NO EDITING

[DiskoJoe]

there's no such thing as 'no edit'. Even straight out of a camera (I should say digital) the camera has done a conversion process and added color, contast, etc. The only difference between SOOC and deliberate editing is the Photographer who decides to edit, not leaving it to the whim of a computer inside his camera. Shooting RAW demands the photographer to do the editing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, those that tout SOOC just don't understand how to edit properly.

Yea, no post processing would have been a better title. Even My film image has been processed by the developing machine.

 

[Trever1t]

I still don't think it's something to brag about saying "no PP" done, straight OOC or whatever. A good shot would only be better with a good polish. I firmly feel that the edit is almost as important as the composition.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I still don't think it's something to brag about saying "no PP" done, straight OOC or whatever. A good shot would only be better with a good polish. I firmly feel that the edit is almost as important as the composition.

True. but it is good to see how close you can get stuff straight out of the box.

 

[The_Traveler]

There are lots of times when it is is impossible to get a perfect exposure but you need a decent one.
I just was editing a shot where there was a very bright white house in the background and the people's faces were necessarily underexposed so that the house wasn't blown out.
This shot would have been impossible to get 'correct' without PPing.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Not editing a picture is like not wet sanding and clear coating a new paint job on a car. It just isn't finished.

 

[bowen.deanna]

Here's a few of what I think are my best with no editing. Not even a crop.

Great work there

These are beautiful and so clear...Jealous here LOL

 

[runnah]

The fundamentals of photoshop are the same things you could do in a darkroom. 90% of what I do in photoshop I have done in a darkroom. Levels, saturation, hue, burning, dodging, masking etc.. all old darkroom tricks.

 

[unpopular]

I figured since we're doing the whole straight out of camera thing, I'd process my image without color balance correction, and set the input gamma to linear.

Enjoy the natural beauty of digital photography, with minimal post processing; after all, it's the photographer not the software that makes images... right?



It's a nice Lacuna, and one we've held onto since film.

 

[unpopular]

there's no such thing as 'no edit'. Even straight out of a camera (I should say digital) the camera has done a conversion process and added color, contast, etc. The only difference between SOOC and deliberate editing is the Photographer who decides to edit, not leaving it to the whim of a computer inside his camera. Shooting RAW demands the photographer to do the editing.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, those that tout SOOC just don't understand how to edit properly.

Yea, no post processing would have been a better title. Even My film image has been processed by the developing machine.

I agree, but at what point do we say that editing is OK? Even in the darkroom, with variable contrast paper and a variable contrast light source or color enlarger, you can dial in any contrast with a high degree of precision. If you split the contrast level along developing time, you may as well be working with Curves.

The truth of the matter is that this is a bit of a paradox: before the image is processed it's not an image - this applies to film as well as to digital. But with processing we fundamentally change the data contained in the raw file or unprocessed film. The change is necessary to make sense out of the data, so how can we take a photo while preserving the scene?

No matter how you look at it, photographs do not directly record light itself, rather, photographs measure light intensity by modulating an electronic or chemical medium. These mediums are exclusively incompatible with our senses unless it is changed in some way that it can interact with light such that we can see it.

Think of a magnetic audio tape: until it is played on a cassette deck the cassette itself is not "sound".

 

[SUNR15E]

Since I participated with some playfull comments I should participate with imagery as well.


They are junk but they comply to the rules at hand

Straight out of my Kodak Easy Share C-743

Loving this shot. You may think it is junk...but it brings back the feeling that first inspired me to want a camera. I love the solidity and structure of these cameras. I know I would not want to go back to this...but knowing how solid they were was always a good thing.

SUNR15E

 

[SUNR15E]

Sorry buddy, but you just don't seem to understand how digital photography works. Most professionals who don't shoot film, shoot RAW. If your not familiar with RAW format, you HAVE to process your photos in some form of editing software, and by your description that would qualify as editing. Proper, effective post-processing takes as much skill as taking a great photo, and if done properly it should only be complementary to the picture, not supplementary. Being good at editing has nothing whatsoever to do with how good of a photographer you are.

