I have never concealed my feelings about the acronym 'SOOC' which so often simply means that the photographer has either chosen or been forced to release an unfinished picture into the public domain, for a variety of reasons which might include:
a: Not enough time. (A heavy workload did not allow cropping). b: You can't improve on perfection (of the camera, or the operator's skills.) c: Didn't notice the imperfections.
d: Don't know how to correct them.
e: The camera doesn't lie (and any alteration would be cheating!) f: My camera club loves this!
g: Oops ... my fault! (Simple lack of attention)
This may sound harsh, but the first of these might be acceptable with a promise to do better next time, if the deadline is tight and immediate publication is essential, and I must admit to using the last one a few times (but without the acronym!) while the others may be seen as a simple lack of knowledge early in the learning process, or sometimes perhaps just disinterest.
None of these excuses were heard in the time of manual cameras and hands-on chemical processing, when photographers took pride in improving their results with the primitive tools then available - a pride somewhat devalued in an age which promises results 'straight out of the box' without necessarily understanding what all of the buttons do, and the use of acronyms seemingly designed more to score points in a beginners class than to aid understanding.
NOW, TO EAT HUMBLE PIE I must agree with the vast majority of readers who I am sure have noticed that my picture at the top of this page contains at least one inexcusable fault and perhaps more, which I shall be happy to acknowledge and correct if anyone is kind enough to point them out, because we all have to learn.
I did not notice the appalling and unacceptable tilt until I had a second look after publication. I have no excuse for such carelessness, which I find embarrassing, but I am thankful that I did not attach the acronym 'SOOC' which would have made me look even sillier than I feel right now!
I'm going with 'misunderstood'. There's a valid purpose to practising SOOC; training ourselves to photograph intentionally, learning to observe what's in background, framing, tilt and not least of all light. etc
@romeheather ... I certainly go along with that, Heather - a valuable training exercise not to be mistaken for proof of expertise. Thank you. (But I was not clever enough to control the tilt in my photograph, was I?)
As a reporter, I have always grappled with portraying the world as it is, for honesty's sake. It is so easy now to totally change a photo - edit people or things in or out, change day to night, etc. Who is to know the truth now?
But, then, from an artist perspective, it behooves us to present the best package we possibly can at all times.
I am technically challenged with post-editing skills as well as short on valuable time so I always attempt to photograph intentionally as Heather says, to take the best photo as I can to overcome these limitations.
It's a debate that will rage forever between the SOOC purists and the ETSOI technogeeks. There is no right or wrong - and I hope we can all agree to disagree.
I love editing - for me it is a chance to stretch my artistic mind - I love to do that with paints and oil pastels too but do not always have the time or space.
As for your tilt Arthur - I like the way the slants balance with each other - but that is probably just me - I don't go much for rules and regulations hahaha :)
@farmreporter ...Thank you Wendy. I agree with all you say, especially that there is no definitive "right or wrong" but honesty and accuracy should always take precedence over mere prettification, having spent many years editing pictures for a newspaper renowned for its accuracy - before it was acquired by a media mogul with other priorities!
I had every opportunity to learn this through feedback from my articles in The British Journal of Photography in the 1970s but of course public morality has changed a lot since then, and not necessarily for the better and we all have to be prepared to listen and learn.
Well, OK about the exercise of photographing "intentionally." But that is still no excuse for being sloppy or lazy about improving the image captured. The digital camera is still not the perfect image capturing/image processing machine. So certainly color, tone, sharpness, perspective correction and rationalization, let alone correcting the imperfections and distortions of the lens (no, the camera's internal database of lens imperfections and possible correction just doesn't cut it) and that horrible artifact of digital cameras the various kinds of noise, all need to be thoughtfully added back or corrected for, in the flat, linear raw image. Why is a {camera manufacturer determined) processed jpeg, they all are indeed processed and calculated, even color is "computed" {demosaiced is the techie term} from the monotone image and a Breyer-type filter array data, any better or more pristine than your {thoughtful and purposeful} manipulation of the raw material?
