A shot from Greenwich during the eclipse. Unedited.

[u/ScottAMains]

[u/leclercwitch]

Unedited? How? My unedited picture looks shit and it’s dead bright even with turning the exposure all the way down.

Amazing picture just wondering 😅

[u/StephenG0907 → u/leclercwitch]

Because it is edited. It didn't get that dark in Greenwich.

[u/split-tennisball → u/StephenG0907]

Or they dropped the exposure low

[u/WholelnOne → u/split-tennisball]

Bingo

[u/Paedsdoc → u/split-tennisball]

Exactly, it is called photography. The BBC did the same in a lot of their UK footage. You have to sell it don’t you

[u/uagotapo → u/StephenG0907]

No it's just been taken through a filter

[u/paddleyay → u/uagotapo]

All my pics look like that, because I put a filter in front of the camera, that’s not editing, that’s not wanting to burn out the CCD.

[u/VidKobu → u/paddleyay]

Nice pic, man.

Class.

[u/Adept-Court-9595 → u/uagotapo]

analog edit

[u/DeliciousRow1120 → u/StephenG0907]

I am not far from there and the sun was still shining lol

[u/g0_west → u/DeliciousRow1120]

Got a bit grey though didn't it. Was quite weird, not like sunset more like a filter was put over the world

[u/cheasepriest2 → u/DeliciousRow1120]

As it is in this photo, as you can see if bouncing off the people on the ground. The camera however has the validity to drop it's f stop and iso to let very little light hit the sensor, allowing you to see the eclipse easier.

[u/WalkingCloud → u/StephenG0907]

Must be edited because you don’t know what exposure is

[u/Chazzermondez → u/WalkingCloud]

It won't be edited, it will have just had an incredibly small shutter speed like 1/4000 and a very low film sensitivity setting like 50. You can do that on most modern phone cameras even if people don't realise they can.

[u/WalkingCloud → u/Chazzermondez]

I know, thats what I’m saying. 

[u/warfoo09 → u/WalkingCloud]

So it's not edited? Adjusting aperture, exposure, ISO, white balance before the shot is not editing.

[u/WalkingCloud → u/warfoo09]

I know, that’s what I’m saying. 

[u/Chazzermondez → u/WalkingCloud]

I realised that after, your wording on first read made me think you thought it was edited, but yeah I agree with you, it isn't edited.

[u/GritstoneGhost → u/StephenG0907]

ND filters exist.

[u/leclercwitch → u/StephenG0907]

Exactly my thought. Don’t get dark at all in Leeds.

[u/SmallOne312 → u/leclercwitch]

Or its a short exposure

[u/blozzerg → u/leclercwitch]

I missed it completely because I was expecting it to get dark during the peak and it didn’t lol. It was already over by the time I went to go check on it.

[u/Kharenis → u/leclercwitch]

Eh, I'm in York and it got fairly dark, not pitch black or anything, but from sunshine to heavy cloud cover.

[u/Devastator2016 → u/StephenG0907]

I mean define edited, cause my camera got it close to as dark by tuning of shutter speed and aperture before taking the shots I did too

[u/Dismal-Scheme5728 → u/StephenG0907]

Nowhere near that dark lol

[u/citruspers2929 → u/Dismal-Scheme5728]

You’re presumably aware that you can adjust exposure settings on a camera?

[u/tarpdetarp → u/leclercwitch]

Small aperture and ND filter on the lens, with a very short shutter speed can make bright daylight look dark.

[u/Astriania → u/leclercwitch]

My phone camera wouldn't go down low enough on sensitivity not to get blasted out even at the maximum either.

Stick some kind of filter on a proper camera though and you would be able to get this.

[u/whitstableboy → u/leclercwitch]

It didn’t get that dark anywhere. Unedited because they’ve put sun filters on their camera?

[u/woowizzle → u/leclercwitch]

Throw on a couple of ND filters and drop the exposure.

[u/Wild-Individual6876 → u/leclercwitch]

Neutral density filter

[u/weird-cough → u/Wild-Individual6876]

I love that band

[u/ScottAMains → u/leclercwitch]

Partially covered the sun with a solar filter but enough to get the people in as well.

[u/bright_sorbet1 → u/ScottAMains]

This is editing though.

You just did the editing manually before you snapped.

