[Na Horuk]

AFAIK, it means 'Straight Out Of Camera' - i.e unprocessed.

Yes, Straight out of camera. But this includes the camera's automatic processing. You can set up your camera to do quite a bit of processing, like adding sharpness, contrast, changing colours, etc. Big difference in just switching from the default Bright to Film reversal or another jpeg mode (not to mention black and white and other more creative jpeg modes). SooC can be misleading, but it usually refers to photos that were taken as jpeg (not raw) and had mostly default processing applied in-camera

One thing to remember is that film is no more objective than camera sensors. Different film types had their own characteristics and the way you develop it affects the outcome, as well, even if the developing is done by a photo store. All photographs are just slices of reality captured through a biased machine and then viewed by biased people

But of course there are limits to what is aesthetic and what is manipulation. For example, a photo might look better or worse due to PP. And photos should not be used to tell outright lies for personal or political gains, to "prove" things that did not actually happen. Documentary photos should have minimal work and nothing should be added or removed

[RGlasel]

they are composited and processed much farther than I would go for myself

I would never go that far either, but they are great illustrations of your point. We live in a very noisy world, to appeal to some people you need to shout to stand out.

[normhead]

Some people like fiction and some people like non-fiction and that's just as true in photography as in books.

Like there is non-fiction in photography. How would that even be possible? Taking 3d space and turning into 2D is always fiction. There is always a different point of view. Someone took a camera, pointed in a specific direction for a specific purpose. They may claim that is "true" but lower or raise the camera angle, walk another 25 feet, there are all kinds of additional "true" perspectives. The photographer selected one. Just that act means the photo is not a representation of reality. In reality you can walk around, view from different angles. A picture is almost by definition a misrepresentation of the scene or event as experienced by anyone there.

I'm not even sure how you could justify the claim that one way of doing it is fiction, and one is non-fiction. Every one thinks their way is the right way. A flat SOOC image is more of a fiction than anything I produce. Are we creating fiction, or are we creating something that is more real, in that using our eye and brain, which scan and record composites scenes from a huge dynamic range, more than a camera can handle, so is what we see with our eyes real, or is the image the camera captures real? Most of us post process to reproduce what we saw, what the camera recorded is raw data, and in many instances doesn't look anything like what we saw.

What I see happening here is people getting so used to unprocessed files that they start thinking that file is the true representation of reality and in a sense worship the god of the camera. The camera has no intrinsic lock on reality, only a limited version of it. Lets not start pretending it's non-fiction. It's just camera technical fiction, not human invented fiction.

Most humans prefer human fictions, created for other humans. Technical camera fiction is a usually a lot more boring. Liking technical fiction is a product of long term conditioning to undeveloped images.

[ccc_]

And they both look painterly to me, though the second one still looks pretty enough. The first one to my eyes looks garish. While I've seen sunsets with oranges that bright, something about the angles of the color hits me wrong. The blue underneath could almost be natural, almost, but not with that orange there. My brain wants to know where the sun is, and my eyes are getting five different answers.

The silhouette tree is a genuinely pretty shot, but with the tree so black I just can't buy the clouds lower left so bright. They look literally painted, with a brush, a Van Gogh, out of focus. I think the original shot with less correction would look lovely on my wall.

Again, looking at this on my contrasty laptop monitor. And "SOOC"?

over-processed?...sure
the top image is made from three or four pictures
the bottom at least three including the texture as i recall

both have no basis in "reality" some will say but the skies happened, the foregrounds happened...just not at the same time or same place
the colors are over the top but they are what were requested

painterly?...the bottom is hanging on a wall somewhere as a canvas print
so probably less saturated and if things run to course probably taken for a painting before being recognized as a photograph

I used to produce a lot of non-representational paintings
color and form to fill a space
these images serve the same purpose

with the software available you can do almost anything or nothing at all
for me these two were more satisfying to create than the ordinary and realistic images I create for other uses
however as I said before...do this work for you or whoever is going to use them
you don't like garish and oversaturated...don't make them that way

the other thing that I wish people would understand...this stuff is supposed to be fun

[bm75]

Perhaps off-topic..but some toughts about PP and the final output. Yesterday I visited the gallery of a war photographer in Milano, James Nachway. Images were printed from 50*70 to wall size . I realized that many of those photos were 3d like, due to the dimension/distance/brain processing combination. Most of those were print from film, for sure and yes...it was like being IN the scene. Subjects were really coming out of the picture, something that rarely happens with paintings. So I thought how could you manage the PP for those BIG prints? Is the PP all that important? I mean: all this matter of huge PP vs minimum PP is really that important if we already see pictures in small screens?

