# The top 100 images without Photoshop



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 21, 2015)

I found this spectacular selection of photos that appear to be, but are NOT created on computer.

http://incrivel.club/admiracao-fotografia/as-100-melhores-imagens-sem-photoshop-6755/


----------



## Click (Dec 21, 2015)

Stunning pictures. 8)

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## RGF (Dec 21, 2015)

Great pictures. Though I suspect that the night sky in Namibia had some photoshop done to get the dunes so light and still show the night sky w/ stars


----------



## Valvebounce (Dec 22, 2015)

Hi RGF. 
I thought, maybe incorrectly that the no photoshop bit meant that there were no composite images, I assumed that they would all have been processed from raw with lightening and darkening as needed (maybe even a 5 stop shadow lift in there somewhere  : ;D). 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## geekpower (Dec 23, 2015)

I've seen this list before. A few nice pics in there, for sure, but I never bought the "no photoshop" headline. That can mean a lot of things to different people. To some it might mean, "no post processing of any kind" while to others it might mean "no compositing, but everything else allowed." Half of these pics have the colour saturation cranked up so far they hurt my eyes, and a few of them are either composites or are using masks to apply pretty extreme effects to only parts of the image.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 23, 2015)

Wonderful collection of photos, but that musical chameleon looks like a candidate for the "ethics in photography" thread...


----------



## Khristo (Dec 23, 2015)

I think "without Photoshop" must mean _with_ Affinity Photo 

Most questionable one for me is the spider web in the leaf. Perspective all wrong and the focus fading away into the back/top. Hmmmm...


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Dec 23, 2015)

I do not know the criteria to classify these pictures. But I believe it means that no element was added or removed from the photo in post production.

The layman in photography think that if an image "has Photoshop" has created an effect that did not exist when you pressed the shutter button of the camera. And then removed some imperfection that was part of the image. Lay people do not know that photographers use Photoshop (or equivalent software) also to return to the pictures appearance that the human eye has seen before pressing the shutter button.


----------



## chauncey (Dec 23, 2015)

I know of no images whatsoever completely devoid of any computer activity...those included.
Any photographer with a mediocrity of intelligence would grasp that principle.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Dec 24, 2015)

Wow, those are some very interesting photographs. 

Thanks for posting the link


----------



## scyrene (Dec 24, 2015)

chauncey said:


> I know of no images whatsoever completely devoid of any computer activity...those included.
> Any photographer with a mediocrity of intelligence would grasp that principle.



Do you mean a 'modicum'?


----------



## snowleo (Dec 25, 2015)

Hello everyone

This is my first post at all. I just viewed all the 'top 100' images and some of them reminded me of my last year's holiday in Botswana and Namibia. I have been to all these places like Sossusvlei, Fish River Canyon, Etosha, Damara Land and the Quiver Tree Forest a.s.o. Some of those pictures were nearly the same I was able to take down there - like the example in this post. I will contribute some more pics in the future, so 'see you later'


----------



## krisbell (Dec 25, 2015)

Yep, I agree with the comments above - the vast majority are strongly and/or poorly photoshopped and the chameleon one is another sad example of extreme, unethical animal manipulation...shame as there are a few great photos there in amongst the crap.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 25, 2015)

snowleo said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> This is my first post at all. I just viewed all the 'top 100' images and some of them reminded me of my last year's holiday in Botswana and Namibia. I have been to all these places like Sossusvlei, Fish River Canyon, Etosha, Damara Land and the Quiver Tree Forest a.s.o. Some of those pictures were nearly the same I was able to take down there - like the example in this post. I will contribute some more pics in the future, so 'see you later'


Hello snowleo! 

And welcome to CR.
Beautiful first picture. Awaiting more to come


----------



## Click (Dec 25, 2015)

snowleo said:


> Hello everyone
> 
> This is my first post at all. I just viewed all the 'top 100' images and some of them reminded me of my last year's holiday in Botswana and Namibia. I have been to all these places like Sossusvlei, Fish River Canyon, Etosha, Damara Land and the Quiver Tree Forest a.s.o. Some of those pictures were nearly the same I was able to take down there - like the example in this post. I will contribute some more pics in the future, so 'see you later'




Great shot 8) ....and welcome to CR.


----------



## chauncey (Dec 25, 2015)

I fail to understand the difference in allowing your camera's software to decide how an image should "look" as opposed to your choices in LR/PS.
In my mind, the only thing that matters is the quality of that final print.


----------



## Orangutan (Dec 25, 2015)

chauncey said:


> I fail to understand the difference in allowing your camera's software to decide how an image should "look" as opposed to your choices in LR/PS.
> *In my mind, the only thing that matters is the quality of that final print.*



Well, that depends on what you're producing, who your target audience is, and whether there's a commercial component. If you're only shooting for yourself then do whatever you want. As soon as journalism, commerce, competition, etc, are involved, the standard goes up considerably. In short, you can do whatever you want with your photograph so long as you don't misrepresent its creation. In my book, even tall tales about how you got the shot are misrepresentations.


----------



## jvirta (Dec 25, 2015)

Khristo said:


> Most questionable one for me is the spider web in the leaf. Perspective all wrong and the focus fading away into the back/top. Hmmmm...



It kind of looks like fake, but the "center bone" of the leaf is at the top and the other half can be seen through the hole in the leaf. The web is not cross the hole but instead connecting the edges of the folded leaf so the perspective and blur is correct.


----------



## xseven (Dec 25, 2015)

The one with the cloud above the excavator looks fake to me ... the shadows are all wrong ...


----------



## MrFotoFool (Dec 26, 2015)

The third one on the list has the people in color and the rest of the scene in black and white. So there is absolutely, positively no way that is an unmanipulated photo.


----------



## RGF (Dec 26, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi RGF.
> I thought, maybe incorrectly that the no photoshop bit meant that there were no composite images, I assumed that they would all have been processed from raw with lightening and darkening as needed (maybe even a 5 stop shadow lift in there somewhere  : ;D).
> 
> Cheers, Graham.



To me it means essentially the equivalent of a JPG. Compositing of JPG is okay but all images must be processed the same and taken as close as possible in time. Not the valley minutes or hours before the star trails.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 26, 2015)

MrFotoFool said:


> The third one on the list has the people in color and the rest of the scene in black and white. So there is absolutely, positively no way that is an unmanipulated photo.


If this is a try of a joke please forgive me if I didn't get it. :-[
(Or you got me  )
If this is no joke please note that in this picture the temple is covered with grey ashes from a volcano while the people that went there later are NOT covered with ashes.


----------



## brad-man (Dec 26, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> MrFotoFool said:
> 
> 
> > The third one on the list has the people in color and the rest of the scene in black and white. So there is absolutely, positively no way that is an unmanipulated photo.
> ...



Now that's just good comedy...


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 27, 2015)

brad-man said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > MrFotoFool said:
> ...


Yeah! I know. 
But somehow I couldn't leave it without comment. *sigh*
Hope, you weren't the only one who had a good laugh.


----------

