So Toby, what your are saying is that PP is a must and not an option, that we go out and spend all this money on these DSLRs that are incapable of taking good pictures SOOC, WOW. Can you imagine if back in the film days we had to PP our every shot that we took because it wasn't good enough, thank GOD for Ansel Adams for saving the day, what would we have done with out him! The thing is that we never saw his SOOC shots, which I am sure were crap, or were they, otherwise he would not PP'd them, give us a break. You never see us SOOC proponents start something like this, it's
guys like you that wear that I PP label like a badge of honor, I PP, so I must be a photographer mentality.
Just relax and let everyone do what they want.

The SOOC preference is held predominantly by those shooting film or JPEG files, as is, by definition, not practiced by those preferring capture of raw image data.

JPEG and Raw Image Data are, in fact, Different and Distinct Digital Imaging Media

The basis of proper exposure for photosensitive emulsions and for the 8bit-depth JPEG image file (both of which have a predicated dynamic range) is to expose a given subject value such that it will be rendered as a desired value in the resultant image.

The basis of proper exposure of raw image data is to expose for the brightest image possible without clipping highlight detail, but coming as close to clipping as possible without actually doing so.

Producing the brightest image possible requires using the entire available dynamic range to assure that the brightest value in the histogram is filled with protons to the point of, but not past the point of saturation. With that accomplished, all other brightness values captured throughout the histogram all the way to the darkest details will have received the greatest possible exposure (given their relative positions in the histogram of the maximally exposed image) and thus will render the tonal and chromatic benefits determined by the image file's bit-depth.

The benefits of use of the entire dynamic range are:
* no clipped highlight detail,
* highest possible image data quality - Signal-to-Noise ratio (S:N),
*highest possible tonal and chromatic spectra providing the greatest possible number of cusps of detail with consequent highest possible image resolution,
* absolute assurance of accomplishment of the intended pre-visualized image, and
* assurance of the greatest possible spectrum of creative/artistic interpretative versions ranging from high-key to low-key and all intervening possibilities.

The single reason that many photographers fail to use the entire available raw-accessible dynamic range is that the camera manufacturers refuse (1.) to document the DR of each camera sold and (2.) to provide an in-camera live raw histogram. Why? Both would presumably increase the per-unit production costs resulting in a (more) prohibitive MSRP. The purchaser thus tends to rely upon the DR algorithmically defined for a JPEG image file (reflected in the width of the JPEG-adjusted histogram frame and clipping warning. Other than admitting to a bit of DR "headroom" possibly permitting some recovery of clipped highlights, the manufacturers simply refuse to acknowledge the one stop to two and 2/3 stops (or more) of DR extant beyond the right side of the JPEG histogram frame.

The reasons aside, it should be obvious that we are dealing with two different and distinct digital imaging media. One, the JPEG image file, recapitulates the basic premises and requirements of 19th century exposure techniques for photosensitive emulsions of defined dynamic range. The other, raw image data capture, for which each camera determines the amount of raw-accessible DR that must be individually determined. Once discovered, the full, raw-accessible DR permits, thanks to significantly higher data file bit-depths, the capture of far more broadly interpretable -creatively and artistically - image data than ever permitted by the limited tonal spectrum of the tightly constrained eight bit-depth JPEG image file.

Thus, we have two distinctly different digital imaging media: optimally exposed differently, and with significantly different interpretive potentialities.

Vive la différence!

Dave

Hi Dave,
I totally agree with this, but want to add one important point: We can only shoot to the edge of clipped highlights when we have the time to measure those highlights and they are not changing. In the real world, when shooting moving objects in time-critical situations, that is not practical. Therefore for some of us, the point is to have the headroom available that will save the majority of our shots. The trade off is a bit more noise but saving a whole bunch of good images that make editors happy, pay some bills and get us rehired. I honestly could care less if I add a stop's worth of noise to an image, especially if it saves the detail in some VIP's white shirt or dress.

I am totally puzzled by the many people here who are proud of never doing any post processing of their images. They hold up "straight out of camera" as a badge of honor, as though this somehow indicates their excellence as photographers.

I see it quite differently. For me, excellent photographers, or at least good photographic technicians, are those who can turn out an image that most clearly achieves the vision of the person who made it, and which uses the technology available to maximize its presentation.

SOOC is like a stock car. if you keep your stock car tuned and serviced, you can certainly win a race against a similar car that has been neglected and is not firing on all cylinders, but you will never stand a chance against a similar car in which engine, transmission, drive train, suspension, wheels and tires have been modified or replaced with the most technologically advanced custom components, carefully considered and installed.

Today at work we had a little informal basketball game, and I took some pix. It's a pretty high contrast situation, and I was careful to find the best possible exposure. I shot in raw, of course, because I knew that I wanted the maximum potential to play with afterward.

Image #1 is a jpg created automatically from the raw (by Adobe Camera Raw). It's pretty similar to what I would get with a neutral setting in the camera (Nikon D800E). That's about the best you could hope for SOOC.

Image #2 is my personal choice of how I wanted the image to look. I wanted more saturation in the sky and some detail in the darker parts of the image. You may think it overcooked, and maybe you personally would have kept a bit more of the contrast between dark and light. Well, of course it would have been easy to back off a little. That's the beauty of post: YOU get to choose how you want the image to look--you are not at the mercy of the camera's algorithms.

Image #3 is pushed even further than #2. I include it to show just how much latitude one has working with a raw. In fact I could have pushed it even further, but this situation is not particularly high contrast and so it is not needed--but a couple more stops of dynamic range are waiting in the wings to be called upon if necessary.

I'm not saying here that one should not try to achieve the best exposure possible when taking the image--the better the exposure, the more latitude one has later for correction and fine tuning, but within a stop (or even two) either way, a very presentable image can be made, even in a fairly high contrast situation like this one.

Any by the way, such corrections take at most a couple of minutes. Open the image in an editor, make adjustments to three or four parameters, and save. Typically takes me about 30 seconds.

Discussion?

Hi, Toby,
I understand your point completely.
In fact, my two cameras that get most use each have one and 2/3 stops of extra raw-accessible DR (ERADR) that hold fast from ISO 100 through ISO 400 which covers the great majority of my needs. I'm really not anal about it, so I use that last 1/3 stop as cushion and thus can explicitly rely on the remaining one and 1/3 stops to guarantee-damn-tee no clipping! It makes life incredibly easy while allowing me to reap the benefits of that extra one and 1/3 stop...that often embraces at least 75% if not more of the entire image file! IMO that made the small amount of time initially spent determining the ERADR of each camera well worth the effort.

Here's an example of the difference that using just one brighter stop of exposure can make in doubling the tonal spectrum of the capture with the consequent doubling of cusps of detail, in turn resulting in increased definition/resolution of deep shadow detail...which obviously has great impact on permitting increased print size (which, in the end can let the most persnickety pixel peeper to put off pronouncing on his standard preferred complaints until getting much closer than normal viewing distance (NVD) ). Please examine the download.

There is no question that increased tonal spectrum is of no particular benefit in the brighter end of the histogram, but it certainly pays off in the somber end!

Best Regards,
Dave