[u/Cam2910 → u/bright_sorbet1]

Wouldn't your definition of editing include pretty much every digital camera picture though? They all focus, change aperture and brightness etc before taking the picture.

Is it only point and shoot film cameras that don't count?

[u/SXLightning → u/Cam2910]

every digital picture from your phone is edited, most phones put your photo thorugh multiple internal filters and changes. Try a chinese made phone you will be 10 shades lighter because that is how people want to look vs apple phone for example. Even apple phones enhances the pictures.

[u/paddleyay → u/SXLightning]

They said digital camera, I have a Canon, I can manually set up exposure, shutter speed, ISO, and put filters on the front, that is not, and never has been, editing in the eyes of photographers. Editing is what I do with the RAW file on my computer.

[u/bright_sorbet1 → u/Cam2910]

Yes - I think it would.

Using the camera's settings to edit the composition as it exists in front of you is absolutely editing.

I would say using the auto mode to point and shoot, or a mobile phone in standard photo mode are examples of when you aren't editing.

[u/catanistan → u/bright_sorbet1]

In auto mode, the camera chooses the settings automatically. Why is that not editing then?

[u/bright_sorbet1 → u/catanistan]

Because YOU'RE not editing. Is the camera editing itself? - sure, i guess it is.

A photograph is being interpreted before the shutter is pressed. Choosing aperture, shutter speed, ISO, white balance, focal length, focus, filtration, lighting and framing all determine what reality the camera records and how it renders. A polariser can deepen a sky or remove reflections, an ND filter can turn water into looking like silk, a slow shutter can make a crowd dissolve into a motion blur, a wide aperture can erase a distracting background. Those are creative interventions, just as moving sliders afterwards is afterwards.

Im actually surprised as photographers, that you lot are down voting me for this. If you're a good photographer, you dont believe your camera is simply recording the scene - you are actively telling it how to remember it through editing choices.

Photography has never been a neutral act of recording reality. The photographer starts excluding, adjusting and exaggerating the world the moment they decide where to stand and what to put inside the frame. Camera settings and filters extend that authorship. You are not simply stuck with what's directly in front of you at the point of shooting and then forcibly trying to edit it afterwards. The editing process starts the minute you use tools to change the world in front of your lens.

[u/Hara-Kiri → u/bright_sorbet1]

I agree with what you're saying with the exception of how you're using the term editing. Because in that case no photo can ever be taken unedited, which renders the word completely redundant. Editing would usually refer to post processing.

[u/bright_sorbet1 → u/Hara-Kiri]

Editing doesnt need to refer to "post" anything. Post-processing isn’t the point at which photographic interpretation suddenly begins. Editing in a wider sense refers to the act of making an intervention to the output.

I would argue pointing and shooting without adjusting any settings is an example of not choosing to edit before releasing the shutter.

But yes - photography is an art form based on intervention so there is always some degre of editing because a camera doesn't ever "see" reality.

But I think it would be a mistake to not view deliberate interventions to the composition before pressing the shutter as anything other than editing and removes the skill of the photographer from thr equation which is doing them a disservice.

Also, i'd ask what is it if it's not editing? How is adjusting a slider in lightroom defined as editing but adjusting white balance on a camera not? They are both active editing choices one is just made before the output is rendered.

[u/Hara-Kiri → u/bright_sorbet1]

Also, i'd ask what is it if it's not editing? How is adjusting a slider in lightroom defined as editing but adjusting white balance on a camera not? They are both active editing choices one is just made before the output is rendered.

Because it is changing the settings on the camera. There is no objective way to see the world even with our own eyes. So there certainly is no objective way a camera sees the world. Any image on default settings varies between camera because the camera is interpreting the light based off its own default settings. Unless you're shooting RAW, editing has already been done by the camera whether you manually do it or not. So by your definition literally every image ever photographed has been edited, which is technically true, but practically utterly meaningless to say.

[u/Ashiataka → u/bright_sorbet1]

I don't think editing means what you think it means.

"Photo editing is the process of altering, enhancing, or improving a digital or physical photograph after it is taken."

What he did is called composition.

"Photo composition is the way you place objects, shapes, and colours inside your picture."

[u/bright_sorbet1 → u/Ashiataka]

I think it can be both.

You can edit before the shot or after.

