POST PROCESSING VS. SOOC (Page 4): Back in the Age of Film, I typically did zero PP. I would spend time setting up my shot, but when the roll was done, I would send it off to the...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

JohnSwanda wrote:

Back in the old film days, many of us did plenty of PP in the darkroom. I rarely printed a negative without some burning and dodging. Now with digital, I still often need to adjust specific areas of the image, which you can't do in the camera.

Back in the Age of Film, I typically did zero PP. I would spend time setting up my shot, but when the roll was done, I would send it off to the Kodachrome professionals to finish the job. Today, I typycally make small adjustments to the JPEG.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

LFingar wrote:

If you consider pp to be any changes made to an im... (show quote)

I shoot RAW (+JPEG) in one camera also. Sometimes the presets work out well, no post required.
When they don't, I tweak them using the RAW file.
(I simply use the JPEGs for previewing in File Explorer. My wife doesn't use editors (catalogers), so having the JPEG for perusing in File Explorer works out well at my house. She knows how to use File Explorer. Most everyone knows how to peruse images using File Explorer (or whatever the Apple equivalent may be).

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I shoot raw and send 100% to Lightroom because at my age, LR is my memory.
Since all my shots are in LR, it takes very little time to make adjustments. The only time sink is finding names of people I don't know to place into the keywords.
Since I can, I do. I don't believe it affects the veracity of my images (except where I want it to).

YMMV

Where I want it to
Where I want it to...

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

kfoo wrote:

I am not trying to judge. I am just wondering what percentage of photographers use pp as opposed to SOOC. I just look at photos and I try to replicate the quality and I have difficulty getting that quality. Again, not trying to judge one way or the other.

First: I don't care if my end product replicates anything, only if I'm pleased with my results.
Second: I only shot RAW, and consider the files to be only data with the potential to become a piece of Art.
Third: I cull about 95% of those files.
Fourth: I *always* PP heavily the surviving files - sometimes for days - until I get the results I want. I do layers, local adjustments, object removal, lighting changes, etc.

At the end of the day, what counts is if my audience (me, me, my family, some friends, me again) is pleased with the images I've created.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

DirtFarmer wrote:

I shoot raw and send 100% to Lightroom because at my age, LR is my memory.
Since all my shots are in LR, it takes very little time to make adjustments. The only time sink is finding names of people I don't know to place into the keywords.
Since I can, I do. I don't believe it affects the veracity of my images (except where I want it to).

YMMV

So, you use mainly the database portion of LR. In the Age of Film, I stored slides in a way to force organization on them - one or more pages for each vacation, pages for college, grad school, etc. since most were developed by Kodak, I knew information from the slide mount. Now I use directory trees in the same way. You are saying that you just keep more information.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

Delderby wrote:

Modern SOOC works fine when you really know your camera and how to make it perform to your wishes at speed.
Post processing is more likely to introduce noise etc to a JPG. However, modern IA is very clever if you wish to record what you saw and are able to frame the pic satisfactorily in camera.

Not sure about this. You can know your camera and know everything about exposure, but a Raw file is still a Raw file, and Raw needs work. There are a few corrections I pretty much make to every Raw file.
Also, PP doesn’t introduce noise but it may show the noise that is already there. I use PP to get rid of noise.
…Cam

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

kfoo wrote:

I am not trying to judge. I am just wondering what percentage of photographers use pp as opposed to SOOC. I just look at photos and I try to replicate the quality and I have difficulty getting that quality. Again, not trying to judge one way or the other.

I shoot raw because I like to process. If I want a quickie just to have a picture, I won't process, but I can't remember the last time I did that.

HankR Loc: So. East Florida

I shoot both, jpeg & raw, using 2 cards in my Canon. Why? 1- I just never had the time to learn raw processing, but will get there & 2- I almost always use some type of filter to “help” get the pic in the can. jpegs have been very good, good enough to many hangers around the house.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

HankR wrote:

I shoot both, jpeg & raw, using 2 cards in my Canon. Why? 1- I just never had the time to learn raw processing, but will get there & 2- I almost always use some type of filter to “help” get the pic in the can. jpegs have been very good, good enough to many hangers around the house.

Processing RAW is no different that processing JPEG, simply more options to modify stuff.
Nothing magical about RAW, unless one considers greater editing capability magical.
With JPEG one can do X things, with RAW one can do X+Y things.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

rehess wrote:

So, you use mainly the database portion of LR. In the Age of Film, I stored slides in a way to force organization on them - one or more pages for each vacation, pages for college, grad school, etc. since most were developed by Kodak, I knew information from the slide mount. Now I use directory trees in the same way. You are saying that you just keep more information.

I think keeping more information is a Good Thing.
The only information on my slides when they came back from processing was the processing date. Not the date I took the shot. Sometimes I wrote on the slide frame but that was relatively rare. One of the biggest lies we tell ourselves is 'I'll remember that'.

And LR does (roughly) 90% of my image adjustments. PS does (roughly) 10%, mostly the more complex adjustments.
The primary reason I chose LR to begin with was the DAM. LR is the way I find my images. I do directory trees also because when I'm gone, that's the way my family will find the family photos (or whatever).

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

kfoo wrote:

I am not trying to judge. I am just wondering what percentage of photographers use pp as opposed to SOOC. I just look at photos and I try to replicate the quality and I have difficulty getting that quality. Again, not trying to judge one way or the other.

SOOC means the camera does your PP and creates a JPG. Sometimes it's good other times it sucks. I always shoot raw so I have total control of the output. I doesn't mean I use crappy settings but rather PP to my vision.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

DirtFarmer wrote:

I think keeping more information is a Good Thing.
The only information on my slides when they came back from processing was the processing date. Not the date I took the shot. Sometimes I wrote on the slide frame but that was relatively rare. One of the biggest lies we tell ourselves is 'I'll remember that'.
...
...

I REALLY like the "Taken Date" in the metadata!!!
However I wish they would allow something like "1956-May" for scanned old images.
Yea, I know, put it in the comment section.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Longshadow wrote:

I REALLY like the "Taken Date" in the metadata!!!
However I wish they would allow something like "1956-May" for scanned old images.
Yea, I know, put it in the comment section.

If you use Lightroom you can add things to the metadata (at least the metadata stored in the catalog). You can even generate new metadata fields.

I always put the date of creation in the metadata of scanned images in my LR catalog (at least my estimate of the creation date). I have images that date back to 1820 (or thereabouts*). The metadata stores the date and time of creation and of course those data are not always known, but you can enter an estimate. The time usually comes out as the time I entered the estimate.

The comment section is a place to store information in a jpg. It may not be available in other image formats.

*No, they're not photos. They are scanned documents or paintings.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. Capturing in RAW and editing the results moves the photographer from a entry-level understanding of focal lengths and camera brands into a higher form of existence, giving a deep meaning to every shutter release and mouse click. I edit, therefore I am.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

DirtFarmer wrote:

If you use Lightroom you can add things to the met... (show quote)

Yea, my "estimate" for unknown taken date is M/1/YY. M if known (1 if not), YY if known, otherwise I leave it as the scan date. If it was a string field, one could enter only "≈1820"....
Explorer can sort by date taken, not sure about the comment field.