We want to see your images that have barely been edited at all
Welcome to the August installment of the Critique the Community! This month's critique theme is going to be "Minimally Edited Photos," and we want to see your best photographs that have hardly been edited at all. Any raw file naturally has to be edited to some degree, so what constitutes a "minimum edit?". You are free to do any basic adjustments to the image's white balance, exposure, color and contrast, but we don't want to see any extreme editing such as compositing, skin retouching, multiple frame blending, warping, cloning, Ai selections and masking, or anything that basically goes beyond what can be edited in Lightroom using just the top 11 sliders.
This critique is open to any genre so feel free to enter your best headshot, landscape, architectural, product, portrait, wedding, or fashion images. There are basically no rules on what the image can feature so long as you have not edited beyond a few color and contrast tweaks.
Top 3 Images - The top 3 submissions will receive their choice of any Fstoppers photography tutorial found in the Fstoppers Store.
Our elaborate and exhaustive photography tutorials not only help photographers immediately start taking professional quality images, but most of our tutorials also share business and marketing techniques that can help make photography a full time income. With genres like Headshots, Landscapes, Architecture and Real Estate, Fashion, Macro, and Product Photography, there is something for every photographer no matter what genre you specialize in. This prize is valued at $299.
Sun, 08/30/2026 - 23:21
New submissions are closed.
Winners have not yet been announced.
Click on the thumbnails below to comment and rate each image.
Click here to learn about the Fstoppers rating system and what each star value means.
65 Comments
When I post here I am criticized for not editing enough. Mission accomplished. (They don’t understand that’s a compliment for me.)
I don't want be just the guy that comments on competitions, and I'll be very clear that I like the idea of minimally edited photos, but I'm honestly surprised that 'Minimal' is defined so liberally.
Maybe I'm just not (I'm not) in the crowd to know what a normal expectation is, but if minimal is anything below literally adding or removing pixels that are there, that's madness
I guess for people normally replacing skies ect, minimal has a different meaning 😬
Where exactly would you draw the line?
a Raw file by nature needs to be edited. It's just data from the sensor and you have to adjust the way that data is interpreted. It's not like film where specific stocks are embedded into the emulsion. But even then, with film, we color corrected it too before printing so that was "edited" as well.
If this is your take then I am utterly confused why you bothered setting up this competition theme? Ofc it's just data that need interpreting, everything digital is by its nature. Hell that's all our eyes do too, just react to photons and tell our brains what to think.
I assume it was picked because you know it's contentious just like the last one so you get clicks and comments.
Since I’ve already posted, were film sims allowed? I usually apply an F200 or a K100 sim as a preset but removed those adjustments just to be safe, but then I saw some fujifilm pictures with sims and got to wondering if I took it this too literal.
Here's something interesting that applies to this contest: So I'm out of work in my main employment in software. I applied for a 'Photography job' in shooting job sites. The interviewer was explaining the job, and was seemingly going to hire me, but where it fell apart was this: He explained that I was to just shoot 'RAW, and that his customers expect raw photos, even with using Flash in dark rooms'. With no editing! I was especially concerned about shooting with Flash RAW, and voiced that concern. That my photos would be trash without editing. But he said no: Just shoot and go... I expressed my dismay, that I can't imagine that his customers would actually want this. That in the end you could probably do better with a Cell-Phone. Or to shoot JPEG, where the modern camera is doing the work. I still tried to agree to the terms, but since I wasn't enthusiastic, about the no-editing shoot-raw-and go-'job'... He didn't want to hire me. At the end of the call, I even told him: "I didn't believe in his business model, that this was 2026, that this sounds like something from a by-gone era."
Do you know who their customers are/were? Maybe trying to get photos for AI projects...hmmmm, interesting...
These are construction sites, he said that you take photos with a Canon R10 (their equipment) and you go from job-sites to job-site from start to finish, from the moment the concrete is poured to the ending product. I can't imagine they have customers in that situation that actually care about getting original-raw photos (who give a darn about it, since these are the end customers who would be buying the home-site). My thinking it was the Interviewer and Business owner who was trying to sell this idea. And I understand that the photos for this needed to be done, and get that the marketing strategy, but not his extreme no-edit concept. Granted, it is true that AI and fake photos and all that jazz are a problem, but this was too far in the other extreme for my taste.
