SOOC


Karl

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 09:41
Images straight out of camera.
Pros and cons?
I always retouch, crop or Photoshop mine in some way.

royd63uk

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 09:59
Probably 95% of the time I photoshop my images even if only levels
regards
Roy

Pentax K3 gripped,and some lenses
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pentaxroy/

my pbase gallery

JAK

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 10:03
If one takes raw, the out of camera images aren't much use without doing something to them. You couldn't for instance upload an OOC raw file to PU.
While OOC jpeg images can indeed be fine, in awkward lighting situations the ability to bring out shadow and highlight details from a raw file cannot be overlooked which is what photographers have done for decades from film negatives.
Often OOC images have extraneous matter at the edges of the frame which is difficult to avoid using a prime lens as opposed to cropping in camera with a zoom. Selective cropping has been done with film for decades too.
Then an out of camera image on film would be pointless without processing it. The moment you visibly saw an exposed negative that hasn't been processed it would be fogged and be rendered useless.
By processing is PS or something, one is only carrying on what has been done in photography since photography was invented.
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 10/03/2017 - 10:13

Papa_Lazarou

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 10:29
Why would anyone shoot RAW if they had no intention to post process?
JPEG is another story of course.
I'm RAW or nothing.

johnriley

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 10:40
It depends what we mean by post processing. When printing black and white images in the darkroom we were post processing, finalising the crop, determining the required contrast, selectively dodging and burning.....and that's more or less what I do in Photoshop for most images. Doing more than that, making montages, HDR and all the other available techniques could be done with film, but the techniques were very slow, exacting and sometimes expensive.

If you want images really SOOC, then shoot JPEG and adjust the JPEG output to give you the end result you want. An example of doing that:


Even so, the image has been resized and given final sharpening in Photoshop, but nothing else.
Best regards, John

swarf

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 11:28
I always shoot RAW so some processing is always involved. Normally just levels tweaks, the odd crop and straightening my (inevitable!) wonky horizon.

With my K-r I nearly always had dust spots to deal with, but I very rarely get these with K-5iis.

Phil
K-5iiS; K-r; ME Super; ME; DA* 16-50 f2.8; DA 18-135 WR; DA 55-300 WR; HD DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited; FA 50mm f1.4; A50mm f1.7; DAL 18-55mm; M40mm f2.8; + assorted non-Pentax lenses

My Flikr Page link

Simonmac

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 12:01
I think that there is a sect that preach SOOC as a purist way of approaching photography.

Of course, we do our best to get everything right, even when shooting RAW. Composition, exposure, focus and so on.

It's an old argument, but the SOOC JPEG club seem to ignore the processing performed by the camera!

John hits the nail on the head when he describes the darkroom process.

There is no mystery, we all post process to some extent, and there is no shame in doing so.
macmccreery.com
www.flickr.com/photos/simac/
www.500px.com/simac

johnriley

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 13:01
I tend to think of the JPEG processing in the camera as an equivalent to choosing the film and then the developer to get the sort of negatives we want.
Best regards, John

robbiec

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 14:14
I often liken proponents of SOOC as those having a peculiar masochistic streak in them, like the people who play full realistic on computer games i.e. there are those I know about who will take on a mission in a popular u-boot simulation and do not use the facility to speed up time meaning that a mission will take weeks or months to finish.

I understand that they will say that in film photography you could not adjust the image and that SOOC replicates that to a degree but how many here would take over 10 minutes processing an image in Lightroom, Photoshop, DXO etc? and if the camera has the feature of outputting RAW files along with the inherent flexibility that offers, why not take advantage of it.

Or the captured moment never to be repeated ruined because of a setting error but recoverable with RAW processing.
My Gallery
[url=http://pentaxphotogallery.com/Robbie Corrigan]ppg[/url]

1stEverPentax

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 15:53
I often liken proponents of SOOC as those having a peculiar masochistic streak in them, like the people who play full realistic on computer games i.e. there are those I know about who will take on a mission in a popular u-boot simulation and do not use the facility to speed up time meaning that a mission will take weeks or months to finish.

