So if you shoot in RAW and then process in an editor, as in just the RAW to JPEG... does it still "count" as SOOC? Not that I actually care (ha) but just curious how others view it ;) Thanks in advance! :)
SOOC doesn't actually exist in the digital world. All cameras use software to interpret the light waves that hit the sensor and convert them into an image. No digital photographer has 100% control over their results (the same professional photog can use the exact same settings on a dozen different cameras and get a dozen different results). That said, the definition of "SOOC" is: "I don't know how to use editing software, so I'll excuse this blah photo by saying it's straight out of the camera". :-P
@davidchrtrans LOL! This is kinda what I was thinking. I mean, nothing is really SOOC... as in, the camera at least processes it. If you shoot in Raw, you HAVE to convert it to some point to make it JPEG... so instead of your camera processing, you are processing. But doesn't that mean it's not longer SOOC? Hmm... the things I ponder ;)
So I just started playing around with cyanotypes. I scanned one in and posted it as my photo of the day with SOOC in the description as a joke. I suppose though that the scanner converted it to JPEG and then it was really no longer SOOC, or is it?
@kmrtn6 Im sorry you found it offensive. I am sure he was just kidding around and meant no harm. I enjoy SOOC pictures, and actually often find SOOC photography much cleaner and pure at times. This post is in no way meant to offend anyone... processed or not. It is art, and art is very personal. :)
@5unflow3r I am also pretty darn proud of what I can get just by taking my card out of my camera and uploading it without any processing on my part. That is what prompted me to post this. I took yesterday's photo in RAW, and then only converted it to JPEG when uploading... so I guess that's why I was wondering. I didn't write SOOC, because, well, it didn't seem like it was to me if you convert it at all. But then I got to thinking about how the camera processes it if you shoot in JPEG anyhow... I dunno, you see my dilemma? LOL
@kmrtn6@5unflow3r@nicolekos Wow... some really sensitive people on the site today. I've posted plenty of shots with no processing, and there's nothing wrong with that. I do think -and sorry if you find this offensive- that using SOOC as a tag or a "badge of honour" is lame. What is important in a photograph is that the final product is pleasing to one's own eye (first) and to the eyes of one's target audience. How much or how little processing goes into it is irrelevant. And I stand by what I said before: I've seen "SOOC" used by far too many people as a way to excuse boring photos. Anyway....
(and, no... i do not think that i'm some great artist; i'm a mediocre hobbiest at best... i'm just a very opinionated spaniard... as we all are.)
@davidchrtrans :) I think art can be very a raw (no pun intended per discussion) expression for some, and so people can take things pretty harsh. That being said, I personally find no offense in your post and value your input and thoughts :) Thank you for taking the time to respond.
All I can say is that a great image is a great image whether its an SOOC or NOT but do not make SOOC as an excuse because of a crappy photograph - that's pretty lame!
@brumbe To me, cropping is editing - you are changing the composition of the photo.
My project is all SOOC (my photos may be crappy or mediocre, I ain't bothered lol) purely as I want to learn about photography, about composition and about how to use my camera.
What am I going to learn if all I do is click on autofix, tweak this and that and crop to what I actually wanted to focus on?
Perhaps next year I'll concentrate more on the editing side - when I KNOW what I can and want to achieve to take my skills up to a different level, once I know the basics and can control the image I am trying to come up with.
ermmmmmm........ im a total "non pure" photo person so i guess i have no real comment other than ..... I like editing and editing likes me (well it does on a good day , on a bad day i just turn the power off and i still win :D )
@meggageg this is so funny, thanks for the laugh! I am such a newbie, I haven't done discussions or even themes until this month. I had to ask what SOOC and DOF meant when it started popping up, I think the digital world and cameras have changed so much from the old 35mm my dad gave me, but like any ART its constantly evolving as are the terms and the way we view it. This project empowers so many and gives them a voice whether SOOC or Photoshopped a million ways and to that I say THANK you, I enjoy all the photos and the photographers who submit them!!!!!!
