[ QUOTE ]
The shot was taken in RAW with no options selected and with studio flash at 5500K
[/ QUOTE ]
If the shot was RAW, then isn't that a form of editing? If you just chose the Auto settings of the RAW Converter, that is in effect a choice of how you wanted the image to look. But usually RAW converters let you set up some preset, or are already preset by the RAW converter supplier to match various cameras.
I suspect, when you say unedited, you really mean that you didn't make any changes in Photoshop.
Did you shoot this with an Olympus Camera, by the way? I not, then it must have been cropped to get that 4x3 ratio.
Would cropping count as editing? I always hear that we should crop in the camera, and I always try to do that, but I almost always find that what one sees in the view finder is not quite accurate. What are your thoughts in that regard?
I personally don't think its possible to call a RAW image after conversion "unedited", simply because choices have been made in setting up the conversion process. What RAW Converter do you use, by the way?
As to where the skill lies, that is an age old debate! [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
I like to think of one of the greatest of the old time photographers, Ansel Adams. Certainly any print of his that ever saw the light of day had been quite "edited" since he pulled or pushed the developer, and then did endless work in the darkroom and various types of papers and contrasts to get just the print he "envisioned". So to me photography is about seeing a vision of a scene and trying to ultimately show the viewer that vision. If that can be done with no post processing, that can be a plus. But I guess 99% of all photos today are manipulated in one way or another. Digital has just made it so much easier and practical.