There are not many things about which I get riled. Ignorance can push me in that direction. Ignorance about photography (including my own from time to time) can really push me over the edge. I'm passionate about photography, you see.
I'm not always right.
But I usually do have an answer for everything. Since I was 4, at least.
The purpose of this seemingly-random post? Well, it's just that I'm a teeny bit irritated that so many lovers of photography are clearly blind as bats!
Oh, and I don't want to hijack another thread to make my point (that few will read, and fewer will care about, anyway).
This all stems from the dozen or so weekly threads about "the purity of SOOC" images. I mean, SOOC means wysiwyg, right? Balderdash.
SOOC is, in almost every instance, nothing like what you see through the viewfinder! I'm talking about digital here. Why do I make that distinction? Well, because unless you're shooting with E100G or maybe Provia, your colours are nothing like what you actually saw. And even if you are shooting with one of those very colour-neutral, low-contrast, positive films, you still have to get your colour temperature exactly right in your shooting environment! Good luck with that. I won't even begin to explain how much worse it gets with colour negative film (the stuff you print).
What about digital, you ask? It is so, so much worse. That might be a shock to you (or not), but it is the simple truth. If you shoot in raw, you still have a profile that works out how your image should be displayed. Have you calibrated your camera? You have to shoot a colour chart for that, usually under two differing lighting environments, so you can create a profile for the simple viewing of your raw images (via Lightroom etc). If you don't, your computer will display the median set of colours for your camera. And cameras vary, a lot, especially in the consumer market (yes, within the same assembly line set).
"But I shoot JPEG!" you say. Yes, well. What colour space do you shoot in? sRGB perhaps? The colour space designed for web, in that it only increases image file size by 4KB? Do you know how small that colour space is?
Maybe I should backtrack a bit here. Do you know what a colour space is?
A colour space, or a gamut, is simply how many colours can be displayed. Human skin tones, for example, are all red tones, and all fit inside of sRGB. That's great if you shoot portraits, and your subjects wear natural tones in their clothing, and you don't shoot against any brightly coloured backdrops. sRGB is what you see on the web (well, where there is any colour management at all).
Maybe you shoot in Adobe RGB? Well, not bad. I mean, it is about twice as big as sRGB. Some (but not all) of those brightly coloured clothes and plastics will display correctly using this colour space. The ones that don't will just clip. Ever taken a photo of someone wearing a brightly-coloured, plain shirt or dress, and when you look at the photo all you see is a large blob of single colour, with no texture or gradients visible? That's because of your colour space. Mostly though, you don't see the effects at all - you simply don't get the colours you should be getting.
Maybe you shoot in raw, and then process in ProPhoto RGB? Awesome. I mean, that's what the museums manage their reproductions in. It is a massive colour space. Makes Photoshop slow to a crawl at times, but I guess that's not an issue if all you are doing is converting your file to a TIF or JPEG (you know, since you need the purity of SOOC images). But what then? Your monitor certainly can't display anywhere near even 60% of that colour space (it can't even display all of Adobe RGB), so how can you see the "truth" of your photo?
I guess you have to print it, to see its truth.
Oh, but wait, you have to convert to something else to print, right? Unless you have a professional printer in your study, you have to both compress your file (JPEG) and also have to convert your image to a smaller colour profile (usually sRGB, though some labs will handle Adobe RGB). What happens then? Well, if you use Adobe RGB for printing, most of your "normal" colours will be ok. You can convert using the perceptual conversion method, which will at least prevent that horrid clipping (but won't keep your actual vivid colours). But if you need to convert to sRGB, well, your sRGB profile on your computer can't be used to convert perceptually! It is only a 4KB space, so it will simply clip everything that isn't covered by its miniscule gamut. And even worse, if you leave your images in a better colour space and send them to your lab, unless your lab is highly colour conscious (not Walmart, K-mart etc) their equipment will simply convert to sRGB anyway, and you'll have no control over how poorly it is done!
And then your image is printed. Is the lab calibrated? Are the profiles up to date? Has it been cleaned recently? If you use a place like WHCC, you're all good on those points, but the local department store? Not likely.