By all means try to "get it as right as possible" when shooting, it's an excellent habit to get into especially for straightness and perspective and framing and accurate {not blown or clipped) tonal values, it will be so much easier to "correct" and "improve" in post processing. But do not be lazy and not proceed beyond the shooting to make it the best that you can if you are showing it publicly. SOOC might be a very useful private exercise, and you will learn how to use all the features of your camera if you are serious about it, but it is still only half finished if you stop there...
Let me even suggest that thoughtful cropping is something to be encouraged if called for. Some images just do not fit into a 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio, maybe the distortion corrections need to crop away now-vacant space. And with the huge megapixel count now available from many cameras, a closer crop can reach where the zoom lens just cannot. Without distortion or softness problems.
I've gone on long enough, and annoyed too many people already. But I am right. :)
@annied ... Thank you Annie. By Jove, I think you've got it! If it's fine for a traditional artist to put a bit of personal observation into his work, why not a photographer?
Rules? . . . What are they?
Just a sanitized version of tyranny, it sometimes seems!
Oh, Frank! Shame on you for treating the ladies so harshly, but it is encouraging to read such unadulterated common sense stated so clearly, and if I may paraphrase your first and last lines I must agree that there is no excuse for sloppiness and as you say with commendable restraint, you may have annoyed too many people, but yes, you are right.
(And so are they, from only slightly different perspectives!)
@frankhymus Oh - you two men sound just like my husband - take that as you will. (He is sometimes right)
I have no problem doing post-editing to do slight cropping (which probably should not have been in the picture in the first place if the photographer was doing his job in the first place), and correcting for tonal, exposure, sharpness, perspective, and the oodles of other mundane tasks required to post the perfect photograph.
However, I guess where I have a problem, as a reporter, is when the photograph is edited to the degree that it stretches reality beyond the truth.
For example - would a murderer ever be able to avoid jail by merging himself into a photo that clearly shows a time and location so far from the murder scene that he could not have done the crime? Yes, it is an extreme example, but we are talking degrees of truth. Who is to say at what degree is okay and when is it not?
While I do admire a heavily edited artistic photo, I am drawn to those that are only slightly corrected and show thoughtful presentation of subject within the reality of today's blemished world, warts and all.
Also, please do not assume that an unedited picture is a sign of laziness - there can be many more reasons for not editing. Time and skill are but two.
IMO, Taking the actual photo is about 50% of the job. Post editing can make a huge difference. But as I once read, "crap in -crap out" which I have found to be true. The better the original capture, the better the final output. For that purpose, SOOC practice can be helpful.
Re cropping, I purposely take a photo back a little so I have some final latitude in cropping post processing.
There are obvious exceptions to editing such as in journalism and crime scene photography.
I love post processing:)
I actually saw your fault immediately, even before your interesting read, but I slightly tilted my monitor so the fault no longer applies to your picture!
I totally agree with you Arthur and with @lisainstpete@frankhymus, in the "old days" I used to spend hours locked in the darkened bathroom trying to improve, not change, my images. Thank goodness that in the time of digital processing this is all so much easier. I always try to take the image I visualise to begin with but, like Lisa I usually expand my field of vision a little to give me latitude for cropping, and what bliss to be able to adjust the exposure and lighting in the unlikely event that I don't get it right first time!
Thank you, @lisainstpete@judithdeacon for mentioning journalism. As an editor I always expected photographers to submit pictures suitable for final cropping to fit the sixe and space available on the page, not seen by the public in their ogriginal state, unlike here, where the most likely options for most of us are to display our finished photos directly, whether on screen, in family albums, or mounted or framed for exhibition, so I thank you both for making the point that you take the professional view, allowing yourselves to make the final edit before releasing your work for public viewing.
