SOOC abused by fraudsters
Dec 29, 2016 17:59:24 #
The more I read about folks claiming that they produce perfect 'photographs' using their camera and this w/o doing anything to what comes out of their camera the more irritated I become. They like to call this SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) and try to batter everyone and their families/friends with it as if SOOC was a club. The Neanderthal age is gone, folks.
SOOC fraudsters basically tell folks: "I am so good I do not need anything else and you, well, you suck, get on the SOOC bandwagon to be great." In reality SOOC 'stuff' can be anything from digital vomit to an exploitable capture that can be used to create a photograph.
SOOC 'users' are associated with folks who are misinformed or who deliberately refuse to understand that the creation of a photograph is not just 'pushing a button' at the 'right time'. This is bad because being capable to create a great SOOC capture is important.
To me and many others - while they use a different terminology - SOOC is only a capture, a baby that needs nurturing, coaxing, cajoling in order to create the final product... A photograph. SOOC 'stuff' is the result of planning, waiting and creating the right conditions so SOOC is just the end of a stage among many.
Anyone serious about photography knows his/her equipment first in order to extract the best out of it. They also plan for their event 'capture', selecting camera/lens combinations as well as lighting condition, natural or not*.
SOOC 'terminators' simply refuse to use the best format their camera offers, namely the raw format. Their idea of raw is that it is made for BGWAC (Bad Guys With A Camera - who do not know what they are doing and need a crutch). This claim is used in order to try to bully other folks who are not all that well informed to fall into the SOOC 'ranks'. It intimidates and influences beginners to forget post processing and prevent them to unleash their potential (in addition to the camera's). SOOC 'aficionados' stink.
While great captures are made in SOOC - and that is the goal we should all thrive for - they are always incomplete. Captures benefit from post processing and this is where I think the problem really lies...
In the 'silver era' post processing was not easy and really hazardous to your health. Many photographers relied on lab technicians to pull the last detail out of their negative (SOOC) if they were not able to do it themselves (I relied on lab tech). Now the lab sits on a desk, it is as clean as you are, meaning if there is a mess it is on your desk, not in the chemical used...
Digital processing made many folks rethink their post processing habits and correct their lack of skill there. SOOC bandits are immune to this last part for whatever reason and they claim that post processing is a fraud when in reality they are the fraud. Not many great photographers have claimed not to do lab work (or having it done) before. Masters were recognized as both photographers and post processing experts. Now SOOC 'pretenders' are saying: "We are better that the old masters. We do SOOC" as if they were doing Dallas (an old porn film).
Basically SOOC bullies are exposing their lack of curiosity if not skill. Their aggressiveness is really their fear at being uncovered as stunted weak photographers unable to progress beyond their self made boundaries.
SOOC 'photographers' are a fraud.
Do remember that this thread is a barrage of criticism and sarcasm against those who claim that a SOOC capture is an end instead of a critical part of a complex workflow. We must all thrive toward great SOOC captures in order to create what I want to call a photograph. In no case should we try to stop improving.
-----
* This is why I get irritated by threads where someone asks what to take in vacation and list a slew of lenses and camera - "You own all that and do not know what to use when???"
SOOC fraudsters basically tell folks: "I am so good I do not need anything else and you, well, you suck, get on the SOOC bandwagon to be great." In reality SOOC 'stuff' can be anything from digital vomit to an exploitable capture that can be used to create a photograph.
SOOC 'users' are associated with folks who are misinformed or who deliberately refuse to understand that the creation of a photograph is not just 'pushing a button' at the 'right time'. This is bad because being capable to create a great SOOC capture is important.
To me and many others - while they use a different terminology - SOOC is only a capture, a baby that needs nurturing, coaxing, cajoling in order to create the final product... A photograph. SOOC 'stuff' is the result of planning, waiting and creating the right conditions so SOOC is just the end of a stage among many.
Anyone serious about photography knows his/her equipment first in order to extract the best out of it. They also plan for their event 'capture', selecting camera/lens combinations as well as lighting condition, natural or not*.
SOOC 'terminators' simply refuse to use the best format their camera offers, namely the raw format. Their idea of raw is that it is made for BGWAC (Bad Guys With A Camera - who do not know what they are doing and need a crutch). This claim is used in order to try to bully other folks who are not all that well informed to fall into the SOOC 'ranks'. It intimidates and influences beginners to forget post processing and prevent them to unleash their potential (in addition to the camera's). SOOC 'aficionados' stink.
While great captures are made in SOOC - and that is the goal we should all thrive for - they are always incomplete. Captures benefit from post processing and this is where I think the problem really lies...
In the 'silver era' post processing was not easy and really hazardous to your health. Many photographers relied on lab technicians to pull the last detail out of their negative (SOOC) if they were not able to do it themselves (I relied on lab tech). Now the lab sits on a desk, it is as clean as you are, meaning if there is a mess it is on your desk, not in the chemical used...
Digital processing made many folks rethink their post processing habits and correct their lack of skill there. SOOC bandits are immune to this last part for whatever reason and they claim that post processing is a fraud when in reality they are the fraud. Not many great photographers have claimed not to do lab work (or having it done) before. Masters were recognized as both photographers and post processing experts. Now SOOC 'pretenders' are saying: "We are better that the old masters. We do SOOC" as if they were doing Dallas (an old porn film).
Basically SOOC bullies are exposing their lack of curiosity if not skill. Their aggressiveness is really their fear at being uncovered as stunted weak photographers unable to progress beyond their self made boundaries.
