I can't really add anything that i haven't already said before. I find the argument of post processing vs not a silly one, and not something I really want to get into. Each have their pros and cons and that's that. I find the 'processing' curious in itself, because in my mind it feels difficult to avoid. For example, many SOOC shooters who loathe processing or feel they want to stick to taking the shot 'as is' and not deviate from realism runs into problems because the Jpg Engine in the camera is already post processing the shot, even if everything is turned off. And lenses make things quite different too in terms of colour, saturation, even stuff like vignetting (like shooting a FA ltd wide open, the native shot will provide strong (but pleasing) vignette that is not accurate at all to what the eye saw in real life. So it just feels like a rabbit hole and pointless debate.

What I find interesting is that in other groups people might be sharing their SOOCs without telling us, and they are holding their own against the edited version of their peers. This threads purpose is to provide a place from which it is a given that the image has seen minimal to none PP outside of what the camera can offer (either pre taking the shot or after). I for one am keen to see some images that appear to have visited some external software but in fact have not, just a case of clever settings used at the time and leaning on what the cameras in built effects can offer.

I found this page really enlightening and inspiring; Give further expression with PENTAX "Custom Image" | RICOH IMAGING

The examples given I think are really wonderful examples of how changing a few in camera settings can derive quite a different image altogether and feel very professional.

As someone who shoots RAW and also runs into buffer issues on professional jobs (such as the wedding party coming down the aisle), I appreciate that if you can manage a great Jpg SOOC then you also effectively turn your camera into quite a different beast as well, virtually resolving buffer issues completely! And of course, it's not as if Jpgs can not still be edited...

I don't disagree with most of what you've said. (I keep the "custom picture" thing set on "natural" all the time, and even that bothers me because it changes the saturation level even though it keeps the color balance accurately.) I, myself, do raw + JPEG, particularly with the K-1 where I can put the JPEG on one SD card and the raw data on the other. I figure that's not only a way to be able to touch a picture up in the best way if I want to, but redundancy for when one of the SD cards fails (notice I didn't say, "if"). By my lights, "development" of the raw data file using Adobe, Affinity, Silkypix or whatnot is the same as "straight-out-of-the-camera", unless one were to go wild increasing things like saturation and sharpness. I'm not sure if you'd say so, but I feel we're saying the same thing differently as to the criterion for admission.

I reckon it's my obsessive need for control. I don't want some programmer making my decisions for me about what my pictures ought to look like. I want the camera to record the light that's coming in through the lens. Period. I wish I had a Canon AE-1 with a digital sensor instead of film.

What bothers me is that the posts generally don't disclose what's been done, and unless you're looking at a "lens club" or that devoted to a particular body, you can't tell how the picture was taken, even. I like to know as much as I can about how the picture turned out the way it did, since I'm not one of the photographic illuminati and still trying to figure out how to capture the universal light in pixels.

---

Last edited by Unregistered User; 09-29-2019 at 02:45 PM.

[BruceBanner]

I don't disagree with most of what you've said. (I keep the "custom picture" thing set on "natural" all the time, and even that bothers me because it changes the saturation level even though it keeps the color balance accurately.) I, myself, do raw + JPEG, particularly with the K-1 where I can put the JPEG on one SD card and the raw data on the other. I figure that's not only a way to be able to touch a picture up in the best way if I want to, but redundancy for when one of the SD cards fails (notice I didn't say, "if"). By my lights, "development" of the raw data file using Adobe, Affinity, Silkypix or whatnot is the same as "straight-out-of-the-camera", unless one were to go wild increasing things like saturation and sharpness. I'm not sure if you'd say so, but I feel we're saying the same thing differently as to the criterion for admission.

I reckon it's my obsessive need for control. I don't want some programmer making my decisions for me about what my pictures ought to look like. I want the camera to record the light that's coming in through the lens. Period. I wish I had a Canon AE-1 with a digital sensor instead of film.

What bothers me is that the posts generally don't disclose what's been done, and unless you're looking at a "lens club" or that devoted to a particular body, you can't tell how the picture was taken, even. I like to know as much as I can about how the picture turned out the way it did, since I'm not one of the photographic illuminati and still trying to figure out how to capture the universal light in pixels.

All images shared digitally end up being Jpg, not many (if any?) site will accept and display a RAW file (such as DNG or PEF). Exporting an untouched RAW from LR vs say RawTherapee will also give different versions I believe as each program tends to interpret that RAW data differently. Personally I have no problems with someone shooting RAW and then using a RAW editor such as LR to export the file as a Jpg as long as absolutely no retouching was done except say spot/dust removal, ideally though I think it's simpler to have that RAW file get it's Jpg Preview extracted from it within the camera via Raw Development process, but I'm happy to have my mind changed. It's just that you can do a great many thing in modern cameras such as cropping and vignetting effects, I just think we need to draw a line of what can be done to 'fix' an image in external software and still consider the shot largely a SOOC. If we take the absolute purist angle and have no dust/spot removal then I think we might see some gorgeous landscape shots ruined otherwise from their stopped down apertures and strong skylines due to dust spots. That's just my take on it, it's unrealistic to expect shooters to having zero dust on the front and rear elements as well as sensor at all times, I think if the spirit of the exercise is captured then that is what really matters, and I opened up this thread to extend beyond Pentax brand as it's nice to see if other companies have more/different built-in camera processing features.

