SOOC (Page 8): Yes.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

lmTrying wrote:

In all this bragging and chest pounding, has anybody ever considered that a person stating that their photo is SOOC is simply saying that what they posted the image they downloaded from the camera without running it through a post processing program.

Yes.

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

lmTrying wrote:

In all this bragging and chest pounding, has anybody ever considered that a person stating that their photo is SOOC is simply saying that what they posted the image they downloaded from the camera without running it through a post processing program.

And why say anything, some people will see them as bragging as in "I'm good enough that I can produce a great image without further work on it" or they will see it as an excuse for why the image isn't as good as it good be. "I'm sorry, but this image is SOOC and I wasn't able to do additional work on it" So why say anything and just let the image stand on its own four corners.

OldSchool-WI Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919

RodeoMan wrote:

Sometimes, as you know, it is good just to enjoy ... (show quote)

_______________________(reply)
Thank you. That was kind. As for the FoveonX3 and its abilities,--the best example is the Rocky Nook coffee table book "Our World Tour" by German photographer Mario Dirks. (Although a bit--"Nat-Geog" like with possibly too much drama?) it took a year to circumnavigate and each photo lists the basic exposure specs and lens mm-s.

Our family recorded our personal pictures using Polaroid--until the Land company discontinued the film. (Camera Polaroid 110A, a real camera and the best ever made by Polaroid.) Without it, we would have far fewer memories. My walk around camera now is either my SonyDS828 or Olympic Pen3. Both ready to go cameras with enough megaPs for what I need. And Merry Christmas to you and everybody on UHH.-----------Eric

User ID

DanielB wrote:

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.

The great who ?

User ID

Architect1776 wrote:

The primary question was why do some wear SOOC as a badge of superiority over those who do PP etc?
They seem to have a need to advertise it vs just presenting the photo on it's own merits.
Does saying SOOC make it superior in some way, it seems to in the posters mind.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

User ID

burkphoto wrote:

No. It’s not necessarily superior or inferior. It’s not a sign of better skills or worse skills. It’s just someone’s use case. Use what you think is the right tool for right now.

Can we do better? Always. Do we need to? It depends…

It’s like language. I can have the best grammar, spelling, structure, and syntax, but if I don’t have something worthwhile to say, it just doesn’t matter.

The mind is an awesome thing to ignore.

User ID

burkphoto wrote:

Yes it does seem to for them. If they need to feel that way, fine, but it doesn't make the image any better! The image just IS. It is whatever the photographer makes it to be. Good images can be made with any camera or process. So can bad ones.

Mega oui, oui ! Que sera sera ...

User ID

Chopper Bill wrote:

Dear Retired CPO, it seems obvious that you yourself are a "graphics fiddler". If you had mastered the art of post processing, you would understand the value of polishing your work. That missing, I can only conclude that you are not an expert camera user either. So there.

Youve viewed his archives ? Even tho the content and style do not really excite me, the execution shows sufficient expertise in camera use and in PP. Acoarst Im only assuming PP is involved cuz Im assuming hes a mainstream type of practitioner, and that implies a normal(?) amount of PP was applied.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Architect1776 wrote:

Can one post SOOC if only shot in raw?
I have to convert to JPEG which involves some modification.
Also does a JPEG SOOC have various preset processes or styles applied by the camera that otherwise would be done in post?

In other words what is SOOC?

Well, I'm late to the party. So late that this post will probably not be seen. However, it's on the internet so I. MUST give my opinion.

One can post SOOC if you shoot raw only.
Converting raw to jpg does involve modification, but extracting the jpg preview from a raw file does not.
The jpg preview SOOC has whatever preset processes/styles applied by your camera. Whether you would have applied them in post is your problem.

What is SOOC?

Having skimmed through 8 pages of comments, there are more than one definition here. My definition is that an SOOC image is a jpg (or other image format depending on your camera) that comes directly from the camera as a file (including the jpg preview embedded in the raw file). (Note that I do not view the raw data as an image format since it requires processing to become a meaningful viewable image. There are others who hold a different view).

And now, the controversial stuff:

Why use SOOC images? Or not?

There is nothing inherently wrong with using an SOOC image. If it pleases you, you are completely free to do so.

