Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 21 Jan 2014 (Tuesday) 05:32
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Straight Out Of the Camera

 
casp3r
Goldmember
Avatar
1,489 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 458
Joined May 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
     
Jan 21, 2014 05:32 |  #1

Was asked by a work colleague if I knew of any published photographers who in this age of digital photography did absolutely nothing to the images that were downloaded from their camera? No fixing exposure, retouching, white balance etc.

I couldn't but was wondering if anyone here knew of any and maybe had links to his/her work?


http://www.mcarberypho​to.co.uk (external link)
http://www.niaviation.​co.uk (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
DwainRowe
Senior Member
Avatar
783 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Northeast Tennessee
     
Jan 21, 2014 06:53 |  #2

casp3r wrote in post #16623281 (external link)
I couldn't but was wondering if anyone here knew of any and maybe had links to his/her work?

I do not know of any. But, back in the day of film shooting, I didn't know of any that presented prints shot with film that were SOOC, either... Unless they are/were photojournalists.

Most folk talk about post processing as if it were a new or inappropriate thing. It's been going on as long as there have been darkrooms (now Lightroom and Photoshop, etc.).

And truly, even if you are just shooting Jpegs, as long as there is some interpretation of the light striking the sensor, there is no such thing as SOOC.

True SOOC shots are typically murky, soft and uninteresting due to the AA filters and other physical attributes of the digital camera.


6D | EF 17-40 f/4 L | EF 70-200 f/4 L IS | EF 50mm f1.4 USM -|- Rebel T2i | EF-S 17-55 IS | Σ 10-20 f3.5 EX DC | Σ 70-300 4-5.6 DG Macro (Yes, I am cheap) | Speedlite 580EXII | YN622c
EOS M | EFM 22 f/2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
casp3r
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,489 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 458
Joined May 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
     
Jan 21, 2014 08:00 |  #3

Thanks Dwain and fully understand what you are saying. I did mention to my colleague about some of the 'editing' that went on with film.


http://www.mcarberypho​to.co.uk (external link)
http://www.niaviation.​co.uk (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Jan 21, 2014 08:33 |  #4

casp3r wrote in post #16623281 (external link)
Was asked by a work colleague if I knew of any published photographers who in this age of digital photography did absolutely nothing to the images that were downloaded from their camera? No fixing exposure, retouching, white balance etc.

I couldn't but was wondering if anyone here knew of any and maybe had links to his/her work?

When I was submitting images to magazines, the editors made it very clear that all they needed was clean JPEGS from the camera, they wanted no toning or adjustments performed and that the magazine's page and graphics designers would handle that.

Newspaper photographers I've known have been required to perform only basic toning in the field on a Macbook. In all cases, retouching or image alteration by photographers is not wanted. And especially for newspapers, any retouching that alters the content of an image, such as removing elements from the image, is strictly banned. Violating this rule leads to major scandal. (external link)


For these publications, getting an image right in the camera with no manipulation is a part of the job.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MattPharmD
Senior Member
Avatar
255 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Jun 2011
     
Jan 21, 2014 10:20 |  #5

I think nothing is really straight out of camera. Even the camera processes the JPEG file some. Best you could ever get would be to shoot JPEG with the Faithful picture style.

I think even most photojournalists accept a little color, WB, or exposure correction. All of these things are really things the camera does any through its processing algorithms.


Photography is just a hobby for me.
Twitter: @PharmNerdMatt (external link)
Youtube:The PharmNerd (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
casp3r
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,489 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 458
Joined May 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
     
Jan 21, 2014 10:32 |  #6

To be honest my colleague isn't interested in what goes on in-camera. To him SOOC is an image that is taken from the camera and not touched after that in any way. Then either printed or used in publications. I think what he means is are there any pro, semi-pro or any other photographers that sell their work, using SOOC files.


http://www.mcarberypho​to.co.uk (external link)
http://www.niaviation.​co.uk (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,349 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 590
Joined Aug 2009
     
Jan 21, 2014 10:39 |  #7

casp3r wrote in post #16623904 (external link)
To be honest my colleague isn't interested in what goes on in-camera. To him SOOC is an image that is taken from the camera and not touched after that in any way. Then either printed or used in publications. I think what he means is are there any pro, semi-pro or any other photographers that sell their work, using SOOC files.

Still doubtful, but even then, for JPGs, the user can customize the picture style, or at least pick a canned picture style. That's still editing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Jan 21, 2014 10:48 |  #8

casp3r wrote in post #16623904 (external link)
To be honest my colleague isn't interested in what goes on in-camera. To him SOOC is an image that is taken from the camera and not touched after that in any way. Then either printed or used in publications. I think what he means is are there any pro, semi-pro or any other photographers that sell their work, using SOOC files.

Oh, you're interested in something different.

