Stephan G

Actually, there is no good definitive answer. A lot of the older camera bugs started with analog photography and migrated into digital photography. The migration was instigated by technology change by the manufacturers of camera equipment. The difference between analog and digital in photography is how the curved line is determined. One is a continuous curved line while the latter is a "staircase" of pixels. No need to go any deeper.

As for editing or manipulating, we still have to "fudge" to get the picture we want to view. (In this case, for the viewer of one!)

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

You aren't getting that.

chevman Loc: Matthews, North Carolina

That’s a good answer, and I understand and agree with you.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That’s the distinction most of us make.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

In fact they do a lot of processing and all of that processing is manipulative in that choices have to be made about what to do. If you run the same raw file through 5 different raw converters and apply only their default settings you'll get five different images. Somebody (see photo below) wrote the software that determines what your photo looks like.

Joe

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

On one hand, Mark Wallace - Pro photog and instructor (Adorama) stated all photos need editing. On the other, there are I believe some magazines that allow only some brightness and contrast adjustments to be eligible for acceptance. I believe the same goes for most pro sports photographers.

rcarol

If you shoot raw, you have no choice but to edit - like it or not.

lschiz Loc: Elgin, IL

I agree completely!
Technology is incapable of accurately reproducing the reality of what the naked eye sees. Technology can capture it, so we edit to reproduce it. And yes, it’s an art and we are free then to mold our image much like a potter would a lump of clay.
We don’t all think feel and believe the same things. That’s why this forum is special. We can learn from each other. That’s why too my opinion isn’t the end of this. 😊

theoldman

Your question is whether a section or group of members would like to try taking images and sharing them just as they come out of the camera. That might be hard to do today but certain conventions might be followed to, for example, standardize aspects of RAW conversion.

It would be fun to see the "original" image or file of one of the many many beautifully post processed photographs posted here.

Just to play little with the topic, you know we used to do what you suggest, when shooting in Kodak Kodachrome slide film. The film was highly standardized (quality controlled), so the recording media was the same for every user, regardless of camera. The film captured the photons impacting the film plane in a consistent manner. Then if it was processed by Kodak using one of their plants, the processing was automatic (no operator adjustment) and highly standardized. Then the positives were sent to you. You could not change them if you wanted to.

I used a polarizing filter to darken skies......but that was pre processing, before the light hit the film.

It seems to me that the variables were the equipment and the photographer. There was no post exposure image manipulation possible, and the media itself was highly standardized.

What it forced me to do was carefully evaluate the scene. I had to crop, select elements, anticipate exposure effects, etc etc. And the cost of a shot encouraged that. Today I can turn a cloudy scene sunny, get rid of overhead wires and passing cars, add makeup to skin imperfections, change the color of eyes and hair, make fat heads slim, add a sky and the correct lighting effect, etc etc etc.

I probably would not be a part of a "no post processing group," because I remember my many Kodachrome images.......but maybe I will pull out a couple and scan them (yah I know the scan will change the image) and then do some post processing to see how they compare.

Thanks for the inspiration!!!

Dave

RRS Loc: Not sure

I started in 1954 and couldn't agree more with you! It over all didn't make a lot of difference going from a simple box camera to a Hasselblad either, composition , focus and exposure were the name of the game. I thought I was downtown Charlie Brown when I built my first darkroom and could dodge and burn. Shooting weddings for over 25 years on film was an eye opener. I now wish that I could have been using a digital camera for all of those 25+ years. I learned negative retouching and selective developing along the way. Digital is a combination of photography and art aided immensely by computers and software. I could be wrong, have been more times then right, but true unedited results can best be made on film do to the automatic editing that a digital camera does in house. Maybe here on the Hog there could be a section for those that wanted to display unedited shots, could be interesting.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

This has always been a bit of a contentious point with me. Some of my images are pretty minimally processed; others are “cooked” to what many might consider extreme. Viewer are free to take or leave, like or detest, buy or not buy the images I create. But, I truly believe that as the creator of the image I have no obligation whatsoever to label, reveal, or explain the process used to make the image as a condition for offering it for viewing. (I might choose to have that conversation with persons who are interested, and would never be dishonest about the extent to which I have manipulated an image, but I don’t feel any necessity to make that info explicit unsolicited).

photogeneralist Loc: Lopez Island Washington State

I find your statement (that you can edit ANY photo to be perfect) extremely pretentious and egotistical. Please edit and post the perfect photo results for the following photo. In the perfect photo I would expect to see the bicyclist be tack sharp, the composition to be perfected and the background vegetation blurred out of focus by bokeh as well as by motion. The perfect photo would not change the intended story being conveyed by the photo

(Download)

srt101fan

Have you really read and understood the OP's posts and the responses???

chevman Loc: Matthews, North Carolina

I have CR2 RAW files on this Apple iPad II of which I’m using at this very moment. And each time I view one of these RAW photos I’m surprised at how good it looks having just imported it, (or them) from my camera. I don’t have to do anything else to these “RAW picture files” except decide how I want to use them, whether that would be sharing from Dropbox, or email, or UHH, or print. Yes I can print a 16 bit RAW color photo on my photo printer.

Linary Loc: UK

Once again I suggest the Post Processing section where you can do exactly as you describe. Several members always post that way in the PP section.

Click on this link and don't forget to subscribe. You will be made very welcome.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html