Help get this topic noticed by sharing it on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Category for photos without processing

Despite all photos are superb, i would appreciate if there was a category only for photos without treatment - Photoshop, filters, ... -.
18 people like
this idea
+1
This topic is no longer open for comments or replies.
  • 1
    Hello Jose, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. Since out categories are by subject matter, we allow manipulation in all of the categories to some degree. You can use the PURE tag on your images to distinguish them as un-processed or minimally processed.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 4
    Well I really like the idea of the extra category, I just think it is totally wrong to compare Topazed or HDR'd images to proper photos. I think there should be a tick box like in the challenges for photos, not PS work
    I am relativly new here ( one week ) and in some categories the amount of filtered stuff that contributors try to 'improve' in filters is too much. They should never come up 'against' photos.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    there used to be an option for marking photos as 'pure' but it got misused, people started marking images as pure when they weren't. also so many people shoot raw now (including myself) that you HAVE to process in photoshop, it's just part of the development of the image
    • view 1 more comment
    • Mr RJ, good point. To me photoshop is a multiplier of personal taste...If you have good taste to begin with then photoshoping makes your work better, but if you have bad taste to begin with and you get your hands on photoshop...UUH OOH!
    • Images that come from a most digital cameras already contain metadata, camera make, iso and, zoom for example so it may be possible to add a 'pure' flag if this data exists in an image file. I'd like to see something that does make the distinction for the purist and recognition for the art of photo processing for the budding 21st centuary Man Rays.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    Processing RAW is not the same thing as heavy filtering. It is the same as developing your film.
    What I mean is manipulation , as in TOPAZ glow, simplify, etc. HDR to death. Topaz adjust is one of the worst, you can tell it from far.
    If the picture you present is possible on film or paper then it is pure. I would never object to a person removing dust, a blemish, a pimple. But sunlight from the front and bright light behind a building at the same time, white halos round the tops of mountains or buildings, fake stars etc.. that is not real. Weird saturation or toning can also be very annoying .
    Of course, yes Digital ART has its merits , can even be beautiful but it is not a PHOTO.

    So I think if you did something else to you photo than white balance, levels curve and despeckle, denoise or remove a speck, yes you should mark it.
    It is only fair to those who wonder 'how on earth is that possible'
    here is a topazed version of this image :


    and here is the original
    http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 3
    Hey all, not trying to open old wounds or beat a dead horse here, but there was a much heated discussion about post processing a while back which led one member to begin calling some other members who do post process rude names, and this person also began leaving snide remarks on other member's image pages. So this is just my humble input, no hard feelings if anyone disagrees.

    I used ektachrome and kodachrome for 40 years and still find modern digital pics to have washed out colors and to be dull of contrast comparatively. If I post process my images it is only to put back the natural color and contrast of the original scene that modern digital sensors take away.

    Folks who are masters of post processing produce images which look very natural. It is the folks who are bad at post processing that should be criticized. The call should be for no "BADLY" post processed photos, not for no post processed photos at all. Most folks can't recognize post processed photos if the work is done correctly. So can we start criticizing BADLY post processed photos, And leave the well post processed photos that can't be recognized anyway out of the conversation?

    This is what I find frustrating...No one produces a "non-processed" photo. Your digital camera processes your image before you even see it. Even the old masters of Photography didn't use the image "right out of their cameras". They all had to process their "negative image" into a "final image". The old masters used dark room tricks like "masking" and "burning" etc, to post process their images just as we use photoshop today. The big difference is the old masters were good at it!..Today anybody can get a free photoshop trial and produce badly processed nightmares to their heart's content.

    One of my favorite photography quotes comes from Ansel Adams when asked about post processing his images, he chuckled and said...Without post-processing, photography would..."Make the world look like an ugly place", and he added, "None of my images are realistic".