@minxymissk some of your photos do look "tweaked" in Pic nic? There is nothing wrong with a little boost in saturation and a bit of cropping. SOOC can be good too in some cases. Just ENJOY! Its all a learning process! :)
@paulremulla gah...if I could only type a full thought when I'm sneaking on 365 at work...I was trying to say that I didn't mean my other remark in a b*&(%$# way, and ended up saying that i DID. I hope that you figured that out,. And I figured out I shouldn't be looking at this page if I'm afraid my boss could appear behind me at any minute.
not had time to read all the comments above, but i detect a little angst! :-( personally, i tag my photos as sooc if they are not edited in any way (including cropping) apart from the raw converter that my software does. im not very technical minded but i understand that the raw processing is done to make the photo look similar to have what you would have got had you taken a jpeg photo as opposed to a raw photo. so basically my automatically process raw photo is equivalent to the photo i would have got had i shot in jpeg
i do not use sooc for an excuse of a bad photo, in fact i label it sooc when i am so proud with myself for getting everything right 'in camera', which believe me is a rare occurrence for me... most of my photos are processed in some sort of way!
ps. when i first saw the term sooc on here, i had to google it to find out what it meant :-D
Raw to jpg w/o tweaking the settings is SOOC for all intents and purposes.
I generally only tag SOOC if the image looks as if it may have been processed when it has not. The end result, no matter how achieved, is all that matters.Given the limitations of small format digital, processing is often necessary in order to replicate film. Especially in regards to exposure latitude.
As has been said (touched on) by others in this thread - if you shoot JPEG in your camera, your shot is processed, albeit without your control over how. Your camera adds contrast, sharpening, saturation etc as it creates the JPEG file. As has been said outright (thanks VikDaddy) - if you shoot raw, and then convert to JPEG, and do nothing else, your shot is SOOC. It will be muddy and lack sharpness, and be nowhere as crisp as the same shot taken on film, but it will be truly SOOC - pure captured data. Conversion is not processing - it is just changing the file type (and compression).
From a purist perspective, if you make a choice, or automate, to make any changes, additions or subtractions to the actual captured data, your shot is not SOOC. That is why, if you shoot JPEG, your shot is not truly SOOC. While it could be argued that compression makes changes to the data, those changes are not visible at normal display resolutions. Likewise, making the image smaller (because 365 etc won't display 5000 pixels across) could be argued the same way, but practically speaking it's no different to making a "standard" print from film - no darkroom magic involved - where you still have to choose a size, and where not all the data will make it to the paper (compression). So, conversion and compression are not processing. Cropping, however, is changing composition after the fact. Nothing wrong with it, but it is deleting visual data and therefore is processing.
Personally, if anyone cares, I also see nothing of note in SOOC. It's half-making an image, to my mind. You can indeed show a great deal of skill in that first half of making the image, and it can be a useful tool to show that something can be done without the aid of post-processing. And also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing the art of camera use while ignoring the art of processing, if that's what you enjoy doing (who am I to tell you how to enjoy your art?). But, the occasional snobbery of some (only some) who look down upon those (of us) who complete the full "process" (no pun intended), or indeed those who focus (pun possibly intended) only on the second half of the creation process, irks me to no end. Be proud of what you can achieve SOOC (indeed, every photographer should strive for that), but the whole "That person always processes their photos, so they're not as good! *rolling eyes and twisting moustache*" (yes, that's how I always imagine it) gets old, fast, and just shows ignorance.
What I love about this community is that people can pursue the aspects of photography that they enjoy, and find like-minded people to help them on their journey. What I don't enjoy is the veiled judging, but there isn't a whole lot of that, and hey - we're all human, all prone to misguided pride and mistakes. Me included.
OK - when I started reading this I would have said any editing - including cropping. I only labeled photos SOOC if I'd done nothing except snap and post. But I learned something and I'm going back and removing SOOC tags from any photos I thought of that way because @davidchrtrans has a point that convinces me - SOOC doesn't actually exist in the digital world. I think some people act as if further editing is superior and others act as if no further editing is superior and I think both are insufferable. I agree with a fabulous photographer I know who said that all the photos have been taken (and thus, editing is how to make it new and your own) - I think about that all the time as I try to learn more about editing. But, really people - please yourselves and you'll please others too or it won't matter.