How about your monitor, with its small number of displayable colours? Is it calibrated? Is your room dimly and indirectly lit, with mid-gray painted walls and no reflective surfaces in front of your monitor? Are you using a top-of-the-line display that renders colour evenly, corner-to-corner? Are you wearing a black top or shirt? Seriously. I'm not pulling your leg.
Editing is the only way to get even close to what you saw through your viewfinder. And then, well, good luck displaying it truthfully anyway. But hey - we work with what we've got. ;)
Hey, I envy you your extended knowledge but for me, well, I just aim to present a pleasing image. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't! I am a simple snapper. I've just bought my first DSLR and tbh I have no idea what I'm doing with it yet ;o) When I tag my photos SOOC I'm simply telling everyone on here that I, personally, haven't post processed although I must admit I enjoy a bit of fiddling about after I've uploaded. A bit like presenting myself to the world on a day to day basis I tend to use a little eyeliner and mascara so as not to scare the natives :o) x
I love your rant and agree with everything you have to say. I take a photo, I load it on my computer and I adjust the levels before loading, do I feel bad for this.... NO!!!
@jinximages I didnt understand much of your comment but if your saying there is no such thing as SOOC then i agree, i have read about this many times.Even If i do no edting i dont bother to write sooc because it really means nothing. I do have a question for you. Whats the difference between editing and processing?
@jinximages Being a complete amateur and only using a P&S I have to sit on the sidelines in admiration. I read what you say and try to understand. There is so much more to this SOOC than I ever imagined and will never again be high and mighty about the fact that I have posted a photo that I haven't 'fiddled with' :-) We are all such a mix here and it is great to read from someone who really knows his stuff. Thanks for your input. :-) @psychographer I love your analogy about presenting yourself to the world :-) Where would I be without a bit of lippy!!
@Cherrill I think your photos are amazing! There's too much emphasis on needing a DSLR. I'm contemplating going back to using mine. Middle son pointed out to me that although my photos are now better quality he doesn't think the actual photos are as good as when I was using my P&S!!
@psychographer Thank you Lisa. My partner said exactly the same when I tried one of his cameras. I find mine too convinient and I'm happy in my results, I guess that's all that matters. :-)
@jinximages Rant away me old China! A ranty kind of tutorial for me!!! ;-) So great to read this post from someone who knows what he's talking about! Totally get what you are saying even some of it did go a little over my head(I'll reach up and grab it before it does (go over my head) one of these days !) Hardly any of my images are "SOOC" because , to me, they don't look "right". I just tend to play around with am image until it "feels"right to me even if I don't really understand what I've just done!!!!!! Really like the mascara analogy @psychographer!!! Thanks for taking the time to post!
@jinximages Thank you for the rant, it was really informative and I have learnt lots that I did not know :-)
I am extremely stupid and dumb when it comes to knowledge of Photography as you will find out in the following paragraph but here we go anyway.
What I want to know is what is photography? it seems to me, that it is taking a picture and editing and processing the hell of it so that it looks nothing like the image first captured!
I know I have processed and edited my pics but would rather post pics that are just simply 'a point in time captured'
The editing and processing talent on 365 is amazing and yes I would like to learn how to do some of the techniques and am in awe of some peoples skills. However I do feel that sometimes when I look at other peoples pics that the 'point in time' has been lost.
I also have tagged some of shots as SOOC, simply to tell people that there hasn't been any fiddling with the pic, it is as it was loaded into my laptop from my camera.
Please if you ever have the time again, please have a 'rant' about something else. You write in a way that is easy to understand. :-)
@psychographer Thanks Lisa. :) Really, there is nothing "wrong" with SOOC. Especially, I think, if you're trying to show something done purely in-camera. Of course the image isn't going to represent reality, even still, but there is less to deceive the eye and, therefore, one can show a particular aspect more clearly. Small adjustments are not only fine and remain true to the original image captured, but they can (if used correctly) make the image even more "truthful". I can not, ever, see in a SOOC image from my camera, what I saw when I shot it. The camera does not record it the way my eyes see it. It can't.
