[Ash]

Fishr, I don't see any hostility in the thread - certainly none intended by me. But since EVERY image is processed in one way or another by virtue of it passing through a RAW processor, then an unprocessed image is an oxymoron - there has to be some guideline as to how these 'unprocessed' images can be 'processed' to be eligible for such a competition.

If it's as simple as JPEG straight out of the camera, and no RAW processing allowed by software, well so be it. Or if RAW processing is allowed, then what about the RAW processor's sharpening and retouching tools, etc.?

Hope this made my points clear, but yes, a out-of-the-box JPEG and/or RAW-processing only comp sounds like a weekly/monthy mini-challenge that would get some interest.

[RioRico]

People can organize and participate in contests with whatever arbitrary rules they wish. Some can indeed be challenging. "Let's see what you can do with an Instamatic" or "Infrared shots of only scorpions" etc are fair fights. But an out-of-the-box-JPG contest would favor those with the latest dSLRs with zillions of firmware filtering features. Even with my K20D, an awful lot of PP can be done in-camera, but I don't stand a patch against what a Kx can generate.

RAW is pure? We can't even call a RAW file a 'negative', because negatives have been developed. RAW is more of a "latent image", useless until it's been processed and rendered. AFAIK about the only 'negatives' that are exhibited are x-rays, and solargrams / rayograms, and pinhole photography with a slice of print paper in an oatmeal can.

As mentioned, every image is a product of more-or-less PP, and arguments over the merits have been going on here since the beginning and will probably never end, purists vs pragmatists. My training, my job (way back when), and my inclinations, all lead me to "do whatever it takes to make the picture". The limits of "whatever it takes" are ultimately set by the audience: family, clients, editors, contest judges, criminal masterminds, the self, etc, whomever you are shooting for. But an unfair contest with unenforceable guidelines? Feh...

[pacerr]

I don't recall ever being restricted as to which film type or brand, developer or paper was permitted for judging prints from film -- or slides. Had there been restrictions, I imagine it would have been in the context of a comparison of particular components rather than a limit on final results.

A restriction on post-processing seems to me to establish compartments regarding individual post-processing skill (rather difficult to referee!) rather than the aesthetics of the image.

It also ignores the effects of pre-processing decisions such as choice of sensor, lens, lighting, ISO/speed/aperture/filters, etc. Is there actually a significant difference in the choice/use of a glass filter vs. a digital processing filter? Perhaps only in the experience level involved in predicting the effect?

The variables seem to me to be too unmanageable to cause anything other than arbitrary and artificial limits no matter how challenging they may appear to be at the micro-level. As in athletics, the only reasonable segregation of classes would seem to be based on differences in individual experience levels and size/weight/gender advantages (attributes which fortunately don't seem to apply here!).

The ultimate test is the appeal of the final image regardless of the mode, manner, skill or timing of processing effects.

H2

[extravagrant]

So, let me see if I understand this...

For a contest that would be for only accolades and bragging rights (aka, no money), it's vital that we have clear, bright-line rules to encode the spirit of the competition? We can't rely on the honor system? If a picture is taken that bends the rules and looks processed, are people going to vote for it?

Yes, there is processing that happens in the camera. Yes, there is post-processing in film. Yes, there may be an advantage to having bells and whistles in newer cameras. It might even be <gasp> unfair! Ohnoes! If you feel like your arm is being chopped off because post-processing is what makes your photos sing, then don't enter. Wait for another challenge that's in your wheelhouse.

However, if you enter the challenge and lose to someone who you feel broke the rules and used PP, then clearly, you should firebomb their place of residence. That'll teach 'em.

--

I would really like to see this as a competition. I think it would be a fun challenge, and I'd love to see what people come up with.

[Ash]

Yes, it's a good idea - It would be nice, though, to have at least some standard to level the playing field and make it a more fairer and valid competition - serious or not.

[woof]

My thoughts are that it would be like asking a film shooter to just exhibit the negative......

Exactly... more on this later. My one comment at this juncture is that while I try to get as much right in the initial exposure, I have always (since the 70's) and will always perform post processing on the negative. It is what I was taught THEN (yes, in the 70's) and it is what I do now.

Even Ansel Adams' shots look like guano before he had his printer dodge and burn the heck out of them.

