Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Internet troll with bupkis.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

My reference was not to the 'scene' modes. Rather, the reference was to the jpg processing rules that you individually select in-camera.

Nikon dslrs, for example, have a set of selections in the Shooting Menu for "Set Picture Control" where you select how jpgs will be processed. The choices are Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Monochrome, and Landscape. Under each one of those you get to adjust Sharpening, Contrast, Brightness, Saturation, and Hue. Add to that, separate controls for White Balance, Color Space, ActiveD-Lighting, Vignette Control, and more. All of these settings apply to the creation of jpgs but have NO EFFECT on the captured raw image but, as explained in my original post, they can be set/adjusted and applied to the raw file using the Nikon Capture NX-D software AFTER the picture is captured-- and can be changed and readjusted without altering the original raw file. In other words, it's like you were able to shoot a jpg in-camera and the camera created separate jpgs for every possible combination of settings available in the camera.

My suspicion is that many (most?) SOOC purists don't understand how their camera works or have ever changed any of the camera's internal jpg processing rules - nevertheless, they enthusiastically condemn shooting in raw.
I find that hilariously ironic.

controversy Loc: Wuhan, China

ALL photographs are post-processed - either in or out of camera.

Nikon dslrs, for example, have a set of selections in the Shooting Menu for "Set Picture Control" where you select how jpgs will be processed in the camera. The choices are Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Monochrome, and Landscape. Under each one of those you get to adjust Sharpening, Contrast, Brightness, Saturation, and Hue. Add to that, separate controls for White Balance, Color Space, ActiveD-Lighting, Vignette Control, and more. All of these settings apply to the creation of jpgs but have NO EFFECT on the captured raw image but, as explained in my original post, they can be set/adjusted and applied to the raw file using the Nikon Capture NX-D software AFTER the picture is captured-- and can be changed and readjusted without altering the original raw file. In other words, it's like you were able to shoot a jpg in-camera and the camera created separate jpgs for every possible combination of settings available in the camera.

My suspicion is that many (most?) SOOC purists don't understand how their camera works or have ever changed any of the camera's internal jpg processing rules - nevertheless, they enthusiastically condemn shooting in raw.
I find that hilariously ironic.

DAN Phillips Loc: Graysville, GA

And if BS was pennies, we'd all be billionaires.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Just what I was thinking.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

No photography is "real". Cameras don't automatically produce exact reproductions of what your eye saw. Post processing can be used to make images look MORE like your eye saw the scene than what comes out of the camera. Forensic photography, like documentary or photojournnalism, are special cases where the photos must be as much like "reality" as possible. Even then, the photographer can be dishonest just in the way the photo is composed and timed, and what is included in the shot and what isn't. Artistic photography has no obligation at all to reflect "reality". Do you ask if paintings are "real"?

David Taylor

I said it was a crutch for the majority. Do you understand that not everyone is in the majority? I use it when I want to, not as much as many, but regularly for sure.

srt101fan

David Taylor

I've been here longer than you.

David Taylor

That's your allowance of capital letters all used up for today.

srt101fan

Oh, got it, you use RAW properly but it's "a crutch for the majority"!

Stop spying on the "majority", it's not nice ....

David Taylor

Thinking. Lol. Sheep following the crowd.

David Taylor

Spying? What do you mean?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Meaningless trolling.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You're using a digital camera: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-598415-1.html#10275516

All digital photos are post processed as has already been noted. A final SOOC JPEG is heavily processed. Film images were post processed and often departed from reality: https://abcnews.go.com/International/photos/pharrell-cover-controversial-magazine-covers-16328228/image-16328306
Whether the photo is faithful to reality or not is entirely a function of the operator and has little to do with how the photo is processed. Relying on SOOC JPEGs to ensure reality in a photo is foolish. Which of the two photos below depicts the reality of the scene. They are both SOOC JPEGs of the same scene at the same time taken at the same exposure. So they both show the same reality? Why are they so different if not for post processing applied in the camera? Why is the color different I didn't change the camera WB? What really is the color of that fish candle holder? How is that not post-processing done in the camera?

You seem to be objecting to the option post processing presents to add or remove items from a photo. That also has been with us since the earliest days of film: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/302289

That is entirely an operator choice and not the result of the processing method. News organizations require SOOC JPEGs because they want to protect themselves from disreputable actors and although SOOC JPEGs won't prevent something like the OJ photo from happening it will at least prevent object addition/removal. It won't however prevent staging: https://historydaily.org/alexander-gardner-civil-war-fake-news

I use post processing of raw files in order to be more faithful to reality than the camera software can creating a JPEG. That's also an option. If you really want to capture the reality of how the scene appeared, post processing a raw file allows you to do that far better than accepting the post processed SOOC JPEG.

(Download)


(Download)