Unaltered Photos

I've just started a group where you can post your unaltered photos for discussion. I like the idea of photographs being a captured moment... where the image is exactly what you saw through the viewfinder.
So, these should be photographs before post-production... that is, the original files from the camera where nothing has been cloned-out, added in, brightened, darkened, enhanced or altered in any way. Cropping and rotation is okay but that's all. Look forward to seeing your raw efforts :-D

http://www.picturesocial.com/group/unalteredphotographs

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alan Edney on February 29, 2008 at 6:55am

Don't worry... No hornets here... though I'm not sure what you mean. I've not said that photos can't be improved with PP but just that I was interested to see examples of photos that looked good without having to resort to it.
I'm guessing that 0068 is the original image from the camera and you've applied some filters to the other two.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jadeast on February 29, 2008 at 8:59am

while all photos are as is from the camera, my point is that to claim that any photo is a factual representation, no matter how good, or bad, is in itself a misrepresentation based on some arbitrarily assigned values. I'm not even representing a photo can or should be improved upon based on PP, but that any photo is a misrepresentation based on the type of film you used or which values are assigned in a digital camera. I'm not saying that you are wrong in any fashion other than my camera will represent a given subject differently than yours will under the exact same conditions. I got the illusion that you were trying to prove that photographs that weren't PP were somehow better than those that were. I don't think there is any best way to photograph other than what works best for you. Who decides what the "normal" photo is represented by?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Edney on February 29, 2008 at 9:28am

Yes, you're quite right. It goes without saying that different cameras, lenses, films, processing methods, digital processors and file types will render different results for the same shot.
However, each of your three photos have the same fundamental elements. You've not added any extra bits or cloned out any or merged it with elements from other photos. So, any of those three photos would be suitable for posting in this group.
All I'm saying is it's impossible to see what photos have been edited to improve them and which are 'original' as saved from the camera. So the assumption I have is that probably all photos on here have been through a PP process after downloading to the computer to improve them. Subsequently, we've no idea how much of the photo is from the imagination and talent of the artist and how much was from the original shot produced by the camera.
I just thought it would be interesting to see a selection of un-edited, unaltered photos.
I should say once more that I'm not suggesting one type of photography is better than another, they're just different in the same way that cubism differs from impressionism.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jadeast on February 29, 2008 at 9:48am

Thank you for your responses, I don't know about you, but I love the debate! I think you are right in the assumption that at least the majority of the photos here have some PP. Part of the nature of the beast that we are dealing with here is it is a great venue for photographers to learn from each other. Part of that process, I believe is the debate, which makes all think more about what we are doing as photographers. Thank you for participating. BTW I applaud you for having the confidence to take a stand for what you believe in.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Edney on February 29, 2008 at 10:34am

Likewise, I enjoy a good discussion. Some people get tetchy when you disagree with them.. especially with the relative anonymity of the internet. Hopefully this social website won't be like that but you never know... creative types are known through history for their fiery tempers. Haa ha.
I'm trying to pinpoint why, personally, I prefer unedited pictures and I think it's because if I showed it to someone I'd like them to think that what they are seeing is what I really saw.
I hear, in my head, a conversation going something like, "Wow, that's a fantastic photo. I love that sunset.. it's beautiful. You were so lucky to see it and to capture it like that.. brilliant!".
To which I'd then have to confess, "Actually, I didn't see that nor did I capture it.. it's a product of Photoshop.". I'd feel the magic was taken from the photo as soon as I explained how it was done.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jadeast on February 29, 2008 at 11:47am

To tell the truth I have the same thing happen to me, which is part of the reason that I started the discussion "cheating or art?" but I couldn't get anyone to take the bait and run with it. I try to not represent any photo as an actual occurance or event unless I intend it that way, so much so that I code my photos so that I know when it's not the original. When a photo name is followed by a letter then it has been PSed by changing brightness or saturation. If it is followed by a number (-1) then a foriegn component has been added. None of this prevents me from trying to make an ordinary shot better, nor does it make me feel that you need to do that if you don't desire.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Issa on March 4, 2008 at 6:34am

This was taken in some historical place in New Jersey. The two people you see are my friends. I would adjust the right contrast, brightness, and color.