Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

If your priority is quick and easy, then use SOOC. If your priority is quality, shoot in RAW and then use PP. You can’t get even close to the quality of images that are post-processed, with images that are straight out of the camera. There is a “but” though. Post processing software has an element of complexity, even with entry-level post-processing software, BUT that takes an investment of time and effort. This is a good example of you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Einstein sad ‘make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.’

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

[quote=Petes... Einstein sad ‘make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.’[/quote]

I have always wondered about that quote.

If you make something as simple as possible, then it is not possible to make it simpler.

Papa Joe Loc: Midwest U.S.

I almost always do some pp to photos... some minor adjustments, some more involved

R.G. Loc: Scotland

... unless you start leaving things out....

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

When one shoots raw it is needed.
SOOC is for the camera's JPEG program by the manufacturer.
Not always what you believe you saw. Especially with some of the JPEG settings that are selected that over cook straight out of the camera.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

When I used to write software I used to say "I can make something fool proof, goof proof, and idiot proof,
but I cannot make it blithering idiot proof."

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I'm going to assume you mean you have difficulty getting that quality SOOC without additional processing.

So even most of the folks who responded that they shoot JPEG acknowledged that they PP their images.

My wife and I go to the park every late afternoon for a walk. Yesterday I took two photos while we were there. I have a compact camera I carry with me everywhere (Canon G7). I think the two photos I took are instructive given your question.

First image below is the camera JPEG (SOOC with crop) of the photo I took while we sat on the bench after our walk. The camera JPEG is both overexposed and underexposed. The sky is nuked out with the highlights blown and the shadowed section in the foreground is too dark. The get it right in camera solution? Is not going to happen. This is a case of excessive contrast and it's common enough that the camera manufacturers have added functions in our cameras to address it. I'm using one of them here from Canon that they call Auto Lighting Optimizer -- I have it set to the highest value. The JPEG would be worse without it but it isn't enough. I could throw in another function that Canon calls HTP (highlight tone priority) but that would require that I reduce exposure -- the opposite of what's truly needed. More sophisticated cameras will offer more like an HDR option but none of those functions will produce the photo I took with trivial effort. The sky in the photo is daylight WB while the foreground is open shade WB. In processing the raw file I was able to apply both selectively to the respective areas -- not going to happen shooting a SOOC JPEG.

The camera JPEG is a wastebasket case given the blown highlights in the sky. To capture a JPEG that I could use and PP I would have to reduce exposure and substantially underexpose the darker sections of the image that are already underexposed. Best option shooting JPEG would be a camera with an HDR function and then try and repair the result. Still it would not be possible to do what I did in my version of the photo using the raw file. Second best option is a JPEG with less exposure. Either way PP will be required.

That's a really big difference between raw and JPEG here. The JPEG highlights are nuked but those highlights are not nuked in the raw file. Shooting raw I can expose more and that's big advantage. So the second photo below is processed from that raw file that I deliberately captured. Shooting raw in a lighting situation like this means I did a lot less work overall assuming the photo I wanted is the one I got. I like blue and orange together.

Walking back to the car we saw this fungus growing out of a hole in a tree. The sun had set and it was twilight. To take a photo I had to raise the ISO to 3200 on my little 1" sensor compact -- that's pushing it. The first photo below is the camera JPEG (SOOC with crop). This photo is a good example of why the myth "get it right in camera" is a myth. It is a rare photo that, delivered directly by the camera SOOC, won't benefit from some degree of local adjustment. It does happen and that interment reinforcement keeps the myth alive.

So the camera JPEG is pretty poor. To start it's off color. It's blue. That's because I had the camera set to auto WB. That's what auto WB does -- it get's the color wrong. But I have to set a WB so if not auto then a preset that would also have been wrong or a custom WB. Setting a custom WB is a pain so what to do. Try and fix the JPEG? Good luck with that.

The subject of the photo is the fungus. The hole in the tree functions as a frame. The frame is too light. There are no picture controls in the camera that will deal with that. It's a simple thing but what a difference it makes. I darkened the tree around the fungus bottom and right side while processing the photo. It is a rare photo that won't benefit from some local adjustment applied in post process.

As for the color, I keep my camera in a little pouch case and slipped in there is a piece of white Styrofoam. I placed it in the scene for the last shot and had a perfect WB target for processing the raw file. The JPEG is a bit noisy given the 3200 ISO (amazing it's as good as it is). This is a classic camera problem. Noise filtering is processor intensive and processing power in the camera is at a premium. Your camera has to process it's JPEGs assuming that you're holding the shutter release down and expect multiple JPEGs per second. The needed processing power + time simply isn't available for the camera to do any kind of noise filtering much above the level of "really sucks." I processed the raw file using state-of-the-art noise filtering from DXO that's only available with raw files. It makes a difference.

So two casual snapshots during a walk in the park -- post processing required if you really want a good result.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Photec

If I see something as I am going thru a normal day that I want to remember or capture for a specific reason, I can always use my cell phone and get a SOOC snapshot. It will always give me a quality likeness of what I saw that I want an image to remember.
If I am out doing photography, I usually have some basic ideas in mind. That means I have pre-conceived some ideas that have already caused me to select a camera system that will allow me to create an appropriate image based on the scenes that I may encounter. When I see something that sparks an idea for an image, I look for what I can make the final image look like in my mind's eye before shooting the scene. That is called pre-visualization and is always the best way for me to create an image that I will be happy with.
THAT ALWAYS REQUIRES POST PROCESSING in order to obtain the quality I hope to create! It also REQUIRES RAW images to create the best possible photograph. SOOC images have already discarded 50-75% of the total fine detail that can never be recreated.
This is my way of creating photographs, and it works for me. Others must develop their own method for creating images they can be happy with.
Side Note: I started out in the '60s with a 1/2 frame 35mm, progressed thru the '70s & '80s with small and large format and thru color and B/W darkrooms, the Zone System, and became a photography teacher/instructor until 2011. I became interested in digital photography in the early '90s.

Ednsb Loc: Santa Barbara

Any digital image is either processed in a camera (jpeg) or afterward in the computer as a SOC raw image can always benefit in some way. And if you think film shooters don't post process go look at the videos of Ansel Adams and others developing and processing images by manipulating them. Either/or by the particular ‘soup’ used to develop them or the enlarging, burning and dodging during printing.

Hip Coyote

IMO, you are seeking excellence using a poor strategy. You ask about SOOC vs. processing (a worn out topic on UHH) rather than posting some of your work and seeking help to enhance your art. Have you joined a photo club, entered contests, sought guidance from experts? If you simply limit your options to SOOC vs. processing, then I think you are not doing yourself good at getting better.

I know not one excellent photographer who does not post process their images....and I know quite a few. A few are very well regarded in the region, recognized by PSA, have published features in PSA. They are well known judges as well. Their work is exceptional. I am not in that league. But their excellence is not necessarily due to pp, SOOC. Wrong question. It is due to seeing light, the scene, the image in their mind's eye before the shot. They are often very precise in the planning for shots such as at air shows, landscapes, bird watching at the exact right times of the day, angles, etc. And they have a high degree of technical excellence or mastery of the science (ISO, SS and Aperture, etc.) behind the shot.

Want to have high quality? I think you need to seek a different path, lest you will simply ignite, yet another, inane debate on UHH, over SOOC vs. PP, and not get better at this art.

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

Is using a Prius to pull a "BS" Spreader a new first here on UHH?
It sure got a grin from me . . . .
Best Wishes,
JimmyT Sends
Bravo Zulu

Nicholas J DeSciose

Your ignorance is astonishing

kfoo Loc: Arkansas

I am just talking about overall picture quality.