JimGray Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico

It has been a while since there was a debate on UHH about straight-out-of-the-camera (SOOC) jpegs vs. post-processing. I am not looking at the issue of post-processing of raw files vs. jpegs. My post-processing is done starting with a raw file. If I understood the comments of SOOC shooters you should adjust your camera and your shooting conditions so you do not need to do post-processing. In July my wife and I were in Australia. One of the places we visited was the Great Barrier Reef. For about 20 minutes we were able to view and photograph the GBR from a semi-submersible. The photos taken SOOC were really awful in my opinion. I have attached a typical SOOC and the same image after I post-processed it. I do not think it would have been possible to make adjustments to my Sony A7RIV or my wife's Sony A6600 that would have resulted in good shots straight out of the camera. If anyone is interested I will try to explain my post-processing steps.

SOOC of the Great Barrier Reef

(Download)

PP version of Great Barrier Reef image

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Real Photographers use Polaroid.

therwol Loc: USA

I guess fake photographers used this.

(Download)

therwol Loc: USA

Based on my experience, I don't think you could achieve the same results with in-camera jpeg processing. I could be wrong, but even if you could, you'd have to change a lot of settings for each set of circumstances, which would require experimentation, and then you'd have to change them back or to something else when you're done. You'd be better off shooting RAW and going from there. As for post processing jpegs, I think that the damage done has been overstated, and this is also based on my personal experience. I have my camera(s) set for the least jpeg compression and try to get it right the first time I make adjustments after the fact.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I think you could have done much better SOOC if you had known what you were getting into beforehand and planned accordingly. Or learned from the first outing and gotten a second chance in the submersible. Did you chimp even a little while you were there? That would have helped. What lenses were you using? Did you ask for any tips from the crew? Did you adjust your camera for your shooting conditions? If you couldn't make adjustments to your A7RIV or the A6600 to get better photos, you probably had the wrong cameras.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If it's not Polaroid, it ain't nothing.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

You ALWAYS have to change settings for each set of circumstances! Even if you plan ahead of time to post process jpgs, if you start with garbage, you won't get very far.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Large difference!

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

We DO agree sometimes! Who woulda thunk it??

leftyD500 Loc: Ocala, Florida

Really interested in finding out what you consider is a "real photographer."

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Someone who shoots Canon mirrorless of course! (with a polaroid back)!

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I won't claim that you could have matched your processed image with anything straight from your camera. It is very nice. But I'm guessing that it is a hand-crafted result, essentially using your exposure as a "coloring book page" which you then completed. And also keep in mind that your processed version may or may not represent the actual appearance of the subject. It is your impression of what it probably looked like.

With that in mind, I believe there are things that could be done next time to make a significantly more serviceable JPEG. Look at what is missing and what is wrong. No contrast, little color, and bad color balance due to the dispersion of short wavelength blue light by the water. So...at a minimum, adjust your white balance to a high Kelvin temperature (blue), and increase contrast and saturation in your Picture Control menu. These are the same changes you would make if taking pictures through the viewing window in a large aquarium. You would use these changes as a starting point and perhaps make additional adjustments and fine tuning. Id probably also try increasing sharpnessand clarity, if available.

Again, there are no guarantees any of that would work, but it would be worth a try, because you might be surprised. For me, it would be great fun undertaking the challenge. And if it just doesn't work, that's why you would also save the raw file.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Surely, you could have asked them to stop the boat while you futzed around with your camera for 20 minutes, right?

JimGray Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico

If you had been there and known what you were getting into, I am sure you could have gotten a much better SOOC. If I had known I doubt I would have known what to do differently. The whole scene was very chaotic with many many visitors. There was no possibility of a second chance. We almost did not get the first chance. In the mere 20 minutes, we had there was not much chance for chimping. The announcement of when and where to board was over a PA system. I was using FE 24-105 F4 G lens. I do not know what to make of your comment that we had the wrong cameras. I am very skeptical that we could have gotten SOOC images that would have made much of a difference in the finished image. My wife and I are pleased with the post-processed images from that part of the visit to the Great Barrier Reef. I think that is what is important.