par4fore Loc: Bay Shore N.Y.

So, Straight Out Of Camera (digital only) is accepting the jpg with the post processing to the raw file done by the camera as opposed to processing the raw file in program and making those choices yourself to create the jpg?
If so, what about using the SOOC jpg and “tweaking” it further as opposed to starting fresh with a raw file to create a jpg. When I say tweaking that may include sharping, levels, curves, on more.

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

IMHO it is not SOC if it has been "tweaked" after it came out of the camera.
(I always shoot raw)

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

The big drawback in my opinion of tweaking the jpg vs tweaking the raw is that with the JPG file the camera already threw out a big portion of the data from the picture, dynamic range and details may be missing that will effect what can be done.

I prefer working on the raw file with all the data intact until I throw it away ;)

I also agree with Richard above - once tweaked it is no longer SOOC... and to add, not getting why SOOC is so important to many photographers.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

No law against it - that is what I do - and have always done ....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

BTW, I never shoot raw.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

I believe that the SOOC jepg is "good enough" for many people. Whether it's because they do not care to do any PP or don't really know how.

It also seems that SOOC is important to many because they perceive it as some sort of..."look! I got it right without needing to "fix" it in PP, so I must be a better photographer". Some think that post processing is only to fix an image that wasn't captured correctly in the first place.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

The issue is what is your goal for the final quality image and what do you plan to do with it?

Kuzano

I do not shoot RAW for a few years now. I was a Primarily RAW shooter and worked with Photoshop 7 through CS3.

I eventually began to seek out cameras that had good controllable functions through the image processor, yielding suitable SOOC by the camera (Jpeg) processed through the image processor. Such jpegs do not contain all the RAW data, but I find some control in knowing the camera tweaks available to Jpeg as a final one revision in the camera.

I have owned three camera's that also saved output in TIFF, which is a format that is not RAW. Tiff lends itself to a final output that can be edited after the output. It has been processed in camera however.

So the list, as I see it is:

RAW, with all data contained and is not viewable other than in a RAW editor, with the output being varied but not usable as RAW for final purposes.

Jpeg SOOC. Run through the image processor, subject to the functions of the camera in editing considerable function, but outputting Jpeg.

Further editing can be done on this Jpeg SOOC. It is true however that the first compression done by the image processor to create the Jpeg has eliminated some data.

Opinions vary on how much a Jpeg can be edited post SOOC. Arguments ensue at this point. Post processing an SOOC jpeg is often more than I need. My goal is to shoot a final image as usable in it's SOOC form.

Many of the Acolytes of the Church of RAW, believe I am crazy.

Then there is the whole other discussion of TIFF, IF you can find a camera that outputs TIFF.

Bottom line... there are enough options out there to make everybody happy.... Well, except for the ACR (Acolytes of Church of Raw) who are pissed off plenty that some of us don't spend nearly the time in front of the computer that we do out capturing images.

OTOH, some of the ACR people profess to actually enjoy the post editing process. This I cannot fathom. I liken this to self flagellation with the mouse over the shoulders, or the tablet tool.

About 4-5 years now gaining FULL knowledge of my camera's flexibilty, out shooting, doing very little post processing and just having fun with my photography... the way I like it.

I will not join the ACR (Acolytes Church of RAW)

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I almost always shoot in RAW, but If you get the white balance correct to begin with, then what's the big deal about RAW.
We can go back and forth on shooting sports in jpg for the newspaper, and then converting to CMYK from jpg and turing it into a 30MB image in photoshop for sending to other print media.
I think we make too big a deal about raw.

Leicaflex Loc: Cymru

I suppose you could say I mainly shoot RAW, it's called film, one or two dinosaurs still roaming. :lol:

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

What does it matter HOW it comes out of the camera?!
There is a lot that can be done when shooting JPEG, processing-wise by a person skilled at using the different settings to get excellent results. Certainly the camera is capable of producing a better finished image when done by a skilled operator using JPEG than probably a majority of photographers that shoot Raw but are crappy at post. I see so much gawdy PP work.
It's not a contest and there are no awards given for HOW you produce award winning photography, but only awards for the photography itself.
And no matter HOW MUCH, you fix a crappy composition, it's still that, just crappy.
I'd much rather take a great JPEG than a crappy Raw!
Photographers that can't shoot make way to much of techno babble, while those that can shoot don't seem to care!! Kinda like barking dogs......, just my observation. ;-)
SS

SteveR Loc: Michigan

As far as SOOC goes, my wife and I were married nearly 42 years ago. While we got the small photos of our wedding pictures, we never did get the big album. The negatives of our photographer are at the library at Stephen F. Austin University. I couldn't borrow the negs but was able to get them scanned. Believe me, the end prints showed little resemblance to what originally came out of the camera. Just goes to show that professional photographers, at least back in film days, did not attempt to go for SOOC.