@frameit Haha! You're welcome! :) One needs to do that, if they want to represent tonality correctly. Or even just to better illustrate the tonal relationships sought in the image as seen in the mind's eye. That's another whole conversation right there! :)
@tori3012 That's... sort-of what I'm saying. In a nutshell - a generalisation. Also, that one has to edit if one wishes to make the image accurately represent reality, because the camera can't do more than a rough approximation. As for processing vs editing. Well, they are (almost) synonymous. Processing is generally the colour correction, white balance, exposure etc and may not necessarily mean editing as such. It is like squares and rectangles - a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Processing is file preparation, which may or may not involve editing. At least, that's how I define it.
@Cherrill Oh, but you can be proud of a SOOC image! You can show off your "raw" image to show how well you nailed it before processing. Even if you don't process it - what's it matter? You can still be proud in that step of the image creation process. :) Too many people, imo, use editing as a crutch to try to fix poor photos. Keep working on that first step - worry about the processing and editing when you know you can take consistently great shots!
@pennymilner That "playing around" is just learning. That's exactly what I did when I got my first copy of Paintshop about 12 years ago! :) You don't have to know the mathematics of it, to make something look good. It can help, of course, but it isn't essential. I'm still learning, every day, and have a long, long way to go.
@hagscat Well, photography is art. Firstly, at any rate. And then, well, it is the creation of an image in some form of media. It used to be a print, or a slide perhaps, but nevertheless it was something physical. Now it can also just be a digital file. Intangible, but viewable all the same. Yet, still, it needs preparation in order to be displayed as intended. There are things out of our control - like other peoples' monitors with horrible colour, huge saturation and brightness levels, and a gamut the size of a small pea - but there are things we can control, in order to minimise the effects of those "randoms". Photography has never been about "pushing the button and stopping there" - it has always been about producing an image. And before digital, there was not even terminology like SOOC. SOOC is a digital phenomenon, and a terribly inaccurate term at that. It should be treated in the most general sense, in referral to an unpolished file that is yet to be made into an image. In my (not so) humble opinion, at least. And insofar as capturing those moments in time - nothing wrong with that. Photography as a means to document. But what are you documenting? Is it just an event, or is there emotion attached to it? If you want to maintain that emotion, an untouched image file is unlikely to manage it. But yes - it can be taken too far. Editing can destroy an image, as easily (or more easily) than it can improve it. Nothing wrong with that SOOC tag, once again - I have no issue with the use of it. What I am beginning to get narky about (not with you - rest assured) is the idea that edited photos are inherently inferior, because they are edited - that is one big pile of sanctimonious crap! And totally wrong to boot. :)
I have also labelled a few photos as sooc but only to indicate a lack of post processing involved. Not as a badge of honor. I'm stll learning how to edit in a couple of simple programs and barely scratched the surface of CS5, I'm very humble when it comes to editing. Film was "processed and edited" in developing and printing, nothing new in digital just a lot more flexible and faster. Lead us Jedi master! A very enjoyable rant, and quit educational as well.
People do get on this purity tirade bit with SOOC - but I think there's nothing wrong with editing. When it was film, people would mix different chemicals, process the film differently, even expose the film to light briefly to create all sorts of effects. Why can't we do the same in Photoshop with our digital images?
@jinx Some questions for you :) As an aside, I'm looking to have some of my photos on print soon... I usually shoot in JPG at 15 MP (RAW is too big and I wouldn't shoot in RAW unless I was shooting for something that required it). Is it at all helpful to convert the RGB to CMYK for print? Also, I'm not sure which RGB space my photos are in (sRGB or adobe RGB)... any way of finding that out?