Some of the Pentax Facebook groups I am part of actually want camera settings shared, and if external lighting used, what kind and how etc. I have learned more from specific lighting groups such as Godox's facebook page as the images submitted often are accompanied by the settings, BTS (behind the scenes shots), lighting diagrams etc etc. Very thorough stuff that can really help people just starting out with studio work. Whenever I am in a group and see a shot and the information is not shared I simply ask and I typically always get a positive reply and the information I need

[robgski]

This one came out surprisingly well.

[Martin KP]

I'm still learning some of the terms used here but this one I know.

SOOC = Straight Out Of Camera.

I thought it might be that. Thanks.

Last holdouts on the walnut tree. K-1 w/DA 560mm. Cropped, exposure compensation = -0.5.

[BruceBanner]

[Cerebum]

To say as this is a place to post sooc photos, there are some very wordy responses really interesting points of view and I don't disagree with any of it. My personal slant is if someone says its sooc I take their word for it if however the thread then fills with clearly processed pics, i will be off

[K1N8]

Yes, SOOC, using the Multi-Exposure feature of the K-1.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

[BruceBanner]

To say as this is a place to post sooc photos, there are some very wordy responses really interesting points of view and I don't disagree with any of it. My personal slant is if someone says its sooc I take their word for it if however the thread then fills with clearly processed pics, i will be off

Perhaps I just have a lot of faith in Pentaxians but I think they are an honest bunch. I doubt we'll get that issue here, but I believe EXIF and other traits can tell us if the file has seen external software?

Yes, SOOC, using the Multi-Exposure feature of the K-1.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Clever and nicely done.

[K1N8]

Clever and nicely done.

People will say this is so easy to do with Photoshop, however, the difference is, you are out there not in front of the PC, looking at the world with a very different perspective. Everything turns into a texture, a shape, a outline.

In live view the K-1 even overlays the merged images while shooting, allowing you to position the elements as needed. It's such details in the UI that made me a very happy K-1 user.

Another one: 4 merged exposures. Note how the tree line is aligned with the monument, i could see it in live view and did not have to combine blindly.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

[aslyfox]

young lioness found in the Selous Game Reserve

completely SOOC

no crop or processing except by camera preset at all

[ personal definition of SOOC but the OP of the the thread sets the ruled of the thread, my photos posted here will meet my personal definition ]

[Cerebum]

Perhaps I just have a lot of faith in Pentaxians but I think they are an honest bunch. I doubt we'll get that issue here, but I believe EXIF and other traits can tell us if the file has seen external software .

I am with you on that pentaxians are the salt of the earth I am in a photographic society and they started one of those themed weekly challenges, where you shoot with that weeks theme in mind. Well, they went and made it competitive and before long it was flooded with portfolio pics. Yeah, I dont participate in that one any more lol

[BruceBanner]

People will say this is so easy to do with Photoshop, however, the difference is, you are out there not in front of the PC, looking at the world with a very different perspective. Everything turns into a texture, a shape, a outline.

In live view the K-1 even overlays the merged images while shooting, allowing you to position the elements as needed. It's such details in the UI that made me a very happy K-1 user.

Another one: 4 merged exposures. Note how the tree line is aligned with the monument, i could see it in live view and did not have to combine blindly.




This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Yeah, its good. It can take a bit of practice, and also you want to play with exposures between the two shots to get some really interesting stuff where it can at times almost feel like there was no double exposure, you just matched things really cleverly through low or high key stuff etc. I find I have to mentally 'switch on' my dbl exposure brain on, takes a different kind of thinking to my normal mode.

Still, I was blown away by some Canikony user who could do the double exposure shots in past tense, meaning take picture 1 and combine with picture 7 (instead of having to take it in real time like picture 1 & 2). Kinda feels a bit cheating tho lol

young lioness found in the Selous Game Reserve

completely SOOC

no crop or processing except by camera preset at all

[ personal definition of SOOC but the OP of the the thread sets the ruled of the thread, my photos posted here will meet my personal definition ]

I think we're on the same page mostly for a SOOC? My only exception would be for the treatment of dust spots which most cameras in body cannot treat. But if there is a strong defiance against that then I am cool to run with it. I just want those f8 architecture blue sky shots to look their best is all and wouldn't be upset if such a shot saw that assistance. I think as long as its mentioned that x is the only thing to be done to the image then it really still defines what has occurred mostly in the camera (and that's what matters).

----------

Here's one of my better SOOCs (absolutely 100% SOOC);



I get excited when I chimp the back of the screen and the shot looks this good (at the time), I know it has potential for an even better edit. This particular shot was helped out with some off camera flash and gels, the camera WB balance was deliberately set higher to 7000-9000k (to push the warmth of Autumn colours through) and the flash inside the 120cm softbox was gelled blue (to drive the skin tones back to being more normal fleshy toned rather than sickly yellowy from the deliberate WB adjustment. I think I could get it looking even a bit better now as at the time I produced this SOOC I didn't know the RAW Development tool in the K-1 as well as I do now.

I think we're on the same page mostly for a SOOC? My only exception would be for the treatment of dust spots which most cameras in body cannot treat. But if there is a strong defiance against that then I am cool to run with it.
...

I don't see a problem with fixing actual defects, such as dust spots; that's not the same as enhancing the picture artifically, by my lights.

[Cerebum]

Op said dust spots is fine, just no changes. The whole idea is that we start to nail it in camera certainly something I need to do more of