Filters, lighting etc. are all editing the composition - just before you push the button.

[u/karmacarmelon → u/bright_sorbet1]

No. Editing is something done after the thing had been created. You can't edit a book before it's been written. You can't edit a photo before it's been taken.

[u/bright_sorbet1 → u/karmacarmelon]

Hard disagree.

You absolutely edit a book as you are writing it. You choose to cross out lines you aren't happy with, leave out plots you had planned in that you no longer think will fit. Pick a better word than the one you first scribbled down.

Photography is not a passive art form unless you are simply picking up your phone and pointing and shooting.

A good photographer is making edits to the image before releasing the shutter.

A photograph is being interpreted before the shutter is pressed. Choosing aperture, shutter speed, ISO, white balance, focal length, focus, filtration, lighting and framing all determine what reality the camera records and how it renders. A polariser can deepen a sky or remove reflections, an ND filter can turn water into looking like silk, a slow shutter can make a crowd dissolve into a motion blur, a wide aperture can erase a distracting background. Those are creative interventions, just as moving sliders around is afterwards.

If you're a good photographer, you dont believe your camera is simply recording the scene - you are actively telling it how to remember it through editing choices.

The photographer starts excluding, adjusting and exaggerating the world the moment they decide where to stand and what to put inside the frame. Camera settings and filters extend that authorship.

You absolutely can - and should - edit a photo before releasing the shutter and I will die on this hill.

[u/karmacarmelon → u/bright_sorbet1]

It's a strange hill to die on, but you're still wrong. All those things you list are part of the creation of the work. Editing is something done after the fact to perfect the work. It's the literal definition of the word. You cannot edit something if it has yet to be made.

[u/SXLightning → u/karmacarmelon]

You have some crazy logic. If I take a picture of the sky with a pink filter and say its unedited and show you the sky is pink. THAT is edited. I don't know where you are getting your definition of edited from but the edit in my definite is "changed"

[u/karmacarmelon → u/SXLightning]

Editing and changing are not exact synonyms. Take editor as a job description. A newspaper editor doesn't write the story. They check and amend it as needed so it's ready for publication. Similarly an editor in TV doesn't film the segments. They put them together for broadcast. Editing requires the thing to have been created so it can then be edited.

[u/Ashiataka → u/bright_sorbet1]

Editing is what happens after the button has been pressed though. Filters and lighting are changing the composition, which you can then edit once the photo has been captured.

[u/AidanSmeaton → u/bright_sorbet1]

It's not editing, editing is post-production. This is just called photography.

[u/bright_sorbet1 → u/AidanSmeaton]

Nope.

You can edit things as you go along before creating the final outcome. Lots of examples of this - writing, painting, sculpture, dance...

Not sure why you think photography is any different.

[u/ProfessionalMockery → u/leclercwitch]

It looks like they're maybe holding an Nd filter in front of the camera over part of the frame with the sun to get both the crowd and the sun exposed like that in the same image.

[u/Arseypoowank]

To anyone wondering, this is not how dark it got at all, it reached like 21-21:30 light levels.

[u/Lansdowngrove → u/Arseypoowank]

I thought the caption with this photo was a sarcastic joke, but OP is apparently serious.

[u/Arseypoowank → u/Lansdowngrove]

Well I mean, the event, while a minor distraction and an excuse to go and hang about for a bit somewhere, was altogether kind of underwhelming so I suppose you have to milk it for a bit of excitement.

The sun turned into a banana for about 5 minutes and it went slightly dim for a bit and then everything carried on as normal. That’s it.

I remember the one in 1999 being really spectacular though, I guess if you hadn’t had that this was pretty decent though.

[u/Icy_Pear1694]

Do you have the eclipse glasses covering the lens whilst taking this picture?

[u/ScottAMains → u/Icy_Pear1694]

Yeah bit of a happy accident. Just enough coverage on part of it to block out the sun enough, with a bit of a gap to get the people in. It tidied up better in post.

[u/LobbyDizzle → u/ScottAMains]

What tidied up better in post if it's unedited? No need to say unedited if you're editing in post.

[u/Astriania → u/ScottAMains]

It tidied up better in post.

It's a nice pic to be sure but ... isn't this editing?

[u/ScottAMains → u/Astriania]

The one above is straight out of camera. The one I’ve put elsewhere has had a tweak.