@robv Thanks Robert! Glad you enjoyed it! :) I'll try to rant constructively again sometime soon. ;)
@pocketmouse Exactly! :) In regards to colour spaces, well, avoid CMYK unless you are going to press-print. Like, brochures, business cards etc. CMYK is a nightmare, truly, and the conversion process alone gives me a headache. A good press printer will be able to do the conversions themselves, or at the very least be able to provide a custom profile to you. But anyway, enough on that. Colour inkjet printers use RGB profiles, so for photo printing you should never even have to think about CMYK. Look at your camera settings to see which colour space you are using. Default is sRGB. If you are using a larger profile in-camera (AdobeRGB, typically), you need to ensure your workflow is all in AdobeRGB too. If your printing lab accepts AdobeRGB, great! So long as they know what they're doing with it, that is. If not, you will need to convert to sRGB at the end of your processing. What you can do is download a sRGB profile (from Kodak for example) that has a LUT embedded in it. Then, you can do a perceptual conversion from AdobeRGB to whatever_sRGB which will maintain the colours better (perceptually, that is). Once you have done the conversion you can embed the normal ICC sRGB colour profile to your image - sRGB is sRGB, regardless, so all that last step does is remove the LUT (essentially) and drops about 200KB from your file size, while ensuring it will display correctly or print correctly for someone without the whatever_sRGB profile (the one with the LUT).
An excellent point well taken and one I understand. Maybe not the techie aspects but I do understand that what we see on a picture or on a screen will vary depending on the the monitors and the printers. I can go to different monitors and see that. I became frustrated with drug store printers for that very reason. One thing I learned, not long ago actually, was even film brands had their own color spectrum. Some brought out more reds, or greens, etc. It all makes good sense to me and I know SOOC varies from camera to camera also. Thanks for the information. :-)
@dmortega Glad you found it useful! Different film types can be explained by their gamut also - so you can actually, with the right equipment, devise a colour profile to represent a film type. It can be a very useful tool to see graphically, because one is able to compare film types in a quantitative manner - one can "see" where the beautiful Fuji greens sit as compared to the otherwise-unattainable, gorgeous Kodak blues - the Fujifilm has more of the greens covered by its colour space, and the Kodak has more of the blues in its profile. I mean, every film is different (I'm just generalising) like you said, and in fact every digital camera is a bit that way too (as I had the pleasure of viewing directly when I did a Hasselblad H4D vs Canon 5D Mk II vs Nikon D3X comparison last week).
@killerjackalope I hear you. I can't figure out the compression issues and why it seems to strip the embedded profiles and leave them totally unmanaged. Bah! Ah well. Half the people are probably looking at it on iPads and iPhones anyway, and those things barely display 70% of sRGB!
I love this rant and learnt so much from it. I'm so glad that someone with knowledge pointed all this out because the sooc is better theory bugs the hell out of me :D
@cazink Thanks Carly. :) Me too - I've never understood how something half-finished is intrinsically better than the finished product. Of course, the finishing can ruin it too, but that isn't the fault of the tools used.
@jinximages I did a little experiment of just refusing to add any colour profile at all, definitely less changes.
Oddly if you upload the same image you download it'll change, so whatever they're doing makes no sense.
I love viewing things on my phone, it's got a half decent colour range and three easy to access brightness settings so I can get a good idea of what the image looks like elsewhere.
Laptop LCDs are terrible, especially HPs
Uncalibrated imacs, atrocious, they display alright but I edited a set of images without thinking to check and the results look awful everywhere but one mac...
A great rant and I am in the same boat as @robv. I will state that something is SOOC simply to show that I haven't gone on to tweak my shot before posting it here. I do get that there is a lot of "magic" that goes on behind the scenes in your camera when you take a picture and the art is in learning how to control that magic yourself. I found this very informative!
Funny discussion! Nice philosophical text about how apples and pears cannot be compared. SOOC and WYSIWYG are completely different things if you ask me.
Your text is not about SOOC, which just means Strait Out Of Camera. My hipstamatic shots come strait out of the iphone camera. Besides a few exceptions they are not edited at all and uploaded from my phone to 365, therefore SOOC.
As you say, they are are not like the reality, after heavy editing by the hipstamatic software before saving to the memory card. So, no, they are not WYSIWYG in any way.
