Contests Requesting No Photo Edits

Roughly the same as yours. I figure most digital cameras automatically apply basic noise reduction, sharpening, contrast and color adjustments when you shoot in jpg so I should be able to do the same to my camera raw files otherwise they look flat and unappealing. I'm just equalizing the playing field. I would never submit composited images, grunge effects or heavy HDR treatments. My only question would be is a black and white image considered to be straight or manipulated?

I totally agree with you, Andrew. Editing is nothing new. Even in my dark room days there was plenty of editing that occurred during the development stage. Why some feel the need to place a stigma upon the use of photoshop or other editing software escapes me. I see the use of digital editing tools no different than old school dodging and burning and manual cropping with the enlarger. I'm going to be very interested in reading other responses to this interesting topic. I find it hard to believe that some type of editing doesn't occur in every type of art form.

Great topic!!!

I suppose I could understand if the stipulation was no photo manipulations, and they were looking for straight photography in that sense.

I can't imagine anyone not editing their photos to some extent.

When considering the power of Photoshop etc.. I can understand why people would want to see work with minimal or no editing.
Photoshop has become an art in itself with the best operators being able to turn the poorest photography into a beautiful work of art. So by requesting unedited images, the truly talented tog's are separated out from the talented editors..!
Surely..the less editing required..the more talented the photographer..

Gary.."I find it hard to believe that some type of editing doesn't occur in every type of art form." I sculpt stone..unless every stroke of the chisel is considered an "edit"..then there is NO editing in this art form :-)

"Surely..the less editing required..the more talented the photographer.."

...um no.... talented photographers know how to edit properly to achieve the resulting image they want, thus turning what might be great photo into a work of art someone would want on their walls.

The inevitable also happens - you need to clone out someone's hand that gets into the frame, a electric pole in the middle of an otherwise awesome landscape... etc. Knowing how to deal with this kind of stuff is all part of being a talented photographer.

I won't go against the rules to enter a contest. Why would I, when there are new contests here every day?

I also don't crash parties or funerals where I'm not invited; what would be the point? 'I can if I want and you can't stop me!'

If a contest moderator wants to set a ridiculous requirement . . . let 'em. This is one of those 'plenty other fish in the sea' thingies. ;-)

The pictures I am posting are right from the camera to the computer to FAA sight with no edits, however I use Adobe for my own personal us on pictures that I took that I feel did not make the cut. These pictures turn out great and I am unsure if I should post them or not. On one hand the pictures I post are not edited and it takes a great talent to capture these photos in their nature environment, however the photos that I have edited but not posted anywhere takes a talent and I believe it is a art. Love to see what everyone else believes on here but for now I am sticking with straight from my camera for this site unless I see a large amount of response looking for edited photos.

"...um no...."

Heather..there is really no need for you to always display a condescending attitude when addressing my posts and ignoring the OP within these forums !
Talented EDITORS know how to edit properly to achieve the resulting image they want.. Talented photographers will do the majority of the work pre shot... hence, the less editing required, the more talented the photographer..

How did they get rid of unwanted electric poles in the middle of an awesome landscape before digital editing?? info please..

I consider myself a very average tog.. but I know my way around editing software and can use it creatively. I can achieve the same results a great photographer could..but by using a very different set of skills and knowledge.. as I said, these contests separate great togs from great editors!

It's really very simple. Either you are shooting RAW, which basically requires touch up, or you are shooting JPEG, which EDITS your photos in camera based on preselected settings. People who say they are not editing their photos are basically doing the equivalent of shooting film and taking that film to a lab to be run through a machine with auto touch ups, only it is being done in camera. It's funny because they think their images reflect reality better, which is usually very false. Normally this attitude is found in amateur photographers who simply don't know better. It's a highly limiting belief.

In summary, for those saying they do not edit photos, YOUR CAMERA IS DOING IT FOR YOU based on your settings!! Stop telling yourself it takes more talent, it's nothing more than an ego response.

Well said Kevin!

Being a skilled photographer and skilled editor go hand in hand. You can't really be one without the other. The skill of the photographer is to have the insight as to what makes a good photo compositionally. Yes if possible we try to get as good as we can in camera so minimal editing is needed. But editing is almost always needed. A landscape photograph will not look the way it should right out of the camera. Either the sky will be blown out or the foreground will be too dark. A camera does not produce the scene the way it looks. Also, you can have mad Photoshop skill, but they cannot make a crap picture look good.

"Being a skilled photographer and skilled editor go hand in hand. You can't really be one without the other"... nope!.. Vivian Maier... never edited a single shot!
"Also, you can have mad Photoshop skill, but they cannot make a crap picture look good."...I beg to differ.. I personally have made many a crap picture look good.

