I have noticed recently a resurgence of the acronym “SOOC”, which sometimes seems to suggest a result judged to be so perfect that no improvement is necessary.
I have over the past seven decades known and worked with photographers at all levels, from enthusiastic beginners to successful professionals, and have not to my knowledge met any who would willingly release their work into the public domain without doing everything possible to improve it, whether by simple cropping, removing blemishes, correcting levels and tones by chemical or physical means such as brushes, paint, pencil, sandpaper, knives, etc. and I openly admit that I have never produced an image that would not profit from some help after leaving my camera, so perhaps it’s just me.
I am probably being quite unfair to those gifted individuals who so often get it right first time, and perhaps I am just jealous of their ability, but should I learn to be more easily satisfied with my camera’s output, although digital processing provides so many options for improvement, enjoyment and ultimate satisfaction?
I suspect that my comments may offend some camera-club purists, but as we are all here potentially to learn from each other I thought it was worth posing the question of whether it is really helpful to use acronyms or buzz words which may be interpreted in unintended ways.
This is a recurring theme here. You do not know what you're starting :-)
Anyway, I have many photo's in my project SOOC and they are all far from perfect. I did mark one or two with SOOC because they were part of theme or a thread like this. I totally agree you'd better edit to get some perfection or just the result as intended. However, if some one thinks it's worth mentioning there was no (human) editing involved they could as well mark it as SOOC. It gives you a reason to point out some ways the photo could be improved...
Well said, Mek; a balanced view, more restrained than mine and I totally agree. I also posted one SOOC tagged shot today, on another thread, clearly marked 'for comparison' to avoid being thought satisfied with it.
@wordpixman Rarely do I post anything without editing at all. There are the occasions few and far between however, where I do the automatic fiddling and then return to the original as I think it's better. These I do title SOOC for my own benefit as much as for others :)
@psychographer ... Thank you Lisa. I agree with your view, and would be proud to own this shot as it stands. My comments were aimed more at those who use the term repeatedly for no apparent reason, which does at times seem rather smug.
@wordpixman I must admit I don't come across it a great deal and it doesn't bother me one way or another. I enjoy the process of processing (excuse the pun!) but there are also times when I think a shot can be spoiled by going too far. It's all a matter of balance and what effect you want to achieve I think. There are also the occasions when I think I've gone too far myself but don't know when to stop so I need a fresh eye to look and tell me where I've gone wrong. :)
@wordpixman The enjoyment for me is being out and about and creating the shots or being inside and experimenting and then as much of my time is spent manipulating the image to see how 'I' think it can be improved. Luckily I'm not asking anyone to pay for my art or I may be in trouble but the enjoyment of spending the time editing is enough for me :)
There are a few shots on my project that are SOOC. There are many more that are minor tweaks from being SOOC. I love to shoot with the idea that what I am seeing through the viewfinder is great stuff, not 'once I ETSOOI this will be great stuff!' this shot is three LR slider tweaks from being SOOC ~ Although it isn't everyone's cup of tea, I get excited when I know that what is in my camera is nearly finished as a project. I simply don't much enjoy working photos up on the computer. To each his/her own.
I usually only remark on my processing if the editing is something different for me, so my friends will note that I AM trying different editing processing. I don't think I ever pointed out a SOOC shot ~ and there is one in my project this week ~ because it doesn't matter.
I agree with you Arthur about the use of SOOC - lately it seems to be popping up again quite a bit - I love playing with photos - the artist side of me - so rarely are mine SOOC - I will sometimes say - not fiddled with too much hahaha - I do know in the past some I have posted as SOOC I have done not because I think the photo can't use a bit of floofing ( a very technical term of mine ) but because I have been pleased with one particular aspect such as focus or colour that I have not had to adjust.
I'd say SOOC and you are extremely talented...really know what you are doing. I love it when I get a perfect shot SOOC, but it is rare. Often, it's just a minor adjustment.
Interesting thread.
I use SOOC a lot, I only learned this term when I joined 365.
I don't particularly think my photos are good or special & I certainly have a lot to learn from the photography world, I can take a lot of photos of the same image to get the one I like & the reason I use SOOC is simple, I don't have the knowledge or the time to do a lot of editing, the only editing tool I know is Pic Monkey where I do basic cropping and add borders etc.
One day I will have the time to ETSOOI /them... but for now SOOC it is..
