What SOOC proponents don't seem to understand (Page 2): Just a few days ago I was at a "class" for senior citizens like myself. I have been considering offering a basic "camera" class...

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Just a few days ago I was at a "class" for senior citizens like myself. I have been considering offering a basic "camera" class (not "photography") so I asked the 20 or so people in attendance to stay a few minutes after the class if they wanted to tell me their ideas of IF I should offer one and if so, WHAT should be in it. Nobody stayed. However as we were all leaving the wife of the founder of the "elder college" said: "Don't you think the average person just wants a fully automatic camera anyhow?". That's not an exact quote but the key words in my version are hers. I responded that since the vast majority of pictures posted on the internet were taken with an iPhone she must be right.

Why is this relevant? Because SOOC is all they want. The founder himself said that he'd had someone show him a bit about getting better pictures but he couldn't be bothered to remember it all, he just wants to press the shutter. They use a low-end but good quality camera, a few years old and have no idea that there might be settings to change how the picture will look.

They print all their travel pictures (and there are a LOT) on 4 x 6 from a commercial high volume service.

I would be very surprised if folks like that would ever even look a a photography forum. So we proponents of doing a bit more - or a lot more - with photography are wasting our efforts on the SOOC's. Sorry, but that's how it is.

BebuLamar

SOOC can be just as good as an image that has been post processed under certain conditions. The subject dynamic range must be quite flat so there no need to bring up the shadow or bring down the highlight. The color temperature of the light the same through out so there no need to do any partial white balance. And all the settings must be right on.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Genessi wrote:

I like your photo very much Kymarto. Love the angle! I usually show pic's here SOOC because I don't have any PP programs besides photos. I shot my first photos Raw yesterday of these Owls and look forward to purchasing a PP app. When I started doing photography I thought that A good photo was suppose to be SOOC, and that PP was cheating or fudging..I was wrong! Eager to try making my photos pop.

I guess one of the cloudy issues here is the fact that "post processing" is such a general term. Anything done after the image comes out of the camera, so to speak, is called post processing, and that covers everything from slight adjustments to color or brightness, to adding strong textures or gaudy filter effects to the original image to completely changing the image using clone tools or adding pieces of one image to another. I personally am not partial to huge manipulations of the image, and I think many "SOOC purists" are thinking more along those lines as well. But them everyone has their own personal preferences, and I agree that no one should tell another how their images should be done. My apologies if I sounded like I was trying to set some sort of arbitrary standard as to how photographs should be treated, in fact I was arguing against setting an arbitrary standard, that which says that only an image that is untouched after coming out of the camera is a true photograph.

BebuLamar

kymarto wrote:

I guess one of the cloudy issues here is the fact ... (show quote)

If they insist that the image must be untouched after it came out of the camera then we didn't have photography for a long time. Back in the old days someone had to process the film after it came out of the camera.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

AZ Dog wrote:

I believe your SOOC image is lacking to begin with.

I think the argument starts with image 1 and ends with image 3. Image one does not have anything blown out. Even the clouds retain some details. This is pretty much a perfect exposure, in the sense that all the components were captured in order to create a good looking shot. This is an example of why post processing is a necessary skill. The jpg would either be blown out in important areas, or dark, as this one is. There is no way this scene could be "properly" captured with no intent on post processing.

Image 3 fully exploits what was captured, and clearly without a ton of work or time spent on the image. It clearly shows what Kymarto "saw" when he took it, or more appropriately what he wanted us to see.

The comparison is not all that different in concept from this:

http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm

There are those who, for whatever reason, will view the camera as a means of recording reality. And there is certainly a number of disciplines where this is important - photojournalism, reportage, forensics, etc. For this group nothing but SOOC will do. But there are others who view the camera as a creative tool, and view a raw file as an opportunity to express their creativity.

One is not necessarily "better" than the other. But I much prefer the creative approach to the "documentarian" approach. There is more "luck" involved in capturing a moment using SOOC, and there are far more limitations, particularly with regards to subjects of high contrast etc, than there are when you approach photography as a creative medium. Just sayin'

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

If some people are completely satisfied with their SOOC images, then why rain on their parade? Let them do it their way. Ultimately, photography is about artistic expression, not about strict adherence to methodology.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

kymarto wrote:

In what way? Should I have exposed for the people and had the sky blown out into white?

