# Unedited photos



## allskolim (Nov 26, 2010)

Hey there!
Me and my friends were wondering if there is any place where you can find a collection of unedited photos, that can draw your attention. We were curious if nowadays, where digital manipulation is so common, there is a possibility to find a "pure" photo, that really makes you say "that's surely edited". Thanks in advance for any links.  

Cheers,

Alex


----------



## bigtwinky (Nov 26, 2010)

Google images might be a good start

Considering that photographers have their name and reputation tied into an image, it is to their advantage NOT to post an unedited final version.

How easy is it to find a rough copy of a movie?  Not easy.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 26, 2010)

To some extent, everything you see is 'edited' in some way...

Even in the film days.

If you shoot RAW, editing (or, at least, 'processing') is required.
(EDIT - If you shoot JPG, the same thing is still happening - it's just the camera doing it instead of you.)

Even when I scan my film, I'm doing tweaks to the curves, colors, saturation, etc before the final scan.
That is, before I even scan it - before it's even a file on my computer, editing is being done.

Some people see them as the same thing, but I think there is a difference between editing and processing.

Here is one that had basically no editing at all.  I did do some minor tweaks to contrast, white balance - that sort of thing, but I didn't 'edit' anything in or out.  It's basically straight out of the camera.





The starburst effect was done with a cross-screen filter on the lens, and the isolation of the glass was done with lighting.


----------



## allskolim (Nov 26, 2010)

Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 26, 2010)

Sorry, don't know of any awesome, appealing to the eye, unedited, free to use photo sites.


----------



## bigtwinky (Nov 26, 2010)




----------



## KmH (Nov 26, 2010)

allskolim said:


> Hey there!
> Me and my friends were wondering if there is any place where you can find a collection of unedited photos,.....


Every photograph ever made has been edited, to one degree or another.

Digital manipulation is no more common today than darkroom manipulation was in the days of film.


----------



## Overread (Nov 26, 2010)

KmH said:


> allskolim said:
> 
> 
> > Hey there!
> ...



+1

Remember when you shoot in JPEG mode in a digital camera the camera applies its own default in-camera editing to the shot. You can even adjust this (within limits) through the cameras menus.
This is no different to sending your roll of film to the chemist - backstage during the processing to a print from your negative they are making choices concerning the white balance; exposure etc... before printing. 

The idea of a totally unedited photo doesn't really exist because photography is both a capture and processing process. You can't have one without the other and get the final product which is the printed photograph.


----------



## skieur (Nov 26, 2010)

allskolim said:


> Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.


 
Sorry, but what you are saying is inherently contradictory as in don't treat me like a moron, but I do not know enough about photography to realize that there is NO SUCH THING as an unedited photograph.

My mother and I edited film photography probably before you were born.
Digital photography is just a little easier to edit.

skieur


----------



## KenC (Nov 26, 2010)

Even beginners in the darkroom do all sorts of manipulation in development and printing.  The experts can do unbelievable things.  People sometimes act as though digital photography has undermined trust in the truth of photographic images, but check out some of the things that were done to photos many years before digital:

Amazon.com: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation (9781574881660): Dino A. Brugioni: Books


----------



## table1349 (Nov 26, 2010)

KmH said:


> allskolim said:
> 
> 
> > Hey there!
> ...





Overread said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > allskolim said:
> ...





skieur said:


> allskolim said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.
> ...





KenC said:


> Even beginners in the darkroom do all sorts of manipulation in development and printing.  The experts can do unbelievable things.  People sometimes act as though digital photography has undermined trust in the truth of photographic images, but check out some of the things that were done to photos many years before digital:
> 
> Amazon.com: Photo Fakery: The History and Techniques of Photographic Deception and Manipulation (9781574881660): Dino A. Brugioni: Books




O....M.....G.......NOOOoooooooooo.  Don't tell me that the likes of Ansel Adams, Helmut Newton, Dorthea Lange, and Alfred Eisenstaedt ever edited a photograph in any way.  AGhhhhhhhhhhhhh................................