Very interesting discussion. All I am interested in is making a good picture, I suspect that is because I also paint and draw & artistic licence requires no guilty conscience about leaving out a badly placed signpost.
I aim to shoot so that what has to be done in post is as simple and easy as I can make it, but it doesn't always work out like that.
If shooting a news story I wouldn't process the shot in a way that altered the truth of it, but would have no qualms about cropping or processing it to look aesthetically (in my opinion) its best.
I find what I perceive as some people's obsession with SOOC as if it were better than non-SOOC irksome. However I found myself using the term on my photo descriptions for two reasons 1. as part of a challenge that asked me to shoot SOOC and 2. because people were commenting or asking about the processing on some of the images that were SOOC but don't look it. So maybe you missed h. bragging!!!
However I enjoy looking at the images of those who are doing SOOC as a challenge to themselves to be more considered in how they take pictures.
I like your comment "None of these excuses were heard in the time of manual cameras and hands-on chemical processing" which for me really demonstrates the point that there never really was SOOC then. Your SOOC was a plate or a film and you had to process it to get a print. I guess you say polaroid was closest, but even that could be played with. I think we are incredibly lucky to have a digital rather than physical darkroom that enables us to attempt the most incredible techniques, that were so difficult in the past & we should just get on an make the most of it.
As an old film photographer, SOOC was really all we had, except for a few minor adjustments that could be made during printing. Nothing like what we can do today. I personally like SOOC. It takes more skill to get a good shot. So, when I get a really good shot that doesn't really need editing, like my profile pic, I go with it. Don't be intimidated by a fancy name.
@lizhammond
Well said, Liz! You clearly understand that the image produced by the camera is only the starting point of a process requiring human hands and an active brain to complete, using whatever materials and methods are available. Experiment and discovery are essential ingredients but are often stifled by rules introduced as a training discipline but seized upon as an excuse to stop trying to improve. It is however their choice, which must be respected, but it will not deter me from my choice, which is to keep trying.
Hi Lisa,@homeschoolmom , have to disagree.. surely SOOC from a film camera was exactly that. A film. Still light sensitive & fairly much useless without developing & processing to a print. Difference being that the skill either lay with the companies you sent your film for developing and printing to, or with yourself if you were into your own processing and printing & had the money & time to do it.
For me digital has made the "dark"room far more accessible and means I can apply my own artistic vision of what a shot should look like, not rely on a company to make choices for me. I pulled many a 'not in focus' & "camera shake" comment off my prints when I'd been experimenting with defocused and ICM film shots & sent them off for processing. Now I'm looking at the shots and I know what I'm trying for when I took it.
Film/slide processing and printing techniques were complex & some inventive people came up with incredible methods but these were available to few people. Now anyone with enough cash to buy elements can have a go at the Orton Effect or Harris Shutter effect etc.
Personally I think it takes a different skill to get a good shot SOOC, not more skill. Non photographers view an image and it either speaks to them or it doesn't, mostly I don't think they are going to care if it is SOOC or not. Its just us photographers that seem to. Big exception to that of course is if it is a news image and the 'truth' is manipulated.
Thank you Lisa. As an old film and plate photographer I can conform that the possibilities were limited in those days but we never skimped on processing to the nth degree, even though it was time consuming and messy and required multiple skills, but the results well repaid the effort.
@farmreporter I guess then as a journalist you would not use a computer program for spelling, grammar, usage or style checking in your written articles? But prefer to see the reality of the slight warts and blemishes of spelling and grammar errors ( and they would be errors would they not) as you originally typed your first draft? That's how I regard the shot from the camera, my first draft.
@lizhammond
Thank you Liz. The crux of the matter is not how much skill it requires but how much importance is placed on the use of such a widely misunderstood acronym.
No mocking the darkroom procedure and our primitive tools. Just this week I used a piece of foam core and heavy card stock for dodging and burning. I may get super fancy and use a pencil this week for a fine tune dodge.