Fill flash maybe? :)

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

I really enjoy your photography and respect your opinion, but that doesn't mean I always agree. This sounds more like a raw versus jpeg argument. Your example in my opinion is a poor choice. You exposed correctly for the high lights but should have pushed even further if you wanted to bring the shadows up as you did in the 3rd example. You reached so far this has an HDR look to it. This may be the look your going for, which is Fine, but not a Good example of your argument, that shooting Raw is the correct way to shoot. I post many SOOC photos here on the hogg. I'm not an advocate just choose to present my wildlife in this manner. It's a choice I'm comfortable with. I also PP the crap out of wildlife shots as well, again it's a choice.

repleo Loc: Boston

I typically shoot in RAW+JPEG but rarely even look at the JPEGs except for browsing in File Manager. I PP nearly all of my worthwhile shots to some degree and feel that that is a fundamental part of the creative process, not just a 'fix'. At first, I was very sceptical of RAW because they never looked better than the corresponding JPEG, but once I realized the creative potential of PP I was hooked. I am still at a pretty fundamental level at PP and have a tendancy to 'overcook', but I consider PP to be part and parcel of the whole photography process. To equate it with cooking, taking the shot is like collecting the ingredients. You pick your ingredients, look for the best quality and prepare them properly, but its how you bring those ingredients together that makes the dish. The better the ingredients, the better the dish.

Jim Bob

kymarto wrote:

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?

I am totally puzzled by the many people here who a... (show quote)

Reasonable people can disagree on the importance or necessity of post processing. I find it useful. However, there is something to be said for nailing the image in camera.

Jim Bob

rook2c4 wrote:

If some people are completely satisfied with their SOOC images, then why rain on their parade? Let them do it their way. Ultimately, photography is about artistic expression, not about strict adherence to methodology.

Exactly. Too many sanctimonious bastards inhabit this site.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Jim Bob wrote:

Exactly. Too many sanctimonious bastards inhabit this site.

This might provide some insight into the sanctimony:

https://photographylife.com/construction-of-a-photograph-the-process-of-visualization/

It's actually a good read . . .

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Genessi wrote:

I like your photo very much Kymarto. Love the angle! I usually show pic's here SOOC because I don't have any PP programs besides photos. I shot my first photos Raw yesterday of these Owls and look forward to purchasing a PP app. When I started doing photography I thought that A good photo was suppose to be SOOC, and that PP was cheating or fudging..I was wrong! Eager to try making my photos pop.

I don't know what camera you have but no matter what brand or model, it should have come with a basic program for PP. I suggest you play around with it and see what it will do. It may be all you need but it also might show you what can be done and give you an idea of what limitations it has. From that point you can have a better idea of what you might look for in a more advanced program.

Walt

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

kymarto wrote:

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?

I am totally puzzled by the many people here who a... (show quote)

Most discussions I've seen on UHH on this subject end up devolving into an argument over the merits of SOOC compared to PP but I see your thread as a demonstration of the possibility of what can be done and not an argument of this is what you should do. (An excellent demonstration by the way). The first time I ever shot in Raw and did my own PP I was pretty blown away on the possibilities. I've never shot in jpeg since. That's not to say I've never taken a bad shot. Heck, I'm just an amateur, I blow a lot of shots but from time to time I can turn some into acceptable images. I have grandkids that range in age from less than 2 yr old twin grandsons to 13 year old twin grand daughters. Inevitably the grandsons will have food or boogers on their faces and the teen girls have some acne and hate to have their photos taken because of that but I can work on that stuff in post to eliminate it or at least reduce the effects. In later years I'm betting the teenagers will appreciate it and the boys mom and dad will have better memories of their darlings.

Walt

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Jim Bob wrote:

Exactly. Too many sanctimonious bastards inhabit this site.

Nooo! Ya think? They're not sanctimonious, they just know better than the rest of us idiots and see it as their duty and their right to educate u... oh gee, your correct, they are sanctimonious.