I am in awe of a lot of photographers here in 365 and aspire to be as good one day.
I don't think I would be able to agree that it can be categorically assumed when a photographer labels a piece of their work as "SOOC" they believe that work to be so perfect that no improvement is necessary. I'll accept that it's quite possible they feel that way, but I don't think it would be fair to make that assumption of them.
Unless otherwise stated by the photographer, I take an image labeled as SOOC to infer the photographer is saying that the image as produced by the camera without further digital enhancement from any process or software meets or exceeds their vision and/or expectation of the image they intended to produce. They may also feel (for whatever reason - perhaps even including their skill level with post-processing) that any further digital enhancement *they* were to perform on it may detract rather than enhance. Or, they may feel that the image happens to have a particular characteristic where the viewer might assume it was digitally enhanced or manipulated in post-processing and the photographer believes the viewer may appreciate the fact it was not.
How heavily a photographer endorses or promotes SOOC and their reasoning for it is as unique and "correct" in terms of art as the photographer who heavily endorses or promotes compositing. Each photographer is individually unique and as such will have unique interpretations as to what is a "perfect" image to them. Having said that I must agree there are certain fundamentals that exist by which to gauge the "quality" of an image, but I am reluctant to compare or contest the skill or craftsmanship of photographers on the basis of style or their artistic view toward the appropriate amount of post-processing.
I don't often post my pictures SOOC, but occasionally I do. In fact, my profile picture is SOOC. The sky was so beautiful, there was nothing I could do to improve it.
@wordpixman I think it's dangerous to assume someone is feeling "smug" when they write SOOC. Occasionally I use the term and when I do it's often the case that I wish I'd had the time and skill to process but have been lacking either or both. I'm simply recording that it's SOOC as a fact.
I think it's one of those "one man's ceiling is another man's floor" kind of thing. Some over process, some under process and some don't process at all and they are all happy with what they do. I've used the term for pictures where I have not done anything after the shot is taken. I don't use it because I think I'm so great my pictures need no improvement, but some do seem to be fine as they are and I decide to leave well enough alone. That does not happen too often! Even on the best shots, I've tweaked the sharpening or color. So when I do use SOOC, like Lisa, it's merely a term that tells me I didn't do anything to the shot once I downloaded it. I think that's how most people intend to use the term. So there's my 2 cent's worth.
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses which demonstrate once again the value of this project in bringing together people of diverse views and different levels of experience, all willing to share and learn from each other.
Ann @olivetreeann sums it up very well in her nicely balanced summary which covers all I expected to hear when I posted my slightly provocative thoughts. It is indeed, a matter of doing what one does best and enjoys most about this fascinating hobby/pastime/business and long may that be so.
Photography, like all art forms, is highly subjective and personal and we all have our hobby-horses to ride and demons to kill. Mine were born in the pre-digital age when every picture had to be chemically developed as a glass or film negative, projected onto light-sensitive paper and developed again as a positive b&w image. It was very much a hands-on job, and much of what I learnt 70 years ago still comes into my mind every time I press the button or look at a print, so I hope I may be forgiven if my comments were out of sync with the modern age.
I never achieved fame as a photographer, but after 30 years on the streets with a camera I was invited indoors out of the cold and spent 15 valuable years handling and publishing the work of photographers more successful than myself and learning a lot from them, and I feel the same about my presence here on this wonderful project.
I've come to this a bit late Arthur so I hope you'll permit me my five penn'orth. I can guarantee that when I show my images at my local photo club, they will be summarily dismissed with a curt "That's been photoshopped"! The curious thing is, that the skill acquisition sessions that are the best attended at the club, are those on post-processing! Those members who do post-process will seldom admit it, so you have rightly put your finger on a common affectation of amateur photographers.
I take the view that as all digital photos are post-processed, the choice is whether Mr Cannikony does the processing of my images, or I do! P-P is part and parcel of digital photography and, like many others, I usually know when I press the shutter button what processing I am going to apply. For me, it's definitely not a case of 'what can I do to tart this up?'!
Last September (and I intend to repeat it this year), I ran a nifty-fifty SOOC challenge on here, not because SOOC has any inherent merit that a personally processed image doesn't, but simply because it's a great discipline to create the best image you can in camera: PS can't correct everything and cropping is no substitute for a carefully chosen PoV, for example.
Thanks for an interesting discussion topic, Arthur.