To be a little philosophical too. WYSIWYG should not even be mentioned. It does not exist. An artist (painter, illustrator or photographer) can only make an impression of some moment in time. A flat representation (in case of photography mostly) looking like the real thing.
In my opinion WYSIWYG only stands for the unreal, like the display on your camera or the textfield I am looking at while typing this. It's (in this case) just a digital representation of what you will get, not of what you actually saw. These digital 'gets' can differ for each user without editing. like an image changes using a different colour profile on your monitor or the way this website can look totally different with another stylesheet leaving it's content unchanged.
Mmm. What did I just say?
SOOC is just short for 'my camera did all the editing and I was hapy about that or did not know what to do about the errors'. WYSIWYG is not the real thing but some 'in bewteen' representation of it before hitting the 'save' button, already translated in any form for display.
blah blah blah whatever you said. Thats why I never say sooc.. ... one I dont know what it means and two even if I did I wouldnt know how to do what ever you just ranted on about... good on ya mate.. lmao !!
Surely, though, no matter what processing you do, or what kind of colour palettes you're working with, as soon as you upload the image to any website it'll be compressed to kingdom come anyway (at 72dpi - right?)?
Personally, I don't let it bother me. Of course I want my pictures to look good, and I want my colours to be bright and vibrant, but for me, photography isn't about "truth" - it's about "art".
I work full-time in an "arts" industry (albeit in music - the "art" I'm actually good at! - not photography) and I try to apply the same approach to shooting and editing photographs as I do when I'm playing sessions in a recording studio, making somebody's new single, or album...
The way that music is recorded and processed is constantly changing and evolving - this is due partly to steady improvements in the technology being used (the advent of the iPod, for example, altered the way recorded music is mixed and mastered - and this, in turn, helped inform the recent evolution and development of musical genres such as dubstep), and is partly as a result of the same shifting trends and fashions which affect every walk of life.
But the goals that we have, going into the recording studio, are always the same. The aim has always been to produce music which people enjoy listening to - music which the fans will want to buy - regardless of what methods or recording techniques we use on the session.
For me, photography is just the same. It is the end product which matters - the final image that people see - not how I get there. As long as I end up with a photograph that looks good, and that people like, it doesn't much matter what was actually in front of my lens when I pressed the shutter button.
All art is an interpretation, and whether you're using a camera and a digital editing suite as the medium, or microphones and compressors and flangers and all the usual recording studio junk we end up with on a session, that's just a means to an end, to help you communicate with your audience.
i think my brain just melted and poured out of my ears :/ i didn't understand half of what you just said but i'm sure it was important ;)
i have tagged photos as sooc as sooc to me means i tokk it,uploaded it and shared it without going through any editing at all,i do realise that no one else is going to see the picture exactly as i saw it and framed it in the viewfinder because of colour adjustments on different screens but the image is still just as the camera presented it on taking.
i will continue in my sooc tagging as ,to me, photography is about capturing something that i am happy with without the use of editing and i want to acknowledge the times that i manage that
Love your rant. Learned some things and confirmed some things I already knew.
Years ago I worked as a film/ print developing tech where we looked at each frame of the film before we printed it. We adjusted for color balance, contrast, light balance, etc. Unfortunately many of the customers who recieved their prints back didn't understand this and were so pleased with the quality of their photos until they took them to be reprinted by a discount printer. We occasionally had customers who took their film somewhere else to get reprints and didn't understand what the photos didn't look the same. Even within the lab, prints could have a different final result depending on who printed and adjusted them. We all have different eyes for how a photo should look.
Now that digital cameras have changed how we see the final product. People feel like they're giving plastic surgery to a photo by tweaking the very things that would be edited when printed from film.
I wish there was a term for "not edited beyond recognition of the original photo". Sometimes I love a photo that's had a ton of processing if it's done creatively. But as you've said, sometimes people use editing to cover up bad photos. As I'm interested in photography more than photoshop effects, I'm more interested in photos that don't look edited but are. Just as I love paintings that make my do a double take to see that there are brush strokes in places. That's not to say that I don't appreciate Impressionism in painting and photography now and then.