"Stop telling yourself it takes more talent, it's nothing more than an ego response." I don't get where ego comes into it in my case.. I am a sculptor and crap photographer with NO ego to speak of re photography..but I KNOW that the better skill set the photographer has, then the less editing is required... this is basic logic.. nothing to do with ego, Just simple, straight forward LOGIC!

Who cares if the photo was edited or straight from the camera? It's the end product that counts.

Contest administrators care :-)

I consider myself a skilled photographer, and I have yet to see an image straight off my camera that can't be improved by at least some minor adjustments to contrast, color balance, color temperature or what not.

I had very little interest in photography back in the film days, but I do know what goes into creating fine art photos with film. Pushing film to get the contrast you desire, dodging, burning, cropping, etc. I doubt very much the Photoshop-a-phobic contest admins have any idea about those things that take place with film, all of which are among the things that skilled digital photographers do in the digital dark room.

I'd argue and say that if you aren't learning how to "develop" your digital photos, you're not a complete photographer by any stretch of the imagination. Composition is only one part of creating a great photo. Photos need to be finished in the dark room, digital or analog.

9 times out of 10, when I browse the images of those contest admins I see some decent photos that could have been made way more interesting with some minor editing. There is nothing wrong with adding a little punch!

Andrew, I presume that contest has no entrants, then, lol. I completely agree with you and others here. Perhaps what the contest host meant was no obvious editing, such as HDR or texture effects. As another poster here suggested, all art requires editing.

I never enter any HDR in those contests. You can tell when you browse the entries that almost all the entrants have edited, though. :D

Do tog's still use lens filters and lighting gels etc? or is it all done in Photoshop these days? and can anyone tell me how to completely remove "a electric pole" from an awesome landscape prior to digital editing..

Also..still not sure if editing is a feature of sculpting???

Patricia.. you say "all art requires editing".. I can only assume that you consider every brushstroke to be an edit. When a painting is completed..it is completed.. no editing required.. same goes for sculpture.. if either of these require "editing"..then they are simply unfinished and therefore this cannot be considered an edit, but simply a part of production. Nope..completely disagree that all art requires editing.
The definition of an edit is a "post production" process or change!.. and a really talented tog will get what he/she wants during the production stage..the actual capture!

Barry: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/02/famously-doctored-photographs/

"Do tog's still use lens filters and lighting gels etc? or is it all done in Photoshop these days? and can anyone tell me how to completely remove "a electric pole" from an awesome landscape prior to digital editing.."

Yes, lens filters are still used.

To remove the pole prior to digital, one would use scissors and cut the picture in half, or thirds. :-)

Thanks Jeff :-)

Yes I still use filters. Portraits are pretty much the only exception and that's because you have to know how to use flash and available lighting, and even then there is some minor adjustments made. Landscape photos always need some sort of editing.

Interesting post Heather.. However...Of the 12 examples given..only 1 of the edits actually improves the shot, this being the distracting fence post removal from a photo-journalistic shot.. but of course..if the photographer had time to consider the shot, he would have re-positioned himself. All of the other edits detract from the original photographers work. But it is interesting to see what could be done in the days before digital..

Improving wasn't the point - you didn't seem to believe people removed things or added to photos before digital. I was showing the examples to exhibit that it could and was done.

And can you honestly say the Kent State photo looks better with a pole coming out of her head? Come on.

Back to Contests Requesting No Photo Edits

Sorry, Abbie. I suppose my comment was out of line, and I apologize. But I must say that in my thirty years as a photographer I have never heard the term, tog, used in connection with either photographers, or photography. Thanks for providing me with the information, Abbie.

Again, I apologize.

Meanwhile, I started a thread quite some time ago regarding the differences between “Straight” and “Pictorial” photography. I looked for the thread---I am confident that it had much useful information that could be related to this thread---but so far I have been unable to find it.

Could anyone help me find it?

Thanks.

Apologies to anyone who may have been offended by my.....me-ness!

If anyone has any issues with my posts, knowledge, skills or use of abbreviations in future, please PM me about it. It is both distracting and rude to nit-pik within the threads and I have no desire to spend my time arguing on other peoples threads. Thank you.

Does anyone have any galleries or know of any tog's that specialize in non-edited images??

Walter, http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=2013614 ?

Look under your watched discussions

Thanks, Abbie. But the link you put up was not the thread I was talking about.

My watched discussions go no further than two pages.

I may have deleted the “straight photography vs pictorial photography” thread.

At any rate, thank you for the effort.

“Does anyone have any galleries or know of any tog's that specialize in non-edited images?”

Sorry I don't know of any photographers that specialize in what you refer to as “non-edited” images.

Which leads me to my question. Do any of the photographers here ever upload any photographs in any of their galleries without first tweaking them at least a little?

Yes.

"...Do any of the photographers here ever upload any photographs in any of their galleries without first tweaking them at least a little?"


All of mine get a visit through LR3, even if it's just for something minor.

