Post Processing
Jun 8, 2018 18:16:16 #
kfoo
Loc: Arkansas
I have nothing against post processing, but I would like to know if it was pp or sooc just to judge the picture.
Thank you,
L.Kiper
Thank you,
L.Kiper
Jun 8, 2018 18:30:05 #
"IF" the image was shot in raw it will (99% of the time) have experienced some level of Post Processing AKA Digital Dark Room
Jun 9, 2018 06:47:54 #
In the case of sooc files there are two possibilities.
1) It is a raw file which will typically be flat, soft and in need of some basic processing. Apart from that, raw files aren't as unprocessed as the name suggests. All raw files get some in-camera denoise and edge sharpening (and it probably varies depending on the manufacturer, but it almost certainly doesn't stop there).
2) It's in a format that's an attempt to offer a finished image (jpg for example), in which case the image has received extensive in-camera processing.
As you can see, it would be a mistake to refer to either of these sooc possibilities as "unprocessed". In the case of raw files, it would in most cases be a mistake to assume that it didn't need any further processing.
1) It is a raw file which will typically be flat, soft and in need of some basic processing. Apart from that, raw files aren't as unprocessed as the name suggests. All raw files get some in-camera denoise and edge sharpening (and it probably varies depending on the manufacturer, but it almost certainly doesn't stop there).
2) It's in a format that's an attempt to offer a finished image (jpg for example), in which case the image has received extensive in-camera processing.
As you can see, it would be a mistake to refer to either of these sooc possibilities as "unprocessed". In the case of raw files, it would in most cases be a mistake to assume that it didn't need any further processing.
Jun 9, 2018 08:05:52 #
Jun 9, 2018 10:02:06 #
kfoo wrote:
I have nothing against post processing, but I would like to know if it was pp or sooc just to judge the picture.
Thank you,
L.Kiper
Thank you,
L.Kiper
Why would it matter in your “judging” of a picture? Would you hold a sooc to a lower standard than one that was post processed?
Hugh
Jun 9, 2018 10:04:26 #
kfoo wrote:
I have nothing against post processing, but I would like to know if it was pp or sooc just to judge the picture.
Thank you,
L.Kiper
Thank you,
L.Kiper
Why? Photography is a form of art to be done to the artists tastes and to be judged by its appearance without anyone knowing anything other than it's framed and waiting for art lovers to enjoy.
If you are judging a contest that has rules, then of course, you need to know if that applies to the rules. Otherwise, what's to know? Does it look good to you or not....
Jun 9, 2018 16:54:08 #
Along with the "extensive in-camera processing" R.G. mentions re sooc jpg's, just think about exposure. You're photographing a brilliant sunset and half your composition is landscape in deep shadow. You might expose for the sky, maybe even under-expose, to be sure the colors are saturated to your liking. That leaves the landscape nearly black. How would the result look if you let the camera set the exposure in an overall-average metering mode? Washed-out sky and equally "middle gray" landscape, right? Which image is the "real" one? SOOC is a meaningless term.
Jun 9, 2018 22:13:28 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
Along with the "extensive in-camera processin... (show quote)
Good for you, Linda. Whenever I see the sooc, I think of what would people think of unprocessed film shots.
Jun 29, 2018 16:56:10 #
ab7rn:
It depends. Kodachrome 25 slides were the great equalizer. No PP, just skill. Have you ever seen AA's contact prints? They are, sooc, better than most people's PP shots. Camera skill is not meaningless and used to be as important as an "artist's eye". Apparently not anymore.
Linda:
I agree with you. With today's digital format, Lightroom and Photoshop sooc is meaningless. Even when you shoot Manual only the camera post possess your image. It used to be that we evaluated a photograph in two areas: Technical skill (exposure, sharpness, DOF, etc.) and artistic skill. We now can only assess a photograph by artist eye and PP skill. Do you feel we have somehow lost something in the transition to digital?
It depends. Kodachrome 25 slides were the great equalizer. No PP, just skill. Have you ever seen AA's contact prints? They are, sooc, better than most people's PP shots. Camera skill is not meaningless and used to be as important as an "artist's eye". Apparently not anymore.
Linda:
I agree with you. With today's digital format, Lightroom and Photoshop sooc is meaningless. Even when you shoot Manual only the camera post possess your image. It used to be that we evaluated a photograph in two areas: Technical skill (exposure, sharpness, DOF, etc.) and artistic skill. We now can only assess a photograph by artist eye and PP skill. Do you feel we have somehow lost something in the transition to digital?
Jun 30, 2018 20:58:41 #
I agree with you on transparency, but how often did you wish for a chance to rescue a slide? Back in those days I had a Kodak Color Print Processor and had a limited ability to adjust color prints, but it was an expensive process compared to B & W. Nowdays my prints are mostly color, but I still like black and white very much.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.