larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Ysarex...Your mistake, and the point showing that you don't understand the argument or the discussion is setting in-camera noise reduction to "Normal" in this case. Doing so further indicates that you dont understand how to properly utilize the tools available to you. Try again with "High ISO Noise Reduction" turned on. Then you may want to make a third try using a shutter speed that is less 'problematic.' That might get you into an area where ISO is less of a challenge. Or you might invest in a flash or turn a light on.

The point is that there are likely multiple ways to accomplish this shot without mandating a bunch of post processing. On the other hand, if none of those approaches work, then have at it with the software.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Maybe that's the difference between an artist and a photographer. An artist, in this case, is a computer graphics fiddler. A photographer is an expert camera user! So there!

elee950021 Loc: New York, NY

Architect1776!

In my opinion, whatever image you get as a result of whatever camera settings you made, whether the results are good or bad, in whatever file type: raw, jpeg, or tiff as determined by the OEM camera's processing engine is SOOC. What you see on your rear screen is an embedded jpeg image that comes with all raw images.

Raw images must be viewed or edited in a raw viewer. Period! Even different raw viewers can provide differing colors. So pick your choice of poison!

Be well!

Ed

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You've got to be kidding -- seriously!? Setting noise reduction to high turns the entire photo into a smear -- see below. The loss of detail is entirely unacceptable and the SOOC JPEG is wastebasket rubbish. I want reasonable noise filtering with the detail retained. I can have that but not if I shoot SOOC in this case. That's the point.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

This might help

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-426-1.html

Canisdirus

Shot in raw...saved as raw.

Opened as raw in Irfanview...saved as raw to desktop...posted here.

I'm not sure how much more sooc it can be.

Heh...I cannot post the image...just the link.

Hang on... if you don't see it...I was obviously unsuccessful.
I get the link...but it just directs to my desktop.

therwol Loc: USA

SOOC to means I'm lazy, shoot jpegs and don't have time to to post process all of my pictures. It isn't a badge of honor. It also means don't tell me how to improve my images. I already know how.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Raw is just data.

User ID

Such a sorry assed difference, but theres no denying that too many photographers are just artless practitioners of the trade.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It can be SOOC -- Straight Out of the Camera -- no desktop and no Irfanview.

I don't know or use Irfanview but as a viewer it probably just shows you the embedded JPEG in a raw file and likely it can extract that.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The discussion has deteriorated quite a bit, so this will be my final comment. But one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is that different cameras, even from the same manufacturer, have very different capabilities in terms. Adjustability of either my D850 or my D500 is drastically more than that of my D300. It, in turn, offered more adjustability than my D200. And my wife's D40x offers essentially no manual adjustability. (It does have a few "scene modes.") I think those differences may drive quite a bit of the conflict any time this discussion comes up.

I'll also say that the initial depictions in LightRoom on many of my raw images are quite attractive before any adjustments are made...even when not using camera settings as starting points. I don't use canned presets, but my guess is that there are numerous cases where opening groups of images with a judiciously chosen preset would immediately create very nice results. Where on the processing scale would you say that falls?

The notion that raw images must start life as unusable mishmashes is an artificial construct...not an inalienable truth. ETTR or EBTR or other approaches can change that some, but those are photographer's choice, not an unavoidable reality. They are, in fact, specific applications of preprocessing.

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

LOL -

DanielB Loc: San Diego, Ca

Totally agree. No way I'd ever use in camera noise reduction. Further more this SOOC argument is redundant and ridiculous. Even the great Ansel Adams processed his images.

EastWest

Think of "in camera" presets as diferent films or developing processes. If you’re going for broad nature landscapes you might use Kodachrome 64 or 25. For indoor portraiture you might chose Vericolor 100. While traveling I often shot on 5245 motion picture film because I could make processing choices... is that SOOC?

I don't use photoshop because I don't know it well but I love lightroom because it allows me to do what I used to do in the darkroom. Bottom line for me is a finished product that is pleasing to my eye. Purism is just another form of extremism. A picture tells a story... but the story shouldn't be about the photographer shooting with one hand tied behind his back.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Every digital IMAGE is processed after exposure. The question is, does the processing occur in camera, based on the exposure, white balance, and other menu control settings of the JPEG engine, OR, do you process the raw data on your computer? Both are valid workflow choices. One is not necessarily better than the other until you define what "better" means, which is circumstance-dependent.

Better can mean "more immediately usable," or "lower cost," or "better control," or "maximum technical image quality," or any number of characteristics. SOOC JPEGs depend on camera settings. Post-processed images from raw files depend on camera settings AND software manipulation.

Photography is rife with "rules" that instructors often require students to follow in class. While they may be useful pedagogy, they may also limit creative processes. True professionals and true artists alike, know when useful learning tools become restrictive BS.

Personally, I don't care how photographers make their images. Are they compelling? Do they "say" something to me? Do they catch my eye? Do they teach me something or make some primal statement? Yes? Then I don't care what methods led to success. If it isn't illegal, immoral, unethical, or fattening, let it rip!