User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  17
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: For the SOOC's among us!

  1. #1
    Other side of the hill ... WhoDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    For the SOOC's among us!

    For the uninitiated, SOOC stands for Straight Out Of Camera and is usually mentioned in disdainful terms by those opposed to "...'shopping" their images. A small admission ... that was ME TOO ... once! Now I can see that SOOC's are really just babes, crying for the milk of human kindness, so here is a little "milk" from a British pro via PetaPixel. Enjoy, SOOC's!

    http://www.petapixel.com/2013/03/01/...s/#more-102808
    Waz
    Be who you are and say what you mean, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind - Dr. Seuss...
    D700 | D7000 | Nikkor AF-S 18-55 DX 1:3.5-5.6G | Nikkor AF-S 55-300 DX 1:4.5-5.6 G ED | Nikkor AF 50 f/1.8D | Optex OPM2930 tripod/monopod | Enthusiasm ...
    My Flickr images ...

  2. #2
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,864
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yep, a fairly concise summary of what most properly informed people have known for one heck of a long time.

    The notion that film was somewhat more pure than digital is, IMHO, horsesh*t.
    That bit especially sums it up.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  3. #3
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    4,562
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Interesting read Wazza.

    Back in the good old film days, SOOC was generally pretty ordinary, and dodge and burn turned it into something viewable.

    Good photographs have always had to start with 'the light', good focus and composition, however the digital era has provided us with much better tools to fine tune the end result.
    Cheers
    Kev

    D800 & GAS

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    14 Jan 2013
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    258
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    newbie question/thought: how many of us, turn-off all the in-camera processing? can this even be done? not matter what your settings, wouldn't the camera be "processing" your images wether you like it or not?
    CC allways appreciated!
    My gear Canon 1100D, Tamron SP70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di VC USD lens, and Canon 18-55 EFS lens.

  5. #5
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    4,562
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by extraball View Post
    newbie question/thought: how many of us, turn-off all the in-camera processing? can this even be done? not matter what your settings, wouldn't the camera be "processing" your images wether you like it or not?
    I personally minimise all in-camera processing, and always shoot RAW so I can do my own thing in PP.

  6. #6
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,864
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by extraball View Post
    newbie question/thought: how many of us, turn-off all the in-camera processing?
    If you are photographing in raw then you have the ability to disable most in camera processing.

    Quote Originally Posted by extraball View Post
    can this even be done?
    I don't believe that it can be done, after all, digital cameras come with a device called a processor -----

    Quote Originally Posted by extraball View Post
    not matter what your settings, wouldn't the camera be "processing" your images wether you like it or not?
    If you are photographing in JPEG, yes.

  7. #7
    Other side of the hill ...
    Threadstarter
    WhoDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by trublubiker View Post
    I ... always shoot RAW so I can do my own thing in PP.
    Now THAT just boggles the mind, Kev! Once those images are in there, there is no getting them out again, either!

  8. #8
    keen learner of new tricks.
    Join Date
    09 Feb 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, NSW
    Posts
    8,372
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    good read Waz. I think the end result, however you get there, is the important thing. If you are happy with it, then everyone else can toddle off to the taxidermist.
    Graeme
    "May the good Lord look down and smile upon your face"......Norman Gunston___________________________________________________
    Nikon: D7000, D80, 12-24 f4, 17-55 f2.8, 18-135, 70-300VR, 35f2, SB 400, SB 600, TC-201 2x converter. Tamron: 90 macro 2.8 Kenko ext. tubes. Photoshop CS2.


  9. #9
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,137
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    There is a good old thread here on this same topic : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...rs-and-Editing
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  10. #10
    Other side of the hill ...
    Threadstarter
    WhoDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Jun 2010
    Location
    Lake Macquarie
    Posts
    4,880
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by old dog View Post
    If you are happy with it, then everyone else can toddle off to the taxidermist.
    Hehe! I'm just old enough to appreciate the humour in that comment, Graeme!

  11. #11
    Sunrise Chaser
    Join Date
    10 Jul 2010
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    6,346
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by old dog View Post
    good read Waz. I think the end result, however you get there, is the important thing. If you are happy with it, then everyone else can toddle off to the taxidermist.

    And get St---f-d Good one Graham, I'll remember that ,
    Canon : 30D, and sometimes the 5D mkIII , Sigma 10-20, 50mm 1.8, Canon 24-105 f4 L , On loan Sigma 120-400 DG and Canon 17 - 40 f4 L , Cokin Filters




  12. #12
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    4,562
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yeah, good one old dog.

    I can remember telling someone who was peeing me off that I'd made an appointment for them at the taxidermist, and took much delight at the blank look on their face.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    if I gave you a camera without electronics or even a battery...could you take a properly exposed image?
    how much of an image is ours? how much is it the engineers at canon or adobe etc?
    do we care? perhaps the final result is all that matters? if so, why as viewers are we continually interested in the back story of how/when an image was taken?

    when people argue about film vs digital. I'm not sure if they're actually arguing the medium itself or rather technical cameras vs slr's...and most digital users haven't experienced anything beyond an slr due to costs.
    even in the film age, slr's were rubbish (but convenient).
    film users will all convert when those digital backs start becoming more affordable.
    Last edited by sunny6teen; 04-03-2013 at 5:27pm.

  14. #14
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,864
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    if I gave you a camera without electronics or even a battery...could you take an properly exposed image?
    Properly exposed, yes, processed to appeal to my and the viewers eyes, NO.