@vignouse ... Thank you Richard for your fitting postscript to this discussion. Your choice of the word "affectation" is, I am sure, correct in some cases but I am sure we have all been guilty of that minor sin at some times in our lives so must not condemn it out of hand but accept it as a valuable part of the learning experience.
I like the tone of your closing paragraph and will look out for your challenge but doubt my chances of success in that field because so many years of live news photography has led me into the habit of "grab what you can get before it's too late, to hell with rules, and make something out of it later"! I have got away with it more often than not, because I only had to please the picture editors who would decide whether I ate or starved that week . . . but perhaps this old dog might yet learn a new trick if he really tried.
Thanks again for joining the fun. Please keep in touch!
i'm also late to the part on this but Ive heard those on their high horses who spout SOOC as being the be all and end all - usually those that dont realise that the camera is doing editing for them AND even the old day greats did it in the darkroom in the film days.
I personally think that its not a bad thing to get into every so often to sharpen your eye and your composition.
That said, if youre shooting portfolio images of models, this is actally bad practice as some agencies require the images in various formats which means you'll need to crop in. If you've shot for the images as is, you'll need to crop in which may actually adversely affect the image
The only thing I have to say about SOOC is this: When I take photographs, I want them to look like what I saw with my eyes. And to me, the camera really doesn't capture that (my opinion). So I love the ability to do just a tad bit of tweaking to get a photo as close to that "magical" look that the original subject had. I'm not putting down SOOC at all. Some photos come out fantastic with no need for processing. I think that has only happened once for me. LOL BUT ---Just a flip-side note...I think sometimes people use "SOOC" to say "hey...just so you know, I didn't get to do anything to this photo, so you're just seeing the raw, untouched image...don't judge!!" ;) Everyone has their own thing. Everyone is their own artist and sees things differently than everyone else. "Make it your own, dog!" - Randy Jackson
Cindy - agree entirely - I only use SOOC to illustrate to the viewer that this is not (yet anyway) post processed but may be shown to illustrate a point or simply as a record in 365. At a recent club meeting someone mentioned that when you take a photo you see it in your mind's eye before that shot is taken and that is what you wish others to see. Rarely do I manage to get that immediately from my RAW image and some tweaking is inevitably required (usually horizon levellling with me! - must have one leg longer than the other consistently - WB, cropping or contrast) -my aim is to present the image as I 'saw it' or how I want others to see it. SOOC should not be used in the sense of "look how good I am" - even the best process - today as much as in the past
@handymaurice ... Thank you Haydn for adding your thoughts to this discussion. What you and Cindy both say is so right; that the image seen by your viewers should ideally be the image you saw in your mind. It's not the camera that makes the picture, but the brain behind the finger on the button, and that of course includes any further processing you may deem necessary or desirable.
I totally agree with you Arthur. When I first started on here, I didn't do much editing but did probably cropped most of my shots. As I have grown and learned more about taking pictures and processing, I also wouldn't put up a shot without at least a little tweaking to make it look more like what I actually saw. Sometimes I do a lot of tweaking. LOL
i like to faff around and be quite experimental with photography so i have used the term when the result was captured in camera but probably noone would believe it!!
i'm tired as all get out and should probably just stay out of this, but what the hey ;p
my issue with the concept of SOOC is that in some cases (but by no means all), the photog is saying (or comes across as saying) "this shot is more worthy because i got it right in camera and your shot is less worthy because you had to fix it after the fact"...
the reality, of course, is that if you let the camera (or the manufacturer, i suppose) make all the decisions, then you have relinquished a control that is rightfully yours... and it's not like there aren't any decisions about contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc involved in the shot - just that the photog had nothing to do with them...
and as someone already noted above - in the days of film, the masters did their own developing and printing and made all sorts of decisions at that point... so pointing to film as "purer" photography than digital is, in this regard, hogwash...
i DO think there is something to be said for getting as much right "in camera" as possible... i also think that there are some categories of photography where it is absolutely wrong to alter the image in a way that misleads the viewer (photojournalism being the prime example here - although i could wax on prosaically about the choices the photojournalist makes in choosing what to shoot and how to shoot - which confirms my theory that truth is pretty darned subjective... but i digress...)..
however, once you get beyond photojournalism, nature photography, etc where there is a certain expectation that the image represents reality (which i still argue is subjective), i think we move into the realm of art and the world's your oyster (or at any rate, PS, LR, niksfx etc. are) when it comes to post processing...
i have been challenged to shoot SOOC on occasion - and i find it fun (in an annoying kinda way ;p) in the sense that it forces me to think much more critically before i click... and also because i know how to adjust the settings to still be able to shoot black and white, adjust sharpness, contrast, toning and filters - all before i click... so does that mean the shot is somehow better than if i'd done all those things after the fact?
rant over... off to edit my latest shots into submission... toodles!