SOOC 'photographers' are a fraud.
Do remember that this thread is a barrage of criticism and sarcasm against those who claim that a SOOC capture is an end instead of a critical part of a complex workflow. We must all thrive toward great SOOC captures in order to create what I want to call a photograph. In no case should we try to stop improving.
-----
* This is why I get irritated by threads where someone asks what to take in vacation and list a slew of lenses and camera - "You own all that and do not know what to use when???"
Dec 29, 2016 18:25:16 #
Well, Rong..... Here's an SOOC from me, just to illustrate your point. Processing is needed.
--Bob
--Bob
Rongnongno wrote:
The more I read about folks claiming that they pro... (show quote)
Dec 29, 2016 18:27:06 #
Rongy - I haven't seen the SOOC crowd here of late ... Is this windmill still turning?
Dec 29, 2016 18:27:34 #
rmalarz wrote:
Well, Rong..... Here's an SOOC from me, just to illustrate your point. Processing is needed.
--Bob
--Bob
Love the planet.
Dec 29, 2016 18:27:47 #
Yeah, there's been a few extolling the perfection of SOOC.
--Bob
--Bob
CHG_CANON wrote:
Ron - I haven't seen the SOOC crowd here of late ... Is this windmill still turning?
Dec 29, 2016 18:30:49 #
I look at SOOC as not massaged.
Whether it needs it or not, they didn't.
Whether it needs it or not, they didn't.
Dec 29, 2016 19:09:39 #
Some images need a bit of help, some don't. It all depends on intended use, initial quality and the amount of time available.
I always shoot in RAW, so technically nothing at all is SOOC as the files at least go through a RAW converter (Adobe LightRoom or CaptureOne). I usually do very little in post because I prefer a natural look, and just because I don't enjoy spending time at the computer. I try very hard to get exposure and focus perfect in the camera, but ignore white balance completely (shooting in RAW no need). The extent of my processing is correcting white balance in post (except on my Leica M Monochrom for the obvious reason that there is no such thing as WB for black and white) and occasionally pulling down the black point, pushing or pulling highlights and/or shadows or slight corrections to exposure.
For images I want to print large (as in 16X20 or larger) I obvious spend more time, removing blemishes from people, dodging and burning like in the old darkroom days and making subtle adjustments to color, contrast and tone. Occasionally I might even add vignetting. I don't print large very often, so usually my work (mostly in 11X14 books I get printed after trips or events) are not SOOC, but aren't too far off.
I always shoot in RAW, so technically nothing at all is SOOC as the files at least go through a RAW converter (Adobe LightRoom or CaptureOne). I usually do very little in post because I prefer a natural look, and just because I don't enjoy spending time at the computer. I try very hard to get exposure and focus perfect in the camera, but ignore white balance completely (shooting in RAW no need). The extent of my processing is correcting white balance in post (except on my Leica M Monochrom for the obvious reason that there is no such thing as WB for black and white) and occasionally pulling down the black point, pushing or pulling highlights and/or shadows or slight corrections to exposure.
For images I want to print large (as in 16X20 or larger) I obvious spend more time, removing blemishes from people, dodging and burning like in the old darkroom days and making subtle adjustments to color, contrast and tone. Occasionally I might even add vignetting. I don't print large very often, so usually my work (mostly in 11X14 books I get printed after trips or events) are not SOOC, but aren't too far off.
Dec 29, 2016 19:12:57 #
I completely agree however there are those (me) who are totally colorblind and completely fail at post. Doing a little with exposure or levels is the extent.
Dec 29, 2016 19:13:57 #
banker1741 wrote:
I completely agree however there are those (me) who are totally colorblind and completely fail at post. Doing a little with exposure or levels is the extent.
Black and white is your friend.
Dec 29, 2016 19:14:42 #
Santa must have been mean to you.
Either that or someone peed in your coffee, beer, milk, etc.
Either that or someone peed in your coffee, beer, milk, etc.
Dec 29, 2016 19:14:49 #
Just a reminder about one of Ansel Adam's most famous sayings: "Great pictures are made, not taken." Works for me and still true today!
Dec 29, 2016 19:15:28 #
banker1741 wrote:
I completely agree however there are those (me) who are totally colorblind and completely fail at post. Doing a little with exposure or levels is the extent.
Which is completely acceptable.
The problem is not who does what but who claims what.
Dec 29, 2016 19:16:45 #
asiafish wrote:
Some images need a bit of help, some don't. It al... (show quote)
Usually when one creates a good (SOOC) base there very little to do, as you describe.
Dec 29, 2016 19:31:10 #
Wasn't it only recently that you discovered RAW and stopped extolling the virtues of JPG, telling us that your images were SOOC .and they were !! because they were JPG.
IM glad you found the error of your ways and have come around to the RAW club.
RAW images should almost always be edited. I agree 100% BUT once in a while I do manage to capture an image and then say,
hey PERFECT . I wish it happened more often . That is why I am here to keep learning and keep getting better at my craft.
IM glad you found the error of your ways and have come around to the RAW club.
RAW images should almost always be edited. I agree 100% BUT once in a while I do manage to capture an image and then say,
hey PERFECT . I wish it happened more often . That is why I am here to keep learning and keep getting better at my craft.
Dec 29, 2016 19:59:57 #
rmalarz wrote:
Yeah, there's been a few extolling the perfection of SOOC.
--Bob
--Bob
I know it's the holiday season and all, but we're roasting this old chestnut again .... ?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.