One of my biggest complaints about Lightroom is that it "settles" color. That is, when I import photos, as the photo is processing for me to see what I've got, it seems that Lightroom alters the colors - especially black. I shoot in RAW at very high resolution. What I see on my camera screen is NOT what comes out in Lightroom before any processing. Anyone know why this happens?
I'm taking a Photojournalism class right now, and have really learned the awesome power of only editing the necessities - exposure, levels, blacks, fill light, etc....things directly related to the histogram. I like to edit - depending on my mood and the photo...but I am starting to like photos that feel more natural more than highly processed ones....unless the processing is to give a "feel" of antiquity :)
@jinximages Awesome rant! I've never interacted with you, but I love your knowledge and how you bring forth the reality of the biz, not just the artistic side. Thanks for sharing your knowledge with the rest of us. I had never heard of SOOC before this project, and honestly wish it wasn't a term. If you have a camera in your hand, chances are you are trying to take the best photo you know how. Debating about art is pointless. It is subjective and how it was achieved doesn't matter as long as it is original. The SOOC vs editing vs manipulating vs processed debate is about as pointless as people accusing others of copying because you both a took a photo of the moon that day. Have a nice day!
@jinximages Photography is not about colour space, it is about feel, it is about soul.;)
I will admit to being lazier about colour space than I should be. I've paid for that at printing time.
I always love your rants, because I really learn more than I ever knew. As I just said on another discussion, I can sit in a classroom for a semester and learn some stuff, but in eight months here, I have learned more than I could have imagined.
I do have to say that I always kind of guess on my color saturation since I have troubles in my yellow/green/blue family and just pass the color blind test. Hence why I wear reds a lot more so I can see if I match.
I just learned how much I don't know! Thanks for an informative post.
I think a reason that SOOC is such badge of honor to some people is that they feel that they are accomplishing something with "new" digital technology that was previously done with film. They feel that because digital is so available and familiar to the majority of people that people rely heavily on editing to make their photographs appear to be high quality or their skill level is above what it really is. Those types forget about the differences mentioned above in film brands,types, etc AND the developing process. When people or labs develop film, they don't go into back room wave a wand and come out with a photograph that perfectly represents the vision that the photographer was attempting to capture. Different amounts of chemicals create different results. Because this process was/is transparent to most people, they feel that film is a truer representation of the subject, therefore SOOC is the same as taking a film picture and since they did it with digital, they as a photographer are superior to everyone else that has to use an editing program. This is a sign of the ill informed happy snapper.
Now before anyone gets up in arms about "well I tag SOOC because I am proud of my composition and the fact that I adjusted the camera to get the image I envisioned".....SO AM I. The few that are tagged in my album are exactly because of this fact, I am in the same boat as you. The people I am talking about are the ones who feel that because they manage to achieve it through skill or luck, it makes them a more pure photographer. Rubbish, Art is for Art's sake. It's subjective and one medium or method of executing within that medium does not make you better or worse than the other person. Your work may be more well liked because your style, feel and execution appeals to more people, that does not in anyway make you better, except to the people you appeal to.
@manek43509 not necessarily would the mere act of uploading to "a website" re-sample the image, it's not an inherent part of "uploading an image" - but, any site you'd probably upload to (365, flickr, facebook...) on anything like a regular basis, sadly, do resample, to keep file sizes down, which yes, annoys the hell out of me too.
Maybe I'll launch a "no resampling" image host... it'd get costly, though...
@mastermek Love this: SOOC is just short for 'my camera did all the editing and I was hapy about that or did not know what to do about the errors'."
Thats exactly how I feel, I take it, I'm just happy with it the way it is, end of story. No, I'm not clever, I just like it. End of story for me!
My goodness, what did I do?! This thing is out of control! Haha!
@killerjackalope In regards to the iMacs - it is the backlighting (LED). The LCD panels are actually very good (at least, in the 27" variety) - same panel as used in the Dell U2711 that has the wonderful capability of showing 96% of the AdobeRGB colour space. But Dell use the easier-to-balance traditional CCFL backlighting. Due to this, even with a Spyder3 Elite and controlled lighting, I can't get my 27" displays to look the same (as each other). I trust my Dell, though - it is the same tech as in the $6000 Eizo.