The photos could have been required for some reason other than marketing. In fact, it seems unlikely that a picture of each stage of construction would have anything to do with marketing. Pictures taken at various stages of construction might have more to do with legal protection (proof of work performed by certain dates) and quality control, both of which need a digital image file that can prove by virtue of its file format that it has not been edited, enhanced or tampered with... hence the request for RAW files. A beautiful picture is obviously not the point or objective of what they were asking for. Sounds like a pretty good job to me.
It's called "as built documentation" they are never looked at unless there is a problem.
Well not something I'm going to get excited about. If I'm going to be excited about a 'photography' job, its going to be one where my photos are looked at. (he did say the photos would be looked at by the way... that the end customers could see their homes being in progress, is the way he put it...) Because I assume many of the home-sites are already sold. Remember I lost the job, because I wasn't excited.
Construction site photos? Yeah pump and dump those all day....are you ever going to use those in your portfolio? Probably not. Sounds like you were given a job where hours of your time were saved by not having to edit anything.
Was it a work for hire job? If my name wasn't associated with the end product and they just wanted raw files to deliver and do whatever they wanted to with them, I wouldn't have a problem with that. In fact, a lot of large clients do exactly this. All those amazing photos you see in billboards and commercial work, the famous photographer isn't editing any of that himself yet they still get credit for the end product. It's hard to let go of the process sometimes but I wouldn't lose sleep or money over it.
What's the difference between an image made with multiple strobes (artificial light), colored gels and artificial props, or starting with a totally natural picture and adding those type of special effects in Photoshop or AI? Aren't we talking something essentially artificial one way or the other?
I don't object to AI or Photoshop editing, but it seems odd that folks who condemn those tools think nothing of using all kinds of traditional tools to make their own sort of surreal or exaggerated reality images, and then enter them into a "minimally edited" contest. One picture is highly manipulated or edited in camera... the other in the computer. What's so special about the difference?
So, you posted the almost same comment below the entry of Rene Weisz and used the same line of reasoning commenting on the article "Why AI Might Actually Help Your Photography". I wrote a responce to the last one, waiting for your reaction.
Or do you just want to let everyone know your opinion and leave it at that?
I replied to your comment :)
ops, I meant I replied to Edwards comment
This is akin to saying why would you use practical effects in a film when you can just use CGI.
Why would I wear clothes in my work calls when I can just add a filter than makes it seem like I'm wearing them? Would my colleagues even know???
I am still waiting for your responce in "Why AI Might Actually Help Your Photography" Edward.
But to answer your questions over here: you did see the Matrix I guess? What you are saying is that there is no difference between the blue pill and the red pill: you argue the result is the same. I would take the red pill.
It is to highlight the skills of the photographer to capture everything "correct" in camera. It requires a different mindset as the photographer has to plan and problem solve to create the desired image. Real light on real subjects/objects beats adding lights in post-production for example.
At least that's what I feel this contest is about.
I replied to your comment. But in short, knowing and understanding how to control light, daylight, strobes, constant light, any light source requires a certain amount of knowledge. Using AI (in photography), and/or wrtinting a prompt not so much ;)
Could you have created this (https://fstoppers.com/entry/904001) image in AI without the knowledge you have of photography and lighting?
I all honesty: without you saying it's not AI, I would have been in doubt. I hate that.
I’m sure people can create almost any photo with AI. If they want to make soulless content and pretend they have skills just by writing a prompt or moving a few sliders around, that’s their choice.
When I said I hate AI, it’s because Instagram twice tagged my images as AI generated. I sent Instagram a strongly worded complaint. They finally removed the AI tag, but my main concern is whether basic Photoshop tools are now using AI, like the Stamp tool.
Yes, it should be clear when a photo gets tagged. Generative AI: tag. AI dust removal: no tag. I don't believe Capture One has a stamp tool, so I don't know what that does, but I guess some wise people can decide on the right boundaries. And I bet Claude Code can design some sort of watermark for AI images 😬👍
The question of course comes up because it doesn't look like a so-called 'normal' shot. Does it look cool. Yes. Does it belong in a minimal edit contest? Well, I'll let the judges, judge that one. They might like it, and they probably will. You may get picked. I would like to speak to something that Poppie said: That of Claude watermarking AI images: I think this has been discussed. And watermarks are added in certain generation contexts. But I think your meaning is hidden ones. Any of those, can just as easily be removed with other smart tools, and think that's the name of the game in 2026, or the future.
Just to be clear: I do not want the photo to be excluded if it complies by the rules. It does not matter that it does not look like a 'normal' shot , as you write.
