Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Though many advocate SOOC (Straight out of camera) photography, we must not set aside the improvements that editing can achieve.
But such thinking should not make us sloppy, rather to treat that as another tool to enable us present, what we visualize within the clutter of of the moment.
Because that is the reality of life. There are times that we are limited by our equipment, time and other things that we can not control. So within our capacity, let us try our best to have it as close as (SOOC) as possible and take or add to that as little as we can to make things better.

First photo is a copy the actual capture and the second one is the cropped and edited version.

(Download)


(Download)

traderjohn Loc: New York City

I think you made your point. The second is a much better picture. Software programs have made terrific improvements in the final product. These programs even allow some to proclaim they are artists and their works are art.
That is a really nice picture.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Nice. That's why we do it.

BboH Loc: s of 2/21, Ellicott City, MD

Do agree - the second is much more dramatic than the 1st, the SOOC.
I do agree with your point - well presented

The Villages Loc: The Villages, Florida

fotobyferg

I agree, second image is preferred.

Post-processing has its purpose though, like many, I prefer the more natural images versus the highly stylized versions that, imo, are more like art than photography.

And yes, I understand photography can be both...I simply prefer the more natural images (though I can appreciate the work involved in creating the other).

Maybe I am simply too lazy or capable of learning the latter, lol.

Linary Loc: UK

Some of your posts show a great aptitude for post processing. Are you aware of the Post Processing section in this forum? I know your skills will be warmly received and will benefit many.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-116-1.html

(especially your tutorial current posted in the Analysis section.

joehel2 Loc: Cherry Hill, NJ

Beautifully done.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This may be a semantics issue, but I don't really edit my photographs. I process them. Here's an example of my SOOC image and the same after processing. Now in all honesty, the SOOC image isn't quite that. I just removed the usual greenish tint that is typical of any photos I take and the red rectangle is to indicate where I metered. Additionally, I visualize the processing steps prior to taking a photograph.
--Bob

SOOC

(Download)

Processed

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Your first photo is a great example of "crop to the story"

The second is a success story of turning a nothing photo into a masterpiece. How could any SOOC fanatic protest what you have done.

NJFrank Loc: New Jersey

You make a very good point. Even Ansel Adams did PP in the darkroom.

awis01

Nicely done! Great stuff from the digital darkroom.

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

SOOC is one of the most often misunderstood and abused terms in photography - especially by adherents - who proclaim, quite proudly - that their images have not been processed, and they are visually complete and perfect. The problem is that most of the time it's not hard to spot an image that came straight out of the camera - it is either dull and lifeless, or the picture controls have been so maxed out that the images look cartoonish, ala Ken Rockwell.

In b&w film days, it meant making a careful and meaningful composition, then setting exposure to capture the fullest range of tones, with an eye on what was possible during negative and later print processing.

This was necessary because it was not always possible to replicate with a camera and film what the eye saw. My favorite example of this is Ansel Adams iconic Moonrise over Hernandez. The SOOC contact print was pure junk to the uninformed eye, but to Adams, the negative captured everything he needed to create some art. One of his quotes completely sums it up, "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships."

In film it was necessary to expose enough to capture important shadow detail. In digital it's important to capture highlight detail. In either case, processing was the way to balance the rest of the tonal range of an image.

Cropping is a very powerful tool. While it's nice to say that an image is uncropped, producing a carefully cropped image is often much better, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Clearly you "get it." Post processing, done with a skilled hand, makes a good picture, and it reflects the shooter's creative intent - something that - other than composition - is not possible with most SOOC images.

I think SOOC is great - and important - for certain types of photography. I have personally worked together with a food stylist and a client's creative director to make food product images. With 100% control over the lighting - SOOC was the rule. The creative director would communicate the intent, and review images live, on a computer screen, until the goals were met. Once all the images were shot and approved, they were burned onto a CD or DVD, and brought back to the client's graphic services department to turn them into product images for packaging and promotional literature. SOOC is also great for studio portraiture.

Love the fireworks - and your excellent treatment of an already good image!

duane klipping Loc: Bristow iowa

Do you not agree? Or are you saying it is the software and not the knowledge on how to use it or better yet visualize the final image before complete. The statement you made comes across as you do not believe it is art.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

To some degree, I agree with traderjohn. There are some who cluelessly will try this or try that and all of a sudden WOW!! look what I did. It's difficult to tell from any final image how that image was achieved. If steps are taken to achieve the vision of the artist, that's art. If it's achieved through some random clicking on plug-ins, etc., perhaps not so much.
--Bob