----------



## pbelarge (Nov 26, 2010)

allskolim said:


> Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.


 
Even before digital photography, think of all the different film types available to the photographer, including the likes of kodak instamatic cameras. The film had already been treated for special consideration.


----------



## manaheim (Nov 26, 2010)

allskolim said:


> Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.


 
Welcome to the forum!  Glad to have you here!

:thumbdown:


----------



## Derrel (Nov 27, 2010)

allskolim said:


> Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.



There's a bunch of unedited pics on Flickr. Millions of them. You'll needd to search through millions of edited ones to arrive at millions of unedited ones.

OR you can use Google, you know the search engine, to come up with the Flickr group specializing in unedited, SOOC images....

http://www.flickr.com/groups/funkyfreshmonday/


----------



## table1349 (Nov 27, 2010)

Derrel said:


> allskolim said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't treat me like a moron, i wouldn't ask if i haven't checked google earlier. According to the rest of your post: That's understandable. But the photos I'm searching for are the ones, that were not necessarily taken by photographers with their "name", but still they are considerably "awesome" and appealing to the eye. What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.
> ...



But are they "awesome, & appealing to the eye?"  And if they are in .jpg then there is really no way of knowing if they are truly un-edited.


----------



## KmH (Nov 27, 2010)

If they are JPEGs, at least 80% of the color data has been edited out (discarded), and the image has been converted into 64 pixel squares called MCU's, Minimum Coded Units.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 27, 2010)

You might want to see if you can find a site that has old Polaroid's on line.  Those would be un-edited.:mrgreen:


----------



## Garbz (Nov 27, 2010)

allskolim said:


> What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.




I think it's time you defined "edited". Every photo is edited in someway. Back when you took a film camera just took the shot and handed them to the pharmacy they were scanned, then all sorts of colour adjustments were done either automatically or manually to give you the resulting photo. The mere choice of checmicals to process in is part of the editing equation, as is time temperature etc.

Digital is no different. Even if you do a factory reset on your camera the resulting picture is something that someone thought you may want to see. The same photo taken on a Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc will look subtly different in terms of colour contrast and saturation with none of them being perfectly neutral.


But are you after eye-popping masterpieces? In which case why would a photographer take a photo he has no intention of finishing? If you want un-edited photos look in the local newspaper. But none of them are Pulitzer Prize winners directly from the camera without some through of how was it supposed to look when it finally hit the news-stand.


----------



## table1349 (Nov 28, 2010)

Garbz said:


> allskolim said:
> 
> 
> > What's more, it would be crucial when the photos were taken with no intention to be edited.
> ...



Garbz, One to many Fosters last night???   



> _Back when you took a film camera just took the shot and handed them to the pharmacy they were *scanned*,_


   

I did darkroom work in the old days of film.  We never "scanned" the film but we did process the film there by developing the negatives and then printed positives or in the case of color reversal films such as Ektachrome we framed the slides unless requested not to.  

Every step of the developing process and printing process was just as you explained however.  Chemical choice, processing choice, time, temperature all effected the process.  

Technically, even Polaroid instant film can be edited.  Too little time or to much time will effect the final photo as well.  Didn't think of that in my previous post.  :blushing:


----------



## Garbz (Nov 29, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I did darkroom work in the old days of film.



The old days things were quite different, though I was putting it in the context of the original poster. By asking this question I assumed he was under 25, so likely if he used film at all his local lab's machine would have developed in chemicals, then scanned and then inkjet printed the result. All the one machine, but a far cry from the darkroom wizardry that these days is confined to my kitchen late on a moonless night.

By the way Fosters is an export beer. No self respecting Australian drinks it, and to be perfectly frank I wouldn't even know where to buy the stuff if I wanted it :cheers:


----------



## table1349 (Nov 29, 2010)

> a far cry from the darkroom wizardry that these days is confined to my kitchen late on a moonless night.



