I think this SOOC or get it right at capture takes us back to the transparency film photography where the transparency WAS the end product. With limited pr no post processing capabilities unless a print was desired.

In B&W Negative Film capture, many of the "best and most printable" negatives would likely yield a flat, dull straight or "contact" print. Similar to RAW files we see today. While it may not be optimal for viewing, it is optimal for processing.

Metaphors make good rhetorical and expository devices. However, mixed metaphors can be counter productive. JPEG, by definition, is a processed image. So, to me, SOOC would ONLY be a RAW file. Or, each JPEG image, defined as SOOC (for what ever ((lame?) reason)) must be accompanied with Camera model and JPEG settings to clarify what it represents.

OR, perhaps, it is time to revert to the old "A picture is a picture." and leave it at that.

C

Actually, the comparison of the work we do today can be easily applied to the work of Ansel Adams. Adams sometimes spent hours and days processing just one negative to create exactly the vision he had of the negative. During his lifetime, as his thoughts changed, the actual tones of his work changed and how he processed a particular image changed. He used every avenue available to him to process an image and believed that he was creating a work of art; this did not apply, however, to the commercial work he did. When he printed any image he dodged and burned in minute detail and all prints were, of course, spotted by someone. From his most famous print, Moonrise, a small part of the part had a flaw in it and at some point it was removed from the negative by an assistant (the Lone Pine High School has put LP on the Alabama Hills where the photo was taken). When Ansel was printing Moonrise in his later years it sometimes took 2 or 3 days to get a good print. One of the things that made him a great photographer was his technical expertise, that combined with his vision made his work shine. I'm pretty sure that he would have been a devotee of RAW shooting and a great deal of post processing as we do it today.

Actually, the comparison of the work we do today can be easily applied to the work of Ansel Adams. Adams sometimes spent hours and days processing just one negative to create exactly the vision he had of the negative. During his lifetime, as his thoughts changed, the actual tones of his work changed and how he processed a particular image changed. He used every avenue available to him to process an image and believed that he was creating a work of art; this did not apply, however, to the commercial work he did. When he printed any image he dodged and burned in minute detail and all prints were, of course, spotted by someone. From his most famous print, Moonrise, a small part of the part had a flaw in it and at some point it was removed from the negative by an assistant (the Lone Pine High School has put LP on the Alabama Hills where the photo was taken). When Ansel was printing Moonrise in his later years it sometimes took 2 or 3 days to get a good print. One of the things that made him a great photographer was his technical expertise, that combined with his vision made his work shine. I'm pretty sure that he would have been a devotee of RAW shooting and a great deal of post processing as we do it today.

I would agree with you. The main point I was trying to make is that even some of the best informed people on UHH make incorrect assumptions and then post them as absolute statements. There is so much misinformation presented about raw files vs JPEG that I sometimes feel compelled to challenge the inaccuracies. I have never printed any image directly from my camera to my printer, but I could do it, and if I wanted a print I would print from raw, the final results are superior to JPEG. It also seems relevant to a discussion about semantics.

I still stand by my comment that it wasn't a safe statement to make! Few are on UHH!

Cheers!

There are those who like to say that they "get it right in the camera" implying that the digital jpeg version has only been correctly exposed, is well-framed, and has the correctly focal points as to present an image that stands on its own without PP. Or simplified: as produced created by the photographer using his/her imagination, a camera, and a lens.

However, all of my cameras can be manipulated to produce: "in camera HDR", focus stacking, panoramas, various scene modes, including monochrome, monochrome with a Y filter, monochrome with a R filter, vivid, and various film simulations. And that's only the short list.....

So are all of these also SOOC? If not, where does one draw the line?

So that's my discussion topic of the day....