Hereford Loc: Palm Coast, FL

This is the best comment so far on this thread. It's why most of us shoot raw.

FredCM Loc: Central Illinois

Re: CHG_CANON -- HAH! Made me laugh out loud.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Different but guaranteed to be inferior (IQ) to hand processing the raw file with superior software tools. MOTTO: when possible choose the best option (IQ) -- save and process raw files.

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

I'm a raw shooter so from my perspective, raw is the way to go in cases like that.

SOOC is post processed. The camera does it based on the settings you give it. Those settings are fairly coarse, and most editing programs have much finer control over things like white balance.

There are times when SOOC can do a good job. This is not one of them. You are shooting through a color filter (the water) and most digital cameras don't have a setting for that.

I shoot raw because I never know just before pressing the button whether SOOC will work the way I want it to or whether I will need to adjust things later. In particular, when you're on a boat with many other people doing their thing you are extremely limited in just how you can set your camera to get the SOOC you want. It will take time to determine what will work and not every shot will require the same setting (different depths will have more or less filtering). And the tour boat doesn't stop moving.

Of course you would have a much better chance of finding the right settings if it were your boat. But even then I have my doubts as to whether you could adjust the color to offset the water filter color.

To be sure, you want the exposure to be as close as possible to optimum even for raw shooting. But raw shooting allows you to do anything possible with white balance, wheres the camera settings do not.

SOOC shooting has limitations. Raw shooting also has limitations, but fewer of them

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Ysarex wrote

[Delderby wrote: Your SOOC attached - downloaded and PP'd - no claim as to quality etc, but if that had been adjusted properly in camera before the shot the result would have been very different.]

Ysarex wrote [Different but guaranteed to be inferior (IQ) to processing the raw file with superior software tools. MOTTO: when possible choose the best option (IQ).] Delderby wrote: [MOTTO - get to know your camera.]

Yes - but that edited JPG came from Jim Gray's camera before the editing. He had obviously not intended to use it.
Nothing wrong with that - but by the same token he should not have held it up as an example of a JPG vs RAW pic.
Most RAW pundits do the same when comparing SOOCs with the RAW equivalents - they edit the RAW but not the JPG. I think that is cheating and never a proper comparison.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

No - surely not - the RAW is edited, but the JPG is not - so there is no comparison and no "example".

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I was speaking generally and not referring to the images in this thread.
After you get to know your camera and do all that is possible with the camera settings to get the best possible SOOC JPEG you will have a guaranteed inferior result (IQ) compared with hand processing a raw file using superior software tools.
If you then decide to post process the SOOC JPEG and attempt to improve it you will still have a guaranteed inferior result (IQ) compared with hand processing a raw file using superior software tools.
So MOTTO: when possible choose the best option (IQ) -- save and process raw files.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

I'm not miss the debate any.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

In any case, using underwater flash or lights could help a lot!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

In your dreams.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Ysarex wrote [I was speaking generally and not referring to the images in this thread.
After you get to know your camera and do all that is possible with the camera settings to get the best possible SOOC JPEG you will have a guaranteed inferior result (IQ) compared with hand processing a raw file using superior software tools. If you then decide to post process the SOOC JPEG and attempt to improve it you will still have a guaranteed inferior result (IQ) compared with hand processing a raw file using superior software tools.
So MOTTO: when possible choose the best option (IQ) -- save and process raw file]

Your comments above might have an element of truth contained therein, but you have missed out the most important element - the skill (or lack of) of the person attempting to do the RAW editing.

Canisdirus

SOOC or PP

It's just like...lazy or not lazy.

Make an effort for Pete's sake.

JonathanChemE

SOOC is just using the computer in the camera to process the image. It takes the raw data and does it's own production in almost real time. So any camera settings you make are no different than making setting changes in post-processing. The only real difference is that if you shoot in jpeg only in camera you are pretty much stuck with what the computer in the camera gives you. If you shoot in raw than you can make the settings after the fact. The in camera processing is neither more nor less "real." The camera's computer does not "see" an image, it merely processes sensor data according to the assigned settings. In post processing you can create what you remember to make it "real" or create what you think is the most appealing picture.

On a tangent this is why I am really mulling over getting an R7 to replace my T7i. When I look through the viewfinder (which is nice I tried one out at a camera center,) I am not seeing what my naked eyes sees but what the processor in the camera thinks I should see and pretty much what I would get SOOC. I am not certain that I want that but I would really liked the IBIS and greater ISO range.