1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Untouched photographs - do folk do them?

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by MarthaRuby, Nov 6, 2014.

  1. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    Ive been asked to supply the original raw file before... if they stipulate only minor digital adjustments its the only way they can check.
     
  2. MarthaRuby

    MarthaRuby Well-Known Member

    I don't understand a lot of the replies but I do understand this one and this was one reason I prompted the question - wondering how manipulated photographs and unaltered images can be judged fairly alongside each other.
     
  3. Ffolrord

    Ffolrord Well-Known Member

    Quite simply, the image most pleasing to the judges will win. I don't think images are marked down for not being manipulated, rather that manipulated images will often find more favour. There are competitions that don't allow compostiing, so best to stick to those. Or if you wish to compete with the digital art wizards then learn how to do it.
     
  4. PhotoEcosse

    PhotoEcosse Well-Known Member

    Assume that images can be digitally altered unless they are expressly forbidden.

    They can be judged against each other because what is being judged is not the process, but the final image. And, of course, countless unaltered images have been judged to be much better than countless altered ones, and vice-versa.

    The reason that sometimes any digital manipulation is banned is not to give unaltered photographs an advantage but, in the words of RPS and PAGB, to preserve "the truth of the subject". It is a subject that provokes argument in fora much more learned than this one but will never be subject to universal agreement. The best example of the way the "truth of the subject" is applied in nature categories is to say that cloning out sensor dust specks does not alter the truth but cloning out a blade of grass does. That seems entirely logical to me but policing it is not an easy matter and there is one point of view that rules that cannot be effectively policed are not worth the paper they are written on.

    But the debate will continue.
     
  5. KeithLeslie

    KeithLeslie Well-Known Member

    A few(!) posts back I said that people need to do post-processing because of deficiencies in how digital cameras work. Today, I noticed this in a DPReview article: "The Sony A7R produces extremely flat files"; the author went on to say that its output needs significant post-processing. I suspect this is a far from uncommon issue.
    So, I rest my case!
     
  6. evilbuttmunkeh

    evilbuttmunkeh Well-Known Member

    I just use shots straight from the camera.

    reasons for this are:

    a. any time I have tried PP it looked awful

    b. I have no editing software anymore

    c. I'm too lazy to try play about with the images afterwards


    I think if I had a decent solution to point b. then a. might be conquered but c. would still rule over all.
     
  7. Roy5051

    Roy5051 Well-Known Member

    Try a little tweaking on Picasa (free), though your flickr photos look good.
     
  8. Gezza

    Gezza Well-Known Member

    Well thats the Sony A7R sorted... I do believe there are others though... I may be wrong.
     

Share This Page