BlackRipleyDog

Very true, but that flies in the face of the purist-concept of SOOC and it's accolates.

shelty Loc: Medford, OR

Always remember, there are two types of photographers: The first are those who take record pictures, with no post processing, to show on their phone or Facebook, or to make small prints to maybe put in an album or stack them in a drawer. The second is the photographer who goes out and takes pictures, then post processes them into what may be called 'wall hangers' or salon type of prints which could be sold.
I have thousands of both types of pictures stacked in my house. Nobody but nobody will ever open any of my albums to see where I've been or what Aunt Judy looked like years ago. But when I bring out my Salon prints, people will ooh and awe over them.
Yes 'russelray' there still hasn't been a camera made that can record what the eye sees.

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

I shoot raw so everything has to get converted to a visible file format. So all my files go into Lightroom (through a re-naming program). Many images don't need much but some need more than LR will do so they go to PS. I would say that virtually all my photos get cropped. Partly because I leave a little on the edges so I'm sure I got it all, but mostly because I am not a believer in standardized aspect ratios. My shots get cropped so they look good to me, because I want to get rid of some of the extraneous elements on the edges, because I believe the composition fits a long thin (or tall skinny) format better than 9:16 or 3:4 depending on the camera I'm using.

I shoot events, which are sometimes fast-paced. So I rarely have time to really work on a shot in real time. I have the time afterwards to polish it up. And since everything I shoot goes into LR, and I allow time in my workflow to keyword shots, I have a good record of my shots and can find things I want. This is really important to me because as my age gets larger my memory gets smaller. I need digital assistance for a lot of things now.

As far as actual processing, I try to keep it looking real.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

I've been working in darkrooms and Lightrooms since 1966. Considering what we did to film when we were developing it and then printing pictures, I think there never has been such a thing as SOOC. What does that mean? If you're going to say that, it still needs to be quantified: "This picture is SOOC, the camera being a _________________ set to f/stop _______, IOS ________, and shutter speed ________." That still wouldn't work for film/darkroom, though. Considering how many presets my Canon 760D has, if I said a picture was SOOC, all that would mean is that I didn't have a clue what the default setting was programmed to be by the Canon software engineers. I do admit that I have always liked the Canon software engineers better than the other manufacturers, although since 2014 I have wound up liking the Adobe DNG software engineers the best.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

We might have to define "real" though because what you see might be totally different from what I see from what a red-deficient color blind person sees from what a blue-deficient color blind person sees, and on and on and on.

BlackRipleyDog

If digital cameras did not have rear displays, would there be a need for in-camera processing to produce jpegs. A digital camera would, in it's purest form, would be just a device to capture raw data and nothing more.
Does the Hubble Space Telescope send back jpegs as well?

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

Perhaps not jpegs, but there would be a need for in-camera processing. That's why there are so many RAW formats. Nikon has NEF, Canon has CR2, etc. So I guess we might need to define "raw data."

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

that opens up to many a philosophical discourse