Not true, Greg. As I said, the answer is "Yes". The end. Question answered. There are pure photos and pure photographers here. I have some unretouched work, and I just featured one in The 200 Club. Believe it or not, there are people doing good work who do not even have Photoshop, LR3, etc. or strive to do good work in the camera even if they do.

When I see those stipulations--no Photoshop, or minimal editing only--why would I waste my time entering?

I have never released ONE photo, whether film or digital, without editing. It would be like shooting a movie with no editing.

Editing is part of the process. Editing is the finishing touch.

Editing is the cherry on the banana split. It's the froth on a cappuccino.

Sorry, Barbie. I should have typed that all of mine get a visit to LR3. I'll go fix my previous post to avoid further problems with my post. :)

I have PS, LR, SEP2, and strive to do good work in camera also, but hey, it doesn't always work out the way I planned. If there are some that can do it w/o any assistance from processing programs I'm glad they are able to accomplish that.

I went over to your gallery and you have some nice images there. Noticed in your bio that you're not totally against post-processing when needed/requested:

"...Any image can be changed to your taste (i.e. text, shape, cropping, color, black-and-white, sepia, add or delete border, etc.). Simply email your requests, and a revised image will be posted to suit. "

@Walter -- Here's your 'straight vs pictorial' thread.

http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=1845653

Thank you, Wendy.

As I mentioned, there are many comments on that thread that directly relate to this very thread.

Hi Barbie.

I wonder if you would be kind enough to post an image of yours that you uploaded straight from the memory card.

As well, perhaps you could give me some tips on getting great tonal values, color saturation, and contrast straight from your camera.

Thanks.

“I have never released ONE photo, whether film or digital, without editing. It would be like shooting a movie with no editing.”

“Editing is part of the process. Editing is the finishing touch.”

I'm with you, Chuck!

What was it that Ansel Adams said? Oh yes:

“The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.” – Ansel Adams -


For myself, while I don't have photoshop, I did recently downloaded Gimp, and have played around with it a bit all of the images I have here edited with a simple photo editor, Picasa.

Here is a tutorial for anyone interested.

Of course this guy likes the “toy camera effect”, which I have no problem, but I have a toy camera filter in my camera. :-)

I really like picasa for it somehow reminds me of working in the film darkroom, using only filters, and shading cards for dodging and burning.

my camera has a way to adjust for tint with a complex color box that i never used. it also has a white balance AEB type shot, and with enough fiddling you can adjust what the output looks like, but it's not worth it. and even then there is a chance you'll need to clone things out.

---Mike Savad

I think maybe they were referring to like when a photographer shoots an image on slide film. Actually have you ever seen a 4x5 or higher slide that was well done. OMG, their is nothing like it. It blows anything online away. Then in order to make that into a digital file you have to scan it. Then it looses a ton of quality in all different ways. Mostly just curves, levels, and a touch of sharpening can bring enough to make it a nice digital file, but its still not close to being. I'm sure those are the minimal adjustments they mean. Those adjustments still don't do the original slide justice.

quote " As I said, the answer is "Yes". The end. Question answered. There are pure photos and pure photographers here. I have some unretouched work, and I just featured one in The 200 Club. Believe it or not, there are people doing good work who do not even have Photoshop, LR3, etc. or strive to do good work in the camera even if they do."

There is nothing "pure" about straight out of camera JPEGS. You are letting the camera hit the auto edit button for you. What setting makes the decision for you? Landscape? Neutral? Auto? Faithful? Which cookie cutter setting applies the presets? By your logic it was more "pure" to hand your roll of film over to a lab to be run through a machine. How is that more "pure"? Just so we don't get off track, my issue is with you calling it "pure", and not with the end result.

You want a "pure" shot with no edits? Shoot RAW with no presets then upload the JPEG and stop lying to yourself. Sounds harsh but c'mon, reality check time.

And yes, a fantastic, perfect, out of camera capture is the foundation of a good photo. Getting it right in camera is the 1st step for sure.

Kevin Annala,

Have you removed images from your gallery? I went to look at your work, but it's empty.

I had some up and then removed them. Going to upload only my open edition prints here. My website is linked to my bio.

"Which leads me to my question. Do any of the photographers here ever upload any photographs in any of their galleries without first tweaking them at least a little?"

Yes.. I have a series of abstracts that come straight from the camera.

Depends on the camera Barry, some cameras can't be uploaded straight from the camera.

:-) Hi Kev.. Nice to see you back!

Thanks Barry, good to be back

I guess you reassessed the situation :-)

I was just using a wee point and shoot.. nothing fancy and not too concerned about quality as they are all artistic abstracts. I'm off to check out Barbie's work. I've got a feeling it's going to be great because..less editing = better tog' :-) (imo)

Control of shadows and highlights always tell the tale.