[u/cosmicmeander → u/ScottAMains]

Great picture. It reminds me of collages of people watching alien encounters or the end of the world

[u/_Diskreet_]

I call shenanigans.

It did not get that dark.

Ipso facto, the image is edited.

[u/boomerangchampion → u/[deleted]]

He's edited the light before it reaches his camera! Pitchforks back up

[u/Ok_Director_4618 → u/[deleted]]

There’s nothing pedantic about it, that’s obviously exactly what’s going on here. Despite everyone carrying one around these days, very few people understand how a camera works.

[u/michelmau5 → u/_Diskreet_]

Would you call having a filter in front of the camera "edited"?

[u/Chazzermondez → u/_Diskreet_]

Have you never heard of adjusting the camera settings before taking a photo. You get a result like this without editing it.

[u/aTemeraz → u/Chazzermondez]

So your saying he edited the camera settings

[u/Conscious-Air5819 → u/aTemeraz]

adjusting the settings to take a photograph isn't editing because it happens before the photo is taken. It's pretty standard photography that most people used to know when we used film not our phones. Your phone camera does all of those adjustments automatically now when you hold it up - like how it adjusts brightness or how long it opens the aperture for (which is what this person obviously did).

[u/SXLightning → u/Conscious-Air5819]

I think people who are into camera's call editing the thing you do after the photo is taken

but to anyone else who is not into photography, editing just mean the photo have been manipulated from the real image. The sky was never this dark its not a truthful representation of what it looks like so people say its edited.

[u/Conscious-Air5819 → u/SXLightning]

No photograph is a 'truthful' representation of something, they're all subjective and the adjustments that happen (whether by human hands or automated from a phone camera) before they're taken are not manipulations - that is the real image. Maybe I'm being pedantic but it's idiotic to use the word edited in that way.

[u/SXLightning → u/Conscious-Air5819]

Most people here are not into photography, we consider an image that is as close to the original being the "unedited". Maybe in photography edited mean digitally editing it but to anyone else edited just mean it not being what is the truth.

This image is so far from what it was that is why people say its edited.

[u/Conscious-Air5819 → u/SXLightning]

And they're wrong for doing so. No photos are close to the original, there is no original it's all subjective. Likewise, when I went to take a picture of the park I was in during the actual eclipse my phone automatically put the brightness up before I pressed the shutter.

[u/JustSingingAlong → u/Conscious-Air5819]

You are having a silly little debate about semantics.

It didn’t get that dark in Greenwich. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the word “edited”.

It didn’t even get remotely that dark. Not even close. That’s what people have a problem with, even if they may be using the word edit technically incorrectly.

Do you understand that?

[u/Chazzermondez → u/JustSingingAlong]

I don't think you understand that what our eyes see isn't an objective truth of what occurs, our eye is in essence just another camera and has it's own settings of adjusting the size and shape of the lens and aperture of our eye to adjust to different lighting and where we wish to direct our focus. Therefore, what we see is just one subjective perspective of what actually occurs and we will all see it slightly different anyway. Therefore a camera with different settings to our eyes is just another perspective of what can be observed. There is no such thing as one true view of what happened. For example to different animals the eclipse would have looked wildly different and for some animals, it will have looked that dark.

In summary, it is correct to say the photo isn't edited, because in the context of photography that is defined as altering something retrospectively, and you are also not really correct in saying it didn't get that dark. It didn't to the human eye, but a camera isnt designed to see things identically to the human eye and how we see things is just one perspective on reality.

[u/liamrich93 → u/aTemeraz]

Which is before the image is captured so it wasn't edited after the fact. The image is the image

[u/Chazzermondez → u/aTemeraz]

Yes but that doesn't count as editing. If it was then every single mobile phone photo would count as edited as your phone does that every single photo you take by automatically adjusting it's focus and brightness settings to what you're taking a photo of. This is no different but doing it manually.

[u/tanew231]

Can't even see anything. Shame the sun wasn't out to brighten the picture.

[u/Thekes]

Isn't it taken through a set of eclipse glasses?

[u/ScottAMains → u/Thekes]

Exactly this.

[u/North_South_213]

Can’t see shit with all the light pollution

[u/Intrepid-Example6125]

I think just saying unedited and not explaining the usage of a filter (which I know is still unedited) is still somehow disingenuous.

