[BigMackCam]

I've never thought SOOC is anything to brag about, but in a barnd related forum like this it might be of interest to those considering buying the model in question.

I've actually found SOOC information of more interest recently.

For some time, I've only shot raw. But occasionally, I'll be away on a few days' break or longer vacation with only my low-power tablet PC with me, which isn't capable of supporting any useful raw editor, and it would be handy to be able to review and process at least a version my photos using my tablet. As such, I've been considering shooting raw + JPEG on those occasions - so I find it interesting when I see really great results that folks have achieved straight out of the camera. I'll admit that I've become a little lazy with my exposure accuracy in recent years, due to the shadow and highlight recovery available in even my older cameras. I'd like to become more proficient at getting things close to perfect in-camera...

[tvdtvdtvd]

Tying this into another thread that kind of devolved a discussion of people making fake images and claiming they are real I now want to go and do a nice stack of the Orion Nebula from a real dark site, post it to facebook and claim I shot it hand held with my A* 400/2.8 in my backyard.

Even better, claim the shot was 'handheld'.

[Wasp]

Here is one made without autofocus, a tripod or image stabilization. Exposure time was one quarter of a second, but I did not handhold it. I used the window sill of my car. All of this information is quite irrelevant, of course. I would rather be judged on the quality of the photo than some aspect of technique or technology that went into making it.

[HoutHans]

Thank you. I beleive you are covering the "hand held" question. See my answer above to sergysergy. I think that does not work even for the niche.

---------- Post added 15-10-19 at 09:38 ----------


the picture is not sharp...I would be more interested to hear , in this case, if you used the 2 s delay or not. That would cover a technical aspect of the process.

I did use that, but it was very windy, so that caused some motion blur (probably would have done the same if I had used a tripod)

[StiffLegged]

I used the window sill of my car.

But is the window sill alloy or carbon fibre?? Mine doesn't take Arca-Swiss plates, which is a confounded nuisance! Seriously, the image is either interesting or it's not. I'm more interested in whether the photographer spent 6 weeks up to the knees in mud to finally nail the mating display of the Greater Gear Boggler and did he/she think it worthwhile? ;-))

[BigMackCam]

Are we ready for some summary and with a conclusion or should we still continue spamming? :-)

You can summarise and add a conclusion, but you can't close the box once it's open... Having asked the original question, the thread has a life of its own now

[Dartmoor Dave]

I've actually found SOOC information of more interest recently.

For some time, I've only shot raw. But occasionally, I'll be away on a few days' break or longer vacation with only my low-power tablet PC with me, which isn't capable of supporting any useful raw editor, and it would be handy to be able to review and process at least a version my photos using my tablet. As such, I've been considering shooting raw + JPEG on those occasions - so I find it interesting when I see really great results that folks have achieved straight out of the camera. I'll admit that I've become a little lazy with my exposure accuracy in recent years, due to the shadow and highlight recovery available in even my older cameras. I'd like to become more proficient at getting things close to perfect in-camera...

I've been doing some SOOC jpegs over the past couple of weeks, since the subject has been coming up quite often around the forum recently. It turns out that, on all the digital cameras that I own, the colour rendering in straight jpegs is markedly untruthful to the real world scene when compared with the colours from my usual custom profiles with raw. And that renders the assertion that some people make, that SOOC jpegs are somehow more truthful, a false one to my mind.

I'd argue that there's an intrinsic inaccuracy in the default renderings from most digital cameras, using both jpeg and raw, and that if your goal is to take photos with some sort of verisimilitude to reality then processing to correct the camera's innate untruthfulness is the only way. And if correspondence to reality isn't your goal (it certainly isn't my goal in B&W), then what the heck. . . throw as much PP at it as you need to turn it into your own definition of beautiful.

Edit: Probably more relevant to this topic, when I post my own photos in a general photography thread I usually don't mention that they were taken with a 10 megapixel CCD, on the assumption that some people are likely to devalue them because of that.

---

Last edited by Dartmoor Dave; 10-15-2019 at 01:59 PM.

[StiffLegged]

Dave, that image you posted back in August just looks great anyway, it doesn't matter what camera you used. You know, this one:–






It's a treat! (the missus took one look and said "Dartmoor!")

[Dartmoor Dave]

Dave, that image you posted back in August just looks great anyway, it doesn't matter what camera you used. You know, this one:–

Thanks for such kind words. That one's actually a good example of what I meant by having to process a photo to make it more truthful to reality. The light really did look like that on that amazing evening, and I've never seen it come close to the same effect at that spot since.

[BigMackCam]

I've been doing some SOOC jpegs over the past couple of weeks, since the subject has been coming up quite often around the forum recently. It turns out that, on all the digital cameras that I own, the colour rendering in straight jpegs is markedly untruthful to the real world scene when compared with the colours from my usual custom profiles with raw. And that renders the assertion that some people make, that SOOC jpegs are somehow more truthful, a false one to my mind.