    That interview is available on youtube.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m confident
    1
    Yes, you are perfectly right about Kodachrome and Fuji Velvia which we put in instaed of Ektachrome or Provia if we wanted vivid colours :)
    Applause for Ansel Adams, it was his books that I followed in the darkroom making my own humble attempt at the zone system.

    The most important thing was in his books though that you took care whilst taking the picture.

    I have only been here for less than two weeks and the times I heard things like ths one makes me sad :

    ""Thank you for your comment.The original image was very poor due to bad weather, so I was a little challenged with HDR"

    Tim, that is why, for processing, please try Alien Skin's Exposure 5,6 or7 or DXO Film pack after you have done the gentle bits of leveling, exposure etc in Lightroom.
    You'll love it. You can choose again between Ektachrome and Kodachrome :)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • Really? Thank you! I didn't know about the processing things you mentioned. You're right, that was a sad comment about the HDR and the weather. But at least those type of pics can serve as a good "bad example"!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m confident
    Here is the above mentioned image which won an award!!
    http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

    Tim, it is FINE to use LR for the basics after you took a decent shot in the first place and this is what I like to use
    http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/
    The demo version works for 2 weeks, must admit I was hooked when version 4 was out :)
    here is one for you it is the 1960 Kodachrome :)
    http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
    and my volcano went through the Velvia setting,
    http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
    the bright coloured ladies got an Ektachrome treatment
    http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I've read through this thread and while I understand the arguments pro and con, I have to come down on the side of those saying we need a category for photos that are "pure."
    By that I mean nothing done digitally that would not have been routinely done in a darkroom, no composites, no bright orange overlays of silhouettes at sunset that we are to believe were produced with a mobile phone and no post processing.
    It's really tiresome to see an image that you worked hard to get right in the camera lose to something somebody tossed off quickly then processed to death.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 3
    ALL JPEG images are processed by the computer program built into the camera
    There is no such thing as an unprocessed JPEG.
    My pocket Panasonic camera has a better program to make JPEGs than my Canon 5D Mark II camera, and the Panasonic including lens cost less than 20% of the cost of the Canon Body without any lens.
    And even with my cheap Panasonic, I can choose between a few different ways for the camera to generate JPEGs.
    I shoot 14-bit RAW when I use my Canon 5D Mark II.
    I must manually process the RAW files into 8-bit JPEGs.

    I agree that many images on this site are to my eye over processed.
    But since there is no such thing as an unprocessed JPEG, how do you propose to limit the amount of processing to make a JPEG, especially seeing that different camera manufacturers use different programs with different settings to generate their JPEGs?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 4
    Micheal. I have respect for your opinion, (and everyone else here please forgive me for yet again beating this poor dead horse)...but the question remains...how do you know if an image is pure if you can't tell it's been added to or edited?

    I've had folks tell me my pics are pure when they have all been edited in some way. I'm sure I could upload hundreds of pics to a "pure" category and no one could tell otherwise and all I use is outdated windows software. Folks here who are masters of Photoshop and Lightroom are way more skillful than me. You'd never guess their pics haves been edited and processed...And you would happily accept them into a "pure" category and they would likely win because they have been skillfully fixed by master editors and processors!

    The other question is how do you get a "Pure" photo when your digital camera is editing your image before you even see it? Choosing vivid mode is adding color saturation just as lightroom can Choosing sunset mode as well. Choosing portrait mode adds saturation to skin tones just as Photoshop does, Do we accept these camera edits into a pure category?

    The list of exposure value choices goes on and on. If you choose a wide f/stop your pic will have an un- naturally blurry background and is not "pure"... your aperture choice has edited that background for you. Do we keep all F/5 and wider stops out of the pure category because they are editing our backgrounds for us?

    The truth is there is no such thing as a pure image.

    What you are complaining about are "badly' or "poorly" processed images. because you and everyone else here sees lots of images everyday on Pixoto that are skillfully edited and processed and you think they are pure and untouched.

    If we get a category for "pure" images, how do we keep out the heavily edited and processed images which have no sign they have been edited and processed?

