As an afterthought, the nearest we'd get to a naked pic on digital cameras would be if we were all to reset our equipment to factory default settings..... Hmmm...maybe not!

The nearest you'd get to a naked pic is to post them in RAW format. Any jpeg straight out of a camera has already had a lot of processing done to it.

True, but file size would be a pain for posting! Also, it's possible that some contributors don't have a camera with a RAW capability.

Panansonic LX3 24mm 1/1300 F2.0 no crop

Sorry David48, but maybe I am missing something here. Where is the challenge in taking a 'naked' photo?

In the 'old days', there was the skill of the photographer.

He, or she saw the image, framed the imaged ... captured the moment.

You then developed the film, then the paper ... there was a lot of skill with the original image.

Now a days, there is so much post editing, airbrushing, 'auto-correcting' ... all with the software to 'improve' the original image.

A lot of the images 'look' brighter then bright, storm clouds look more menacing, rice paddys look greener, contrasts sharpened.

Sort of how CGI have changed movies.

I wanted a thread when those enhancements were not used, the photo 'dis-robed' of all these clothes that are used to dress them up.

So, I used the term ... the 'Naked Photo'

For me ... there is a HUGE challenge in taking a good, nay great original image.

.

poppycock, this is how the old pros did it. post has ALWAYS been a part of the picture. photoshop mimics many of the techniques used in darkrooms.

http://petapixel.com/2013/09/12/marked-photographs-show-iconic-prints-edited-darkroom/

This is an abandoned building on Silom Road. Nikon D5000 50 mm f/4 ISO 720

DSC_1542.JPG

looks more like a woman to me.

Beer. Mine.

LG 2011 smartphone, 3.2mp camera.

Lovely golden lager. 5.5%.

How come beer no fall off roof in Thailand country?

Another with the cannon SX 50 HS, no crop, only name added.

Anyone have a pinhole camera to satisfy the op ?

Then try to upload without enhancements!

Good Luck

Anyone have a pinhole camera to satisfy the op ?

Then try to upload without enhancements!

Good Luck

Double image on a pinhole camera, scanned.

Scan-130909-0007 by pattayadays.com, on Flickr

Anyone have a pinhole camera to satisfy the op ?

Then try to upload without enhancements!

Good Luck

Goompa

Maybe you were trying to be helpfull ... I don't know.

Maybe I can explain it this way.

I'm encouraging the budding / keen / experienced photographer to make more effort in making the photo before the 'shutter is snapped' ... not making it later through the keyboard and post (capture) image improvements.

I'm saying ... make the photo real.

Maybe this is a good example of what I'm saying is wrong with extensive post-editing of images.

EDIT ... I am, not for a second supporting the organisation named at the end of this clip ... I actually just noticed it

Just so that's clear.

If you liked that clip above ... this one does raise an eyebrow (or two) ... 100 YEAR OLD lady made YOUNG and BEAUTIFUL again!

But, that's just me ... I'm happy to walk against the herd, speak my mind when I see something that is wrong.

So, it's a challenge ... some will take it up ... the brave ones.

To the brave 'naked' photographers ... I'll tip my hat ...

.

David48, don't take on so! Let the thread run and see what develops: you may see negatives in some of the comments, but don't focus on them so much. The Photography forum is a fun place: exposure to a panorama of views is to be expected, but above all, let's keep it light.

Many folk have started all sorts of threads, some of which have appealed to members and some of which see the shutters come down pretty fast. If folk like a topic, they soon latch onto it, otherwise they will zoom off to pastures new.

Speaking purely for myself, - and please do not take any offence, because it's all meant in the best possible taste - but while I see what you are aiming for, and appreciate the idea, you are killing any interest I personally might have in this thread by seemingly (IMO) forcing the subject and yet not posting photos (except the one) yourself.

Now go get your camera out, shoot and post lots of examples of the skills you are demanding of everyone else: that should help give your thread legs, otherwise I think you'll be which could be a shame......and don't forget to post RAW files, no crops, ambient light only, etc etc: we need the naked truth after all!

OK, having said all that, I'm going to set the camera to RAW and see what transpires. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. Time will tell.

Well Rob if you only want photos shot in RAW then that leaves me out for I have never bothered with that and wont be starting.

My interest is in nature, mainly bird life, and what I see around me without trying to compose things.

While saying that I still want good images but without investing in expensive heavy gear, for I walk around a lot in sometimes wet and what some would call dangerous places and have already trashed one camera in the last year.

Here is another, hand held with the Cannon SX 50 HS without cropping or any PP except name added :

Rob ... I don't want to argue.

I'm certainly not asking for RAW photos.