@northy Amen! Just to add, and nothing to do with significantly manipulating content, as you say another issue entirely, some think/believe that there is something pristine about jpeg processing out of the camera. Nothing could be further from the truth. The digital camera sensor "sees" and captures a "linear tone" image; the sensor points react linearly to light, twice as much light, twice the signal produced, and on the black end, half the light half the signal. Not the way the eye/brain sees/processes at all; "logarithmically" if you really want to know. Indeed it doesn't react or "natively" produce color at all which is computed "post shoot" in camera. If people are interested, Google for "demosaicing" (how the sensor sees versus how we see) and "breyer filter array" (how color is computed).
As you further say, take control of this and present the absolute best work you can, under the control of a good editor and not the (often crass) processing of an often over-wrought camera.
For sure, "editors" can't "improve" everything, focus and camera shake/movement are two, and certain things *must* be done in the camera. An analogy that works for me however, relying on in-camera processing only is the processing equivalent of shooting AUTO rather than taking control and shooting S, A or M. If people only knew exactly what happens "in-camera" (a digital camera anyway) they might be (unpleasantly) shocked and surprised.
There, my rant is over too! Off to investigate the beauties of the Gold Coast in the first bright sunny day in a week here in Australia...
Just back from travels, so, I'm late to this discussion as well...I had the pleasure to engage in a couple of really cool workshops about post-processing. So, there will be more that are edited! ;)
MANY of my photos from the first year are SOOC. At some point, I started doing "things" to enhance and alter. NOW, I use SOOC for two reasons. First, if I'm lucky enough to get something that deeply moves me as is, I mark it so I remember that I didn't do anything. Second, I'm often curious, when I see outstanding photos of others, whether they, too, have been lucky SOOC or have post-processed. Sometimes, to be honest, if I get something really brilliant SOOC, I feel like I've won the lottery! :) It's a great feeling and I want to share that. But, I never ever tag SOOC as a brag or to make someone else feel diminished.
@northy@voiceprintz ... Thanks guys. Nice to hear from two people who THINK about what they (or the camera or distant technicians working invisibly on their behalf) are doing and are happy to take responsibility for their own decisions.
Interesting conversation. Most of my shots have tweaking...as they are mostly birds or nature and even my 400mm on a crop sensor doesn'tbring them that close...so when that rare shot happens where I (man I wish I could bold that 'I') am happy without any additives, other than conversion to .jpg from RAW and adding my name, then I will mark it sooc. It's a reminder to myself. As I learn more I may look back at a photo and decide that it could benefit from p-p and add it in then. Or maybe somebody will look at my sooc shot, realize I am NOT being smug or over-confident, and make a recommendation on some p-p aspect that may make a great difference to yhe shot. And thus shall I learn!!
Interesting discussion. Very little of mine comes without tweaking and post-processing, some photos with more, others with less. But ... I meet another photographer regularly who has chatted about a friend who just shoots anything without trying to frame the shot, and does all the work in post processing, so all the shots are heavily cropped and over-sharpened, which doesn't seem a great way to go either.
I'm with @vignouse on this one. Every so often I find I'm getting sloppy and need the discipline of spending a week making myself post SOOC as it sharpens up my concentration on lighting, composition and getting the damn things straight, rather than knowing I can shoot from that angle and use the perspective tool to straighten the result up later. (There's a window that gets amazing reflections of the sunset where I can only get a shot at an angle.)
Reactions to this shot were interesting.
It's cropped fairly hard to lose the distraction of the other people walking around the group on the steps. These guys were taking over the middle, wider section of the steps from Stratford bus and rail stations up to Westfield, leaving others to walk up the sides (you can see the handrail that divides the outer steps from the middle on the right). I have had someone asking if I could straighten the top steps to match my crop to the bottom step - which really isn't where I'd go with street photography - straying into decisions about photojournalism - but I had already cropped and taken it b&w, so post processing. .
