Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Wallen, I think your categories have value as an introduction for those new to photography. Thanks for your efforts!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

-

rebride

I definitely use SOOC as a proof whether in camera during shooting or on computer after. Had to break myself of habit of jumping in and editing jpeg 'proof' rather than raw.
Technically speaking, raw should not be in the SOOC category. Although the raw file is straight out of camera, when viewing image it no longer is.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

A SOOC image should still be considered a processed image. You have control over the settings for white balance, as well as levels of saturation and contrast performed by the camera.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I agree too!

srt101fan

Hmm.....No "great" photographs before 1988....

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Seriously folks!

As photographers, we are all interested in how the photographs that we SEE are produced from a technical viewpoint. Personally speaking, however, my opinion, judgment, like or dislike, admiration or enjoyment of any photograph is simply based on the final result, the visual impact, and the content, storytelling value or "statement" that the image expresses.

Even when I make a technical or artistic critique of an image I will not praise or pan an image based on the method by which it was produced. I will only negatively critique "manipulation" if it is done where it becomes a distraction from the motif of the image due to poor craftsmanship or presentation.

I think that many folks are superimposing a kind of false ethic on all photographs, that all photography has to be totally authentic and exactly as the eye sees an original scene or subject. It's like saying that all movies need to be documentaries and no fiction or fantasy is allowed or acceptable. Think about this, even a photo-journalistic image, uncropped, unmitigated, unadulterated, straight out of the camera can still be "manipulated" or tell a "different story" simply based on the photographer's point of view, camera angle, and what he or she chooses to include or exclude in the frame. There is the photographer's brain filtering the image between the lens and the viewer!

Any of us that have long experience in film photography think about this; how many of us restricted our work to color slides or contact prints of our negatives? Once a negative was on the enlarger, did we all refrain from ANY dodging, burning in or cropping and insist on straight prints. Would we be taken to task for fine-tuning our work in the darkroom? There were dozens of routine procedures that were not considered fakery; dodging and burning, flashing, using paper of various contrasts, surfaces and textures and image tones, bleaching, chemical toning, masking, easel tilting, and more. The genesis of special effects started in the analog darkroom; texture screens, montage printing, posterization and solarization, paper negatives, and all kinds of creative and out of the box imagery.

Digital post-processing is nothing more than a modern-day reincarnation of the darkroom. The renowned, storied, and idolized "ZONE SYSTEM" was/is the epitome of scientific and artistic photographic manipulation.

If photography is truly an art form, each photographer/artist should be able to operate in their own style, methodology and express themselves as they see fit. Ongoing arguments about opposing methods are fun but not always necessarily productive.

In my own work, I like to produce the best in-camera file I can and the minimally tweak thigs up in post-processing. I try not to use post-processing as a crutch, but when I mess up at the camera or have to deal with uncontrollable circumstances on a job or location a good set of crutches is great when you have a busted leg!

On a slow rainy day, if I have nothing better to do, which is rare, before dumping my lousy images, I might try to process the devil out of them and create some "special effects". I do take my commercial work seriously but I also still love to have fun with my personal photograhy.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Definitely! A very good and concise outline of the subject!

I especially appreciate the comment on "news". Traditional darkroom procedures and post-processing were and are oftentimes performed on the news or photojournalistic images. This is NOT done to alter authenticity, "fake" anything or create disingenuous imagery. Post-processing actions can be employed simply to enhance detail, sharpness, and correct for technical shortcomings that result from shooting under extremely difficult and unfavorable conditions, seriously inadequate light levels, and unexpected short time frames and very small windows of opportunity to capture, compose and technically perfect an image in the camera. All of this image salvaging can be done without altering the story.

I am not a career photojournalist but I do have experience shooting in an active war zone and did work as a press photographer on staff at a big-city daily newspaper for three years. I found that sometimes the way photographs are published is subject to the editorial policies and interpretations of the publication. A picture editor can crop or omit something that the photographer did not intend to exclude- sometimes things that that happen. Sometimes editorial staff will ask the photographer to approach the assignment with a slant on the story- I never liked that!

Mostly, bonafide reputable newspapers and magazines do operate in an ethical manner. Sadly, there are certain publications that practice what used to be called "yellow journalism" and some of theses "rags" were up to shenanigans long before the invention of PhotoShop. They did paste-ups and airbrush work- PhotoShop just makes it easier and more convenient. Some of the tabloids, scandal sheets and some of the "newspapers" sold at supermarket checkouts have been doing dishonest manipulation for eons. There only real similarly the have to real newspapers is that they are printed on newsprint paper. "Fake news" is nothing new and there are faked pictures to accompany it! In the age of electronic journalism, the number of print publications is diminishing but there are still time-honored publications and those that overly sensationalized- there seems to be a readership for both.

PS- ...and here I thought “BS” means “Big Story”!

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Thank you.
I wish that with others input, it could be polished to be worthy of being shared.

Tomfl101 Loc: Mount Airy, MD

Thanks Linda, I will.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

(was tongue-in cheek)

cameraf4 Loc: Delaware

I have a question. With film as my medium the largest space in my camera bag was taken up by rectangular filters and filter accessories (holders, shades, lens mounts, etc). Since I only shot slides, this was pretty much my only means of "adjusting" my final results.
In the digital age, I discovered NIK software. Now, when I shoot, I do so planning the shot with the later use of NIK's Polarizer or Neutral Density Graduation or Skylight filters "in Post." Since I could do this in the field with "hard filters" but prefer to lighten my load, how would Wallen categorize such images once they are done? Certainly not SOOC but would you say Processed, Edited or Manipulated?

steveg48

Disagree with SOOC. Raw is not SOOC as raw is just data, not an image. What you see on your editing screen is the default rendering of your raw processor.