[Barbara Fu]

over-processed?...sure
the top image is made from three or four pictures
the bottom at least three including the texture as i recall

both have no basis in "reality" some will say but the skies happened, the foregrounds happened...just not at the same time or same place
the colors are over the top but they are what were requested

painterly?...the bottom is hanging on a wall somewhere as a canvas print
so probably less saturated and if things run to course probably taken for a painting before being recognized as a photograph

I used to produce a lot of non-representational paintings
color and form to fill a space
these images serve the same purpose

with the software available you can do almost anything or nothing at all
for me these two were more satisfying to create than the ordinary and realistic images I create for other uses
however as I said before...do this work for you or whoever is going to use them
you don't like garish and oversaturated...don't make them that way

the other thing that I wish people would understand...this stuff is supposed to be fun

The 'Van Gogh' probably does look amazing on a wall. Not my style, but I get it.

I wish I had the skill to combine multiple images like that, but such skill would require more time and tutor money than I'm going to put into it.

Hmm, you ever do anything in a Southwest desert style?

[ccc_]

The 'Van Gogh' probably does look amazing on a wall. Not my style, but I get it.

I wish I had the skill to combine multiple images like that, but such skill would require more time and tutor money than I'm going to put into it.

Hmm, you ever do anything in a Southwest desert style?

I like it as well but no I never have

[bm75]

I like postprocess my images.. i liked when I developed film at home and Iike now wiyh digital. Postprocess is a part of creating an image. I admit I also like HDR -the new tool in Lightroom\photoshop is sooo good (I prefer it to Photomatix) and give real results. The key point is that our brain process what we see in a differnt way than any camera could. So yes we need PP to achieve the results we want and the line between fake and real is quite obvious , given the fact that anyone can feel a fake image as fake. The rest is taste.

[micromacro]

I wish I had the skill to combine multiple images like that, but such skill would require more time and tutor money than I'm going to put into it.

Mostly time, there are plenty of tutorials online. But yes, it's time consuming.

[photoptimist]

Like there is non-fiction in photography. How would that even be possible? Taking 3d space and turning into 2D is always fiction. There is always a different point of view. Someone took a camera, pointed in a specific direction for a specific purpose. They may claim that is "true" but lower or raise the camera angle, walk another 25 feet, there are all kinds of additional "true" perspectives. The photographer selected one. Just that act means the photo is not a representation of reality. In reality you can walk around, view from different angles. A picture is almost by definition a misrepresentation of the scene or event as experienced by anyone there.

I'm not even sure how you could justify the claim that one way of doing it is fiction, and one is non-fiction. Every one thinks their way is the right way. A flat SOOC image is more of a fiction than anything I produce. Are we creating fiction, or are we creating something that is more real, in that using our eye and brain, which scan and record composites scenes from a huge dynamic range, more than a camera can handle, so is what we see with our eyes real, or is the image the camera captures real? Most of us post process to reproduce what we saw, what the camera recorded is raw data, and in many instances doesn't look anything like what we saw.

What I see happening here is people getting so used to unprocessed files that they start thinking that file is the true representation of reality and in a sense worship the god of the camera. The camera has no intrinsic lock on reality, only a limited version of it. Lets not start pretending it's non-fiction. It's just camera technical fiction, not human invented fiction.

Most human prefer human fictions, created for other humans. Technical camera fiction is a usually a lot more boring. Liking technical fiction is a product of long term conditioning to undeveloped images.

That's an interesting point of view and, at one level, I do see your point.

We've all seen (and a number of us have made) images of the majestic moose standing tall in a low thicket of verdant foliage with a sprinkling of colorful wildflowers accenting the scene. What excellent and true-to-life nature photography! Yet if we widen the angle and turn the camera, it may well reveal a gaggle of less than majestic roadside tourists gawking at a moose in a drainage ditch. What excellent and true-to-life street photography! So, are both images fiction, non-fiction, or what? Personally, I'd say that both images are "the truth" even if neither image reveals "the whole truth" (which would have to also include why the moose was by the road such as due to an expansion of moose habitat or a side effect of global warming or whatever).

Thus, at another level, I reject the viewpoint that the selection of focal length, camera position, camera pointing angle, and chosen time to click the shutter always makes the image a work of fiction. If the photographer's (or writer's) selection of subject matter and time frame always makes their work a piece of fiction, then there are no works of non-fiction in the world and the concept loses all meaning. Yes, it may be true that cameras (and prints) can never capture the full dynamic range, 3D structure, full 7x24 time, full 360° and every point of earth that is 100% reality. And yet surely a photograph can capture a particular time and particular place with relatively high fidelity even if it does not capture everything. That's why I'd say that a properly processed image can be nearly the truth (as close to the truth as the medium permits) even if it is not the whole truth.

Let's imagine if someone took a picture from the south rim of the Grand Canyon at 5 PM at the most popular overlook using the most popular focal length and most popular framing. Now imagine we give the SOOC RAW file to a bunch of photographers of all levels of talent and styles for post processing and have those photographers bring their printed results back to the overlook the next day at the same time of day under identical weather conditions. Now imagine we hold a contest with prizes for both the most realistic image and people's favorite image. I think we all agree that the flat, under-processed image will be neither realistic nor a favorite. And yet it is likely that an "over-processed" image may be judged the favorite if people love the hyper-saturated colors, composited full moon, and whimsical rainbow herd of unicorns. But surely there will be some subset of images that have the most accurate color and tonality -- prints that almost disappear into the canyon if you stand in the right location. That last group will be the most non-fiction images of the bunch even if some "over-processed" images are liked by many.