Far from it. I fully appreciate that a modern digital camera does have some in-built processing.

Not much you can do to change that.

But, I do suggest not to make fancy settings on the camera to produce the effect I alluded to in this post http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/782362-a-photography-challenge-the-naked-photo/?p=8775047 one page one.

I've said my peace on the subject.

I don't want or need to be popular or this OP to run to 50 pages.

If a few guys accept the challenge then great.

If no-one does ... then no-one does.

Think of it as a weight-lifting competition without steroids.

Thanks to the guys who have posted thus far.

.

Robby, I don't want RAW...I've never used it ever. If you read back in the thread, you'll see I pointed out that many people might not be able to take RAW shots. I was willing to give it a go, to comply with David's OP, but it isn't really my interest. It was someone else who rightly pointed out that jpeg files aren't 'naked'.

Goompa had a point about pinhole cameras, methinks.

All too much hassle here! Good luck with the thread, guys. I'll look in sometime, perhaps.

No cropping

No post editing.

Just a 'real' photo.

.

.

Sure, I could have removed the face spots, the blemishes.

But real people have spots and blemishes.

No post editing

No cropping

.

JPG directly derived from it's raw. 30 seconds like rythmworks likes it. f max 11 iso minimum 160

Another " real" picture without nothing , only lighted ; the original is about 4 Mb; this one maybe 400 Kb

• Olympus TG-610
• ƒ/14.0
• 9.4 mm
• 1/80
• iso 80
• Flash (Éteint, non déclenché)

• Flash Mode - Off
• Flash Exposure Comp - 0
• Flash Remote Control - Off
• Flash Control Mode - Off; 0; 0
• Flash Intensity - n/a
• Manual Flash Strength - n/a
• White Balance2 - Auto
• White Balance Temperature - Auto
• White Balance Bracket - 0 0
• Custom Saturation - 0 (min -2, max 2)
• Modified Saturation - Off
• Contrast Setting - 0 (min -2, max 2)
• Sharpness Setting - 0 (min -2, max 2)
• Color Space - sRGB
• Scene Mode - Standard
• Noise Reduction - (none)
• Distortion Correction - Off
• Shading Compensation - Off

PB210139_khon_kaen by vanhouten1, on Flickr

We can see this photo is sur-exposed in mode " Auto "

Arguments, nakedness and tension...

Great thread, David. I support you puristic drive..

I'm a selective purist. Making photo's by using the natural light of the sun is pure. Love that thought. Oh and the cam..

600am is when the light intensity from the sun becomes sufficient to record a half decent image, handheld.1/30sec. Any darker then this I will need looong exposures, bigger lenses... more expensive, takes away the purity, right?

No, it doesn't.

Another " real" picture without nothing , only lighted ; the original is about 4 Mb; this one maybe 400 Kb

We can see this photo is sur-exposed in mode " Auto "

Aside from this; What else can you see with the naked eye, what you can regard as a constructive observation, Assurancetourix?

Blurred picture because the big truck is moving ;

The sky is not blue , because I shot the photo in the middle of the day , not a good moment ...

Need certainly a crop ...

What else ?

It's not a beautiful photo even so it's interesting .............for those who like roadworks trucks

What else?

-That cam seems too slow to make a nice shot against the sun from a fast landmover suddenly passing by..

Cropped, not stirred

The flying spider (image rotated, but otherwise not touched).

What else?

-That cam seems too slow to make a nice shot against the sun from a fast landmover suddenly passing by..

The or one of the multiple problems we can have with primitive camera compacts...

Mine is a Olympus TG 610 ; good for shooting photos during Songkhran because it is waterproof ;

I will have my new camera in less than a month;

a Panasonic Lumix FZ 200 ;

it's a bridge

http://www.trustedreviews.com/panasonic-lumix-dmc-fz200-review

JPG directly derived from it's raw. 30 seconds like rythmworks likes it. f max 11 iso minimum 160

You forgot to mention the forced bridge between the contacts, that over rid the cameras minimum shutter speed.

Cropped & Resized...that's all. Source D800E w/Sig 24-70 f2.8,

Shot @ 1/125th-f8

Early morning at a border town.

Photography is about post production in the darkroom, selection of chemicals, selection of papers, exposure times, to say nothing of dodging and burning.

7 hours ago, sunnyboy2018 said:

Photography is about post production in the darkroom, selection of chemicals, selection of papers, exposure times, to say nothing of dodging and burning.

HUH:
its about seeing things and capturing  the moment..

No cropping. I stumbled across this while walking around Wat Sri That, Klang Yai, Ubonratchathani. Captured with a Vivo mobile phone camera in excellent Thai weather.