I find discussions with you very thought provoking and enjoyable, and hope you find them like-wise with me. It would be a dull world indeed if we all agreed all the time.
I did not say I do not, or would not use post-editing processes on my photos. As a matter of fact, as a techno- newbie and illiterate, I am grappling my way through PS Elements 14. Sometimes it can be very frustrating.
But, what I take issue with as a journalist is when a photo is manipulated to the point where it is no longer an accurate depiction of reality. And, you must admit you see these photos on the covers of low-rate rags found on newsstands the world over where celebrity stories are grossly exaggerated.
So, in saying that - sometimes it is nice to see a shot - and I can name quite a few 365'ers that are doing their year SOOC, or OCOLOY, or whatever choice they make for themselves - that is done expertly but has a dose of reality left in. (blemish to some)
We should not get too snobby about one format or another, but should accept and respect the abilities and one another through the choices they make and their individual skill levels. We should encourage one another at the stage they are at, and perhaps gently nudge them towards improvement rather than telling them they are wrong where they are.
I agree with some of the points on here about training yourself to do better with the camera in the first place, but I also really love editing and Im only just learning but try to improve my shots at least a little. I use the acronym but not to show off that I got it perfect the first time around. I mainly use it when I take sunsets or sunrises or things that have very vivid colours that may be unbelievable to show that that is what the colour actually was and I didn't tweak it to make it stand out. Things like that... :)
Good for you Paula! That's the most intelligent thing I've read on this thread so far, (whether said mockingly or not, and the two sides can make their own judgment on that.) Do-it-yourself using whatever methods you know or can find .... and if none exist, invent them, just as the real photographers did in pre-digital times, and be truly proud to know that it is all your own work.
Wise words, Wendy, especially about honesty and accuracy but you've got me beaten hands down if you can handle anything from the Photoshop stable. I just can't get my head around all those expensive rule-ridden magic tricks with fancy names, and feel much more comfortable with Google's free Picasa - as basic as it can get - which allows total freedom of expression and is easy to understand. I also find some of the features of iPiccy.com (another free online editor!) very easy to use and quite good enough for a tired old snapper like me, a refugee from Fleet Street still trying to communicate with images in support of (but not replacing) words.
@frankhymus@wordpixman Hope you don't mind my putting my oar in on this, even if a bit late, on my last regular day with the Project. I agree very much with Frank and Arthur on this. A picture we make is already a completely different thing from the actual thing or things at which we aimed the camera. Post processing is simply the continuation of what we started with the camera. We are (I hope) as careful with the first stage of making the picture, i.e. using our cameras, as we will be in the further stages, i.e. the post processing.
@tristansmum
Thank you Stephanie, for your conrtributions to this discussion and generally on 365. It's been a pleasure to "know" you; sorry you have to go.
My project to photograph all year using one camera, one (fixed) lens - OCOLOY - and to post all pictures SOOC and B&W is not me pandering to a "camera club fad". It is a genuine long-term project to try to improve my image gathering skills. Every time I require myself to remain faithful to the self imposed terms of my project and post an image which perhaps could have been improved had I taken more care, reminds me to take more care the next time. I don't attach any particular merit to the label SOOC - it is merely an accurate description of my picture taking and publishing process... for this year. I also publish images in other albums that are post-processed. I don't understand why one person's freely made choices for themselves - that they are not forcing on anyone else or vaunting - should be so upsetting to others.
The merit of my personal project for this year lies not in the quality of the images produced but rather in the learning that each image provides: there has been rather a lot of that, I'm pleased to say!
Finally, as photography's role in reporting has been mentioned in this thread, I might point out that the World Press Photo association's prestigious annual awards ceremony requires that all entries be straight out of camera JPEGs.
