[Sam_I_am]

The perfect shot is the one that looks the way you wanted it to. If it doesn’t, you have the choice of processing it into what you wanted, or going out and taking more shots. Personally, I tend to prefer the latter,

👍

I like your style.

[Rondec]

“SOOC” is not a ‘badge of honor’ - it is a ‘badge of authenticity’.
The same hands that “improved the photo” could have added a rubber ducky or a UFO.
I came into photography through another hobby - railroad photography.
There, the show organizer would typically ask that original slides be used as a guarantee of authenticity -
as a guarantee that the scene shown had actually happened,
so when Jim Boyd showed us a slide of an old steam locomotive pulling freight cars through a Mississippi flood,
we could be assured that this had really happened.

added: the automated changes never change the essence of a photo -
you can be certain they work the same way each time;
you can never be assured that human intelligence will not make real changes to the scene.

I guess I feel like SOOC is going to look completely different depending on whether you choose the Natural, Bright (which is standard I believe), Film Reversal, or Satobi setting on your jpeg image. So, which is the badge of authenticity? To me, Natural is a relatively neutral setting, but it often doesn't see white balance exactly the way my brain remembers it, which is what this discussion is about. The true white balance is probably really yellow, or blue, but our brains have a way of filtering out the way things look to make them look how we expect them to look. Our cameras are trying to do the same thing, but they don't always do a perfect job.

If you are satisfied with SOOC that's fine and you've saved time in post processing, but I guess I don't necessarily see it as more authentic. My goal when post processing isn't to create a different version of reality, but simply to do some cropping, sharpening, and other adjustments that will enhance my subject. I am not always successful in that, but that is the goal.

At the same time, a boring photo is a boring photo, even with all of the post processing in the world added to it.

[Wheatfield]

So that puts it back to you suggesting one or more of our members considered junk photos to be acceptable, and again I say no one claimed they were. We're all (for the most part) striving for the same thing you are, to be the photographers we're capable of. We're not lazy.

I think you just didn't realize we're on the same page.

I was all along speaking to the OP and the concept that getting it right in camera isn't important and that everything can be fixed in post production.
Everyone else that responded to me was reading to respond rather than to understand.

---------- Post added May 5th, 2022 at 07:03 AM ----------

At the same time, a boring photo is a boring photo, even with all of the post processing in the world added to it.

Those are the ones you print really big.......

[gatorguy]

I was all along speaking to the OP and the concept that getting it right in camera isn't important and that everything can be fixed in post production.
Everyone else that responded to me was reading to respond rather than to understand.

---------- Post added May 5th, 2022 at 07:03 AM ----------



Those are the ones you print really big.......

Note: Then you should be more careful with how your phrase your responses to your fellow members, each of whom is trying to be better at their craft and open to courteous advice. That's why most of us are here, to learn and get better. The post directed to Thor initially came across as accusatory and disrespectful for something he did not even imply was acceptable, to quote "advocating for just taking whatever trash comes your way with minimal effort on your part" from a lazy photographer. I'll now assume that was not your intent to personally insult him, nor was claiming every need to "fix" a photo is due to lazy and unaware photographers, which few (if any) of us are, meant to be taken literally.

---

Last edited by gatorguy; 05-05-2022 at 11:08 AM.

[reh321]

Note: You should be more careful then with how your phrase your responses to your fellow members, each of whom is trying to be better at their craft. That's why most of us are here. The post directed to Thor initially came across as accusatory and disrespectful for something he did not even imply was acceptable, to quote "advocating for just taking whatever trash comes your way with minimal effort on your part" from a lazy photographer. I'll now assume that was not your intent to personally insult him, nor was claiming every need to "fix" a photo is due to lazy and unaware photographers, which few if any of us are.

I admit to misunderstanding him at least once, but he is not the only one who has made unrealistic comments in this thread. I intentionally did not respond to one comment, but the fact is that we do have different goals which lead to different procedures. Even “professionals” taking ‘portraits’ are not the same {and what they do doesn’t apply to most of us}. Those who have to please clients differ from those making ID badges and those taking true ‘mug shots’.

