SOOC. Has it become a question of semantics?
Photocraig wrote:
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
I think this SOOC or get it right at capture takes... (
show quote)
You have missed the point entirely, but first let me say that I have a foot in both camps. SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) means that the photographer knew what he wanted, adjusting accordingly, BEFORE he took the shot. It doesn't matter that he used all or none of the facilities built into his camera and lens. PP means that he made alterations to the pic AFTER he took the shot. I, personally, would be happy to call those differences PreP and PostP, and would be happy with either.
Delderby wrote:
You have missed the point entirely, but first let me say that I have a foot in both camps. SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) means that the photographer knew what he wanted, adjusting accordingly, BEFORE he took the shot. It doesn't matter that he used all or none of the facilities built into his camera and lens. PP means that he made alterations to the pic AFTER he took the shot. I, personally, would be happy to call those differences PreP and PostP, and would be happy with either.
You have missed the point entirely, but first let ... (
show quote)
One more thing - PreP photographers usually know their cameras inside out. PostP photographers often don't - even when they know about exposure and W/B.
I think I'm now in a mindset where I don't care about SOOC, or if it's been manipulated etc.
Just to throw something else into the mix most people seem to forget when judging film results and lack of technological facilities and comparing those with digitally enhanced results, we start now with a digital capture that is inferior to the film capture. A cold hard fact. A film captures about ten stops of dynamic exposure range. A digital sensor captures about six and a half stops of useful dynamic exposure range.
Frankly I don't see the difference morally or otherwise whether the camera is set to make the adjustments or a computer programme is used after the shot is loaded to a computer.
The choice is whether FIRMWARE, the built in software in the camera, or SOFTWARE, the computer installed programme, is used to carry out the manipulation.
Perhaps I do SEE a difference. The latter is more likely to facilitate a better job. Or at least generally gives the opportunity of more choice.
Should we critisize an artist for having more colours or tints available from his supplier? Or for having a wider range of brush shapes or sizes? Or for having different grades of media to paint onto?
Surely ART is in the vision and imagination. Using any tools to produce Art is in the crafting of that. Denying a craftsman the use of tools, any tools, seems like a strange way of admiring art.
Clapperboard wrote:
Surely ART is in the vision and imagination. Using any tools to produce Art is in the crafting of that. Denying a craftsman the use of tools, any tools, seems like a strange way of admiring art.
Yes - perhaps we should call PHOTOGRAPHIC art "PHART"!
For me photography means an accurate visual record, maybe pleasing and artistic but maybe not.
Delderby wrote:
You have missed the point entirely, but first let me say that I have a foot in both camps. SOOC (Straight Out Of Camera) means that the photographer knew what he wanted, adjusting accordingly, BEFORE he took the shot. It doesn't matter that he used all or none of the facilities built into his camera and lens. PP means that he made alterations to the pic AFTER he took the shot. I, personally, would be happy to call those differences PreP and PostP, and would be happy with either.
You have missed the point entirely, but first let ... (
show quote)
I disagree. SOOC is simply straight out of the camera, good, bad, or indifferent, planned, not planned, however it looks. Just no post processing.
Longshadow wrote:
I disagree. SOOC is straight out of the camera, good, bad, or indifferent, planned, not planned, however it looks. Just no post processing.
Well - yes - where or how do we disagree? I did not get into "good or bad", which is in the eye of the beholder, or the amount, if any, of "planning".
Delderby wrote:
Well - yes - where or how do we disagree? I did not get into "good or bad", which is in the eye of the beholder, or the amount, if any, of "planning".
The photographer may not have known exactly what he wanted to do and have everything planned. SOOC doesn't imply pre-planning.
Personally, I really don't care one way or the other. I am old school. I've managed a studio/camera shop back in the 1970s/1980s, been a freelance photographer, and an ardent amateur along the way. I've owned 4 enlargers, did all the studio's black and white--and some 'emergency-need-it-yesterday' color printing, and had a lot of fun learning and fine-tuning my darkroom skills.
Here's what I learned: While many shots are great OOC, some are not. If you just say "Good enough" when a photo is sub-par, you're cheating yourself and others of enjoying a great final print. Either that, or you're too lazy or inexperienced to do the grunt work that might come after you trip the shutter. You can't fix the former, but you can fix the latter by practice and learning.
Do what's needed to make you happy first. It's your shot, and if you think it's great as you took it, fine.
Longshadow wrote:
The photographer may not have known exactly what he wanted to do and have everything planned. SOOC doesn't imply pre-planning.
I did say "It doesn't matter that he used all or none of the facilities built into his camera and lens". So - perhaps all he wanted to do was press the shutter button. QED
dreamon wrote:
Personally, I really don't care one way or the other. I am old school. I've managed a studio/camera shop back in the 1970s/1980s, been a freelance photographer, and an ardent amateur along the way. I've owned 4 enlargers, did all the studio's black and white--and some 'emergency-need-it-yesterday' color printing, and had a lot of fun learning and fine-tuning my darkroom skills.
Here's what I learned: While many shots are great OOC, some are not. If you just say "Good enough" when a photo is sub-par, you're cheating yourself and others of enjoying a great final print. Either that, or you're too lazy or inexperienced to do the grunt work that might come after you trip the shutter. You can't fix the former, but you can fix the latter by practice and learning.
Do what's needed to make you happy first. It's your shot, and if you think it's great as you took it, fine.
Personally, I really don't care one way or the oth... (
show quote)
You seem to be saying that PP takes the pressure off getting it right in the first place? (I'm not saying that is the only advantage of PP).
Delderby wrote:
I did say "It doesn't matter that he used all or none of the facilities built into his camera and lens". So - perhaps all he wanted to do was press the shutter button. QED
Hip shot.
Just wanted to make sure you didn't intend on implying only pre-planning.
Delderby wrote:
Well - yes - where or how do we disagree? I did not get into "good or bad", which is in the eye of the beholder, or the amount, if any, of "planning".
That is the only correct answer.
Delderby wrote:
One more thing - PreP photographers usually know their cameras inside out. PostP photographers often don't - even when they know about exposure and W/B.
PPers actually know it better, and they know that it doesn't do what they need. A master chef doesn't use an easy bake oven not because he doesn't know how to, but because he knows it's a toy that won't help him create what he wants to create.
Delderby wrote:
You seem to be saying that PP takes the pressure off getting it right in the first place? (I'm not saying that is the only advantage of PP).
No, I'm saying that I really don't care how others handle their photography. I AM saying that, on occasion, the only way to drag a potentially great photograph from merely good is PP.
I always pre-plan, but sometimes, things go south and we can do little at that moment.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.