SOOC. Has it become a question of semantics? (Page 11): but my comments related to possible processing, such as compression or noise reduction, to file labeled as a "raw" file...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Peterff wrote:

Other cameras have related things. All images are captured as raw, the JPEG requires conversion even if the raw data isn't normally exported or stored by the camera.

but my comments related to possible processing, such as compression or noise reduction, to file labeled as a "raw" file

le boecere

Peterff wrote:

Other cameras have related things. All images are captured as raw, the JPEG requires conversion even if the raw data isn't normally exported or stored by the camera.

I'll try putting it another way. Do other cameras (other than the Fujifilm X-line) have an in-camera, internal RAW converter that is (virtually) identical to that of the Fuji?

Maybe this little article will help clarify my question:

http://lifeafterphotoshop.com/in-camera-raw/

_Van

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

rehess wrote:

but my comments related to possible processing, such as compression or noise reduction, to file labeled as a "raw" file

Some cameras can do that, and have in camera settings that allow for some degree of control. Canon has some ability to do some of those things and print raw files directly to PictBridge printers. The camera does the processing and supports the capabilities of various printers, especially Canon printers. I'm not conversant with all the details, but the capabilities are there, I just haven't tried them.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Peterff wrote:

Sure, but I was questioning your thoughts on the definition, not what you do. That is clearly your personal choice and only subject to your own morals. It's a bit like asking "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Yes and no answers are equally problematic!

I still go by SOOC is unprocessed by post processing.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

le boecere wrote:

I'll try putting it another way. Do other cameras (other than the Fujifilm X-line) have an in-camera, internal RAW converter that is (virtually) identical to that of the Fuji?

Maybe this little article will help clarify my question:

http://lifeafterphotoshop.com/in-camera-raw/

_Van

That's a good question. I've never tried to do that, with a Canon since I prefer to do the processing on a computer. Canon does have some degree of control when printing raw files directly, I have no idea how useful it is, or even why I would want to do it.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Longshadow wrote:

I still go by SOOC is unprocessed by post processing.

You are not answering my question. How about the instance of cropping? Is that acceptable or not? What happens if it is done in the camera rather than in software, but is still not the complete initial capture? Are you saying that anything done in the camera is OK, but anything equivalent done on a computer is not?

Can you clarify?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Peterff wrote:

You are not answering my question. How about the instance of cropping? Is that acceptable or not? What happens if it is done in the camera rather than in software, but is still not the complete initial capture? Are you saying that anything done in the camera is OK, but anything equivalent done on a computer is not?

Can you clarify?

You can do all you want prior to making the exposure. Once done, whatever comes out of the camera is SOOC.
Does that help explain my thoughts?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Longshadow wrote:

You can do all you want prior to making the exposure. Once done, whatever comes out of the camera is SOOC.
Does that help explain my thoughts?

Yes, it does, thank you. So prior to exposure setups that affect post capture in-camera processing count as SOOC? That gives us at least fifty shades of gray to play with in terms of SOOC definition. Semantic, or pedantic?

le boecere

Longshadow wrote:

You can do all you want prior to making the exposure. Once done, whatever comes out of the camera is SOOC.
Does that help explain my thoughts?

And, with the Fuji X-cameras you can do quite a bit of "all you want", AFTER making the exposure, without exporting to any computer, printer, or whatever. All, "in camera". (and, yes, I'm aware that nearly everyone here, knows that ;^)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Peterff wrote:

Yes, it does, thank you. So prior to exposure setups that affect post capture in-camera processing count as SOOC? That gives us at least fifty shades of gray to play with in terms of SOOC definition. Semantic, or pedantic?

How about whatever comes out of the camera in a file transfer, untouched by light room, photo impact pro, etc.?

Bill_de Loc: US

TheDman wrote:

If it's not controllable from the menus, then what good is it? Just clicking the button and hoping the camera's jpg engine kicks out something good... talk about not planning your shot.

Here's one I was just working on. Knew how I was going to process it before I shot it, shot multiple exposures to capture the ridiculously wide range of tones, put them together in pp. No in-camera menu setting could have helped me.

What about in camera HDR if available? This is a serious question as I have never delved into HDR.

--

TheDman Loc: USA

Bill_de wrote:

What about in camera HDR if available? This is a serious question as I have never delved into HDR.

--

Not even standalone HDR programs can give the sort of natural look that Photoshop blending can, and in-camera HDR appears to be even worse. Plus, this scene had issues with lens flare, extreme dynamic ranges, and tree movement that I can handle much better with masks. Plus, I shot many images for the beach so that I had many options from which I could pick the wave action that I liked the most.

Here's a screenshot from ACR of one of the images I used:

(Download)

Bill_de Loc: US

TheDman wrote:

Not even standalone HDR programs can give the sort... (show quote)

Thanks

--

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

Strictly speaking, only RAW files on a chip are SOOC, in my understanding. Since RAW files can't be viewed unless processed into a viewable image there is an argument that there is no SOOC any longer. A more tolerant view would be SOOC means a RAW image converted by a RAW converter to another file format but not "touched by human hands" otherwise qualifies as SOOC. But, JPG does more than straight convert. So is only TIF a valid SOOC image? This is the photographic question on a par with which came first: the chicken or the egg!

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

cambriaman wrote:

Strictly speaking, only RAW files on a chip are SO... (show quote)

It seems you have not waded through the earlier pages of this topic - before it changed into a photo critique.
So, to enlighten you, the consensus here seems to be that SOOC includes any adjustment to camera and lens (firmware starting flat) by the photographer before the shot (PreP). Any adjustment afterwards is PP (PostP). This seems to make perfect sense.
One importanr fact of this is that only the photographer can have a hand in the result, given that the firmware starts off "flat", and knowing how that firmware, at "flat", will take the picture. (Even Adams enlisted the aid of assistants).