1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

YOUR Best Non-Edited Photo

Discussion in 'Miscellany' started by underitall, Aug 20, 2008.

  1. I started this thread, becuase of all mixed thoughts and ideas after reading the Do You Think It's Cheating? thread.
    Itll be interesting to see how good some of YOUR best work is, WITHOUT ANY post-processing/editing, apart from resizing, nothing else.
    Iv posted the following photo alot, becuase I like it, and it turned out quite alot how I planned, and what I saw in front of me, a (To me) photo. Now, can we see your best/favourite non-edited photo, thanks, Tom.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2017
  2. rotxlk82


    Jul 20, 2007
    Hello again Tom, you’ve got another good idea for a thread going here I’m sure you’ll get plenty of exciting additions in time. It’ll be a particularly interesting for people to fish out images which they really feel were at their best without any PP when computer processing really is a key part of getting the best from digital images (especially those from a DSLR).

    I have to say that this one is a bit of a cheat, although strictly it does fit with the rules. It was taken with Fujifilm Provia 100F and my Nikon FA with 28mm AIS; this is a slide film which is known for having good saturation. In other words it gives me the colours that I'd normally have to work for without the work. Velvia film is better for this, however I don't have any decent scans of that particular stock. This is a completely untouched scan performed by my laboratory.

    I’ve always thought that film (if properly scanned) performs far better ‘out of the box’ than digital which seems to require a lot of processing either in camera on later on with a computer.

  3. dan1son


    Sep 24, 2007
    Not sure how I feel about this thread. Unedited is relative to how the image comes off of the camera. If you're shooting RAW and using something other than Capture NX, RAW is straight off the sensor with nothing done at all. Capture NX will default to the settings you had on the camera for white balance, profiles, d-lighting, etc. on load time.

    If you're using JPG those files come off of the camera already pre-rendered with whatever setting the camera has. In essence they're already "edited" relative to the RAW that came off the sensor.

    To disallow a RAW shooter doing any post-processing completely splits this group in half. Most RAW shooters use different philosophies when shooting than JPG shooters. My RAW files all look like complete junk before post processing in Lightroom.
  4. Exactly the points I was about to make. This is a meaningless exercise.

    For example, on your first image I see from the Exif that you used "soft" contrast, "Normal" saturation, "Normal" sharpness, and "Auto" white balance. Any of those settings could have been different and you would still have an "unprocessed" image by your definition, but it will look quite different.
  5. I dont really undertsnad white balance really, I know what it means, but, why (Is there) an option to leave it how it is, rather than having to choose between options, or have it on AUTO.
    And I found no difference between my RAW and jpeg photos, so, im not sure where thats going, and I use(d) ViewNX to view them by the way.
    And thanks Robert, its so highly saturated to other film photos iv seen, and, like you said, straight out of the camera, thanks for sharing, Tom.
  6. ViewNX incorporates the in-camera settings just like CaptureNX. Thus what you see there should be virtually identical to the jpeg.
  7. Here's an example. #1 is a NEF file converted in Adobe Photoshop CS3 w/o any editing. #2 is the same NEF converted in NX2 w/o any editing, which preserves the in-camera settings.


    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  8. White balance affects the color temperature of your photo. Presets and Auto *can* and do get it wrong at times. When one shoots in RAW, one can correct for this.

    By using ViewNX, you are still having NX read the in-camera settings in your NEF files, that is why you don't see the difference.

    Shoot in RAW & JPG. Then open your files in Photoshop or PS Elements (you can download 30 day trials for free). You WILL see the difference. The JPG files have all the in-camera settings for sharpness, saturation, etc applied. The NEF files do not.

    Therefore, I agree that this is a pointless exercise. If one shoots JPG, there is already "post processing" applied in camera. If one shoots RAW, there is not. If one shoot film, there is post processing applied in choice of chemicals used, process used to print, etc.

    The degree of PP done is a personal choice. However, the only true 'non PP' image is the RAW shot (not converted in any of Nikon's software) and why anyone would find joy in posting sub-optimal work (and therefore also poorly representing their work and skills) is beyond me.

    Not picking an argument, just offering my views.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.