alandg46 Loc: Boerne, Texas

With film, I ALWAYS used custom printing and often custom processing. Not doing so is ignoring the capabilities of camera, lens, film, or sensor.

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

Very good rant G Brown, every single statement you made was absolutely spot on. I expect that people who consider their SOOC photographs good enough either, can't use any PP software or can't be bothered.
I know when I clean and polish my car it looks much better it's always worth the effort, it's the same with post processing, any PP work done to an image can always improve the image slightly or by a lot more.
In my opinion the beauty of using a digital camera is the amount of enjoyment I get from manipulation of my photographs, sometimes the improvements can be really worthwhile to a greater or lesser degree.
The photographs I take with my cameras are all put through some sort of PP sometimes a single click is enough, on the other hand I can spend several minutes or more to achieve the result I want.
The software I use has a before and after button which can really show how good (or bad) they have been improved.

MTG44 Loc: Corryton, Tennessee

Feel better now.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

The Holy Grail of straight-out-of-camera perfection is highly overrated.

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Those who say they do not process their images and get it SOOC should remember the Camera is a computer with processing software built in, They might not process anything but the images are processed

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Excellent Post.

LaoXiang

What I find, is that some folks seem to care more about their egos than their results.

I have had people brag that they only use SOOC, and seemed to really believe that that made them “better” or “more honest.”

I do understand the idea that using exposure, aperture, ISO, and setting up a good shot is important. I also understand that for some applications (crime scenes, newswire services) absolutely unedited images are important.

A lot depends on what is happening, and how fast. A reporter who is covering breaking news might not have time to completely readjust his/her camera if something happens with the light at his back,. and then something else happens 180 degrees away—the photographer would be forced to shoot right into the light or miss the action. If s/he stopped to adjust his/her camera, the moment would be gone, the action over, and the reason for a photograph nonexistent.

In that case, I would expect the photographer to use auto ISO and fixed speed/auto aperture—or maybe even full auto—to always be ready to capture the action.

For everyone else, it is a valid choice ... but to me it says that person (except in those cases) is more interested in showing off his/her skill than in producing excellent images.

I shoot to provide the best possible finished image for whoever might look at it. The person looking at the picture could not care less if I or how much I processed to photo—just as in back in the day, when developers did post-processing, no one cared if the tech adjusted the timing to correct over- or under-exposure.

Really, the only “SOOC” photos are Polaroids. Everything else, decisions have been made on how to convert the captured image into a viewable format.

I sometimes capture an image so well (even a blind pig, etc.) that I really don’t need to do anything to it. Part of that is luck, part is learning, and part is just happening to have the perfect external conditions. The rest of the time, I can make the final, finished product look better in post-processing. No one else cares about anything but the finished image, and that is also what I care about, so I make adjustments.

Not saying Everyone, but pretty much every single person I have heard claim that s/he “only uses SOOC images” said it with a sense of superiority.

In a field where Everything is subjective ... there really is not “right image” anyway. People like what they like, so an SOOC picture cannot be “better” or “worse” than a more processed picture. Therefore, I have to think the emphasis on “SOOC” (except where required, as mentioned above, for legal or historical reasons) is entirely a person’s opinion of him or herself, having nothing to do with the actual pictures produced.

It’s kind of funny. I don’t know much history, but as I recall, when photography was introduced it was denied status as an “Art” because it could only record, not express. Now we have people who feel superior because they only record.

Each to his own taste, is what it comes down to, in my opinion.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

[quote=G Brown]I do not believe in fairies!


Can you please get off your self delusional bandwagon!!! You cannot justify that statement in any shape or form.

You may not use Photoshop or Lightroom etc at all. I'm OK with that!
You may be so altruistic that you prefer to keep your images SOOC pristine. Fine!
Your life may even be too short to spend 'hours' at your computer. OK...sorry.
However you personally choose to handle the bit between taking the image and getting a picture is entirely your choice BUT YOU USE SOFTWARE.

This is good and to the point. Like those who say only fast primes 35-50 are all that should ever be used to get real photographs and condemn zooms as inferior waste of time.
I believe in PP software like you. It is no different than what was formerly done in the darkroom. If I remember right Ansel Adams did a lot of manipulating in the darkroom and yet he was considered a great photographer. BTW greater by far than anyone here on this forum.
So thank you for the PP post here, it is a great tool and from a rank amateur in using PP.

dreamon

Plainly, there's no such thing as an unprocessed digital image...

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

seems like there are a lot of photographers that stay inside the box and compose the photograph in the view finder. They trust settings for exposure suggested by the camera. I prefer to use the image in my camera as a palette which I use to create my final image. Not cropping, resizing, enhancing is not going to give the best photograph.

leftj Loc: Texas

I'm not sure what your point is. I agree all the automation in our cameras today is great but are you saying that is as far as it goes for you and that once your photos come out of your camera you don't do any kind of post processing? Whether you do or don't is not an issue with me, just want to understand what your saying.

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I don't have to process because I shoot RAW.

leftj Loc: Texas

????????????

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

I was kidding! Seriously, it's important to understand how RAW works. When I first got a camera that could shoot RAW (D3100), I read that RAW is better than JPEG so I started shooting both. I did side-by-side comparisons and they were identical! A few months later I learned that they were identical because a RAW file cannot be viewed and what I was viewing was the same embedded JPEG file. Doh!