I'd argue that there's an intrinsic inaccuracy in the default renderings from most digital cameras, using both jpeg and raw, and that if your goal is to take photos with some sort of verisimilitude to reality then processing to correct the camera's innate untruthfulness is the only way. And if correspondence to reality isn't your goal (it certainly isn't my goal in B&W), then what the heck. . . throw as much PP at it as you need to turn it into your own definition of beautiful.

Edit: Probably more relevant to this topic, when I post my own photos in a general photography thread I usually don't mention that they were taken with a 10 megapixel CCD, on the assumption that some people are likely to devalue them because of that.

Thanks for such kind words. That one's actually a good example of what I meant by having to process a photo to make it more truthful to reality. The light really did look like that on that amazing evening, and I've never seen it come close to the same effect at that spot since.

With apologies to the OP for veering off topic, that's my biggest concern with shooting JPEG... I guess you have to think of it like a film - you'll get whatever colour and contrast reproduction you're given. I have shot some JPEGs over time with my various cameras... and I'll probably get hung up by my boots for saying this, but I rather like Sony's "Standard" in-camera profile. Like most other cameras from various brands, it's not entirely honest - but the colours, whilst a little "optimistic" (!), are somewhat representative of reality and make for quite pleasing photos. I've not felt the same way about Pentax JPEGs (at least, not with the K-5 / K-3 / K-3II), but that's based on limited experience, so maybe I'm the problem there. I do wish all camera manufacturers would provide an in-camera profile that's calibrated to an industry-wide colour chart. Then, exposure and white balance issues aside, colours should at least appear more-or-less accurate in terms of hue, saturation and luminance...

[yucatanPentax]

Technique is also a valuable piece of information. Does knowing a cup has been 'woodfired' make any difference in how it holds water?
No, but other potters appreciate knowing that >look< was achieved via a wood kiln.

Handheld not only illustrates the camera's capability, it also illustrates the photographer's, as there are certainly many cameras and/or
photographers who might not be able to capture an acceptable low light shot.

Yes, I agree. I appreciate any and all information others give about their photography process. Even just as casual comments (no, not really bragging or pleading for forgiveness for being short of perfection), it is a kindess to other photographers in sharing what was done.

From time to time, something gets shared that wasn't thought of by someone somewhere. In that sense, it is part of the continuing education of photography.

[Vasyl]

You can summarise and add a conclusion, but you can't close the box once it's open... Having asked the original question, the thread has a life of its own now

Pandora's box...

---------- Post added 15-10-19 at 14:53 ----------

Here is one made without autofocus, a tripod or image stabilization. Exposure time was one quarter of a second, but I did not handhold it. I used the window sill of my car. All of this information is quite irrelevant, of course. I would rather be judged on the quality of the photo than some aspect of technique or technology that went into making it.

yes, i would rather focused on the areas that needs PPing adjustment and corrections

---------- Post added 15-10-19 at 14:58 ----------

I did use that, but it was very windy, so that caused some motion blur (probably would have done the same if I had used a tripod)

It depends what tripod you use and camera with it, but usually the right tripod fixes all the issues you mentioned, except for the earthquake type of situation...by the way, in my opinion that is only the situation you can make the statement "taken hand held"...

[Sir Nameless]

For me, it's all about the audience, as many have mentioned.

I don't reveal how I captured/processed an image, not because I have secrets to keep, but because I assume that you don't care, unless you ask. At that point, I'll share.

I appreciate comments like that if I happen to be curious about how an image was captured, so that I can learn from it.

Do I think anything less of people who share this info? No, because I can't judge their intent. Maybe they're bragging. Maybe they're teaching.

Does their technique make them a better or worse artist? No, the results do. And even that is in the eye of the beholder.

[leekil]

Another words, you see the picture imperfections and still post it.

If a photo has to be perfect before it could be considered to have merit or posted, we would see only like 10 photos here per month.

---------- Post added 10-15-19 at 04:51 PM ----------

For some time, I've only shot raw. But occasionally, I'll be away on a few days' break or longer vacation with only my low-power tablet PC with me, which isn't capable of supporting any useful raw editor, and it would be handy to be able to review and process at least a version my photos using my tablet. As such, I've been considering shooting raw + JPEG on those occasions - so I find it interesting when I see really great results that folks have achieved straight out of the camera. I'll admit that I've become a little lazy with my exposure accuracy in recent years, due to the shadow and highlight recovery available in even my older cameras. I'd like to become more proficient at getting things close to perfect in-camera...

I think it's preferable to get it right up front, rather than spending lots of time trying to recover a photo to a decent exposure. (Not that I do this myself with anything like 99% accuracy.)

[Vasyl]

If a photo has to be perfect before it could be considered to have merit or posted, we would see only like 10 photos here per month.

Oh, I forgot, for any forum, quantity is the driver, not quality, but it is a dead end. There is nothing to learn there with such approach, there is nothing to enjoy, but lie, lie and lie posting more.