    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    when people argue about film vs digital. I'm not sure if they're actually arguing the medium itself or rather technical cameras vs slr's...and most digital users haven't experienced anything beyond an slr due to costs.
    Nobody is actually arguing the film VS digital in this thread, it was all about processing to begin with but seeing as you seem to think it fits the theme ---

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    even in the film age, slr's were rubbish (but convenient).
    Totally agree about convenient, the reference to rubbish though is beyond my comprehension. I must have looked at a lot of rubbish photos over the years if that is the case.


    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    film users will all convert when those digital backs start becoming more affordable.
    Film users --- are there any actually left?

  15. #15
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,137
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    if I gave you a camera without electronics or even a battery...could you take a properly exposed image?
    how much of an image is ours? how much is it the engineers at canon or adobe etc?
    And Velvia, Provia, Kodak Portra, and more all offered a way to achieve a different result with film, so how much of your film photography is the emulsion engineers at Fuji, Kodak, etc, rather than your skill?

    Capturing on film or capturing digitally are just different, a discussion about one being better than the other is just an argument for arguments sake.

  16. #16
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    09 Nov 2009
    Location
    Kalgoorlie
    Posts
    1,153
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anyone ever looked at the sound engineers station in a recording studio? Holy hell how many different ways can those guys tweak a piece of music??

    Now, how many prefer the live version over the recorded one? Sure, a few will but the vast majority will agree that the recorded (processed) audio track is much better. Sure, the singer needs to be able to sing in the first place but after that the processing makes for a finished product. The same is true in photography.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    the article from the original post is about digital v film. in particular, the myth that film is a purer medium.

    anyhow, I'm not an advocate of film as such...just the medium that uses tech cameras (without forking out 40k for digital backs etc).

    if you're looking at architecture with slr photos...then yes you must be looking at a lot of rubbish the problems are a lot more visible with buildings. slr's are very limited when it comes to moving the focal plane. it was also nice to shoot at f/64

    slr's are for portable convenience. otherwise, there'd be no market for digital backs.

  18. #18
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,864
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    the article from the original post is about digital v film. in particular, the myth that film is a purer medium.
    I read it differently, I see an article about "getting it right straight out of the camera" and the references to film are used as an illustration of days gone by, that film and digital are two very different processes ( pun intended ) and that whichever medium is used they both need some form of enhancement to achieve a satisfactory result. Proper attention to exposure, detail and composition are principals that have not altered, simply the processing methods are radically different. I really do not see any "vs" element to the discussion about which medium is best to use to capture an image.

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    if you're looking at architecture with slr photos...then yes you must be looking at a lot of rubbish the problems are a lot more visible with buildings. slr's are very limited when it comes to moving the focal plane.
    No, I don't spend a lot of time looking at architectural photos but I have seen some fantastic images done by commercial photographers more than likely using MF / LF gear who specialise in that genre and conversely I have seen some extremely enviable images that I know have been done with an slr, with and without perspective control lenses and I certainly don't regard them as rubbish. I have also seen images that I would consider to be far from optimal taken with all kinds of cameras but to use the term "rubbish" in relation to one particular format of camera smacks of a degree of elitism, snobbery and just a little rude to me.


    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    it was also nice to shoot at f/64
    Why is it "nice"?

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    slr's are for portable convenience.
    I kind of think that is possibly one of the primary reasons that they were developed way back when ---- however, time moves on and I reckon that a massive amount of photographers who use them to produce a range of work varying from family snapshots to full blown commercial advertising ventures regard them as more than just "convenient" so I guess the original aim in their creation has been a huge marketing success.


    Quote Originally Posted by sunny6teen View Post
    otherwise, there'd be no market for digital backs.
    And probably will be for a fair while to come but if I were a gambling type of person looking for longish term returns on the share market I somehow don't think my money would be best spent buying shares in Phase One or Leaf etc. as opposed to someone like Fujifilm -----

    Time moves on, some things stay the same, some die out and some flourish.

  19. #19
    http://steveaxford.smugmug.com/ Steve Axford's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Nov 2007
    Location
    About in the middle between Byron Bay, Ballina and Lismore
    Posts
    2,876
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by fess67 View Post
    Anyone ever looked at the sound engineers station in a recording studio? Holy hell how many different ways can those guys tweak a piece of music??

    Now, how many prefer the live version over the recorded one? Sure, a few will but the vast majority will agree that the recorded (processed) audio track is much better. Sure, the singer needs to be able to sing in the first place but after that the processing makes for a finished product. The same is true in photography.
    I prefer the live version with music, like I prefer being there to seeing a photo. I don't think that this is a good analogy as any recording of reality will fall short of the real thing in some way. The comparison seems to be of the unprocessed recorded image vs the processed recorded image. Some music is only processed, Gotya for example, but that is still an exception.

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    12 Sep 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    861
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    slr's are great for handheld work and they'll get get you shots where you may have missed out without one (I use a couple of them myself) but if you're using a tripod...there are better options available.
    better system...better glass.
    I'm always amused by the canon/nikon tirades because I don't particular rate either.

    the article is about sooc images however the paragraph containing The notion that film was somewhat more pure than digital is, IMHO, horsesh*t is most certainly banging the film v digital drum. I agree with the article but I think it's confusing it's argument with film itself and not the system used to take it.
    a tech camera takes a better image sooc than any slr and thus requires less processing. no focus stacking, blending different exposures or alien skin exposure software etc.... that stuff occurs when taking the shot. adobe is helping us compensate for the slr's poorness.
    it is elitism if you're referring to the system and not the photographer.

    ...and before this slanging match goes to a tiebreak game...can I at least assume you've had some experience with tech cameras to give your argument for slr's some validity?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •