Careful John, someone may jump all over you for daring to criticize word usage in a Topic Title, as I did a couple of months ago. Some on the Hog do not believe in the existence of benignly questioning what could be merely an innocent error. Your action could be construed as supercilious.

My maternal grandmother, late of 38 years, used to call any refrigerator a "Frigidaire". It appears that Bill 45 thinks of eBay as a generic label for any internet retailer selling used goods. I’m not going to even comment whether such usage is appropriate or confusing. In the anti-intellectual climate foisted by some on this forum, it is often considered rude, no, heretical, to inquire about such matters. 😉

Yeah, heh-heh, I know that. That's why I wouldn't trust Best Buy's Geek Squad with anything more complicated than that; however, I wasn't thinking about an online form at the time.

Perhaps in Canada, but after TWO bad experiences with Geek Squad in Louisiana, USA, with PC computers, I wouldn’t trust them with anything more complicated than a toaster!

Thank you. That explains why I perceive your derived JPEG samples as being "flat."

For what it’s worth, lately I’ve been shooting only JPEGs because I’m testing out a variety of external filters. I have shot a lot in RAW and do realize that this format can most certainly be manipulated to a greater degree than JPEG. When I travel out of state, I simultaneously capture in both RAW & JPEG, which facilitates my e-mailing select images in JPEG. But when I compare one of my SOOC JPEG to the JPEG from a particular photograph's RAW file, whether it is derived via either my Sony camera or Apple laptop, the two appear remarkably similar.

Sorry, I need to confirm that we’re talking about the exact same thing. When you write, "When I process the RAW files, I recover ..." are you referring to processing them into JPEGs?

I ask because if that is the case, then I would not consider the JPEGs you presented to be SOOC.

John, I have another question for you, pertaining to your SOOC samples. To my eye, in comparison with my SOOC JPEGs that I obtain directly from both my 650 nm-converted Sony dSLR and my Full Spectrum-converted Sony mirrorless (with various external filters attached,) the dynamic range of yours appear relatively flat.

You wrote that your samples "include the processing of the RAW file into a JPEG." Is that all? And is there more than one kind of "standard" JPEG that can be generated from the RAW file of each photograph? Or is it that you intentionally overexpose them to begin with? Please understand that my question is purely about technique and not a criticism as to the resultant artistic value.

Below are a couple of examples from my collection. The first was obtained with my 650 nm-converted Sony dSLR while the second was done with a 665 nm filter attached to my Full Spectrum-converted Sony mirrorless camera. The ONLY post-processing I did was merely to crop the second in order to facilitate comparison with the first. Yes, these were taken at different times of both the day and year.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, John! This is useful to me.
😎

Would you be able to, assuming you’re willing to take the time, please, to provide for each of these processed images you presented the original SOOC version? I currently shoot only SOOC with my FS camera employing a variety of filters but have found FEW, if any (besides those on one Lifepixel webpage,) examples of SOOC compared side-by-side with swapped channel versions.
😉

Worse! It’s scary. And those particular "protestors" see nothing wrong with carrying such weapons to a protest, or are we supposed to believe that they are all part of "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ..."? Yeah, right.

As to the posted photo, I suppose it’s a novelty to be worshipped by some, also quite telling.

Oh, you only want rightist "NWO clowns commenting on everything." I believe you can find them in the attic.

Thank you, repleo, sincerely, for your interesting remark, as subsequent reaction to it prompted me to look up its meaning!

While I still have no clue how the image relates to Covid-19, I wonder whether this bottle's shape could also represent a twist on Peyronie disease.

Trump is ... and he is full of it.

Sorry, I don’t get it. How does the distorted (or squeezed) shape of the bottle relate to this pandemic?

Over 63,000 people in the U.S. have died.

I agree. Welcome to the Hog!

I agree with you completely. The OP was wrong to attack me.