It seems an understanding of the term "edit" is a hangup with this topic. If done in the camera it's not editing but if done outside the camera it is editing. Let's try it with a different word:

All digital photographs are manipulated images. They can't be otherwise. In fact all digital photographs are software manipulated images. All photographers using digital cameras software manipulate their photos. It's critical in this to understand that the term manipulate implies choice. In the manipulation of all digital images choices to manipulate one way or another must be made or there is no photograph.

Therefore no one using a digital camera to produce photographs can do so without choosing to software manipulate those photographs.

The boundary between software manipulation applied in the camera when the image is taken versus software manipulation eg. to a raw file later at a computer is entirely arbitrary and not founded in any logic based on the characteristics of the final image but rather on non-image related issues of convenience, skill, and the assumed tendency of human beings to cheat.

Fuji camera users for example can download a free app for their cameras that loads onto a computer. To use the app the camera must be attached (USB) to the computer. The program then provides access from the computer to the EXR processing software in the camera and allows re-processing of raw files. Are those new images OOC JPEGs or computer edited?

The arguments about OOC software manipulated JPEGs being somehow more "pure" or "truthful" or "faithful" to the scene photographed only have validity within the context noted above that humans are cheaters. Therefore the journalistic requirement that only OOC software manipulated JPEGs are acceptable because that artificiality is a control against fraud. For example I often process raw files in order to get an image that is more faithful and true to the scene that I photographed than possible using the software manipulated OOC JPEG.

Joe

Actually, with digital photography you don't have a choice. Either the camera edits or you edit. You'd need to do film photography and then use the same exact process for each roll of film and you might turn out with something unedited. Occasionally I 'll get the perfect RAW shot and I don't have to do anything to it, even clean up sensor dust, but that is in the minority. Oftentimes I'll have to adjust a number of factors to ensure the image ends up looking the best it can. My goal is to turn out images as beautiful as they can be, using whatever means technology allows. And, I like to experiment and create so I find it fun to do a lot of different things with images. I think you should show some of your "perfect" shots so we can see by example and learn.

Good evening fellow Hoggers. I am having trouble with something. The something is editing. I'm a newbie to photography not to software. My problem is I can edit ANY photo to be perfect. By using focus stacking inserting objects from other photos cloning the list goes on. Is there somewhere that editing is limited or non existent. Are there enough people here who may have an interest in a area for unedited photos? I understand the line between lightly edited and IMHO created is a sticking point. That said how about ZERO EDITING. Just a thought from a person who has shot for a year and have been hell bent on taking great photos not making them. I hope no one thinks I'm bashing highly edited photos. They are amazingly beautiful. I just would rather be taking photographs instead of sitting in front of my computer. All opinions are respected. Let's hear from everyone. Thank you all for all the information you all post and especially the photos. Thanks again Bob