined by the chemistry of the manufacturer and however _they_ want things to look.

[acomjean]

Excepting slide photos. No real adjustment once taken (a more difficult medium than negative film which you can adjust a little when printing)

You’re right about Ansel Adams. He “dodged and burned” extensively (lightened and darkened areas when printing.) Photoshop kept the dodge and burn names on some tools for a while.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IoCtni-WWVs

When we printed for our college paper we had a dial that could adjust the printed contrast a bit of our black and white “multigrade” paper (it added red light). People would mess with the processing to get different results too (cold/ sepia toned). It was hard to get exactly what you wanted and I kind of see why digital took over.

[cge]

>Excepting slide photos. No real adjustment once taken (a more difficult medium than negative film which you can adjust a little when printing)

One might argue that there, many of the processing choices are being made by the film manufacturer, in the sensitizing dyes being used, etc.

[macintux]

I found one way to "adjust" slide photos: I accidentally processed a (color) roll of mine using C-41. The result was surprisingly not terrible.

[NordSteve]

A school photography company I worked for used a custom Kodak stock. They were unsatisfied with how Kodak's standard portrait film handled darker skin tones.

They were super careful to maintain the look across the transition from film to digital capture. Families display multiple years of school photos next to each other and they wanted a consistent look.