Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

I think you need to explain that statement. I understand the words but not the sentence

Stephan G

I think there was a discussion some time ago regarding "SOOC" images as to not being the original view. That they were the result of a process between the image hitting the sensor (RAW) and the final viewed image at the back of the camera. Some have mentioned the processing as being done in-camera. Needless to say that there were many statements made in the thread.

FWIW, RAW images are not actual images. They are plainly codified representation of what enters the camera through the lens. This has to be re-coded in order to have an idea of the resultant, post processed, image.

A poster seemed to insist that we have a WYSIWYG in the output of the digital camera. Even in the analog cameras, it was not WYSIWYG. Regardless what comes out of the camera, it is never the image in front of the lens. The more fitting comment is "It is the approximation that is gotten". The finishing portion is the "interpretation" of the viewed scene. (Even what we see through our "naked" eyes are approximations. )

All photographers do "process" their shots to the "end point" that approximates the concept of the image they want.

I will add that "conveyance" is not a process in obtaining an image. It is a method by which one goes to the location to work up an image.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Delderby wrote:
I hear you - but SOOC is still Straight Out Of Camera. All settings pre-determined - enhancing a three dimensional live view - whereas PP adjusts a two dimensional picture
...............................................................................................................................................................

Larryepage argues that the final result of All photos are due to a process - SOOC or PP. This, of course, is true, but I maintain that there is a basic difference with two types of process - one that enhances a three dimensional real live view, and one that enhances a two dimensional after the event picture only.
It is about what happens before pushing the shutter button, which records the true physical view and what happens afterwards, which only the processor knows is true or not, with a result that might simply be imagination.

EJMcD

Thanks to all...we've covered this topic pretty well.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Glad you think so. Is this your topic?

EJMcD

No

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Then
Do not Pass Go.
Go directly to the Attic

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

There is always some discussion around JPEG output. But in truth, it really does depend. If, for instance, a person with a consumer interface camera chooses to take a portrait by spinning the dial to the portrait setting and then starts shooting away with default focus and metering settings, then I'd agree that there isn't much, if any "process" involved. I'd probably claim that verifying that the dial wasn't set to "landscape" was evidence of at least a little bit of thought & process.

But many cameras do not have such options. Instead, they offer a suite of "Image Management" options...a number of locations where combinations of user-chosen values for Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation, and three or four other parameters are available for adjustment. Interestingly, these are many of the same adjustments that are available on sliders in post processing software. I maintain that that thoughtful adjustment of these parameters before pressing the shutter release, along with adjusting for color temperature/white balance, exposure compensation, and maybe other options also represent a creative process. Some newer cameras also include a function (Nikon's is called "Active D Lighting") which allow the photographer to effectively change the shape of the sensor's response curve, not unlike what can be done in post processing. The net effect is to allow as much as 10 stops (or even a little more) of EV range to be directly captured in the 8 bits of a JPEG image. Of course, this comes at the cost of reduced contrast.

I recognize that there is a difference in applying any process to a captured image versus applying it before capture. For one thing, if you mess up, you can start over and try something else. But you can also take test shots and re-expose if the effect is not as desired. And Live View on many DSLRs and probably all mirrorless cameras provides the capability of displaying the preview images with adjustments applied even before the shot.

So in summary...i am not a SOOC purist or fanatic, although there are many occasions where it is necessary that I initially create the most nearly finished image possible. But I think there are a lot of people who erroneously believe that they have to be victims of something that magically pukes out of the JPEG port of their camera. That's simply not true. In many cases, it's just way not true. A little study and patience will reveal that somewhere between quite a bit and a whole lot of control is available over what comes directly out of almost all cameras.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Yes - succesful SOOC is about knowing your camera and applying that knowledge to a true and live 3D view.

srt101fan

Well said...

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

If photography is an art then the only thing that matters is the final result.

EJMcD

??? Very clever

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

[quote=Fotoartist]If photography is an art then the only thing that matters is the final result.[/quote

Ansel Adams published several "final results" of Moonshine - how do we equate to that?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

[quote=Delderby][quote=Fotoartist]If photography is an art then the only thing that matters is the final result.[/quote

Ansel Adams published several "final results" of Moonshine - how do we equate to that?[/quote]

Adams even wrote about and (I think) talked about his evolving process around images created from that single negative. And remember...it was a "desperation shot." No light meter, fading light, no backup film. With all of the pressures working against his established process, it's a wonder that he captured anything usable at all. And if you can find and study a contact print from the negative, it's doubtful that a printer of lesser stature would have been able to coax much of anything from it. Keep in mind that with Mr. Adams, everything was centered around what he visualized that the image could be...not the actual appearance of the scene. He wrote about that over and over. My big takeaway is that he came away with a remarkable final image even though what we would call "his process" was almost totally decimated.

So it's not unreasonable at all that he learned through the years how to improve the image. But he was also working against expectations...customers and potential customers who had seen the print, or reproductions of it, and had expectations of what their copy should look like. If you see his notations on how prints of Moonrise should be made, it's also no surprise that asw a business man, he might have been seeking (or at least open to) reducing the amount of work and time required to make each print.

Urnst Loc: Brownsville, Texas

it's the journey, not the destination.