Bill_de Loc: US

---

Juy Loc: Delaware

Too funny

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The poll that is currently ongoing is producing some very interesting results. A surprising number of responders are indicating that they ask their cameras to produce both formats.

No one has ever heard me say that SOOC is the only way. I don't believe that, and I don't do photography that way. I am doing quite a bit of photography right now that requires me submit usable JPEGs for possible publication at the end of each session, but that's nowhere near the same as preaching that SOOC is the only way. And I have a lot of images from my D200 days that I really wish I had raw versions to work with.

What I do say is that today's cameras offer outstanding performance and a huge range of adjustments that easily support making print-ready JPEGs straight from the camera, even in what used to be considered very difficult situations. But accomplishing those results requires some amount of learning and the willingness to accomplish that learning. And the willingness to thi k a little bit differently. On top of all that, accomplishing those results can be done without causing any damage to the precious raw files.

And yes...I am aware that some raw enthusiasts follow some quite extreme methods to support their approach. But again, with the modern cameras that have been available for the last 10 years or so, that extremism is no longer necessary. I take no offense to the continued usage, only to the continued claim that "it is the only way," or even that "it is the best way."

So yes...there are extremes on both sides, but there is a significant imbalance.

Juy Loc: Delaware

[quote=pdsdville]I don't understand why this is such a volatile subject.

Wow you must be new here, these folks all feel their way is the correct way. Love these threads that go on forever with no meaning ful conclusion

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

Try https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-787932-1.html#14194662. Currently 46 pages going strong.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The whole concept of "unaltered" is, of course, ridiculous. However, many photo educators have used it as some sort of teaching tool to get new photographers to control all the variables at the camera, instead of "fixing things in post." They act as if this is the be-all, end-all of a good photographer. Their students tend to follow this religion blindly. It becomes a useful, if creatively limiting, tool of social control for beginners. When you take the advanced class, THAT's where they tell you that the rules are useful tools, but you should learn when to break them safely and tastefully, or combine them creatively, or pit them against one another for a visual mind-warp.

There was once the practice of filing out the edges of enlarger negative carriers so that a print could include some jagged black border around the rectangular image, caused by light spilling through the film base. This was to indicate that you had done your composition only in the camera, and not at the enlarging easel. It was some sort of "proof" of "straight out of camera" printing. Never mind that it introduced flare and reduced contrast, or eliminated most of your images from being considered "properly composed," or dissuaded you from creative cropping and other techniques of fixing minor errors such as horizon imbalance, off-center composition, etc. ad nauseam.

There was once the practice of teaching exposure with SLIDE FILM, too. It has almost no exposure latitude, and isn't cropped significantly, either. The original, 8-sprocket hole-wide chip of film is mounted in paper, or plastic, or metal, or glass, usually in a 3:2 aspect ratio mount that is about 1mm smaller than the exposed image. It's an honest medium, because development is fixed, and all factors controlling the outcome must be controlled at the camera, unless you're lucky enough to own a slide duplicator or a digital imaging rig (scanner or camera with macro lens). It's also a very LIMITING medium, for most people, because they can't afford all the great tools of a 1980s audiovisual lab that made slide imaging easier and more effective.

In short, "SOOC" is a myth. I have nothing against "JPEG makers," because I can be one when a situation warrants it or demands it. I know how to control a LOT of variables at the camera. But I also value ALL of the tools available to me as a photographer, and I'm not afraid to use them when appropriate.

Frankly, I don't care HOW you make an image. I care whether I like it or not. Are you…

> Teaching me something?

> Moving my emotions or setting a mood?

> Recording an event for historical purposes?

> Affecting future events by proving a point?

> Proving the outcome of a current event, process, or experiment?

> Decorating a space?

> Illustrating a product I might want to buy?

> ad infinitum, ad nauseam…

Alterations don't bother me. Do whatcha gotta do to make the image fit the purpose. Just don't LIE with it. Keep it real, but make it serve its purpose.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

This question makes no sense to me. There is no such thing as an unaltered image, except for raw images. IMHO, raw images are not intended to be shared; they are intended to be processed, primarily because they retain the maximum amount of available digital information. (BTW, “processed” is not “altered”. “Unaltered” and “altered” are prejudicial.) Also, raw images do not purport to be an accurate or even close representation of the subject. The term SOOC as a term of art, which should not be confused with “unaltered,” because every camera processes images, with the exception of raw images.

Juy Loc: Delaware

Yep

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Film photography is always altered when it is printed. You must decide how dark or light to print, what contrast to use, and color balance if shooting color film. You can also alter film when developing if you push or pull it. And that's before custom printing techniques.

10MPlayer Loc: California

Agree. They come out of the camera looking bland and uninteresting. Someone above said they don't alter their shots, they only change the contrast, color temperature and brightness. That's altering and if you shoot RAW as anyone who wants a decent photo should, then you have to do those things at the very least to make it look like it did when you shot it.

10MPlayer Loc: California

Yes, it is true. RAW is all the data collected by the camera on the sensor. It is almost always flat, boring, lacking in contrast and not reflective of the true colors in the scene. It needs to be processed to bring out the saturation, shadows and correct hues otherwise it looks dull and muddy. Take a few shots of the same scene, some in JPEG and others in RAW and see the difference for yourself.

10MPlayer Loc: California

I did a lot of altering when I had my own darkroom in the 1980s. I cropped and burned and dodged most every shot. I pushed the developer to bring out contrast. Sometimes I used a sheet of glass with vaseline on it to soften the edges of an image. At times when I had dust spots on a negative I took a paint brush and painted them out. Occasionally I'd paint out an object if I felt it made a better image. There are plenty of things you can do in the darkroom to improve an image.

Bill_de Loc: US

At the end of the day, isn't most of what we see on a screen a jpg?
The advances we see with "in camera" processing is pretty good. All the info that creates the jpg image comes out of the raw file.

---

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

Another can of worms. Is raw an image that you can look at and tell whether it's flat, contrastless, and not reflective of the scene's colors?

My position is that it is not an image because to produce an image from raw data takes application of parameters that may not be included in the raw data file metadata. e.g. you have a wide range of white balance settings (temperature AND tint) that will affect the colors in the resulting image. Until that processing occurs, I don't believe the raw data can really be described as an image. Yes, there is software that will show you a bitmap of red, green, and blue dots, but I don't call that a real image because it doesn't look like what the final demosaiced image looks like.

Going back to CamB's post I don't believe that 'Most here shoot RAW.' There is another thread working on that with a poll (although I don't really think forum polls can really be accurate because participation is not controlled). The rest of CamB's post I consider accurate.

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

It is still in the camera when the processing is done, so it must be SOOC when it emerges from the camera.