I recently had a bit of a discussion with a good friend about what I see as a "grey area" in relation to SOOC. He believes anything done prior to the push of the shutter button is a reflection on the photographer's ability. I put to him a scenario where a photographer has in mind a particular image, for example a distorted image using a fisheye lens, but as the specific lens was not owned by the photographer, they utilised a "post-processing" software alternate.
I believe this scenario falls into the grey area - where the ultimate intention - prior to the photo being taken - is already in the photographer's mind, but due to the resources available to him, he relies on post-production software, instead of purchasing/ hiring filters/ lenses.
But just where is the line drawn? And, how do we know what is/was in the mind of the photographer as the image was planned, prepped and framed?
I think that's fair, though I'm not keen on many distortion effects, they just don't look right...
However if you were really picking the argument on fisheye lenses then you can build one very easily with a peephole viewer... For less than a fiver...
You should see how people looked at me when my speedlite died. Beermat under the built in to bounce it up off the ceiling... People look down their noses for more than just post processing...
Though here it's not an evil debate, some prefer SOOC, some love their processing
I don't think a processed photo is any less of a photo at all, it's just different. Some people see it as a crutch -- like a person who post-processes couldn't get it right SOOC. *shrug* I just see it as design...
It's like saying that Monet was less skilled than Rembrandt because his paintings were too stylized and not "realistic." As if he couldn't paint things true to life, so he did his best "Impression." Actually, I'm sure some people do think that way.
I do not. I think Monet painted in the Impressionist style because he chose to, not because he couldn't do anything else. (Of course, I'm not taking into consideration his later years when he was nearly blind. That's another issue.)
Anyway, I have recently fallen in love with post-processing. I see it like being able to paint on my photos. But, I also continually strive to get that perfect (to me) photo SOOC. Because that makes me feel like I really understand my camera (in manual) and am not just "shooting in the dark." ;-)
IMO both are skills, and a great "RAW file" from camera will give post processing a lot of room to work with, to produce exact image of the scene or to tweak to give more special effects.
How about me..90% of picture I take I use manual focus lenses (as my camera system only has manual focus lenses), do manual settings of both aperture and speed and use standard setting on the camera (no film mimic things). Compared to a guy who use auto settings, autofocus, aperture or shutter priority, auto everything, and achieve the same result "SOOC"...does it make me a better protographer ? :-)
Technology today is pushing more and more "processing power and ability" into the camera...SOOC is IMO simply an in-camera processing. There are lots of things cameras these days automatically do for a photographer, and some people who say their shots are SOOC may not know about it.
@viranod as nod mentioned cameras do a lot of work for you... until you start getting to higher end cameras like the pentax 645D or other MF cameras... there is almost nothing 'good' SOOC in the 120 mb RAW file... except there is SO much detail and data that the photog can do WB, manage their color set and MANY MORE THINGS...
PP (Post or whatever you want to call it) is more than just making images digitally different... it is about managing a work flow... in LR I have several publishing sets... those for proofing on screen and 365 at sharpened a touch, 80% jpgs, with water marks... those for printing have colour sets applied to them based on which printer(lab) I am using and what the paper or material I am print on will be... none of these things 'change' the photo, but they need to get done... because most photos out of modern prosumer cameras look like ovesaturateded happdetaillessss lifeless images with no soul... we need pp to fix that...
now if the bride has a pimple... guess what I remove it... I know... it means I am not a great photographer, but (besides soft-focusocus lenses from the film days which I still use time to time) I have need heard of a shutter speed of acne... if she is paying $5000 for a wedding... guess what she didn't have acne as far as any picture she would ever see is concerned...
one last thing... unless you are shooting 4x5 or larger film cameras we are cheating... when the press core used mostly 4x5 plate cameras they cried bloody murder when 'amatures' started using 35mm and could 'waste' film with their click happy ways... I often wonder what adams would say if he could use a modern hasselblad MF digital camera... I wonder how different all our take on photography would be if one of the old masters could use photoshop... they would have I believe and it would have been awsome... /rant
you know funny... before my rant above which I break out on about every 4 or 5 SOOC thread that shows up each day... I honest miss read the title... I was thinking the OP was wondering if using a grey card vs fixing WB in post was more SOOC....
but Bobby I digress... an artist seeks an image and no matter the tools creates it... if that means a pinhole, a fish-eye or PP the ends is all that matters... that is a great photog...
and some people hold their camera with one eye closed and on full auto... but I tell you this... in two different places on any given night... if either produces a great image... both are just as happy with themselves... and think the other is a loser...
Interesting points - I didn't even contemplate the "in-camera processing" issue @viranod, which adds a totally different element to the discussion! The tech advances are incredible and you're right, some may benefit from "auto corrections" without realising it!
@killerjackalope - we had talked about cropping and some basic contrast tweeking ... from the 'purist' perspective =these aren't allowed (ie post-processing)!
I suppose it ultimately comes down to taste, as @allegresse says - impressionist vs realist debate - as far as the approaches go. (Different "schools" ?? Is that a term in relation to photography?) AND where a person focuses their skill, time & energy - pre or post processing.
@icywarm very informative re other reasons for PP - (publishing / printing / clientele); also to contemplate "old masters' utilising photoshop! Opens a whole new world of possibilities and opportunities! As technology has advanced, new "imagination" and "artistic" fields previously never contemplated have opened up. (And will continue to I suppose!)
It is a shame that the two different camps may view the other as a 'loser' - to each his own!