[baro-nite]

Like there is non-fiction in photography. How would that even be possible? Taking 3d space and turning into 2D is always fiction. There is always a different point of view.

Then there is no non-fiction in any medium. History, biography, you name it: there's no escaping the author's point of view. Even a "just the facts" presentation necessitates the author's choosing which facts to present. Rather like ... photography.

[photoptimist]

Where does B&w come into this debate? If B & W can be judged on the aesthetics of the image rather than any connection with reality why not treat all images the same.

Good question! B&W is a real gray area.

It's probably worth noting that the human visual system is more like a B&W system with a color overlay than a true RGB sensor. Most of the human retina is strictly B&W and clever lab tests and optical illusions can show that the brain sort of paints color into a B&W version of the scene. Human vision is more like a colorized B&W movie than a full color movie. So a B&W image isn't that far from reality.

And just as color images can be processed to be closer or further from reality, so, too, can B&W images. B&W images can be too flat, too contrasty, over-expsoed, under-exposed, or have artifacts from excessive burning and dodging. And the subject matter of a B&W images can be falsified by removing objects, compositing objects, or double exposure . The point is B&W image can be judged as being closer to or further from reality.

In the context of OP's question, it comes back to social trends in stylistic preferences and whether clients, contest judges, and art galleries want realism or certain stylistic or aesthetic departures from realism. And that can apply to B&W just as much as is does to color.

[Barbara Fu]

Good question! B&W is a real gray area.

It's probably worth noting that the human visual system is more like a B&W system with a color overlay than a true RGB sensor. Most of the human retina is strictly B&W and clever lab tests and optical illusions can show that the brain sort of paints color into a B&W version of the scene. Human vision is more like a colorized B&W movie than a full color movie. So a B&W image isn't that far from reality.

And just as color images can be processed to be closer or further from reality, so, too, can B&W images. B&W images can be too flat, too contrasty, ...

Your use of 'flat' is mildly amusing to me. I have deficient depth-perception, roughly 30% of what most people see. I imagine that affects what I shoot, though I suspect my introversion is a greater influence.

Ironically my friend Keecha, who before her disability was a celebrity and wedding photographer, is partially color-blind.

[photoptimist]

Your use of 'flat' is mildly amusing to me. I have deficient depth-perception, roughly 30% of what most people see. I imagine that affects what I shoot, though I suspect my introversion is a greater influence.

Ironically my friend Keecha, who before her disability was a celebrity and wedding photographer, is partially color-blind.

Actually, poor depth perception can help your photography.

One very common amusing amateur mistake is to not notice and control the background behind the subject. The amateur will be so busying focusing on the subject that they don't see what's in the background and how it affects the picture. The result is the classic amateur portrait with a tree or street sign sticking out of the subjects head.

Having two eyes and depth perception enables the brain to separate foreground and background and focus on one or the other. With two eyes, the tree or street sign behind the subject is separated. Even if the right eye seems to see the tree is coming out of the top of the subject's head, the left eye will see the tree in a different position and the brain will know the tree is clearly not growing out of the subject's head. But the camera has only one eye, no depth perception, and that makes any accidental alignment of foreground and background objects look like the two are part of one object.


If you have poor depth perception (or close one eye while looking at the scene), you may be less prone to making this mistake because your vision will be more like that of the camera's.

[ccc_]

Perhaps off-topic..but some toughts about PP and the final output. Yesterday I visited the gallery of a war photographer in Milano, James Nachway. Images were printed from 50*70 to wall size . I realized that many of those photos were 3d like, due to the dimension/distance/brain processing combination. Most of those were print from film, for sure and yes...it was like being IN the scene. Subjects were really coming out of the picture, something that rarely happens with paintings. So I thought how could you manage the PP for those BIG prints? Is the PP all that important? I mean: all this matter of huge PP vs minimum PP is really that important if we already see pictures in small screens?

think editing for display on a 75 inch television

every error in masking is very apparent
as are color transitions and artefacts introduced during post

when I edit for small screens or print I just do it with a mouse and however the image fits on my display
but where the image is going to displayed in a large format I zoom into every edit and use a tablet

this is a composite that was used as a calendar on a 16:9 display...24 inch I think
it is heavily edited to look like a watercolor

on my display it looks fine
it looks great on my phone
however on my television I see every mistake

the person who wanted it is happy...so I suppose it is good enough

to your point I recently ran across a very large print...at least four feet tall and however wide
when you got close enough it was blurry maybe even muddy
from a distance it was vibrant and had so much depth that it pulled you right into the valley it depicted
natural colors and minimal sharpening...just a very good image
processed and printed with a very high level of skill...frankly I was quite jealous