rant

You chose the type of slide film and maybe used a filter to adjust the colour rendition, even with slides.

I'm interested in this because we have an annual "straight out of camera" competition at ADAPS. This is for unadjusted JPEG files only. However, even then there are choices such as image style, and the more we try to define it the more difficult it becomes.

i use to do slide mudge but then it was starting to get exspencive

yes john useing filters is ok but you are useing the filters to creat the photo which you see in the view finder mi argument is why take the photo and then alter it afterwards as to me the skill is to make that photo befor you take it not after (i have to admit that the black and white is a diffrent ball game )

That's what could be called pre-visualisation. The image is shot with the final result already in mind. There will still need to be some post capture honing to make the dynamic range fit the output (print, web, etc.)but essentially the image outcome is already known.

I'd call it just one way of working, but there are many other ways of working. I'm not sure that one way or another way is in some manner morally superior though.

UNADJUSTED camera jpeg files???? ... Do I even NEED to make my point again ....

Nobody said it was easy Nigel.....the essence was to define what "straight out of camera" could be. JPEG. sRGB. The original file with no adjustments.

Then of course the question arises can we have Natural, Vivid, Bright....yes on the basis we could choose our film type. The can we have in-camera sharpening? And so it goes on, but in the end the spirit of the competition is clear.

I believe by logic there exists no such thing as your club is trying to define ... All camera jpegs are of course 'adjusted' ... Simply leaving the custom setting sliders at the zero position does not constitute ' unadjusted' .... A zero position on a slider is nothing more than a pre-determined and fixed amount of adjustment relating to that parameter.

For example, '0' amount of saturation slider does NOT mean the camera processor has made no saturation adjustment ... It really means that the photographer has not made any alteration to the camera pre-set amount of saturation for the particular custom image preset that it's active ... In every sense of the word, by every logical definition, there is actual adjustment applied.

Even if you now make a definition based on no user alteration from the zero position, that is meaningless because of the variations in default levels between the different models and makes.

there is one thing for certain it makes a good debate

As a JPEG shooter my aim is to set up the camera correctly at the time of shooting - exposure, white balance, vibrancy and so on. On the rare occasions when I get it spot on with no PP required I feel pretty pleased so I can see the point of a competition like this.

It cannot be easy John, because there are always people who seem to delight in putting obstacles in the way of any suggestion. However, it seems pretty obvious to me, and not an unreasonable idea for an interesting challenge.

Presumably, your club competition would require an image that is entered to have been taken using any of the shooting parameters available in the camera, recorded in JPEG format on the camera's memory card at the time the shot was made and, after that recording, in no way subsequently adjusted, either in-camera or in an external computer.

Cheers.
Philip

Of course Philip, that could be an agreed definition of what would be a valid file to enter ... But it does not add up to anything that could reasonably be described as unadjusted, our perhaps more accurately as what many label ' straight out of the camera'. It is the mistaken assumption of ' purity' that is often attached to this label that I am challenging.

Every camera jpeg is processed, edited, adjusted, manipulated ... whatever you call it, by the cameras tiny computer according to pre -set default adjustments as programmed into it. The fact that every make and model comes with different types, amounts, default start-points and brand specific style characteristics must adds up even more to the inevitable conclusion that such a thing as an unadjusted camera jpeg does not exist. For the purpose of comparison it really is meaningless.

I'm not being mean and saying we can't have fun with our cameras at the camera club and enjoy this sort of thing ... Of course not, that's what its all about ... But we should not be perpetuating the myth that what we are outputting constitutes some kind of original, pure, un-fiddled with thing ... It simply does not.

but why do you need a computer to adjust anything after the image is on the memory card to me thats computer programing not taking a photo with the end productwhat you have seen on the camera screen

Nigel, it was I who posted the Ansel Adams quote plus comment, from which I am sure you will realise that I think of photography as involving the practitioner in both image capture and image processing. But I really don't care how, and to what extent, people do those two things - if the product impresses me, that's all that matters to me.

No it isn't, Nigel.

The raw data that the camera has captured for the image is processed, edited, adjusted, manipulated ... whatever you call it, by the cameras tiny computer according to pre-set default adjustments as programmed into it, to produce the JPEG file that is recorded on the camera's SD-Card.

I don't see that John or myself are
I am surmising that the competition to which John refers simply involves presenting that recorded JPEG from the SD-Card, which I assume would mean sending that unaltered JPEG straight to a printer or projector.

Cheers.
Philip

because what the camera sees and then outputs without any manipulation/processing is a load of 0s and 1s....which need rearranging into something slightly more attractive

This debate could go on for ever