@shannejw ... Thank you. Nothing wrong with well intended criticism or suggestions for improvement, which I always welcome and am happy to learn from, but I feel that the person who wanted those particular adjustments to the steps, etc, was probably just a little too focused on "Perfection" to appreciate the little imperfections which distinguish a street candid from a camera club exercise. I am not saying he was wrong, but hey, let's get real!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Anyway, I have many photo's in my project SOOC and they are all far from perfect. I did mark one or two with SOOC because they were part of theme or a thread like this. I totally agree you'd better edit to get some perfection or just the result as intended. However, if some one thinks it's worth mentioning there was no (human) editing involved they could as well mark it as SOOC. It gives you a reason to point out some ways the photo could be improved...
I usually only remark on my processing if the editing is something different for me, so my friends will note that I AM trying different editing processing. I don't think I ever pointed out a SOOC shot ~ and there is one in my project this week ~ because it doesn't matter.
I use SOOC a lot, I only learned this term when I joined 365.
I don't particularly think my photos are good or special & I certainly have a lot to learn from the photography world, I can take a lot of photos of the same image to get the one I like & the reason I use SOOC is simple, I don't have the knowledge or the time to do a lot of editing, the only editing tool I know is Pic Monkey where I do basic cropping and add borders etc.
One day I will have the time to ETSOOI /them... but for now SOOC it is..
I am in awe of a lot of photographers here in 365 and aspire to be as good one day.
I don't think I would be able to agree that it can be categorically assumed when a photographer labels a piece of their work as "SOOC" they believe that work to be so perfect that no improvement is necessary. I'll accept that it's quite possible they feel that way, but I don't think it would be fair to make that assumption of them.
Unless otherwise stated by the photographer, I take an image labeled as SOOC to infer the photographer is saying that the image as produced by the camera without further digital enhancement from any process or software meets or exceeds their vision and/or expectation of the image they intended to produce. They may also feel (for whatever reason - perhaps even including their skill level with post-processing) that any further digital enhancement *they* were to perform on it may detract rather than enhance. Or, they may feel that the image happens to have a particular characteristic where the viewer might assume it was digitally enhanced or manipulated in post-processing and the photographer believes the viewer may appreciate the fact it was not.
How heavily a photographer endorses or promotes SOOC and their reasoning for it is as unique and "correct" in terms of art as the photographer who heavily endorses or promotes compositing. Each photographer is individually unique and as such will have unique interpretations as to what is a "perfect" image to them. Having said that I must agree there are certain fundamentals that exist by which to gauge the "quality" of an image, but I am reluctant to compare or contest the skill or craftsmanship of photographers on the basis of style or their artistic view toward the appropriate amount of post-processing.
Ann @olivetreeann sums it up very well in her nicely balanced summary which covers all I expected to hear when I posted my slightly provocative thoughts. It is indeed, a matter of doing what one does best and enjoys most about this fascinating hobby/pastime/business and long may that be so.
Photography, like all art forms, is highly subjective and personal and we all have our hobby-horses to ride and demons to kill. Mine were born in the pre-digital age when every picture had to be chemically developed as a glass or film negative, projected onto light-sensitive paper and developed again as a positive b&w image. It was very much a hands-on job, and much of what I learnt 70 years ago still comes into my mind every time I press the button or look at a print, so I hope I may be forgiven if my comments were out of sync with the modern age.
I never achieved fame as a photographer, but after 30 years on the streets with a camera I was invited indoors out of the cold and spent 15 valuable years handling and publishing the work of photographers more successful than myself and learning a lot from them, and I feel the same about my presence here on this wonderful project.
Thanks again for all your comments . . . .
@melston @annied @amandal @jasperc @dbj and others to whom I have previously replied. It has been a stimulating discussion.
I take the view that as all digital photos are post-processed, the choice is whether Mr Cannikony does the processing of my images, or I do! P-P is part and parcel of digital photography and, like many others, I usually know when I press the shutter button what processing I am going to apply. For me, it's definitely not a case of 'what can I do to tart this up?'!
Last September (and I intend to repeat it this year), I ran a nifty-fifty SOOC challenge on here, not because SOOC has any inherent merit that a personally processed image doesn't, but simply because it's a great discipline to create the best image you can in camera: PS can't correct everything and cropping is no substitute for a carefully chosen PoV, for example.
Thanks for an interesting discussion topic, Arthur.