I postprocess ALL my images. Not because all the images need technical adjustment, but because, more often than not, I want to adjust the aspect ratio of the resulting image to fit a composition that pleases me. Few of my images fit the native aspect ratio of the camera. But beyond that, there are some images that are challenged by the dynamic range of the subject, and postprocessing can mitigate that. There are some images that are taken in challenging lighting conditions and white balance has to be adjusted to correct that. Some images are taken of transient images, for which there is no time to make camera adjustments beyond the generic settings, so yes, exposure may not be perfect.

But most of all, all my images are imported into Lightroom. It is my memory. I may or may not do technical adjustments, but they go into a program that provides that capability because it also provides me with a way to find the image in the future.

Most of my reasons have already been mentioned above. This is just another data point for the query.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

OldSchool-WI wrote:

__________________________(reply) br br Although ... (show quote)

Apparently anyone not using a Sigma Foveon X3 is using a "synthetic" camera. Whatever that is. A digital camera is nothing more then a computer that interprets data input from a source. In this case, a sensor. An algorithm is nothing more then a set of instructions telling the computer how to perform a given function. Your Sigma uses algorithms. Just like a phone camera. You seem to love the word "synthetic", using it to imply that your personal choice in cameras is superior. Exactly what does that mean, "synthetic"? That you have only to press the shutter release and you have produced a perfect photo? I really doubt that. Your camera is no big deal. No more so then any other high end camera and without ever seeing an image from your Sigma I highly doubt that the finished product is superior. If your relatives buy cheap phone cameras or don't know how to use what they have, perhaps you should explain to them how to do better because phone cameras can take outstanding photos. Given the physical constraints of a phone those cameras are truely amazing and are most definitely "real" cameras. BTW, I am no big fan of phone cameras. I have an iPhone 12 but rarely use the camera. I rarely use the phone even. Retired. Don't call me, I'll call you, etc, etc. I believe in giving credit where credit is due and phone cameras deserve a lot of credit. I also dislike people who smugly look down on others just because they do things differently.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

lmTrying wrote:

In all this bragging and chest pounding, has anybody ever considered that a person stating that their photo is SOOC is simply saying that what they posted the image they downloaded from the camera without running it through a post processing program.

Why should that make any difference? The image "is what it is" to the viewer. Jane Q. Public does not care about the technology or "path of creation." Only photographers care about that.

I WILL explain to an appropriate audience how I created an image posted here, if the process is notable. Sometimes it involved film, developer, raw captured macro photography of the negative, processing in Lightroom Classic, Negative Lab Pro, Photoshop, and Lightroom Classic again. Other times, it's SOOC. I never mention SOOC unless I'm explaining the PRE-processing steps of setting the camera menu, measuring exposure, and setting white balance. When I do that, it means I made significant deviations from what camera automation would have set.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

OldSchool-WI wrote:

__________________________(reply)

Although I am the only apparent buyer and user of Sigma Foveon X3 cameras with the revolutionary sensor which does not mess around with Bayer algorithms, this site always ignores the obvious---that the images from a Foveon sensor are less synthetic. As for your comment implying all cameras use algorithms---the results comparisons speak for themselves....

Please help us out here. What precisely is it (visible) that makes a Foveon camera image appear different (less synthetic). Can you point it out for us in comparison with more synthetic looking images? We assume you can see which image(s) below are from a DP2 and which is/are not. Please point out specifically what it is we're looking at that makes the FOVEON image(s) appear less synthetic so we can see it too.

(Download)

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Ysarex wrote:

Please help us out here. What precisely is it (visible) that makes a Foveon camera image appear different (less synthetic). ...

Yes, inquiring minds want to know.

I can tell which did not come from the Foveon but it has nothing to do with anything visible in the image quality.

Canisdirus

burkphoto wrote:

Why should that make any difference? The image &qu... (show quote)

Good post.

No one cares really...no one looking at photos thinks that way...except as you said...photographers.
But that can be narrowed a bit further.
Mainly the 'gearhead' photographers care about it.
The 'artistic' photographer...much less so. No analyzation is necessary...the eye says it all.
Gearheads...need data...to argue over.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

LFingar wrote:

So, exactly what makes a phone camera any less of a "real" camera then, for example, a mirrorless or DSLR? BTW, every digital camera uses algorithms.

Yep! More broadly, every photographic process ever invented, going all the way back to the 1830s, is synthetic, in the sense of combining various tools, techniques, and materials to imitate something our eyes and brains do. It is not biologically natural. It is a contrivance, a creation of man.