For the SOOC's among us!

[WhoDo]

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

[I @ M]

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.

[Cage]

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.

[extraball]

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?

[Cage]

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.

[I @ M]

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.

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 -----

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.

[WhoDo]

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!

[old dog]

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.

[ricktas]

There is a good old thread here on this same topic : http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...rs-and-Editing

[WhoDo]

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!

[William]

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 ,

[Cage]

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.

[sunny6teen]

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.

[I @ M]

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.

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 ---

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.

film users will all convert when those digital backs start becoming more affordable.

Film users --- are there any actually left?

[ricktas]

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.

[fess67]

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.

[sunny6teen]

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.

[I @ M]

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.

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.

it was also nice to shoot at f/64

Why is it "nice"?

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.

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.

[Steve Axford]

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.

[sunny6teen]

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?