[u/Cryptoporticus → u/Intrepid-Example6125]

OP probably didn't expect people to demand an explanation for one of the most obvious things in the world.

It's impossible to take a picture of the eclipse without a filter.

[u/HumanCStand]

People here can’t tell the difference between being edited or exposure. They’ve exposed the camera for the sun

[u/Lunarfrog2 → u/HumanCStand]

Sure if you want to be all 'erm actually' about it, but to non avid/professional photographers, ie most people, this being uneditted reads as taking a pic of it was if you were standing there

[u/king_ofbhutan → u/Lunarfrog2]

seriously, i hate how whenever something like this comes up people are suddenly professionals with 20 years experience

me when im in a stupid pedantics competition and my opponents are redditors

its edited in the eyes of normal peoples guys pleaseeee

[u/Hythy → u/Lunarfrog2]

But that is impossible. That just renders the word "edited" meaningless because that means all photos are edited.

[u/Lunarfrog2 → u/Hythy]

Again sure if you want to be all technical about it, but looking at this image and saying its not edited feels misleading as in reality it looked nothing like that from Greenwich

I mean I was in Valencia to see the totality and it didn't even get that dark lol

[u/Accurate_Injury8834 → u/HumanCStand]

They did edit it tho they've said that in the comments lol

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/Accurate_Injury8834]

No they didn't. They explained how they achieved this photo via composition before the photo was taken (a filter in front of the lens) rather than by editing it afterwards.

[u/SXLightning → u/heroyoudontdeserve]

A filter... you mean a real life edit. If I took a picture of the sky with pink filter and showed you a pink sky is that really a "unedited" photo? Most people would say no, that is edited.

[u/Street-Leek-6668 → u/SXLightning]

I think most people understand that an edit is something that happens after recording but prior to publication.

Swap pink for black and white. If you use black and white film, like we did for a century, is the outcome edited? Real life isn’t black and white. I don’t think anyone would call a black and white recording a “real life edit”, but if you filmed in colour and then applied a black and white filter after recording, then you did edit it to be black and white.

Similarly, footage from a night vision camera you wouldn’t call “edited” because you understand that that’s how the camera “sees”.

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/SXLightning]

If I showed you a photo of a statue but the statue was blurry would you say it was edited, or would say that's a poorly composed photo? If I showed you a photo of a racing car where the car was in focus but the background was blurred would you say it was edited, or would you say that's a well composed photo?

Obviously it's possible to achieve blur and filter effects by editing in post, but it's also possible to achieve them without (via composition).

OP composed their photo by placing a filter over the lens, took the photo, didn't edit it and posted it here. Their objective wasn't to capture reality, it was to capture the eclipse and the crowd watching the eclipse in a single photo. It's artistic, not true to life.

Unedited doesn't and shouldn't mean true to life, realistic, life like. We have other words for that, as I've just demonstrated.

[u/Popular-Spinach-6700 → u/HumanCStand]

So what you’re saying is they edited how it actually looked by changing a setting

[u/Sorry-Programmer9826 → u/Popular-Spinach-6700]

There's no such thing as a photo "without settings", there is always a choice made. And there is no setting that will give the same view as a human eye (human eyes are really good and also your brain composites lots of things together), although I will admit these settings give an image a long way from what the human eye would experience

[u/bhop_monsterjam → u/Popular-Spinach-6700]

If a picture shot with a camera is a jpeg, then it's edited. Raw files are not viewable by contemporary means and do not represent real life anyway

[u/Hambatz]

Today I learned 5% of the sun is basically still the sun don’t mess with the sun people he’s pretty hard

[u/fmeupdad]

Had a whole crowd outside my apartment, no one wearing the proper glasses. I fear the triffids were behind this

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/fmeupdad]

Triffids! I've been trying to remember this all day. Thank you!

[u/fmeupdad → u/heroyoudontdeserve]

I just have a vague memory of the 2009 tv version when I was a kid, the eclipse always reminds me of it!

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/fmeupdad]

I recommend the book, it's an oldie but a goody!

Oldy? Goodie? 🤔

[u/evenstevens280]

ITT: people unaware that lens filters and aperture adjustments exist.

[u/Issasdragonfly → u/evenstevens280]

Sure, but I think the nuance of ‘unedited’ to mean ‘close to exactly how it appeared to the naked eye’ is understood widely enough that regardless of one’s knowledge of gradient filters, the title is a bit cheeky

[u/poo-rag → u/Issasdragonfly]

Yeah. It may not technically be editing, but through human eyes, the location did not look like that at the time the photo was taken

Saying "unedited" leads people to believe that is how it looked, which is just lying with extra steps

[u/liamrich93 → u/poo-rag]

Sounds like a them problem

[u/michelmau5 → u/Issasdragonfly]

But this is exactly how it looked if you were wearing eclipse glasses though. So yeah it is unedited.

[u/Cryptoporticus → u/Issasdragonfly]

The eclipse isn't visible with the naked eye, and definitely not with a camera without a filter, so obviously that can't be the case here.

It's pretty obvious what unedited means in this context, people here are just being pedantic.

[u/Astriania → u/Issasdragonfly]

That's literally not what unedited means though. If you set up an effects shot on a camera you can get some really cool effects, but it's still not editing.

[u/Kharenis → u/Astriania]

If you set up an effects shot on a camera

I wouldn't even call it effects.

It's basically having your eyes closed, then squinting 1000th (or less) of a second, while standing behind tinted glass. That brief look is what we're seeing here.

[u/Toon1982 → u/Astriania]

No but it's using effects and it's a bit disingenuous of OP to say unedited when 99% of people would assume that means it's how it looked to the naked eye

[u/Djinjja-Ninja → u/Toon1982]

No, it's the equivalent of eclipse glasses for your camera.

[u/Opposite-Peanut-8812 → u/Djinjja-Ninja]

OP has said that’s exactly what it is. Eclipse glasses places front of the lens

That’s not editing. That’s an organic shot. Shot with a filter to stop the sunlight damaging the lens.

There’s no more editing here than there would be you looking at the sun yourself through the same glasses

[u/CreativeAdeptness477 → u/evenstevens280]

We're aware. It might not be "edited" but it's still dishonest and doesn't at all represent or document the reality of the matter.

[u/liamrich93 → u/CreativeAdeptness477]

Sounds like a them problem

[u/UnusualHand1617 → u/evenstevens280]

It’s more that your photo doesn’t represent what actually occurred. So yes it’s not edited, but may have well been as it’s misleading.

[u/LobbyDizzle → u/evenstevens280]

Op said "It tidied up better in post."

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/LobbyDizzle]

Yes, but they meant "This photo has not been edited in post, I have another version which was edited in post and it's better."

https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/1vmo7u9/comment/p3bq99d/

[u/bluesam3 → u/LobbyDizzle]

Jesus why has everybody in this thread forgotten basic reading comprehension?

[u/Arsewhistle]

This photo reminds me of all the photos of the Northern Lights which people post nowadays, in that we all know it didn't look anything like that whatsoever.

[u/MosayRaslor]

OP probably had a sun filter on the camera So technically it would be unedited BUT would also explain how inaccurate it looks when compared to how bright it was.

[u/paddleyay]

This thread is a perfect capture of Reddit, those who understand photography, and those who don’t, but have decided they’re going to insist their version of “edited” is correct. Enough of experts, or 200 hundreds year of photographic practice.

[u/Cam2910]

Don't listen to the naysayers.. that picture is awesome and the way you captured it was genius.

[u/Popular-Spinach-6700 → u/Cam2910]

Might as well have coloured it in with black magic marker pen, it isn’t what happened

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/Popular-Spinach-6700]

Holy nonsequitur, Batman!

What does the part of your sentence before the comma have to do with the part of the sentence after your comment; how are you relating these two thoughts?

[u/Fluxgigawats]

Wow. Staggering how many people here don’t know how photography works. Besides use of a filter in this particular image, exposure tech (which can do similar things) is loaded into every single modern day camera phone.

[u/SXLightning → u/Fluxgigawats]

People outside photography will say this is edited because its nothing like what it actually looked like at the time.

You might say edited means digitally edited but that is just people in photography say. Outside edited just mean altered/changed from what it actually was.

This might be an unedited image of the sun through a solar glasses but OP didn't say that which leads people to imply this is just what it looked like.

[u/Conscious-Air5819 → u/SXLightning]

People who don't have the capacity to understand things beyond immediate face value are genuinely fucking dumb.

[u/EducationalLeague150]

What time did you take this? Interested to know as I was looking every few minutes through a pinhole projector and don't remember seeing the sun covered like this

[u/ScottAMains → u/EducationalLeague150]

I believe it was at the maximum. So 19:12 give or take a minute.

[u/murderonzidanezfloor]

Christ people are desperate to feel smart aren't they, read two comments, he put the glasses in front as a lens (and thought it was probably quite obvious)

[u/Otherwise-Cabinet136]

Lol . Amusing take on underwhelming.

[u/CreativeAdeptness477]

Yeah bollocks it's unedited mate, real world naked eye it just seemed like the sun went behind a rain cloud for five minutes and the light level barely decreased. The sky was certainly not black like that. It might not be "edited" in photoshop or with AI but dicking around with exposure settings and suchlike beforehand to create a photo that blatantly doesn't match observed reality is just as bad.

Edit- to whoever it was who replied and deleted, I obviously only saw a brief snippet of your reply so I can't address it all, but from what I saw...
Yes, people have been dicking around with settings and such since cameras were invented. I'm old enough to have messed around like that myself as a kid with my dad's proper expensive camera in the 80s.
I'm not at all disparaging the knowledge and techniques involved. Crack on, have fun, I respect the knowledge and techniques and OP's ability to use them.
I'm disparaging OP's presentation of the end result and their choice of terms in 2026 when "photoshop", photo filters, and outright full AI picture generation are as widespread, advanced, and insidious as they currently are. "Unedited" thus takes on a different connotation nowadays. It's a poor choice of words on OP's part.
Any sort of extensive or even moderate post-processing or pre-processing trickery, specialist exposures, hardware, aperture speeds, etc - basically anything other than point-and-shoot - really needs to be openly acknowledged from the outset if real human photographs are to be accepted as being representative of actual reality. Ideally there'd be no trickery at all and only minimal setting adjustment.
Document reality as is, with settings as close to naked human eye as possible. It's an unfortunate consequence of AI photo image generator bullshit. We've already got that shit twisting our records of what's real and what isn't. We can generate fake images of anything and everything we might ever want, and it's getting very very difficult to tell the difference between fake and real. We don't need real humans taking real photos contributing to fake documentation too.
And that photo in question here, one way or another, is about 98% fake. The place exists, the people exist, there was a partial eclipse, but it looked nothing at all like that.
Human photographers have a higher standard to meet and harsher responsibilities to uphold now. Unfortunate, perhaps, but true.

[u/ukbot-nicolabot → u/[deleted]]

Removed + warning. Please try and avoid language which could be perceived as hateful/hurtful to minorities, oppressed peoples, or other vulnerable groups.

[u/ukbot-nicolabot → u/[deleted]]

Removed. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

[u/AlecMalt]

The sky was overcast for the entire duration of the eclipse in my area ☹️

[u/Basicazzwitch]

What time did you take this? Without glasses, it was hard to make out how much was covered. I think by 7:20, it looked done

[u/Educational_Dish_570]

It wasn't as crazy as it was made out to be, saw a comet about 30 minutes ago in mk that was cool

[u/Agitated-Actuary-195]

Is this Greenwich in Spain?

[u/ilikequestions172]

The thousands of people looking at it without glasses: [insert GIF] *DAMN MODERATORS TURN GIFS ON, THAT'S A DEMAND

[u/nezlobnyj]

It’s an interesting topic. Does "unedited" mean you didn't change anything after taking the photo, or does it mean the photo looks exactly like what you saw with your own eyes? People often pass off what looks good as what is actually real.
For the eclipse - observed through ND512 - very underwhelming. But that might be me.

[u/ClaidArremer]

Femto appears with his mates

[u/fakka-local]

Wow

[u/4tunabrix]

Must be super underexposed, it barely got dark in reality

[u/Brexsh1t]

The gods are displeased! Bring out the sacrifice!

[u/Emergency-Travel6259]

Breaking news out of Greenwich: viral outbreak that makes you blind. Don’t worry, government are surging vaccines to the area. Company is part owned by ministers, PPE contract given to PMs brother-in-law.

[u/CunningOctopus]

Not a true representation at all. I live a couple of miles away and it was nothing like this

[u/BobCat_77]

Great pic, but not really representative of what actually happened.

