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.

Please reference a Web-site that discusses this matter. Thanks.

Meantime, I see a database of images residing on the camera and linked to the exposure at the moment of shutter release as more like a look-up table that swiftly responds to the exposure values present when the shooter presses the shutter button.

How else can one explain the process the camera system in the cellular telephone employs to produce very well-exposed images right from the camera? The metering system does slightly underexpose images taken in bright sunlight to capture the range of values in the sky area.

I may study this topic on my own for more than one reason.

I suppose some folks get up in the morning and feel the need to debate bout SOMETHING photographic, but they can't find a controversy to argue about to revive this issue that goes beyond ZOMBIE status. It's just common a common sense issue:

1. There is no such thing as NO post-processing. Processing starts as soon as you release the shutter unless you never want to see the images you shoot, other than in the viewfinder or on the camera's screen, and just leave that languish away on the card- well bad news- they have already been processed by the camera- but that's a moot point. As soon as you upload images to your computer, more processing has taken place. And...remember film? You start off with a latent image and had to process the film to get started!

2. Since you have already viewed your images on the computer you have to decide whether not you want to EDIT or alter them or create a special effect. If you leave it as is, I suppose you can call it straight out of the camera- so to speak! It's like making a contact print in the old days- as is!

3. If you decide you want to alter the density (brightness), contrast, adjust the composition by cropping, increase or decrease color saturation, dodge or burn to retain detail in a certain area. etc, that's not cheating or lying. These adjustments were made by photographers, using film and paper, and chemistry, for hundreds of years. Nowadays, in digital it's more convenient but if you know what you are doing it does not have to look artificial or overly enhanced- unless you want it to!

4. If you want to create a special effect from the get-go, perhaps you can do this in the camera usig filters, inferred, double exposure, kaleidoscopic lens attachments, and endless other techniques employing every kind of smoke and mirrors that you can think up. If the shooting conditions or time frame can not accommodate all the time and effort in doing this in-camera or if the effect you want or need to achieve is otherwise impossible- welcome to post-processing!

5. I am not a psychologist or a theologian. If you approach this SOOTC thing as a religion, ethic, or challenge to your existence, that's your right and I have to respect your philosophy. Digital processg is just a tool in the photographer's toolbox, you can use it to whatever extent you prefer.

The OP posted a basically monochromatic image- it's all blue! He colorized it. Doing that in-camera might have been an impossible task.

Please reference a Web-site that discusses this matter. Thanks.

Meantime, I see a database of images residing on the camera and linked to the exposure at the moment of shutter release as more like a look-up table that swiftly responds to the exposure values present when the shooter presses the shutter button.

How else can one explain the process the camera system in the cellular telephone employs to produce very well-exposed images right from the camera? The metering system does slightly underexpose images taken in bright sunlight to capture the range of values in the sky area.

I may study this topic on my own for more than one reason.

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

Correct,

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

Raw shooters have ALL the image data that your camera and lens can capture to work with in post processing.

SOOC images are compressed with discarded pixels, lost dynamic range, lost color pallet, with the camera processor algorithms having done processing on their own, making the processing decisions. You may have gotten used to SOOC images , but it isn't all of the reality of what your camera and lens saw.

Cheers and best to you.

First, where do you SEE that database?


It is rather simple: deep learning algorithms work into steps:

1) training of the model

A blank model is created and then is is fed by thousands upon thousands of tagged images. The tags are the intended result, like "increase contrast +2" , "reduce greens -1", etc.

This process is very, and I mean VERY resource intensive and takes ginourmous process severs which work hundreds or thousands of hour to digest all that data.

The output of this process are the weights that define the model.

The weights, are part of the firmware that is loaded into the device, in this case a camera.

2) Now, the camera makes a much more simple process, called inference.

The RAW file is fed to the model, which spits "increase contrast" etc. to process the RAW file into an edited one which is later encoded to Jpeg.

In the camera is NO database of images, only the weights created by the training process. The images take many terabytes and are core know-how if the developer.

Again, only RAW is "SOOC", jpegs are heavily processed.

BTW, I do work on such models... The training is outsourced to big (BIG) Google servers and the inference stage is done with $100 devices.

Correct,

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

Raw shooters have ALL the image data that your camera and lens can capture to work with in post processing.

SOOC images are compressed with discarded pixels, lost dynamic range, lost color pallet, with the camera processor algorithms having done processing on their own, making the processing decisions. You may have gotten used to SOOC images , but it isn't all of the reality of what your camera and lens saw.

Cheers and best to you.