Thank you Richard, I am sorry you saw my comments as criticism of your work. My intention was to echo your own expressed disappointment that an over-used and misunderstood acronym had apparently led to a decision not to crop a photograph as your experience and instinct told you would have improved it. As I said at the time I found the photograph excellent in every way but agreed with your view that it might have been improved by cropping as you suggested, and I sill stand by those words...
I too would have been upset - nay, extremely angry - had any 'rules' forced me to publish an unfinished image, and it was the tyranny of such 'rules' that prompted me to start this discussion and see if I could get any sense out of those people who use that acronym inappropriately as a badge of honour. I was encouraged by the size of the response, among which there were a few half-hearted attempts to defend the rule, which I welcomed, but am still struggling to understand - except as an exercise or encouragement to learn to handle a camera to produce a virgin image for later conversion into a finished picture.
Please keep up the good work, Richard. Your decision was quite clear and I see no problem with that but am thinking in broader terms about the way the way somephoto-club fads and fancies fads proliferate out of hand..
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
As a reporter, I have always grappled with portraying the world as it is, for honesty's sake. It is so easy now to totally change a photo - edit people or things in or out, change day to night, etc. Who is to know the truth now?
But, then, from an artist perspective, it behooves us to present the best package we possibly can at all times.
I am technically challenged with post-editing skills as well as short on valuable time so I always attempt to photograph intentionally as Heather says, to take the best photo as I can to overcome these limitations.
It's a debate that will rage forever between the SOOC purists and the ETSOI technogeeks. There is no right or wrong - and I hope we can all agree to disagree.
As for your tilt Arthur - I like the way the slants balance with each other - but that is probably just me - I don't go much for rules and regulations hahaha :)
I had every opportunity to learn this through feedback from my articles in The British Journal of Photography in the 1970s but of course public morality has changed a lot since then, and not necessarily for the better and we all have to be prepared to listen and learn.
Well, OK about the exercise of photographing "intentionally." But that is still no excuse for being sloppy or lazy about improving the image captured. The digital camera is still not the perfect image capturing/image processing machine. So certainly color, tone, sharpness, perspective correction and rationalization, let alone correcting the imperfections and distortions of the lens (no, the camera's internal database of lens imperfections and possible correction just doesn't cut it) and that horrible artifact of digital cameras the various kinds of noise, all need to be thoughtfully added back or corrected for, in the flat, linear raw image. Why is a {camera manufacturer determined) processed jpeg, they all are indeed processed and calculated, even color is "computed" {demosaiced is the techie term} from the monotone image and a Breyer-type filter array data, any better or more pristine than your {thoughtful and purposeful} manipulation of the raw material?
By all means try to "get it as right as possible" when shooting, it's an excellent habit to get into especially for straightness and perspective and framing and accurate {not blown or clipped) tonal values, it will be so much easier to "correct" and "improve" in post processing. But do not be lazy and not proceed beyond the shooting to make it the best that you can if you are showing it publicly. SOOC might be a very useful private exercise, and you will learn how to use all the features of your camera if you are serious about it, but it is still only half finished if you stop there...
Let me even suggest that thoughtful cropping is something to be encouraged if called for. Some images just do not fit into a 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio, maybe the distortion corrections need to crop away now-vacant space. And with the huge megapixel count now available from many cameras, a closer crop can reach where the zoom lens just cannot. Without distortion or softness problems.
I've gone on long enough, and annoyed too many people already. But I am right. :)
Rules? . . . What are they?
Just a sanitized version of tyranny, it sometimes seems!
Oh, Frank! Shame on you for treating the ladies so harshly, but it is encouraging to read such unadulterated common sense stated so clearly, and if I may paraphrase your first and last lines I must agree that there is no excuse for sloppiness and as you say with commendable restraint, you may have annoyed too many people, but yes, you are right.
(And so are they, from only slightly different perspectives!)
I have no problem doing post-editing to do slight cropping (which probably should not have been in the picture in the first place if the photographer was doing his job in the first place), and correcting for tonal, exposure, sharpness, perspective, and the oodles of other mundane tasks required to post the perfect photograph.