Is it really that difficult to understand the concept he is talking about..??

Being new to Digital myself I understand what he is aiming at. Yes RAW need processing to produce the pictures....BUT I think the point is clear....Do nothing else after the picture is produced...ie do not adjust brightness/saturation do not add Post processing filters or crop 65% of the image to get just the key elements of the picture.

I know with FILM post processing was done by the Photographer in the dark room. But some of us poorer photographers had to depend on sending film to the lab to be processed and accepted the image we got back from them.

And I think that is what we are looking at here...ACCEPTING what we take as a picture in it's own right. I know my own pictures took on another life once I had my own darkroom. But while sending them to the lab I had to put a bit more effort into my work to get that image I desired. I do feel I have now become lazy about my pictures. Sometimes it is easier to take that shot from a little further back knowing it can be cropped and fine tuned at the PC. As I am still playing at it I do not shoot RAW. But then I do not need perfection...

SUNR15E

 

[unpopular]

Sorry buddy, but you just don't seem to understand how digital photography works. Most professionals who don't shoot film, shoot RAW. If your not familiar with RAW format, you HAVE to process your photos in some form of editing software, and by your description that would qualify as editing. Proper, effective post-processing takes as much skill as taking a great photo, and if done properly it should only be complementary to the picture, not supplementary. Being good at editing has nothing whatsoever to do with how good of a photographer you are.

Is it really that difficult to understand the concept he is talking about..??

Being new to Digital myself I understand what he is aiming at. Yes RAW need processing to produce the pictures....BUT I think the point is clear....Do nothing else after the picture is produced...ie do not adjust brightness/saturation do not add Post processing filters or crop 65% of the image to get just the key elements of the picture.

I know with FILM post processing was done by the Photographer in the dark room. But some of us poorer photographers had to depend on sending film to the lab to be processed and accepted the image we got back from them.

And I think that is what we are looking at here...ACCEPTING what we take as a picture in it's own right. I know my own pictures took on another life once I had my own darkroom. But while sending them to the lab I had to put a bit more effort into my work to get that image I desired. I do feel I have now become lazy about my pictures. Sometimes it is easier to take that shot from a little further back knowing it can be cropped and fine tuned at the PC. As I am still playing at it I do not shoot RAW. But then I do not need perfection...

SUNR15E

See my example and post. At what point is it "unprocessed"? You simply cannot escape processing as a part of photography. The two are entangled.

 

[Buckster]

I know with FILM post processing was done by the Photographer in the dark room. But some of us poorer photographers had to depend on sending film to the lab to be processed and accepted the image we got back from them.

What I think is being overlooked is that SOMEONE STILL post-processed that film for those poorer photographers, even if it was a machine that "looked" at the negatives and made adjustments to try to get the "best" look from it, from a machine's POV.

The same basic thing happens if you pull in a digital photo and hit the "Auto" button in the editor; The machine tries to decide based on the histogram what's the best contrast, white balance, and so on, then applies it FOR YOU. And at a lot of labs, a human who was operating the machine actually looked at the processing as it was happening and made decisions as well. You could also instruct the lab to push or pull the film, which effectively results in post-processing, changing the contrast and saturation and so on.

In the end, what even poorer photographers got back was not just blindly run through chemicals and printed - it WAS post processed for them. Adjustments WERE made.

 

[snowbear]

As far as I know, the only photos that are not edited in some way, are the old Polaroids.

 

[unpopular]

^^ nope. Polaroids were processed according to the manufacturer's specification. They are no less processed than a negative is when processed according to Kodak or Fuji's specification.

In fact, there isn't anything special about polaroid in this regard, other than how the development process is delivered: in layers on the film or in cartons pumped into machines.