I just want to go back to the roots of this discussion. This was not a "is SOOC better or editing better" post, but more a "which is which" post. It was for learning, not figuring out who's ART is better. :) @jinximages Awesome. Thank you.
@jinximages - thanks for your wisdom as always. This discussion has been an education for me. I have removed all SOOC labels from any photos I formerly thought of in that way (which was photos shot in JPEG but with no cropping or any other changes).
@davidchrtrans i agree about the camera doing some kind of processing, but as to people using SOOC to excuse a blah photo, quite often I will play around with a photo and quite often the original SOOC is better than any editing version I can come up with, so I will revert back to the original photo, so that is when I will say it is SOOC, or if i am so happy with the shot that I don't think it needs any extra post camera editing. I think that we can claim SOOC to a digital photo if the settings we have taken the photo with enhance the photo to what you are happy with, after all, isn't that what we are all trying to do, use our cameras and the settings, to take the best photos we can?
@jinximages - Thanks for putting that out there. I have struggled with the idea of "processing" for a number of reasons. You explaination helps me tremendously. My biggest thing with processing is that I don't want to use it as a "crutch". I am still learning and (i think) somewhat new at this whole photography thing. My thing is that I don't want to use processing to fix what I should have been able to control in the camera/field (shadows, poor composition, etc) . And I don't want to use it to create what wasn't there (freakishly purple sunsets, etc) Your take on the "half-making an image" reminds me that there is another half, and that the art carries through to that expression. I've dabbled with processing a little since starting this project and quite honestly am happy with what I've done. It ain't perfect, hell, it probably won't ever be. But yeah, I feel like editing/processing is my next step to becoming a better photographer...your post just made me feel a lot better about it!!
@reba Not to throw a spanner in the works, but I don't think it is necessary to remove your SOOC tags. Technically, they may not be truly uprocessed, but I think the intent matters more. If some processing happens in the camera, in the creation of the JPEG, well, the shot is still straight out of the camera, isn't it? ;) I suppose it is "out-of-the-camera and into-the-camera's-processor" and then out again, but SOOC is probably still the simplest way to say "I didn't Photoshop this at all." KWIM? But still, personally, if I don't process an image I don't label it SOOC, unless there's a point I'm trying to make about the shot. Just saying, you could leave the tag on there, and it would really only annoy those who like to split hairs. :)
@girlincamo Cheers Terri. :) Many people do use processing as a crutch. But also, sometimes you just have to press the shutter before the moment is lost, and then do your best to correct it afterwards. Or when things are non-static, you simply can't change the lighting and such (most shooting at weddings is like this) and you just have to do the best you can as quickly as you can, and improve it later. All that said, I don't think there is such a thing as a SOOC image that can't be improved. True, some people can't find the "right edit" to improve it, but there's still always a way. One of my favourite quotes is by Ansel Adams, who said, "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships." I think a lot of it is simply creating something in 10 to 12 stops of light that we, with human eyes, see in 20. HDR started out as one of those tools (but Photomatix and such have turned it into something else entirely - I hate it, but that's just subjective), and is a great example of editing to make something look "more how it was" and less "how the camera saw it." But anyway - start with a good foundation (SOOC shot) and you can build a masterpiece, but start with rubbish and you can only go so far. IMO, SOOC is vitally important (the most important part, truly), but, as I said, is only the first half of the journey - the foundation for a great image. I think you're already totally in-tune with that, which means you can start (if you haven't already) seeing the finished image before you press the shutter. That's how I strive to work - knowing how I plan to process the shot, so I can shoot accordingly.
i want to sum it up. 365 is an awesome site because it allows people like me to sit back, read discussions such as this and learn, learn, learn from people like all of you who have vastly more experience in digital. there is a difference between taking a beautiful picture by accident and knowing is good composition, contrast, dodging, burning, opacity, noise. . . awesome people, awesome info, awesome discussions.