[JohnMc]

In my experience two of the more abused/misunderstood terms in Photography are, "straight" and "SOOC."


While the process is important, it's the result that matters. If one gets what they need from "SOOC," great. The great debate over it's supposed purity isn't so great, barely even average most often. "SOOC" is processed after the raw exposure, no differnt than running a raw file through any bit of SW not on the camera to convert it to whatever. There is no moral advantage either way, and depending on final intent/use and the operators hands, quite possibly no pictorial advantage either.

[reh321]

In my experience two of the more abused/misunderstood terms in Photography are, "straight" and "SOOC."

While the process is important, it's the result that matters. If one gets what they need from "SOOC," great. The great debate over it's supposed purity isn't so great, barely even average most often. "SOOC" is processed after the raw exposure, no differnt than running a raw file through any bit of SW not on the camera to convert it to whatever. There is no moral advantage either way, and depending on final intent/use and the operators hands, quite possibly no pictorial advantage either.

As I have already said {see comment #39 on page 3 of this very thread}, it is not a claim of morality.
It is a statement of being untouched by primate hands once it has been taken.
It you convert a ‘raw’ file, human intelligence was involved; it is a form of “dark room” work.
This is automatic, just like the Kodachrome slides I took fifty years ago.

---

Last edited by reh321; 05-05-2022 at 11:42 AM.

[JohnMc]

As I have already said {see comment #39 in this very thread}, it is not a claim of morality.
It is a claim of being untouched by primate hands once it has been taken.
It you convert a ‘raw’ file, human intelligence was involved; it is a form of “dark room” work.
This is automatic, just like the Kodachrome slides I took fifty years ago.

Sorry, I wasn't really replying/accusing you of anything.


The only untouched so to speak file out of a camera is the native raw file. It's that data which the jpg is rendered from. There are many little primate hands inside (likely next to Intel) making thos jpgs. I haven't done the math but would dare say I could come up with more variations of SOOC jpgs from my camera(s) than Baskin Robbins has flavors of ice cream,; one body/model may or may not match the like setting on another.


When you make the choices about what kind of file you make choosing options like WB, bright/natural/portrait/vibrant/radiant/muted, or any of the others - or none of the others - you do so as a primate with hands, or so I hope. ) I also believe there are a lot of engineers and other sorted primates who came up with the in-camera jpg rendering that would be insulted at being demoted species wise (though in some cases they are happy with the promotion). 50 years ago you chose Kodachrome over the other film/chrome options. You (they if you prefer) chose that Sawyers projector over the Pradovit. You chose a bright bristol board over lenticular or glass beaded screens. You chose to use a light table with 80CRI fluorescent tubes and high iron glass top.

[reh321]

Sorry, I wasn't really replying/accusing you of anything.


The only untouched so to speak file out of a camera is the native raw file. It's that data which the jpg is rendered from. There are many little primate hands inside (likely next to Intel) making thos jpgs. I haven't done the math but would dare say I could come up with more variations of SOOC jpgs from my camera(s) than Baskin Robbins has flavors of ice cream,; one body/model may or may not match the like setting on another.


When you make the choices about what kind of file you make choosing options like WB, bright/natural/portrait/vibrant/radiant/muted, or any of the others - or none of the others - you do so as a primate with hands, or so I hope. ) I also believe there are a lot of engineers and other sorted primates who came up with the in-camera jpg rendering that would be insulted at being demoted species wise (though in some cases they are happy with the promotion). 50 years ago you chose Kodachrome over the other film/chrome options. You (they if you prefer) chose that Sawyers projector over the Pradovit. You chose a bright bristol board over lenticular or glass beaded screens. You chose to use a light table with 80CRI fluorescent tubes and high iron glass top.

I tell the machine what I want, and it does it automatically.
Based on default parameters, I suspect they are set by Marketers.
The point is that it happens automatically; I have always known what I will get.
My work is done once I press the shutter.
BTW - I also let the machine set exposure and {when I can} focus; I don’t see any reason to do work myself when a machine can.

[JohnMc]

We all have different needs, and uses of the Easy Button. Pentax over pencil, or something like that.