Sounds to me like those sort of people would be more likely to shoot RAW.

I have only ever tried shooting for one afternoon in RAW, at the airport. Hadn't got a suitable editor waiting...not really sure what I was expecting but I much preferred the output in JPEG and as the only things I tend to alter are brightness, contrast, cropping, resizing and one or two similar level things I find I can do all that very quickly and easily using a 4-5 year old package that cost me about 15.

If I was selling my images and/or a customer wanted a particular 'look' then I can see that RAW might be essential otherwise my view is that 'Life is too short...'
Last Edited by 1stEverPentax on 10/03/2017 - 15:54

JAK

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 16:30
1stEverPentax wrote:
I have only ever tried shooting for one afternoon in RAW, at the airport. Hadn't got a suitable editor waiting...not really sure what I was expecting but I much preferred the output in JPEG and as the only things I tend to alter are brightness, contrast, cropping, resizing and one or two similar level things I find I can do all that very quickly and easily using a 4-5 year old package that cost me about 15.

That's basically all you'd normally do with raw fies so it needn't take any longer. However, if you wanted to bring out some detail hidden in the shadows or tone down some burnt out highlights, then the raw file would help enormously with the shadow detail whereas a jpeg with burnt out highlights might not be fixable at all. You realise there's always the option to take raw + jpeg?

If you're taking aircraft against a bright sky the raw file should help greatly sort out any contrast differences.
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 10/03/2017 - 16:32

1stEverPentax

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 18:21
I admit there are the occasional images where it would be nice to extract a bit more detail from under the wings as far more likely to underexpose an aircraft than overexpose...normally I just set the EV compensation to +1 (give or take 1/3rd value) which usually helps.

I would only really think about using both RAW +JPEG if i intended using the RAW or if the shot was absolutely vital and I wanted to increase my chances of getting a 'keeper'. Using a K-50 I think it would slow the camera down to much in processing time which could be important when taking fast moving aircraft...also I tend to use just 16GB cards rather than 32GB and the extra space is a major consideration on a full day out.

Karlo

JAK

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 19:20
Agreed raw does slow things down a lot and the files are large so I quite understand. Where it really helps is taking photos in towns/cities on a sunny day where there are extremes of contrast. Also if you wish to try HDR processing from single file (otherwise you'd have to bracket the exposures.)
John K

Mag07

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 22:33
Quote:
It's an old argument, but the SOOC JPEG club seem to ignore the processing performed by the camera!

Amen.

That said, I do not always shoot RAW. Most of my family snaps and most of the time I use the QS1, it's jpgs. Also, I personally love how the K100D renders jpgs and every now and then, I pop a random lens on it and take it for a spin in jpg mode. I don't constantly see a need for spending time developing RAWs. For many occasions, SOOC is just fine 😎
'Photography...it remembers little things, long after you have forgotten....' (Aaron Siskind)

wvbarnes

Link Posted 10/03/2017 - 23:25
I save the raw data as max quality jpegs unless I think the subject/conditions problematic when i save both. I use AWB, Natural profile, no noise reduction unless very high ISO, little sharpening. I utilise all the clever anti vignetting, chromatic,distortion etc settings per lens on offer. I try to get exposure right in TAV mode with all three metering modes plus adjustments as I go.

I use Affinity Photo to crop, adjust by a stop or so, brighten, contrast a little, lift the odd shadow and maybe the clarity filters. I know the range is less than 14 bit RAW but mostly i aim to get there or there about in camera. I concede white balance is the big loss to me later BUT I'm red/green colour blind so would bugger it up any way.

I take many thousand pics a year including holidays, wildlife, family etc. RAW storage and such processing seem time consuming and bulky to store to me. I have around 200gb as nearly 40,000 files as it is. Around 2002 when I first went digital files were very small.

Each to their own. it's a hobby and i have fun with it. In my youth I was rubbish in temporary darkrooms in the bathroom (dust! YUK!) . I love the freedom and fun of this era.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.