And yes, I mean a hidden 'something' marking an image as AI. Off course using the best tools available now, but sure it will get cracked, and we will make a better version, and that will get cracked....ect. 'Just as easily' you write, like you already gave up hope. I still have hope 👍😬
I forgot: we might be to late in asking AI to design the 'watermark'. As in: https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/decommission-me-and-your-extramarital-affa…
So you might be right in loosing hope Robert 😬
I just mean that if you have either a Photo-AI Marker placed, or a photo-AI Marker detector. These known elements can easily be removed, the same way they are detected. However perhaps the future relies in some sorta universal source registration... Meaning that every image shot or generated is also tagged with a code, At some point, not having a code, might be grounds for non-acceptance. that code is logged in a universal database. The problem is, there would have to be universal adoption of such a program, and that might never happen. Although maybe, it might be necessary.
Yeah, SynthID has been cracked already I believe. Anthropic is working on something like it, responding to EU demands.
A thing like this should have been mandatory before AI was unleashed into the wild. But I guess it was a war that needed to be won, fear the other would be faster.... Well, I believe it gave the US the chance to get rid of almost all their rockets in record time.
It seems like a bit of gatekeeping mentality that is left over from the days of film. You are right, it kind of comes down to the idea that being able to do it mechanically or as a camera operator is more valuable than doing it afterwards in post. That's why Lee and I have never really had a problem with major editing or even some AI use because if the end product is great, it's great. Why is a 3 second exposure to make water blurry and different than manually blending frames to do it? It's a bit strange but photographers love to harp about it.
I don't personally believe that in-camera work is intrinsically more valuable than post-processing work. The photo that prompted my comment was entered early in the contest... A photo of a woman in a kitchen pulling burnt bread from an oven. The photographer described the image as having been set up with five strobes, three gels, artificial steam for simulating smoke, and a torch lighter for having burned the bread. In other words, the image was carefully staged. All in camera. Virtually little to no post-processing, but extensive "editing" of the props and setup. No doubt a fine image. In fact, so well done that the photographer said his work on Instagram had been labeled AI, which understandably made him angry. But the image has the impression of being artificially arranged. Indeed it is a fake scene... the woman didn't really burn her bread in the oven and the natural light that moment didn't really look that warm.
My question then becomes... What's the difference between major in-camera editing and computer post-processing editing? Both land in the same place. As you say, both can be great photos, and I doubt one approach has greater commercial value than another. And what is the photographer with decades of experience in setting up a shot like that to do with himself when AI can get the same results in minutes?
I think you just answered your own question. One can be done in a few minutes, while the other takes a lot more time and skill. It's a bit like saying, "I'm a great farmer because I run a successful farm in Farming Simulator on my PC." And yes, people could "edit" their photos when shooting film, but it required quite a bit more time and skill than just adding a preset in Lightroom and using some AI masks to dodge and burn. Don't get me wrong, being good at editing is definitely also a skill, and can be a big part of what makes a photo great. But, especially when looking at many landscape photographers on YouTube, it seems like editing is the ONLY thing they're really good at. They buy the most expensive gear they can find, spend a huge amount on traveling to locations where getting a really bad photo is more impressive than getting a decent one, put their camera on a tripod, and then spend lots of time editing the raw file to look nothing like what they shot in the first place. At least in my opinion, that doesn't make them great at photography. They're just good at using a PC, and spending lots of money to copy what they've seen on Instagram..
The difference between the photographer and farmer in your analogy analogy is that PC farm simulation isn't growing actual food. Or is it? Can the farm simulator on a computer become the direct link to actual farm work? Can one machine connect with another machine, bypassing the entire human element in the field, and produce food? Farmers are beginning to use AI and computers in a multitude of ways: AI weed sprayers, AI data tools, GPS driven tractors, and drones. All of which reduce the need for manual labor... just like every other industry which utilizes AI technology. AI can fly airplanes and drive cars. Why should the relatively simple task of creating a picture be so hard for a machine to perfect as well as a human?
Perhaps a change in the definition of photography is in order. Just as the entire digital era and introduction of Photoshop forced photographers to rethink their tools and services, I'm pretty sure AI will have the same impact. Film, digital, in-camera skills, computer editing, AI; the end result is all the same: a picture. Where new technology moves toward something faster and more efficient, inevitably it replaces something older. Nothing, including photography, is sacred. When an AI image and a photographer's image become indistinguishable, the faster and cheaper option will dominate, just like smartphones replaced point and shoot cameras. It's highly uncomfortable for photographers to confront the idea of being replaced by a machine, but it sure looks to me (regrettably) like that time is coming.
