It's beautiful photo, but I'm always curious why people put "no post production" on chemical photography. If you have an image, you have post production. Cross process is post production, and essentially a filter. Scanning is post production. If you had a lab process it, they did post production. If you scanned yourself, and didn't adjust anything, you just let the algorithm do the post production instead of doing it yourself.
San Francisco, CA
Frozen in the heat.
Lomo LC-Wide loaded with DX-Red film
Cross-processed | no post-production | no filters
#artstr #art #arts #photography #photo #california #surf #plebchain #coffeechain #zapathon
https://nostrcheck.me/media/public/nostrcheck.me_8583821384925076341688655956.webp
Discussion
Thanks. But I tend to disagree with the x-processing. The inverse chemical is part of the production, finishing the shot. It’s the development phase. Without it, there is hardly anything to display. But that’s semantic. I develop and scan myself. The scanner is in the most neutral setup to match the print.
Of course, there is involuntary oversampling applied by the process itself, but again, defining it post-production at the same level as Lightroom and PS sessions with voluntary edits is a long shot, IMHO.
But again, all this is semantic.
We can consider the lens distortion, the way the shutter burns more in the centre with the typical overexposure of the Lomo LC creating the vignette effect, etc., a whole pre and post-production process. So the label is there to notify that the photo wasn't touched outside the boundaries of the analog shot.