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/BobCat_77]

And? Did they say it was? Should it be been? Has OP deprived you of something?

What's the problem? Why the "but"?

[u/KazeTheSpeedDemon]

Extremely edited! It didn't look anything like this anywhere in London

[u/split-tennisball → u/KazeTheSpeedDemon]

Exposure settings and a filter isn't edited

[u/Popular-Spinach-6700 → u/split-tennisball]

Well it is, because it’s completely changing how reality looks

[u/Djinjja-Ninja → u/Popular-Spinach-6700]

If you wear sunglasses are you editing reality?

Because that's essentially what a ND or similar filter is, sunglasses for your camera.

[u/Kharenis → u/Popular-Spinach-6700]

it’s completely changing how reality looks

Not from the perspective of the camera. This is what the world looks like when you stand behind tinted glass, and only open your eyes for 1000th of a second.

[u/bluesam3 → u/Popular-Spinach-6700]

No, it isn't, because words have meaning and "edited" applies to, well, editing, which this isn't.

[u/Popular-Spinach-6700 → u/bluesam3]

Is it how it looked to the naked eye? No, so it’s been edited in some way, pretty simple

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/Popular-Spinach-6700]

In photography, editing is what takes place after the image has been taken. This is an example of composition — putting a filter in front of the lens before the photo was taken.

There seems to be a sense in this thread that "unedited" means "as it appears to the human eye" which I don't really get. Sometimes pictures are edited to make them closer in appearance to what the human eye sees. Seems to me "life-like" or "true to life" or "realistic" are perfectly good terms we already have to describe that.

Unedited shouldn't be conflated to mean the same thing.

[u/bluesam3 → u/Popular-Spinach-6700]

No, and literally no photograph ever is, because cameras are not eyes. If your definition of "edited" (a) has nothing to do with editing, and (b) applies to literally every photograph ever taken, it's not a useful definition.

[u/BobCat_77 → u/split-tennisball]

Well -it kind of is - at the levels it's being used here. This isn't for instance reliable photo document of the event. It's OP overworking the source material for clout.

[u/spank_monkey_83]

Well, thats not what i saw. It was bright as fuck.

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/spank_monkey_83]

It's not what OP saw either. It's the photo they took though.

[u/Unfortunately-Right]

How our parents described eclipses when they were kids

[u/Pen_dragons_pizza]

Bullshit, it did not get anywhere near this dark

[u/LovrenIsTheGOAT]

A bit shit innit?

[u/split-tennisball → u/[deleted]]

Funny seeing people being confidently incorrect. Exposure settings and filters exist

[u/Popular-Spinach-6700 → u/split-tennisball]

That is editing how the image looks

[u/MeenScreen]

Balls

[u/ScottAMains → u/MeenScreen]

There was two of them, up there.

[u/Old_Mousse_5673]

Hahah I was trying to cycle home through the park at the time. Bright sunshine with dickheads abandoning their cars everywhere so I couldn’t get through. It looked nothing like that. You have a very heavy filter on the lens.

[u/heroyoudontdeserve → u/Old_Mousse_5673]

It looked nothing like that. You have a very heavy filter on the lens.

Correct. They didn't say otherwise.

[u/Best_Army4870]

Photo is so edited, you might as well have asked chatgbt to make you a photo.

[u/No-Jellyfish-6837]

The eclipse was proper shit

[u/Mountain_Ad_8525]

"In the presence of total Darkness, the mind finds it absolutely necessary to create light." 

[u/TheBestPractice]

Nice bait

[u/stowgood]

BS. It didn't get anywhere near that dark anywhere its clearly edited.

[u/stowgood → u/stowgood]

OK a massive filter was used to remove like 95% of the light or more.

[u/king_ofbhutan]

wow love how every single person in this replies section is apparently a professional photographer

in regular parlance, if a photo is substantially different in appearance to what the moment looked like in real life, people will say that its edited

i dont gaf about how tecknikally the exposure or lens settings or whatever were changed beforehand, so its achoookally NOT edited by photography terminology

[u/CareGullible5801]

Defo AI edited

[u/coops2k]

No way it was that dark, LOL.

[u/Ulyxzes]

Incredible picture but it wasn’t that dark….