Back in the 70's I trained independent photographers to feed my darkroom. They often brought in high end equipment that they didn't really need. Then to prove it I took them to a bridge and asked them to shoot the river scene below it. I then made am image on sheet film taped inside the back of a shoe box with a pinhole lens that I uncovered momentarily to make the exposure. Back in the darkroom I printed a contact print that made my point that it wasn't just the cost of the equipment that produced good results.

Nikon says that at ISO 100 I've got 14.5 stops latitude in the digital exposure. Of course, a print can barely give you 5 stops latitude so something has to be done. I expose for highlights because if they're blown they're lost, and then I dig out the details from the shadows. It's time consuming but now that I'm 74 and retired, I've only got to please myself. I'm so OCP (Obsessive Compulsive Perfectionist) that I'll work on the same print for hours 'til I'm satisfied. Price is no object.

Can you dig it?

_______________________(reply)

Good advice except for your last crack---"Can you dig it?" I might return the same now to you???

Yes, I can dig it. When I was a freshman in HS--1956---the Chemistry teacher asked me to give a lecture in his Chemistry class, even though I was not a member until Junior year, but had been hired by the Senior class for all the group photos for the Senior Annual. I had made and marketed a Junior High Sn Class Photo. Well I gave the photo chemistry lecture as well as taking a photo of a student and processing and printing it---all in a "changing bag" during my lecture. Yes, I am experienced plus, I dig quality and yes, anybody should figure that exposing for what can never be"recovered" i.e. highlights---is a good practice.-------------ew

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.

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.