I like the tone of your closing paragraph and will look out for your challenge but doubt my chances of success in that field because so many years of live news photography has led me into the habit of "grab what you can get before it's too late, to hell with rules, and make something out of it later"! I have got away with it more often than not, because I only had to please the picture editors who would decide whether I ate or starved that week . . . but perhaps this old dog might yet learn a new trick if he really tried.
Thanks again for joining the fun. Please keep in touch!
I personally think that its not a bad thing to get into every so often to sharpen your eye and your composition.
That said, if youre shooting portfolio images of models, this is actally bad practice as some agencies require the images in various formats which means you'll need to crop in. If you've shot for the images as is, you'll need to crop in which may actually adversely affect the image
my issue with the concept of SOOC is that in some cases (but by no means all), the photog is saying (or comes across as saying) "this shot is more worthy because i got it right in camera and your shot is less worthy because you had to fix it after the fact"...
the reality, of course, is that if you let the camera (or the manufacturer, i suppose) make all the decisions, then you have relinquished a control that is rightfully yours... and it's not like there aren't any decisions about contrast, sharpness, saturation, etc involved in the shot - just that the photog had nothing to do with them...
and as someone already noted above - in the days of film, the masters did their own developing and printing and made all sorts of decisions at that point... so pointing to film as "purer" photography than digital is, in this regard, hogwash...
i DO think there is something to be said for getting as much right "in camera" as possible... i also think that there are some categories of photography where it is absolutely wrong to alter the image in a way that misleads the viewer (photojournalism being the prime example here - although i could wax on prosaically about the choices the photojournalist makes in choosing what to shoot and how to shoot - which confirms my theory that truth is pretty darned subjective... but i digress...)..
however, once you get beyond photojournalism, nature photography, etc where there is a certain expectation that the image represents reality (which i still argue is subjective), i think we move into the realm of art and the world's your oyster (or at any rate, PS, LR, niksfx etc. are) when it comes to post processing...
i have been challenged to shoot SOOC on occasion - and i find it fun (in an annoying kinda way ;p) in the sense that it forces me to think much more critically before i click... and also because i know how to adjust the settings to still be able to shoot black and white, adjust sharpness, contrast, toning and filters - all before i click... so does that mean the shot is somehow better than if i'd done all those things after the fact?
rant over... off to edit my latest shots into submission... toodles!
As you further say, take control of this and present the absolute best work you can, under the control of a good editor and not the (often crass) processing of an often over-wrought camera.
For sure, "editors" can't "improve" everything, focus and camera shake/movement are two, and certain things *must* be done in the camera. An analogy that works for me however, relying on in-camera processing only is the processing equivalent of shooting AUTO rather than taking control and shooting S, A or M. If people only knew exactly what happens "in-camera" (a digital camera anyway) they might be (unpleasantly) shocked and surprised.
There, my rant is over too! Off to investigate the beauties of the Gold Coast in the first bright sunny day in a week here in Australia...
MANY of my photos from the first year are SOOC. At some point, I started doing "things" to enhance and alter. NOW, I use SOOC for two reasons. First, if I'm lucky enough to get something that deeply moves me as is, I mark it so I remember that I didn't do anything. Second, I'm often curious, when I see outstanding photos of others, whether they, too, have been lucky SOOC or have post-processed. Sometimes, to be honest, if I get something really brilliant SOOC, I feel like I've won the lottery! :) It's a great feeling and I want to share that. But, I never ever tag SOOC as a brag or to make someone else feel diminished.
I'm with @vignouse on this one. Every so often I find I'm getting sloppy and need the discipline of spending a week making myself post SOOC as it sharpens up my concentration on lighting, composition and getting the damn things straight, rather than knowing I can shoot from that angle and use the perspective tool to straighten the result up later. (There's a window that gets amazing reflections of the sunset where I can only get a shot at an angle.)
Reactions to this shot were interesting.
It's cropped fairly hard to lose the distraction of the other people walking around the group on the steps. These guys were taking over the middle, wider section of the steps from Stratford bus and rail stations up to Westfield, leaving others to walk up the sides (you can see the handrail that divides the outer steps from the middle on the right). I have had someone asking if I could straighten the top steps to match my crop to the bottom step - which really isn't where I'd go with street photography - straying into decisions about photojournalism - but I had already cropped and taken it b&w, so post processing. .