However, I guess where I have a problem, as a reporter, is when the photograph is edited to the degree that it stretches reality beyond the truth.
For example - would a murderer ever be able to avoid jail by merging himself into a photo that clearly shows a time and location so far from the murder scene that he could not have done the crime? Yes, it is an extreme example, but we are talking degrees of truth. Who is to say at what degree is okay and when is it not?
While I do admire a heavily edited artistic photo, I am drawn to those that are only slightly corrected and show thoughtful presentation of subject within the reality of today's blemished world, warts and all.
Also, please do not assume that an unedited picture is a sign of laziness - there can be many more reasons for not editing. Time and skill are but two.
Re cropping, I purposely take a photo back a little so I have some final latitude in cropping post processing.
There are obvious exceptions to editing such as in journalism and crime scene photography.
I love post processing:)
I aim to shoot so that what has to be done in post is as simple and easy as I can make it, but it doesn't always work out like that.
If shooting a news story I wouldn't process the shot in a way that altered the truth of it, but would have no qualms about cropping or processing it to look aesthetically (in my opinion) its best.
I find what I perceive as some people's obsession with SOOC as if it were better than non-SOOC irksome. However I found myself using the term on my photo descriptions for two reasons 1. as part of a challenge that asked me to shoot SOOC and 2. because people were commenting or asking about the processing on some of the images that were SOOC but don't look it. So maybe you missed h. bragging!!!
However I enjoy looking at the images of those who are doing SOOC as a challenge to themselves to be more considered in how they take pictures.
I like your comment "None of these excuses were heard in the time of manual cameras and hands-on chemical processing" which for me really demonstrates the point that there never really was SOOC then. Your SOOC was a plate or a film and you had to process it to get a print. I guess you say polaroid was closest, but even that could be played with. I think we are incredibly lucky to have a digital rather than physical darkroom that enables us to attempt the most incredible techniques, that were so difficult in the past & we should just get on an make the most of it.
Well said, Liz! You clearly understand that the image produced by the camera is only the starting point of a process requiring human hands and an active brain to complete, using whatever materials and methods are available. Experiment and discovery are essential ingredients but are often stifled by rules introduced as a training discipline but seized upon as an excuse to stop trying to improve. It is however their choice, which must be respected, but it will not deter me from my choice, which is to keep trying.
For me digital has made the "dark"room far more accessible and means I can apply my own artistic vision of what a shot should look like, not rely on a company to make choices for me. I pulled many a 'not in focus' & "camera shake" comment off my prints when I'd been experimenting with defocused and ICM film shots & sent them off for processing. Now I'm looking at the shots and I know what I'm trying for when I took it.
Film/slide processing and printing techniques were complex & some inventive people came up with incredible methods but these were available to few people. Now anyone with enough cash to buy elements can have a go at the Orton Effect or Harris Shutter effect etc.
Personally I think it takes a different skill to get a good shot SOOC, not more skill. Non photographers view an image and it either speaks to them or it doesn't, mostly I don't think they are going to care if it is SOOC or not. Its just us photographers that seem to. Big exception to that of course is if it is a news image and the 'truth' is manipulated.
Thank you Lisa. As an old film and plate photographer I can conform that the possibilities were limited in those days but we never skimped on processing to the nth degree, even though it was time consuming and messy and required multiple skills, but the results well repaid the effort.
Thank you Liz. The crux of the matter is not how much skill it requires but how much importance is placed on the use of such a widely misunderstood acronym.
Frank and Arthur,
I find discussions with you very thought provoking and enjoyable, and hope you find them like-wise with me. It would be a dull world indeed if we all agreed all the time.
I did not say I do not, or would not use post-editing processes on my photos. As a matter of fact, as a techno- newbie and illiterate, I am grappling my way through PS Elements 14. Sometimes it can be very frustrating.
