The Purist Thread ( Mods Please Read )

So I got to thinking there are many threads on this site that allow you to post sample images related to either a specific camera body or lens. These threads are great however, many of the images get altered from their original state via photoshop. I propose a new category under the sharing section on the forum..... The Purist. The Purist or what ever name the Moderators see fit, will be for sharing photos directly out of the camera with the only exception of resizing or converting from raw to web format. It would also be great if we could make a rule that you have to tell what camera and what lens was used for each photo. Its no fun when you have to right click on a photo and view the exif to see their set up.

Any ideas or thoughts on the purist category?

*** Update *** Im leaving the original post above but after some disscussion the "purist" category title has been changed to "unaltered". Also, I was able to better define what Im looking for in the "unaltered" category.


It is important to understand that the concept behind the "Unaltered" category. It is to see how various lenses effect an image with very very little adjustments from the camera itself. This category is not at all related to the artistic concepts coming from the photographer.


" I guess Im just tired of looking at samples from lenses that look dramatically different from what the lens produces on its own with little post. I see a lot of people asking " how much pp did you put into that photo?" or "is the lens really that sharp or did you put it through high pass/sharpening in post? Sure you get to see what the end product is and what you could possibly get out of the set up, but I would like to see photos as unaltered as possible when Im looking to buy a new lens."

For example: If Im looking to buy a lens and want to know the sharpness of it, I would have to ask someone who posted a photo in the lens sample page " Did they apply any sharpening to it?" If they answer no then I know that the image could be sharper, if they answer yes, then I know this is probably as sharp as it will get. With people moderately to heavily editing the images in post, then posting them as a sample of what the lens can do, you get a false representation of the lens or a sample of what the lens can produce plus photoshop. Which is fine and I understand the other side of the argument; you get to see some great shots and the what the photographer, lens, camera, and photoshop are capable of.

The "unaltered" category is for a technical review of lenses and what they can produce essentially on their own.

If you vote no, please explain why.... Im curious

How do you define a 'Purist' photo?

Even as jpgs straight from the camera they are processed. I can change saturation, sharpness, etc in camera. Even film was processed in the darkroom using dodge, burn, and masking.

I like the idea, but I realize that folks like you & I are the exception. I don't think enough people have "purist" ideals to make an active sub-forum.

By the way, my definition of a "pure" image is simple: a single exposure created in the camera

A single in-camera exposure is what many publishers and stock houses require in their submission guidelines. Those who primarily sell their images via these channels have little use for photoshop, simply because the submission guidelines clearly state that any images that have been edited will not be accepted. So, there still is a true need in the marketplace for "pure" imagery.

I don't know why an image manipulated by Canon's 'Picture Styles' is 'pure' while my (or anyone else's) approach in Lightroom or PS is 'fake'.

I understand that there are some images so heavily leaned on in post processing that the original would probably be hard to recognize. But in between there are only shades of grey.

All jpegs out of the camera are post processed. So are presets in LR or PS less 'pure' than an in-camera picture style? What if I just clone out some dust? And then run a skin tone smoothing routine? And some HDR? At what point does the image clearly change from 'pure' to 'fake'?

As you suggested, the moderators might want to come up with a different name, since "purist" contentiously suggests that photos processed in Photoshop or similar software are somehow impure.

I assume you are requiring that all in-camera settings be set to zero; otherwise, they are no less "processed" than if they were adjusted on the computer (and even at zero, they are still 'processed' at default settings).

I like the talk everyone, some good points were brought up that I didnt think about. I would like to state that I am in no way against photos processed in photoshop or any editing software.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13986964
I don't know why an image manipulated by Canon's 'Picture Styles' is 'pure' while my (or anyone else's) approach in Lightroom or PS is 'fake'.

I understand that there are some images so heavily leaned on in post processing that the original would probably be hard to recognize. But in between there are only shades of grey.

All jpegs out of the camera are post processed. So are presets in LR or PS less 'pure' than an in-camera picture style? What if I just clone out some dust? And then run a skin tone smoothing routine? And some HDR? At what point does the image clearly change from 'pure' to 'fake'?

sjones wrote in post #13987014
As you suggested, the moderators might want to come up with a different name, since "purist" contentiously suggests that photos processed in Photoshop or similar software are somehow impure.

I assume you are requiring that all in-camera settings be set to zero; otherwise, they are no less "processed" than if they were adjusted on the computer (and even then, they are still 'processed' at default settings).

Good points. Don't think in terms of pure and fake, ( I realize it should be changed to the Original section?) but think of it as unaltered or only altered by the camera styles.

I voted no. Where do you draw the line? Who has the final say in what is considered appropriate for this section? It's all subjective.

NeverFollow wrote in post #13986639
Its no fun when you have to right click on a photo and view the exif to see their set up.

Strange inference to what "fun" might constitute...

Anyway, I voted no because I'm not really interested in seeing 'half' of the product.

Well does raw conversion count?

If raw conversion on the computer is not allowed, then how much playing with in-camera jpeg parameters is allowed?

No, because a RAW file is unprocessed, by design.

Let's make it truly purist - no conversion whatsoever. Nothing but the 0's and 1's, "digital" in its purest form.

Veemac wrote in post #13987521
Let's make it truly purist - no conversion whatsoever. Nothing but the 0's and 1's, "digital" in its purest form.

1100101001010100101010​0001010100010100101010​010100010010

Here's my kitty,

0001010110010010010100​1101101010010010100100​101011101011

And a flower,

0100101011001001010100​1001011001111100102011​001010100101

And. Oh my. Sorry for showing you such utter filth.

I think a SOOC section would be nice, but the forum is divided by subject rather than style of shooting. A B&W section would be more useful as that covers a broader range of expression.

Even the great Ansel Adams did PART of his great work in camera, and PART of this great work in the darkroom (and providing interactive guidance to a darkroom technician in later years). So his great works were not completely created in camera. So I see no particular compulsion to want to create a workflow which insists only on depicting what the lens captured onto a sensor!

OTOH I know that shooting color transparency requires that it all is done 'in camera', and digital is like color transparency in that regard (and a few others as well). So such a workflow is not without precedent in the film world, too.

I guess Im just tired of looking at samples from lenses that look dramatically different from what the lens produces on its own with little post. I see a lot of people asking " how much pp did you put into that photo?" or "is the lens really that sharp or did you put it through high pass/sharpening in post? Sure you get to see what the end product is and what you could possibly get out of the set up, but I would like to see photos as unaltered as possible when Im looking to buy a new lens.