[house]

I never understood the posted photos that come with the SOOC label as a badge of honor.

I don't know if it's ever been suggested it's a badge of honour. It is however useful info. Despite the custom image option available sooc does give some kind of benchmark. When looking at lens performance for instance I've come to realize that peoples post processed images are useless for understanding how the lens behaves.

More often than not post processing has wrecked the image and brought out aberrations that are barely visible with less or more skilled post processing. Sooc only allows limited pushing and pulling, post processing allows you to tear the image apart.

So personally I very much like when sooc images are published and when it's clearly stated that they are sooc.

[Wheatfield]

Note: Then you should be more careful with how your phrase your responses to your fellow members, each of whom is trying to be better at their craft and open to courteous advice. That's why most of us are here, to learn and get better. The post directed to Thor initially came across as accusatory and disrespectful for something he did not even imply was acceptable, to quote "advocating for just taking whatever trash comes your way with minimal effort on your part" from a lazy photographer. I'll now assume that was not your intent to personally insult him, nor was claiming every need to "fix" a photo is due to lazy and unaware photographers, which few (if any) of us are, meant to be taken literally.

Just an innocent question, but when I wrote:

"If one is not trying to get the best they can every step of the way, they are compromising the quality of their work"

and someone then takes a portion of the rest of the post out of context to invent a debating point ( more or less making a strawman in the process) against what i have written, exactly what are they debating?

To me it can only be debating that they are indicating that not striving for the best they can get is an acceptable goal.

---------- Post added May 7th, 2022 at 10:21 AM ----------

In my experience two of the more abused/misunderstood terms in Photography are, "straight" and "SOOC."


While the process is important, it's the result that matters. If one gets what they need from "SOOC," great. The great debate over it's supposed purity isn't so great, barely even average most often. "SOOC" is processed after the raw exposure, no differnt than running a raw file through any bit of SW not on the camera to convert it to whatever. There is no moral advantage either way, and depending on final intent/use and the operators hands, quite possibly no pictorial advantage either.

This reminds me of when the studio I worked at landed a very lucrative little gig shooting Santa photos at a few local malls. This is the creative wasteland of photography, and turnaround time is all important. We weren't shooting raw we were shooting jpegs and were sending them straight from camera to the printer with a stop in between to cull out the worst of the three or so pictures taken.

[JohnMc]

This is the creative wasteland of photography, and turnaround time is all important...

If you ever got a school portrait where one or two of the wallets had you missing a tooth or a couple extra zits, it wasn't me! Honest.

[reh321]

I guess I feel like SOOC is going to look completely different depending on whether you choose the Natural, Bright (which is standard I believe), Film Reversal, or Satobi setting on your jpeg image. So, which is the badge of authenticity? To me, Natural is a relatively neutral setting, but it often doesn't see white balance exactly the way my brain remembers it, which is what this discussion is about. The true white balance is probably really yellow, or blue, but our brains have a way of filtering out the way things look to make them look how we expect them to look. Our cameras are trying to do the same thing, but they don't always do a perfect job.

If you are satisfied with SOOC that's fine and you've saved time in post processing, but I guess I don't necessarily see it as more authentic. My goal when post processing isn't to create a different version of reality, but simply to do some cropping, sharpening, and other adjustments that will enhance my subject. I am not always successful in that, but that is the goal.

At the same time, a boring photo is a boring photo, even with all of the post processing in the world added to it.

You can setup your camera to give silly JPEG results, just as you can generate silly results using PP, but people who advertise “PP” tend not to do that; your choice.

I believe the default settings are determined by marketing folk who are more interested in selling cameras than in matching what they saw; your choice also.

[Rondec]

You can setup your camera to give silly JPEG results, just as you can generate silly results using PP, but people who advertise “PP” tend not to do that; your choice.

I believe the default settings are determined by marketing folk who are more interested in selling cameras than in matching what they saw; your choice also.

Interesting.

I suppose you are saying that you are doing your post processing in camera. You can, of course, do the same thing in Lightroom where you blanket drop a neutral preset onto all of your images.