But, what I take issue with as a journalist is when a photo is manipulated to the point where it is no longer an accurate depiction of reality. And, you must admit you see these photos on the covers of low-rate rags found on newsstands the world over where celebrity stories are grossly exaggerated.
So, in saying that - sometimes it is nice to see a shot - and I can name quite a few 365'ers that are doing their year SOOC, or OCOLOY, or whatever choice they make for themselves - that is done expertly but has a dose of reality left in. (blemish to some)
We should not get too snobby about one format or another, but should accept and respect the abilities and one another through the choices they make and their individual skill levels. We should encourage one another at the stage they are at, and perhaps gently nudge them towards improvement rather than telling them they are wrong where they are.
BTW - I did not employ spell check for this rant.
Good for you Paula! That's the most intelligent thing I've read on this thread so far, (whether said mockingly or not, and the two sides can make their own judgment on that.)
Do-it-yourself using whatever methods you know or can find .... and if none exist, invent them, just as the real photographers did in pre-digital times, and be truly proud to know that it is all your own work.
Wise words, Wendy, especially about honesty and accuracy but you've got me beaten hands down if you can handle anything from the Photoshop stable. I just can't get my head around all those expensive rule-ridden magic tricks with fancy names, and feel much more comfortable with Google's free Picasa - as basic as it can get - which allows total freedom of expression and is easy to understand. I also find some of the features of iPiccy.com (another free online editor!) very easy to use and quite good enough for a tired old snapper like me, a refugee from Fleet Street still trying to communicate with images in support of (but not replacing) words.
Thank you. I always enjoy your comments.
Thank you Liz, and all others who opened their hearts to speak so clearly on this overused but misunderstood acronym.
I think all that needed to be said has now been said, so I am happy to close the discussion here.
That's all I wanted to say.
Thank you Stephanie, for your conrtributions to this discussion and generally on 365. It's been a pleasure to "know" you; sorry you have to go.
My project to photograph all year using one camera, one (fixed) lens - OCOLOY - and to post all pictures SOOC and B&W is not me pandering to a "camera club fad". It is a genuine long-term project to try to improve my image gathering skills. Every time I require myself to remain faithful to the self imposed terms of my project and post an image which perhaps could have been improved had I taken more care, reminds me to take more care the next time. I don't attach any particular merit to the label SOOC - it is merely an accurate description of my picture taking and publishing process... for this year. I also publish images in other albums that are post-processed. I don't understand why one person's freely made choices for themselves - that they are not forcing on anyone else or vaunting - should be so upsetting to others.
The merit of my personal project for this year lies not in the quality of the images produced but rather in the learning that each image provides: there has been rather a lot of that, I'm pleased to say!
Finally, as photography's role in reporting has been mentioned in this thread, I might point out that the World Press Photo association's prestigious annual awards ceremony requires that all entries be straight out of camera JPEGs.
Thank you Richard, I am sorry you saw my comments as criticism of your work. My intention was to echo your own expressed disappointment that an over-used and misunderstood acronym had apparently led to a decision not to crop a photograph as your experience and instinct told you would have improved it. As I said at the time I found the photograph excellent in every way but agreed with your view that it might have been improved by cropping as you suggested, and I sill stand by those words...
I too would have been upset - nay, extremely angry - had any 'rules' forced me to publish an unfinished image, and it was the tyranny of such 'rules' that prompted me to start this discussion and see if I could get any sense out of those people who use that acronym inappropriately as a badge of honour. I was encouraged by the size of the response, among which there were a few half-hearted attempts to defend the rule, which I welcomed, but am still struggling to understand - except as an exercise or encouragement to learn to handle a camera to produce a virgin image for later conversion into a finished picture.
Please keep up the good work, Richard. Your decision was quite clear and I see no problem with that but am thinking in broader terms about the way the way somephoto-club fads and fancies fads proliferate out of hand..