I just took a series of photos of a neighbor and his dog, which was about 15. Cropping and adjusting primarily light intensity really turned some so-so photos into some good ones. Emmy died not long after from liver complications and my neighbor appreciates having the photos of him and his dog together.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I shot film from 1967 to 2006. After shooting jpeg only back in 2006-2007, I was disappointed with my new D200's images. It was good but I felt my images were not what they could be. The fundamentals were there, composition, lighting, etc but I was not able to achieve the tonality and dynamic range I was accustomed to getting with my darkroom and black and white processing, using large format cameras.

I was pretty good at Photoshop, and another program, Picture Window Pro.

A friend turned me on to raw conversion using Bibble Pro, and another who's name I can't remember. It was as if a veil had been lifted from my eyes - or more accurately from my images. And that was from a camera with limited dynamic range and the ability to only capture 12 bit files and convert them with crude raw converters.

Bottom line, no matter what the generic arguments are against shooting raw, in many circumstances where a jpeg just leaves me with that same feeling I had in 2007 - it CAN be better. I haven't shot a jpeg since 2007 but I do review student work and have introduced raw conversion to many who seek better quality.

As Macronaut stated, hitting the nail squarely on the head - SOOC shooters are either complacent or lazy or unwilling to learn how to improve their final results. And somehow believe that SOOC is the ONLY way to prove your credentials as a photographer.

In my opinion that is just a big load of horse droppings.

By that logic and standard, Ansel Adams must be one of the worst photographers ever - since virtually nothing he ever presented was SOOC. Every image went through some post processing - starting with the development of the negative, dodging and burning, retouching, etc etc etc. to produce a final image.

My favorite example is this one, where the SOOC is pure garbage to the SOOC advocates, but the ultimate result after lots and lots of post processing and countless iterations is probably his most iconic iamge:

http://www.kevinshick.com/blog/2013/4/revisiting-hernandez-nm

Don't get me wrong - SOOC has it's place in the narrowly defined genre of journalism and reportage, and in fact Reuters recently (last year?) made it a requirement that all images be submitted as SOOC jpegs.

A quick story. Several years ago a photographer friend had a second shooter bail on him the evening before a wedding. He asked if I would help him out. I agreed (I hate weddings). He explained that it was important that I shoot jpeg because his gimmick was to display the images taken at the church and the formal posed shots of the wedding party and bride and groom in a slide show on a flat screen during the reception. There was a 2 hour break between the end of the formals and the beginning of the reception. After telling him I would shoot jpeg, I made sure my camera was set to 14 bit raw. I took roughly 550 images, and during the 2 hr "intermission" I produced about 450 color and light-balanced excellent proof quality images and handed them to him on a memory card. I used Capture One v4 I believe. His jaw dropped as he was reviewing the images - and the first words out of his mouth were, "how did you get them to look so consistent from shot to shot? How did you manage to get the detail in the bride's gown? In the white cake?"

I told him I ignored his requirement, shot raw, and reviewed, adjusted and converted the images during the break on my laptop.

Two things happened that night - one was he selected nearly all of my images for the slide show and only a few of his own, and he insisted that I teach him everything I could about shooting raw.

His photography is better, more consistent, he gets to charge more and is much busier, often turning work away. :)

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

As I see it:

If you shoot jpg and take what comes out of the camera (even allowing for slight tweaks in post) you run the risk of having a shot that may not be as good as it could have been because you screwed up a setting. And there are always non-repeatable shots. Of course it's possible that you never screw up your settings. I do.

I always shoot raw only for two reasons. The first reason is that the raw data has more information that you can use to adjust your image in post. It's even possible to adjust it in multiple ways, while SOOC is limited to one set of parameters that were in effect when you pressed the button.

The second reason I shoot raw only is that it forces me to run my shots through Lightroom to convert them from raw data to images. Lightroom encourages me to add keywords at import time, so not only are ALL my images in the LR catalog, they are all searchable. When I first started using raw I used raw+jpg. It was convenient: I could use the jpg directly without any further effort. However, the image wasn't in my LR catalog then. So I had to import them into LR anyway to get them in the catalog. I finally decided that since I had to get it into LR anyway, I might as well just drop the jpg and save about 30% of the room on my card.

You would be correct if you infer from the above that the Lightroom catalog is very important to me. With more than 50K images on my disk, and with my memory going the way of all aging memories, a functional search method is essential. LR provides me with that.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

For sure you can do that (I always shot jpg when i shot digital) but in my opinion, it's not SOOC then.

I think when folks say "SOOC" they are just trying to say that the image was what spit out of the camera and they didn't massage it into a masterpiece artificially after the fact...that's all.

As for the folks who look down on jpgs instead of raw. I think that whole discussion is overdone. There is way too much emphasis on shooting raw for sure.