That's where I am going with this.

I'm also one of those guys from the "good ole days." That's what I was thinking about when I suggested this contest. Getting back to basics and making every shot count. Seeing what we can actually get out of the camera with our own understanding and skill of composition, color, texture, line, shape, value, etc. I think it would be fun as well as challenging and perhaps educational too.

I am from the good ol' days. Started with a '57 Asahi Pentax in the early 70's and by the late 70's was shooting with a Spotmatic. In 78' I took a photo course. Of course we tried to get things as right as possible, but we were taught... and **strongly** urged, that to attain the very best print, manipulation in the darkroom was essential. They showed us the basics of this, and I spent some time after that with my father's darkroom equipment learning how to do it better.

Please read carefully the following excerpt from "Ansel Adams: Some Thoughts About Ansel And About Moonrise", by Mary Street Alinder (Copyright 1999 Alinder Gallery. This is a discussion of "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico."

"Moonrise, the negative, was far from perfect. It took me two years to convince Ansel to make a 'straight' print of Moonrise. He printed it without his customary darkroom manipulation as a teaching tool to show the basic information contained within the negative. Comparing this print with a fine print, one is struck by the immense work and creativity necessary for Ansel to produce what he believed to be the best interpretation of the negative. His final, expressive print is not how the scene looked in reality, but rather how it felt to him emotionally. [emphasis added]...

... After determining the general exposure for the print, he gave local exposure to specific areas. Using simple pieces of cardboard, Ansel would painstakingly burn in (darken with additional light from the enlarger) the sky, which was really quite pale with streaks of cloud throughout. He was careful to hold back a bit on the moon. The mid-ground was dodged (light withheld), though the crosses have been subtly burned in. This process took Ansel more than two minutes per print of intricate burning and dodging. Ansel created Moonrise with a night sky, a luminous moon and an extraordinary cloud bank that seems to reflect the moon's brilliance. Moonrise is sleight of hand. Moonrise is magic."

Please do not equate being from the good ole [sic] days with not doing post processing and being more careful in the creative process.

These things have always been a part of the game, and I personally have always subscribed to them. If you ask me, the lack of - or worse - conscious eschewing of - this experience hardly makes one a purist. A purist would be someone who makes use of all of his tools in the furtherance of his art and craft.

Photography is light painting. It is not realism per se. If you want to pursue realism, you are welcome to it. It is no better or worse than any other form of photographic expression. I would argue however that it may be the furthest removed from the ART of photography. It appears to me to be more of a hyper technical approach. I would also argue that it will ALWAYS fall flat in terms of capturing the reality. It cannot and will not. It actually is not meant to. Why should it?

You probably never had the means to do post processing in film, and so you've stretched everything you had for perfection out of the gate. Nothing wrong with that. keep it up... BUT recognize this:

The difference with digital is that darkroom (albiet digital darkroom) is a little more accessible. I would suggest that you stray just a little from your comfort zone and dip a toe. True greatness may be waiting!

With respect,

woof!

[CWyatt]

Thanks for the quote on Adams, very interesting.

I shoot RAW, but occasionally convert to JPEG in camera to check B&W views etc, for myself before I go away and develop the RAW in photoshop. I refuse to show anyone any shot on the back of the camera, or any in-camera developed shots on computer, because I don't consider them finished.

[Adam]

Why don't we make a mini-challenge out of this to test drive the idea?

I think that the only fair approach would be to allow only out-of-camera JPEGs, and limit file editing to resizing (not cropping). If we opened it up to more, then, as others suggested, the line betweek "ok" and "not ok" wouldn't be very clear.

[woof]

Why don't we make a mini-challenge out of this to test drive the idea?

I think that the only fair approach would be to allow only out-of-camera JPEGs, and limit file editing to resizing (not cropping). If we opened it up to more, then, as others suggested, the line betweek "ok" and "not ok" wouldn't be very clear.

Perfect. I look forward to this. I think we should then... just for fun... have a parallel track for the challenge wherein the resulting OOB (out of the box) images CAN be processed and are rejudged.

You are right about where you draw the line. If I understood correctly, OP advocated getting everything INCLUDING crop perfect in camera.

Oh, and since my K-x will do HDR in camera, is THAT fair game?

woof!