O2Ra

Yes!!! Art is creating .

Shutterbug57

I think this fairly sums up the case. The pictorialism versus realism “discussion” has been going on for +/- a century, maybe longer. We aren’t going to solve it here, but it is entertaining. A lot of it comes down to how you view a picture - is it an image or a photograph?

At the local club, we have a guy that produces stunning images. All parts of these images started out in a camera, but, in most cases, they are composites that have had much work done on the parts to integrate the image. These most often REPRESENT everyday life scenes, but, as presented, never happened - they do not depict reality. Most folks at the club like his work and rate it highly and, when asked, he willingly discusses what he did to create the image. In fact, the first question folks ask is - was that the real sky in the original shot? Most often it was not. He works hard on his images from capture through PP.

Then there are folks who have the skills in PS to do as the chap above does, but their vision is to present real life events (things that actually happened) as pleasingly as possible, but who don’t drop in components from other shots. In between these two are the focus stackers, HDR users, compositors, etc, that capture multiple shots of the same subject with the express intent of presenting what their eye saw, but the camera could not record in a single shot. Which of the above groups are right - all of them, unless they are representing their shot as something it is not (not the case in my examples).

Styles are suited to uses. If you are in a setting where realism is expected, PJ for instance, making changes to your image, beyond cropping and light levels, may be frowned upon or even a terminable offense. In a more open setting, pretty much anything goes, although, as in one noted pic, putting the moon in front of the clouds may cause even the artistic crowd to murmur - although they will still shell out big bucks for the image, so cudos to the artist.

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

There isn't any such thing as SOOC in digital or film.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

Jpeg and raw can both be SOOC (straight out of camera), but there's no such thing as unprocessed. Even raw files aren't as unprocessed as the name suggests.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Correct.
The camera processes the RAW info to create a JPEG as well as the image you see on the camera screen.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Well, if it didn't come straight out of the camera, where did it come from?

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

What the OP meant was that a photograph SOOC is still manipulated. The composition, exposure, etc. are chosen by the photographer, the camera records what it sees, which in itself is a manipulation of the image. Then the camera "translates" the image from it's "language" to a visual result that we can see.

After that, it is up to us to decide on editing - how much, what type - in order to produce a result that in some form replicates the photographer's understanding of what was seen, or pre-visualization of the result sought.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

I understand what you are saying. And you are right. My point is the even the camera, and of course we are talking digital here, has to post process whatever the sensor collects. And that processing is the result of the camera manufacturer's programming based on their concept of what it should look like. Hence different brands rendering the same settings in a photograph differently. Again, I understand what you are saying, but when a person makes adjustments to color and sharpness and EV in the camera, where do we draw the line on PP? Yes I know it is intentionally when the file leaves the camera and is published either on paper or electronically. But with all of the in camera manipulation available that definition gets skewed.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

I believe that in situations where originality is a legal requirement, the raw files are insisted on as the only unalterable option. Raw files get basic in-camera processing such as edge-based sharpening and denoise, but apart from that they are seen as uncorruptable.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

My belief around what this question asks has changed over time. Some of what remains when I talk about it stems from what, based on my experience, seem to be some very serious misconceptions in the minds of some folks around what camera controls do or don't do to their exposures.

When I was using film, I did not have a darkroom. It would have been nice, but it wasn't possible. So my post processing decisions were limited to where I took my film and what size prints I ordered and which of 2 or 3 paper choices they were printed on.

My very first experience with digital photography was with a Nikon Coolpix (tthen very quickly a D40 capturing JPEGs for presentations, in-house training materials, and miscellaneous other documentation. Because I was a manager, my company had no interest in paying me to sit in front of a computer editing photographs, so about the best I could do was sneak a minute to use Picture Manager to click on a white spot and do an auto correct and maybe a quick crop.

Skip to today. Now I have quite a bit more knowledge about LightRoom and some fundamental knowledge about PhotoShop, so there are more functions available to me. I'm also retired, meaning that I have a little more time available to me, but that time is still not unlimited. So I can and do perform more editing on my images, including those posted on the site.

But what I don't have patience for is those who maintain that if you shoot and save your images in raw, camera controls have no effect. I know by experience that a raw image exposed with proper white balance has a more finished appearance than one shot with a different white balance. One shot with appropriate saturation and sharpness settings appears with a more finished appearance. I see it, and it is reflected in my initial values reflected in LightRoom. It is also reflected if I do an immediate export to JPEG.

It is not necessary to start out with a bland, featureless exposure just because you plan to edit it. You certainly can do that, but you do not have to, and I certainly don't have to.

So my suggestion is that we all might become a bit more knowledgeable about how things really work and a little less dug in on how we think they work. And if we really believe that camera controls don't have an effect, then let's quit buying all these expensive new cameras with all their features and functions.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Could you guys please stop quoting Lord Adams

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Art is the purpose of most of my shots (fall short at times) but, when you shoot for a news paper we have other rules first.

srt101fan

Larry - I find this comment of yours bothersome: "...I don't have patience for is those who maintain that if you shoot and save your images in raw, camera controls have no effect". I have been led to believe, and still believe, that the picture controls (as Nikon calls them) have NO effect on the RAW file! This has been stated and repeated by many UHH members. And here you emphatically claim the opposite! This issue is too important to let go, can someone please post the definitive answer?

I wonder if the disconnect isn't in the language we use. You say that you can see the effect of camera controls such as saturation and sharpness in your RAW files. But how can this be when, as I understand it, you cannot see a RAW file, i.e., it has to be processed in camera or on a computer before it becomes a visible image file. So I believe that the camera control effects you are seeing are NOT because the RAW file has been affected but are rather a part of the process you used to make the RAW data visible. The RAW file (data) remains unchanged and is NOT affected by the picture control settings.

Am I wrong? Somebody please comment!