    (...poor dead horsey...)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 2
    I am not talking about ordinary level tweaks. That's no different than dodging and burning in a darkroom and I have quarrell with that.
    I'm talking about stuff that's obvious - composites, false color, addition of elements that were not present - that sort of thing.
    Look, I have only been on this site a few days and I have only a few images up. A couple of them were made years ago with an old Canon point and shoot digital camera that was the first digital camera I had and I used it on a trip where I didn't want to haul a lot of equipment around. I had to work at it to get the exposure in the ballpark of where I wanted and get the composition where I wanted. Even then the comparatively low resolution shows and in one case, slight motion blur from a long exposure from a bridge that was vibrating with traffic.
    Newer stuff has had nothing but minor tweaks - setting white balance, a burn of the sky. Nothing I could not have done with a negative and a darkroom.
    There is a place for heavily altered images. It takes skill to do it well.
    But I think there ought to be a place for old school work as well.
    Yes, people will cheat. They cheat now. Is that a reason not to do it?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I think the problem here is too many folks are getting camera skills confused with photography skills.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 2
    Michael, since you are new here, you probably don't realize that this topic has been rehashed and rehashed and rehashed. The bottom line is that Pixoto encourages digital manipulation, with the only stipulation being that if an image looks painterly or surreal, it should be placed in the Digital Art category.

    Pixoto used to have a "pure" designation we were on our honour to check off -- it was eliminated, if I remember right, because it became meaningless. Abused extensively.

    Anyway, art is subjective, and art also looks different depending on the device you use to access Pixoto and the settings you've chosen on the device. People also edit on devices like a mobile phone and don't realize how over-processed their image looks if viewed on a computer monitor.

    Getting back to the "art is subjective" point -- it's great that you don't like some of what you see here. Life would be pretty boring if we all liked the same thing. A lot of what you or I might think is over-processed might look fantastic to someone else. Most of the top-charting music nowadays is music I greatly dislike. :-) But it's all good. We are all free with our votes to choose the photos we appreciate the most. If the ones we voted against rise to the top, well, that's life. Our favourite movie may not win the Oscar, our favourite song may not win the Grammy, our favourite photos on Pixoto may not make the top either. That doesn't mean they all shouldn't compete against each other. In fact, I think they should. What people vote for is what SHOULD rise to the top, even if I don't like it, think it was over-processed or even badly processed :-)
    • Lenore, you are so right...who decides what is a pure photo? it can not be done... I wish this could be put to bed too....
    • Joyce, you are so right...I think the problem here is not some folks opinion of what makes a pure image...I'll just say it like I think it is...envy, jealousy, selfishness, etc, Yeah, I'd like to work for Nat Geo myself, but I don't let that affect the enjoyment of my hobby.

      I think most folks have bad taste so bad photos will always be liked by the crowd, I've always found that what the crowd likes and does is usually in bad taste anyway...just look at the popularity of reality TV shows versus quality documentaries.

      Category definition on Pixoto will not change human nature one iota.
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 1
    No disrespect intended but I'm lost again...So now a "pure" photo can be processes or edited as long as the editing and processing can be called "minor tweaks"?

    Again no disrespect intended, but no one who wants a pure category will call bad processing just that...bad processing. Everyone says "extensive " processing, even though some photos look completely natural because they have been extensively processed.

    "Pure image category"?... "Minor tweaked image category"?. Non-extensively processed image category"? "Heavily edited but doesn't look heavily edited image category"?..

    What will the new category be called?
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • 2
    Below I have linked to a thread that is the PERFECT example of why this type of attitude cannot work. Too many people don't understand photography -- they don't get lighting, they don't get camera settings, they don't understand which camera settings cause specific effects. People would be reporting every single great photograph because they think it must have been manipulated. Notice the accusatory language used in this thread, comments like "over processed" etc.

