Watcher51 Loc: Gulfport, ms

A photographer should be able to present what he/she observed vs what the camera saw. This is nearly always going to be different. Any adjustments needed show what was perceptively observed should be permitted without exception.
If you were not there to view the original scene there is no judgment to be made. The presentation should be accepted at face value.

If the camera is not set for the specific values encountered there is no way sooc will produce a " realistic" view of the scene.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

The camera will record what is in front of it - reality! "Perceptively observed" might exist only in the mind of the photographer. Which is why I prefer SOOC. What we perceive, if different to SOOC, is untruthful.
AI has the ability to promote that which is visually untrue.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Wrong.

100 times wrong, and based on an absolutely outdated view on how a camera works.

Modern cameras look and feel as cameras, but are digital information gathering devices.

What a digital camera "sees" has nothing to do with what *you* see as the (jpeg) result.

That "SOOC" you price is nothing more than a heavily processed (yes like photoshopped") file produced from the data sampled by the sensor.

When you fiddle with the vibrance or color balance in the camera you are altering that precious SOOC, you are editing, which again demonstrates that it is YOU, and not the camera who is creating it.

The SOOC vs PP debate, in reality is WHERE the process occurs.

SOOC shooters process on site, RAW shooters process at home.

Both do the same

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Piffle - Let's talk sky replacement, replace background, remove objects - plus a host of other falsifying editing facilities made available in AI. And before you rabbit about vibrance and saturation, don't forget that people do not see exactly the same colors as each other! - and where does B&W fit into your make-believe world?
But I am not holding myself up as never using PP - the difference is that I don't kid myself or others.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

No. Exactly the opposite. One of the reasons I hand process my images is because I do typically want them faithful to the reality of what I saw and the camera does a poor job of that -- I do much better.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

To each their own: Both styles of photography require extra effort and due dilligence to produce the finest of results (I'm not talking "snapshots") - for SOOC the real work is on the front end and requires extensive knowledge in application of the camera settings (and what they will yield) and the proper attachments/setup to achieve the prized shot - with RAW/PP it is much the same, with the knowledge base enlarged to include the backend workflow to achieve the prize (raw to finished product). I have never shot underwater (have shot thru glass bottomed boats) and do know you have to get past the surface water reflections to see the beauty, same for camera. Both styles have their place in photography, and both can make the shooter happy. It has never earned "argument status" for me, as I use either method when I want...... I will say (my opinion) that RAW/PP allows greater latitude with the ability to tailor the outcome.
Cheers

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

None of that software includes someone to hold a gun to your head and make you use it. Some of that bleep bleep is also in the cameras now. I can set my Canon camera to create a SOOC JPEG and apply the "toy camera" or the "water painting" or the "art bold" etc. etc. effect -- talk about a departure from reality!

I prefer for my photos that they be faithful to what I saw. I'm much better at achieving that than the software in my cameras that typically get it wrong.

SOOC image = software processed image.
My raw file processed image = software processed image.

The software in the camera is pretty crude. I'm much more capable of rendering an image faithful to reality than is the camera. It's my choice and not at all the case that the camera's software represents reality and my processing does not.

Here's a simple example -- a snapshot in the park. As soon as direct sunlight is removed from the foreground of a landscape and the sky becomes the light source then you're attempting to take a photo that includes the light source. The brightness of the sky and foreground will be severely out of balance. You eyes correct in real time for that difference your camera can not. First photo below is the SOOC JPEG -- a huge departure from reality with no option in the camera to correct the error -- the sky is blown out. Here in St. Louis the sky is blue not washed out cyan. The only way the camera software is going to avoid that error is less exposure. The foreground in already a bit too dark. You need the in camera function of exposing less while exposing more -- which one of your cameras has that feature?

My hand processed version of the photo is the one more faithful to what I saw.

(Download)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I wish my memory was as good as yours.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

I don't need to remember to recognize that the camera has produced a false image. When I look at clouds in the sky with openings that show the blue sky behind them I see the clouds and I see the blue of the sky and I'll bet you do too.

anotherview Loc: California

Years ago, I read that point-and-shoot digital cameras came with a database of 20,000 images as a reference to correct Auto camera exposures.
My cellular telephone appears to have such an arrangement for producing usable photos SOOC. Usually, I only have to crop the resulting image.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

A common misconception. The database is on the software writer's computer and is used to develop the numerical algorithm determining how much weight is placed on the center of the frame and how much remains for the periphery. There is no database in your camera. Referring to it every time you press the shutter release would take way too much time.

one_eyed_pete Loc: Colonie NY

What Delderby has told us it that the mfg company of his camera has tapped into his brain and copied his perception algorithms then written that same processing code into his camera's computer so his SOOC JPG images are the same as his real world perception. So, in reality, he does see your first image.

JimGray Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico

If the SOOC images you have are raw files, the PPW steps I described should help. If your SOOC images are jpegs and you have to start with the jpeg do this. In Photoshop the red channel may be poor. If it is, create a duplicate layer in photoshop. If the green channel is good, use "apply image" to apply the green channel to the red. This will clobber the color in the image. Then change the blending mode of the duplicate layer to luminosity. It is possible that a different blend would work better.

Watcher51 Loc: Gulfport, ms

Should you depend on what a machine decides to record vs.your senses and reasoning/intelligent interpretation of what you "saw"‽ A camera does not see the scene as you do. The human eye is connected to the most sophisticated computational/ interpretational object we know of. I'll stick with that.

JimGray Loc: Albuquerque, New Mexico