@karenr My 365 project isn't processed, all shots are SOOC/JPEG/Not Picniked etc!
I signed up to Ace so I could have additional albums where I could have a play, as it's easy to tell, processing is still in it's infancy for me :)
Almost non of my photos here are SOOC. I partly blame myself for not knowing my gear and how to use them well enough, and also a large part due to the fact that non of the cameras' jpeg processing methods are that great - at least they are still not comparable to producing the quality of slides during film days.
Technically speaking, those who state that .jpg files are not SOOC are correct, but I think the question here goes more to the real-world definition of SOOC, or should I say the "spirit" of the term. I take the term a little more loosely, meaning that if I chose the camera settings, aimed, shot, and did nothing to alter the picture itself (e.g. effects, color tweaks, saturation tweaks, etc.).... that is, if what someone is seeing when they view my photo is what it looked like when it came out of the camera...then it can be called SOOC. Based on this, I don't have a problem with someone cropping or straightening and calling it SOOC. Also based on this, I don't have a problem whatsoever with anyone doing edits that would "disqualify" them from saying it is SOOC. Edits in a software program are no different than darkroom edits in the film days--the only real difference is that with software we can achieve adjustments we couldn't dream of getting in a darkroom. In my mind, photography is an art, and there's no "right" or "wrong" way to do it. In light of that, SOOC is nothing to really brag about, but nor is it something to look at with disdain. I, personally, like it when someone says a photo is SOOC, or states the opposite, because I then learn what is possible on both sides of the spectrum, and it inspires me to learn more about both sides of it. For example, how I can take a backlit shot and it's OK if there are some "blown out" spots, if it adds to the artistic effect, or vice versa, how I can take a backlit shot and maybe choose to bring up the shadows to show more detail.
To answer the question asked - I think if you take your camera, shoot a photo and then simply upload it - no cropping, exposure adjustment or anything extemporaneous - then it would constitute SOOC for all intensive purposes. It went from camera, to memory card, to upload on site... but that is just me.
Now back to your regularly scheduled OT existentialist discussion regarding how digital automatically "processes" shots... lol.
This was a really educative discussion -- thanks! I'm only on my 5th day (today) and had been trying to figure out the SOOC acronym (among others -- now have to learn the DOF one) and its significance. What comes through is how personal all these decisions are, which is what I'm seeing as a theme in this entire project. I also am loving the humor throughout. I'm excited about the year ahead and hope I can keep up!
Yes thanks all.... I think it strange that the SOOC tag & people who know what SOOC means tends to make for a slightly modernistic style of photograph if SOOC is browsed.
I wondered what it was... I couldn't tell from the photos.
On a more basic note, I always wonder what acronyms are, I struggled with DOF as I was reading through these posts, trying to find the meaning and it was helpful and I now know what SOOC is.. (think I'll keep my SOOC tags to myself)... Thanks
Now what does "Depth of Field" mean????
I know most photographers are purists and like SOOC shots. I agree that there is a lot to be proud of with a SOOC shot. I love post processing and I think it's an art form in itself. Maybe most won't agree with me, but I thinking it's kind of cool to turn a mediocre shot into an amazing photo with Photoshop. I shoot raw so I edit everything I post!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
@kmrtn6 I agree with you 100%
(and, no... i do not think that i'm some great artist; i'm a mediocre hobbiest at best... i'm just a very opinionated spaniard... as we all are.)
It's probably not SOOC. :-)
And a good photo is a good photo, regardless of how much (or how little) editing is done.
My project is all SOOC (my photos may be crappy or mediocre, I ain't bothered lol) purely as I want to learn about photography, about composition and about how to use my camera.
What am I going to learn if all I do is click on autofix, tweak this and that and crop to what I actually wanted to focus on?