So that's where VB comes from.  I always wondered.


----------



## LokiZ (Nov 29, 2010)

Hmmm...

If What I have collected from this thread is true then while the statement being made by most is true, their time lime is false.  The point at which is being stated by most as far as when editing begins is way off.

The beginning of an image edit is not even close to the dark room in film days.  The beginning of an image edit is not even close to camera auto modes in digital days either.

If one sets a digital camera to a sports mode then shutter speed and aperture are adjusted accordingly and automatically.  What many are failing to see here is the fact that the key word is _adjusted_ *not* _automatically_.  It does not matter if you use the auto mode or if you mirror those settings in manual mode, the minute the photographer chooses his settings he has in effect edited the prospective manner to which the image will be captured.

While I find it strange that one can edit future images that do not yet exist.  This is verified as true by the forum on two counts. Those stating polariods are edited and the fact that if I turn my camera off and then back on those settings that will "edit" my future images are still looked upon as the act of editing while I do nothing but snap away.  The editing could be seen as beginning when the setting was changed which could be a year prior if I use the settings from a camera that has sat idle for a year.  

With that said, if you *really* want to get anal about it, lets look at synonyms for the word "edit"...

Main Entry: *edit*  Part of Speech: _verb_  Definition: rewrite, refine  Synonyms:  adapt, alter, amplify, analyze, annotate, arrange, assemble, assign, blue-pencil, boil down, butcher, censor, check, choose, compile, compose, condense, correct, cut, delete, discard, doctor, draft, emend, excise, feature, fine-tune, finish, fly speck, go over, make up, massage*, polish, prepare, prescribe, proofread, publish, put together, rearrange, recalibrate, rectify, redact, regulate, rehash, rephrase, report, revise, scrub, select, set up, strike out, style, tighten, trim, write over 

... notice if you will that the word compose also falls in line with the word edit.  So in essence one could say that the editing process begins the minute one looks through the camera viewfinder as that is when composing the shot begins.  On SLRs this could even be done pre power up of the camera.

To the OP:

As Derrel noted the SOOC acronym in his post, I agree that (Straight Out Of Camera) might be a better term to use for what you are looking for. Especially since many persons can't let it go despite their knowing what you mean. 

Look at it this way.  If you miss pronounce a word there are always going to be people who will not let it rest until you do pronounce it "the correct way"  They know word you speak of or they would not have the reason to tell you that it was being pronounced wrong.

Here in this forum that is just one of those mispronounced words ("edit"/"editing") that us more anally inclined can't seem to let go of unless others see it our way.

 I cannot say I have found a source for SOOC images that have the effect on me that you are looking for.

Cheers!

A few additions and typo corrections sections 3 and 4


----------



## table1349 (Nov 30, 2010)

LokiZ said:


> Hmmm...
> 
> If What I have collected from this thread is true then while the statement being made by most is true, their time lime is false.
> A few additions and typo corrections sections 3 and 4



My time lime is just fine.  My time lemon is running a bit fast and my time grapefruit needs a new mainspring.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 30, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> LokiZ said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm...
> ...




The thing is, everyone draws the "what constitutes edited" line in the sand in a different place.  It's quite subjective and, frankly, of very little importance in the scheme of things, IMHO.


----------



## LokiZ (Nov 30, 2010)

gryphonslair99 said:


> LokiZ said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm...
> ...



:thumbup:

I have got to leave that one in their now!


----------



## LokiZ (Nov 30, 2010)

Buckster said:


> The thing is, everyone draws the "what constitutes edited" line in the sand in a different place.  It's quite subjective and, frankly, of very little importance in the scheme of things, IMHO.



Very concise well put indeed.  When the glass is sitting their half full or half empty how important is it truly as to what method was used to fill the glass?

I agree with your opinion.


----------