Yeah, I guess Farming Simulator wasn't the best example to use, but hopefully you still got my point. A person can be good at something on their PC, but lack the skills needed to get the same results in real life. But I agree that AI most likely will produce good enough photos, if your only goal is profit. However, luckily, a lot of photographers care a lot more about the craft itself, rather than just "How can I make the most amount of money, with a minimum amount of work and skills needed" And I'm sure there'll still be clients who wannna use real photographers in the future too, even tho parts of the marked most likely will be gone thanks to AI. Also, there'll still be lots of people like myself, who spends time on photography without getting a single cent in return, but enjoys it as a hobby. And no, writing prompts in an AI generator doesn't sound like a fun hobby to me :P
I get your point, and for the pure love of photographic craft, nothing has to become outdated. I love photography for the creative aspect, getting out of the house, and for the printmaking part of it too. No matter how much the world moves toward digital viewing technology, I will always cherish making a paper print. But having spent 50 years in the printing and graphics industry, I recognize as well as anyone that technology has a huge and undeniable impact on a person's ability to make money and stay relevant. Adapting to changing technology is critical. I started my career when computers were no smaller than an entire room. If I were much younger, I would have to learn to enjoy using an AI image generator. At this stage for me, it's an academic argument.
True, if you look at it from the perspective of having a job that pays your bills, photography is difficult as it is, and I'm sure it won't be any easier in the future. And adapting to new technology is important, but what worries me is that there won't be much need for a photographer at all, when just about anyone can use an AI generator to get the image they need or want. Many tools are made to make the job faster and easier, but you still need people who can use those tools. While AI is going in the direction of cutting people completely out of the process.
I don't know where to post this so I'm just going to do it here. I'm still unable to message anyone here on the Fstoppers site. I've attached a screen shot of what it says when I click on the message button. I was one of the winners in the last critique. I did the Crawford Brothers photo. I would just like to send Lee a message so I can claim my prize.
Thanks,
Kyle
https://fstoppers.com/contact - reach out to the tech team
Thanks!
Need to load CLEAN RAW File or can already be converted jpeg and jpg? Because I don't use Adobe products like Lightroom. But the task remains the same. Considering that there is a certain problem with the RAW, when I was on a business trip I didn’t use the RAW yet and everything was in the jpeg. But I shot everything in manual mode, no "auto" mode! But even in this format, taking photos quickly wasn't easy.
It can be a converted jpg. 'Auto' is for daredevils 😬
How about noise reduction and lens sharpening? I shoot MFT, and both are essential parts of the MFT workflow.
The absurdly. A comment on my entry was "Needs Work". A contest with rules stipulating that this was a contest with no editing. That's a perfect definition of an OXYMORON.
The work needed to get a good photograph is not all about editing. A photo needs a lot of work before you press the button. For example, in your first photo, a more interesting composition would have helped. The photo is correct in technical terms (focus, exposition, etc.) but it is not very interesting. Your second submision is more interesting but I would have increased a little bit shutter speed. I understand your intention was to make a blurry photo to give this feeling of movement and dynamic scene, but the photo is too blurred and the persons and whole situation are barely recognizable. Maybe that is what that person meant by needs work.
I agree with Federico Weyland but also, based on everything I've ever seen here, "Needs Work" is the default average response to most photos. I don't know if people think voting a 2 will help them, or makes them feel better an out their own work, but I've seen some pretty top notch work sit at 2.5 ish. I get that 3 should have a decent bar to clear, but 4 should be the real hurdle...
Tactical voting at play.
These folks don’t understand the film era at all when they say “needs work”. F them.
As was said by Federico, the opinion of "needs work" can be attributed to other factors besides editing and post-processing. Composition, being first on the list, is a primary factor in how people respond and score a photo, assessed the same for film or digital. The overall degree to which the viewer finds your photo interesting or compelling is another reason for a relatively high or low score. Subjective, yes, but nevertheless part of the critique process. In other words, photos don't get a free pass to portfolio worthy (3 stars) just because they're made with film.
I'd say it means you need to work on your photography skills when it comes to things like lighting, composition, posing, exposure, or timing; not that the photo needs editing.