Perhaps next year I'll concentrate more on the editing side - when I KNOW what I can and want to achieve to take my skills up to a different level, once I know the basics and can control the image I am trying to come up with.
i do not use sooc for an excuse of a bad photo, in fact i label it sooc when i am so proud with myself for getting everything right 'in camera', which believe me is a rare occurrence for me... most of my photos are processed in some sort of way!
ps. when i first saw the term sooc on here, i had to google it to find out what it meant :-D
I generally only tag SOOC if the image looks as if it may have been processed when it has not. The end result, no matter how achieved, is all that matters.Given the limitations of small format digital, processing is often necessary in order to replicate film. Especially in regards to exposure latitude.
From a purist perspective, if you make a choice, or automate, to make any changes, additions or subtractions to the actual captured data, your shot is not SOOC. That is why, if you shoot JPEG, your shot is not truly SOOC. While it could be argued that compression makes changes to the data, those changes are not visible at normal display resolutions. Likewise, making the image smaller (because 365 etc won't display 5000 pixels across) could be argued the same way, but practically speaking it's no different to making a "standard" print from film - no darkroom magic involved - where you still have to choose a size, and where not all the data will make it to the paper (compression). So, conversion and compression are not processing. Cropping, however, is changing composition after the fact. Nothing wrong with it, but it is deleting visual data and therefore is processing.
Personally, if anyone cares, I also see nothing of note in SOOC. It's half-making an image, to my mind. You can indeed show a great deal of skill in that first half of making the image, and it can be a useful tool to show that something can be done without the aid of post-processing. And also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with pursuing the art of camera use while ignoring the art of processing, if that's what you enjoy doing (who am I to tell you how to enjoy your art?). But, the occasional snobbery of some (only some) who look down upon those (of us) who complete the full "process" (no pun intended), or indeed those who focus (pun possibly intended) only on the second half of the creation process, irks me to no end. Be proud of what you can achieve SOOC (indeed, every photographer should strive for that), but the whole "That person always processes their photos, so they're not as good! *rolling eyes and twisting moustache*" (yes, that's how I always imagine it) gets old, fast, and just shows ignorance.
What I love about this community is that people can pursue the aspects of photography that they enjoy, and find like-minded people to help them on their journey. What I don't enjoy is the veiled judging, but there isn't a whole lot of that, and hey - we're all human, all prone to misguided pride and mistakes. Me included.
@girlincamo Cheers Terri. :) Many people do use processing as a crutch. But also, sometimes you just have to press the shutter before the moment is lost, and then do your best to correct it afterwards. Or when things are non-static, you simply can't change the lighting and such (most shooting at weddings is like this) and you just have to do the best you can as quickly as you can, and improve it later. All that said, I don't think there is such a thing as a SOOC image that can't be improved. True, some people can't find the "right edit" to improve it, but there's still always a way. One of my favourite quotes is by Ansel Adams, who said, "Dodging and burning are steps to take care of mistakes God made in establishing tonal relationships." I think a lot of it is simply creating something in 10 to 12 stops of light that we, with human eyes, see in 20. HDR started out as one of those tools (but Photomatix and such have turned it into something else entirely - I hate it, but that's just subjective), and is a great example of editing to make something look "more how it was" and less "how the camera saw it." But anyway - start with a good foundation (SOOC shot) and you can build a masterpiece, but start with rubbish and you can only go so far. IMO, SOOC is vitally important (the most important part, truly), but, as I said, is only the first half of the journey - the foundation for a great image. I think you're already totally in-tune with that, which means you can start (if you haven't already) seeing the finished image before you press the shutter. That's how I strive to work - knowing how I plan to process the shot, so I can shoot accordingly.
@jinximages @meggageg
I signed up to Ace so I could have additional albums where I could have a play, as it's easy to tell, processing is still in it's infancy for me :)
Now back to your regularly scheduled OT existentialist discussion regarding how digital automatically "processes" shots... lol.
I wondered what it was... I couldn't tell from the photos.
On a more basic note, I always wonder what acronyms are, I struggled with DOF as I was reading through these posts, trying to find the meaning and it was helpful and I now know what SOOC is.. (think I'll keep my SOOC tags to myself)... Thanks
Now what does "Depth of Field" mean????