Of course, that happens all the time. When I have an on-demand photo sales setup at certain events, I'll pull actual examples from the weekend and previous events and put them in binders to give potential customers an idea of what they can expect. Since the trick of dealing with real people in an instant gratification era is handling things quickly, the photo setup is arranged so lighting and printer settings mad so images out of the camera are ready to go immediately. When dealing with actual customers who have other things to do at a busy event, even the two minutes to print an image can be a long time.If the wait is any longer, the customers will lose interest and that means lost sales. This is a situation where customers' reaction controls the operation and not what a photographer wants.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,228 posts
Gallery: 38 photos
Likes: 1468
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 21, 2014 11:09 |  #9

casp3r wrote in post #16623904 (external link)
To be honest my colleague isn't interested in what goes on in-camera. To him SOOC is an image that is taken from the camera and not touched after that in any way. Then either printed or used in publications. I think what he means is are there any pro, semi-pro or any other photographers that sell their work, using SOOC files.

There are some wedding photographers who shoot .jpg and some sports photographer and photojournalists who do because of the need to provide images quickly for deadlines. I think the problem some people have is the many sins committed via photoshop that all modifications are equal. I shoot raw and process simply because I can make more reasonable decisions in front of the PC even though I'm making decisions that could have been made in the camera. But that would mean stopping before each shot and deciding how much sharpness, saturation, and contrast I want on each shot. Not practical.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
neacail
Goldmember
Avatar
1,188 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Likes: 440
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
     
Jan 21, 2014 11:35 |  #10

casp3r wrote in post #16623281 (external link)
Was asked by a work colleague if I knew of any published photographers who in this age of digital photography did absolutely nothing to the images that were downloaded from their camera? No fixing exposure, retouching, white balance etc.

I couldn't but was wondering if anyone here knew of any and maybe had links to his/her work?

I do know one very highly respected, published, professional who shoots in .JPG and does his best to avoid any post processing on the bulk of his images. That said, he's a rarity. I know that was his process in 2005, as I hired him to shoot my wedding and I found the fact that he shot in .JPG at the time alarming. He and I actually spent a bit of time discussing his process and workflow. I had a hard time swallowing that he didn't shoot RAW or do much post. The photos were stunning. I had nothing to worry about.

Converting RAW to JPG in camera changes things anyway (sharpening, nr, etc.). Providing one has fine tuned his/her picture styles (told the camera what changes to make in the conversion process) it could be possible to skip post processing. Something has still been done to the image, however.

Developing a raw file is a lot like developing a negative. You can't do "absolutely nothing" to them. Simply converting a RAW file to a JPG in PS makes changes to the image, the same as converting the RAW to JPG in camera.

Having spent a lot of time in a darkroom . . . creating prints can be pretty subjective. Even if the film has been properly developed, there is still some latitude in exposing photographic paper and judgement has to be used.

My response to your colleague might be something like "Why would anyone do something as silly as that?" Taking the photograph is only a part of the process, IMO. Developing it is very important.


Shelley
Image Editing Okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,476 posts
Likes: 197
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jan 21, 2014 17:18 |  #11

To be honest my colleague isn't interested in what goes on in-camera. To him SOOC is an image that is taken from the camera and not touched after that in any way.

Tell your colleague that he is being illogical and obtuse. Every camera maker supplies or sells a Raw converter that is an adaption for computers of the Raw conversion software (firmware) in the camera. For Canon it is called Digital Photo Professional and its default processing is identical to the in-camera processing. If I were to open a Raw file in DPP and immediately, without changing a single default setting, generate a jpg, would that jpg be SOOC? Presumably not, it is the product of processing done outside the camera. But it is identical to a jpg from the camera, so what's not SOOC about it? The entire concept of "SOOC" is meaningless and based on ignorance.

Then either printed or used in publications.

And presumably not resized and resharpened to fit a page layout or a desired print size, either, since it can't be touched in any way.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,427 posts
Gallery: 61 photos
Likes: 3913
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Jan 21, 2014 17:24 |  #12

The digital camera has electronic photodetectors that generate electron hole pairs that can then be used to store information in memory. The photographic film has photochemical reactions that are triggered by the photons. Neither of them is remotely similar to how the eye works. So, if your colleague is intending to SOOC as meaning "just the way the eye sees it," then he is way off the mark.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
casp3r
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,489 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 458
Joined May 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
     
Jan 21, 2014 18:26 |  #13

tzalman wrote in post #16625046 (external link)
Tell your colleague that he is being illogical and obtuse. The entire concept of "SOOC" is meaningless and based on ignorance.

Based on ignorance? Of course it is. Illogical and obtuse? Certainly not. He's probably better educated than most but he's not a photographer, he happened to see me editing some images and asked what I thought was a reasonable question.

For the majority many thanks for the replies.


http://www.mcarberypho​to.co.uk (external link)
http://www.niaviation.​co.uk (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 187
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Jan 21, 2014 19:52 |  #14

Yes, 'Straight out of the camera' is a bit misleading, as a digital camera isn't just a camera, it is a complex system of processes that data is collected and passed through. Analogue information is gathered at the sensor, which is then converted to digital. However this information isn't a picture, it is unprocessed data, just a pile of numbers which you usually can't just assign directly to pixel values and get an image.

If you want to argue any virtue of "Straight out of Camera" as a good thing, then I could counter that with a custom built 'camera' that just happens to be powerful enough to run photoshop directly. Because that is all a digital camera really is: An optical sensor with a dedicated computer connected to it.


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,451 views & 0 likes for this thread
Straight Out Of the Camera
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is majorsite2
952 guests, 230 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.