Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Another thought occurred to me:

I grew up in my father's darkroom.
But I had friends whose photography was strictly "SOOC" in that they took their film to the pharmacy of their choice for "developing and prints". The decision as to which pharmacy to deliver their film for processing constituted their "pp decisions".

Dave

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

As Toby's simple statement has exploded to thirteen pages of argument and opinion, I like very much the idea that a single raw file contains a universe of unrealized images - LOL, how on earth can one be satisfied with the first neutral one presented?

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Sometimes after I have tweaked a photo in PP extensively, I will take the original background and place it on top of the stack and lower its opacity a little to soften and restore the overall look a little. Just to keep it real.

The possibilities are endless.

pfrancke Loc: cold Maine

YES! It is crazy how a series of changes (each one an improvement to the eye), can somehow cumulatively ruin the goodness that was present in the original. When taking a stroll in the jungle, it is wise to know where you started.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Yes, that's a great way to put what I tried to mention earlier. SOOC is a fairly late step in the process like the negative being already fixed and dried, while RAW lets you work all the way back with original exposure and forward to the final print, all in one coherent step. (That's pretty amazing to those who spent a lot of time with film, paper, and chemicals.) Then there is the bonus of greatly increased latitude and sensitivity. Even more, the technology of sensors, computers, and software continues to improve while film and cameras were essentially maxed out for decades. The real limitation today being skinware, as I am the first to admit.

To the self-appointed coroners, the horse may be dead, but so is Mr. Adams, meaning not all things posthumous are necessarily buried. Does anyone else notice the irony in criticizing other members for offering comments on older topics still of obvious interest to many, while then turning around and adding one of their own on the same thread? I did not come up with the SOOC or RAW camps. I also admit that spent far more time in the darkroom than with computer graphics. Accurate comparisons between the two media of film and digital, especially since the two types of cameras look and feel amazingly similar, may be useful to some experienced film types here new to digital for reasons of time, funds, etc. who may not have realized that working with RAW is like being able to clone an undeveloped film exposure and develop it over and over and then print it in the same step. I never heard it put in that way, so I thought some may find it useful. The original post goes into specific reasons with fine examples why this is so valuable--my two cents are a broader take on it that just might help someone old to film and did not have time to get into digital and who may not have a grasp on the data processing involved. I have even heard that some of the old film lenses may work with new cameras. I wonder if older tripods do, too, or is that another dead topic? Some things may be old hat to those who know it all, but not to all members. Some of us have a lot to learn and are grateful to see this and other topics raised by true experts like the guy who started this one, even if we are too stupid to know the difference between a living and dead animal.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Sorry, Retina,, I missed your well-stated earlier post or would have referred to it.
We obviously are on the same page!

Dave

Bunkershot Loc: Central Florida

Amen!

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I do believe that you can process photos as needed for the PSA wildlife category; just no adding or subtracting of anything in the photo. I think they have recently "softened" their rules on this.