@bobbiewoodall you should see what is coming... there is actually a camera design that would allow you to set DOF in PP... it is being worked on now.. but it will completely change how non-purists take photos... basiclly you take a photo with everything in focus from where you lens glass ends to infinity... than you set the focus point and dof after you get home on your computer.... image never taking an out of focus photo again... and being able to adjust that perfect focus point from the eye lash to the eye ball as an example...(I seem to hit the lashes WAY too much)
@misschuff ... then these purists aren't as pure as they really want to be because photos from digital cameras that they call "SOOC" have ALL been processed/edited in cameras :-)
Take Leica D-Lux 5 and Panasonic Lumix LX-5. Inside they are the same - same lenses, sensors and processors as well as internal hardware, yet they produce subtly different jpeg files due to different software inside the camera....SOOC from the two camera with the same settings will produce different results.
Heck, even the same camera with different firmware versions may produce different jpeg files with the same settings.
All interesting points. Again some things I hadn't contemplated - like auto bracketing. The die-hard purist wouldn't use this option.
I suppose there are "modern" purists versus "old school" purist .... pre-digital ~ post-digital, in-camera editing~ post-processing ....... wow! The grey area is bigger than I initially thought!
@viranod I'm so not really interested in all this whinging about what is and what isn't SOOC I made it short and sweet that SOOC stands for Straight Out Of the Camera - whatever camera and firmware and software and lenses are being used.
SOOC is SOOC.
caught me after a stressful Police interveiw so take offence if you want at my abrupt attitude ... there is more to life than hanging around boards to-ing and fro-ing ... like now I'm about to drive to Sydney (2hrs), go to a gig and start the artist's biography!
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I think that's fair, though I'm not keen on many distortion effects, they just don't look right...
However if you were really picking the argument on fisheye lenses then you can build one very easily with a peephole viewer... For less than a fiver...
You should see how people looked at me when my speedlite died. Beermat under the built in to bounce it up off the ceiling... People look down their noses for more than just post processing...
Though here it's not an evil debate, some prefer SOOC, some love their processing
I don't think a processed photo is any less of a photo at all, it's just different. Some people see it as a crutch -- like a person who post-processes couldn't get it right SOOC. *shrug* I just see it as design...
It's like saying that Monet was less skilled than Rembrandt because his paintings were too stylized and not "realistic." As if he couldn't paint things true to life, so he did his best "Impression." Actually, I'm sure some people do think that way.
I do not. I think Monet painted in the Impressionist style because he chose to, not because he couldn't do anything else. (Of course, I'm not taking into consideration his later years when he was nearly blind. That's another issue.)
Anyway, I have recently fallen in love with post-processing. I see it like being able to paint on my photos. But, I also continually strive to get that perfect (to me) photo SOOC. Because that makes me feel like I really understand my camera (in manual) and am not just "shooting in the dark." ;-)
How about me..90% of picture I take I use manual focus lenses (as my camera system only has manual focus lenses), do manual settings of both aperture and speed and use standard setting on the camera (no film mimic things). Compared to a guy who use auto settings, autofocus, aperture or shutter priority, auto everything, and achieve the same result "SOOC"...does it make me a better protographer ? :-)
Technology today is pushing more and more "processing power and ability" into the camera...SOOC is IMO simply an in-camera processing. There are lots of things cameras these days automatically do for a photographer, and some people who say their shots are SOOC may not know about it.
PP (Post or whatever you want to call it) is more than just making images digitally different... it is about managing a work flow... in LR I have several publishing sets... those for proofing on screen and 365 at sharpened a touch, 80% jpgs, with water marks... those for printing have colour sets applied to them based on which printer(lab) I am using and what the paper or material I am print on will be... none of these things 'change' the photo, but they need to get done... because most photos out of modern prosumer cameras look like ovesaturateded happdetaillessss lifeless images with no soul... we need pp to fix that...
now if the bride has a pimple... guess what I remove it... I know... it means I am not a great photographer, but (besides soft-focusocus lenses from the film days which I still use time to time) I have need heard of a shutter speed of acne... if she is paying $5000 for a wedding... guess what she didn't have acne as far as any picture she would ever see is concerned...
one last thing... unless you are shooting 4x5 or larger film cameras we are cheating... when the press core used mostly 4x5 plate cameras they cried bloody murder when 'amatures' started using 35mm and could 'waste' film with their click happy ways... I often wonder what adams would say if he could use a modern hasselblad MF digital camera... I wonder how different all our take on photography would be if one of the old masters could use photoshop... they would have I believe and it would have been awsome... /rant
and some people hold their camera with one eye closed and on full auto... but I tell you this... in two different places on any given night... if either produces a great image... both are just as happy with themselves... and think the other is a loser...
@killerjackalope - we had talked about cropping and some basic contrast tweeking ... from the 'purist' perspective =these aren't allowed (ie post-processing)!
I suppose it ultimately comes down to taste, as @allegresse says - impressionist vs realist debate - as far as the approaches go. (Different "schools" ?? Is that a term in relation to photography?) AND where a person focuses their skill, time & energy - pre or post processing.
It is a shame that the two different camps may view the other as a 'loser' - to each his own!
Take Leica D-Lux 5 and Panasonic Lumix LX-5. Inside they are the same - same lenses, sensors and processors as well as internal hardware, yet they produce subtly different jpeg files due to different software inside the camera....SOOC from the two camera with the same settings will produce different results.
Heck, even the same camera with different firmware versions may produce different jpeg files with the same settings.
I suppose there are "modern" purists versus "old school" purist .... pre-digital ~ post-digital, in-camera editing~ post-processing ....... wow! The grey area is bigger than I initially thought!
SOOC is SOOC.
caught me after a stressful Police interveiw so take offence if you want at my abrupt attitude ... there is more to life than hanging around boards to-ing and fro-ing ... like now I'm about to drive to Sydney (2hrs), go to a gig and start the artist's biography!
HAGW/end!