    The Report Team here at Pixoto is bogged down as it is. Can you imagine what would happen if they had to deal with all the additional reports? LOL

    http://community.pixoto.com/pixoto/to...
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • It looks to me like I may the only old timer here who went into a darkroom, played with enlargers and chemicals and made a photo look like what I saw.

    That's what I am talking about here. Not getting hung up on the fact that JPEG processes an image.

    I guarantee you that 90% of the pictures at this link didn't look anything like that when they came out of the camera.
    http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

    That's fine if that's what you like, but I don't think they need to be competing with photos like this
    http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...
    • view 11 more comments
    • Tim, you know what I meant. If you are prepared to discuss this seriously, I'm all about that. I won't respond to sarcasm.
    • Only people who want to change the image from what was captured in the camera on the film need to go into the darkroom.
      Otherwise you would simply run your film through the machine and accept what the machine gave you.
      Dodging and burning is CHEATING for people who don't like what the camera captures, so only machine processed film is acceptable....
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • This reply was removed on 2015-03-17.
    see the change log
  • 1
    Michael, this particular subject here in the Pixoto forum is, and has been, never-ending.

    What you are seeing is not people being threatened, only people who regularly frequent this forum being tired and frustrated of this same argument popping up over and over again, with nothing new being said on the topic.

    It's a moot point anyway, one suitable only for those who never tire of debate.
    :-)
    Pixoto management have made their official stance quite clear. If you're trying to convince them otherwise, good luck to you, but you might have better luck getting McDonalds to serve filet mignon and a nice merlot. If you only wish to debate the topic with those who feel differently with you or commiserate with those who agree, go for it :-)
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated

  • I’m sad
    Good comparison to cooking!!!
    I prefer to pic veg in my garden, make a proper stir fry with fresh ingredients, add herbs and dried spices and fresh meat.
    Others buy pre'spiced meat, a fancy sauce in a bottle and get deep frozen veg and serve it all on a fancy plate.

    I had been on Pixoto for about 4 weeks and the processing really put me off.
    Once too often I had heard when I commented : but the original image was way too dark with horrible colours so I HDR'd it.

    Again. Photography is about taking pictures correctly. There was a pic with a white blurry oversharpened smudge in the sky, i said 'What am i looking at, this is really too blurry?' and the guy had a go at me, can't you see it is the space shuttle. What?

    Pictures that are lacking in basic CAMERA adjustments and skill should go into beginners or the cyber bin. Some folks can't be bothered to focus , others obviously can't see the lack of composition or definition.

    I had two or three of my best pics zapped after a month on pixoto because somebody decided to change category. It is quiet strange that they can go out of the way to downgrade a perfectly good, well received proper photo but hardly anybody ever took my remarks about improving the actual photo serious.

    Isn't strange that they ENCOURAGE togs to use extensive processing to create a striking image? How did Henri Cartier Bresson ever create a striking image? Or Tim Morrison? or Ansel Adams?

    I still prefer proper cooking so I went back to 500px and a fellow member here who was seriously peeved about the preference of sauce in a bottle recommended ViewBug.

    There are some wonderful people here but unfortunately I also like to learn from others and I like to improve my PHOTOGRAPHY. So I don't post here at all now.

    but then again, I just decided to give it one go, with a good, honest picture.
    http://www.pixoto.com/images-photogra...

    we'll see whether it does OK against some of the dark side :)
    • Please don't go, Annette... Pixoto needs folks like you! I have images on 500px as well, and the problem is Pixoto shows all uploaded pics in the duels, (which includes the really bad ones)...With 500px they don't show the poorly done images unless you click on "fresh " images...And the "fresh" category of 500px has some jaw-droppingly bad pics you wouldn't normally see, (Some are as bad as my spelling of jaw-droppingly)..but if you must go...happy shutter clicking!
  • (some HTML allowed)
    How does this make you feel?
    Add Image
    I'm

    e.g. happy, confident, thankful, excited indifferent, undecided, unconcerned kidding, amused, unsure, silly sad, anxious, confused, frustrated