@mastermek I can't agree on a couple of points. The Hipstamatic issue, for one - it is an editing tool, not part of a camera. Of course, it is no different than when someone chooses "black and white with red filter" as their in-camera setting, and then claims the shot to be SOOC. But you're also right in that, well, where does one draw the line? There is indeed no such thing as SOOC. But, that's only if one wants to split hairs (It is useful to make a point, but little else). As with anything, we have to consider what it means in a practical sense. If someone has set everything to "neutral" in-camera, takes a shot, and posts it, it makes sense to label it SOOC. Of course, it isn't in a pure sense, but for practical purposes it states what they are trying to say - that they minimised all of that "computer magic". And of course I never claimed that SOOC is WYSIWYG, but that is exactly what many purporters of SOOC shots are saying. There is no WYSIWYG, even in a practical sense. But I am indeed talking about SOOC. ;) Your final paragraph is a nice, succinct way of putting it all together.
@manek43509 I probably shouldn't get started on DPI - that's another bugbear of mine. In reality, there is no such thing as 72 DPI. To start with, it's a misnomer - DPI is a printing term, mistakenly used (everywhere) in place of PPI. But that's not the thing that sucks. The real issue is that it is an approximation - we save at 72 PPI so that we can guess how large something will display on a screen. Trouble is, all screens are different. The screen I'm on now is roughly 109 PPI, which means that a "standard" 6" wide image on a typical display appears at about 4" for me. This text I'm typing is really small! Lucky my eyes are good. The compression is true, however, as many sites do seem to strip the colour profiles, or reduce bit depth, or both, or simply reduce the "quality" in order to save on space. I love your comparisons with music recording - I wish I'd thought of that! Perfect.
@sallycheese Nothing wrong with that, Sally! My point (the one I think you've grabbed hold of) is that the camera makes a legion of adjustments itself, and the image thus created is simply not the same thing as what you saw through your viewfinder. Take an identical photograph with two different cameras, and you'll see what I mean.
@herussell Well said! I dislike the term SOOC in a sense, because it is misused (out of necessity, perhaps). But you know, I have no problem with it being used as a way to simply say "I haven't edited the hell out of this image". I don't even care if people do white balance, exposure correction, contrast adjustments etc and still call it SOOC - as you said, that's exactly what the lab did for us with film, anyway. My friend who runs a lab still does all of that for happy-snappers and their digital files. In fact, I think he sometimes does it for my photos too (for the simple fact that he knows his equipment and how it will print out - lab prints that is, not inkjet - he wouldn't change those).
@sdpace Well, the issue is twofold (at least). Firstly, is your screen calibrated? If not, you'll never really have a clue what you're looking at in regards to colour. Secondly, the image you see on the back of your camera is the embedded JPEG - not the actual raw file. In Lightroom you are seeing the raw file. Raw files always look like mud compared the embedded JPEGs. You should also look into profiling your camera, so that that profile can be applied to your images as you import them to Lightroom (thus showing a better representation of your images). Of course, it all goes back to having that screen calibrated, or everything else is a waste of time.
@lilbudhha I think we've all paid for it at one time or another! That first blurb made me chuckle out loud. Thank you. :)
@brumbe Feel sorry for us mere males - we only need one faulty gene to muck up our colour! Sometimes that's all one can do. Or black and white. ;) I think about half the males I know should stick to b&w.
@eyebrows LOL! My wife looked at me very strangely when I laughed earlier, reading this.
@shadesofgrey Beautifully said. I couldn't agree more.
Also, that's two people I've had get funny looks through laughing today, I got @autumnseden in the "hey nubcakes read this to get started" thread too, I'm on a roll! :D
Sigh... one lonely Friday night with a few rolls of Prov 120 and a box of filters I have actually tried colour creating a white bear one a brown table lit but a CFL, Tungs and LCD TV... my multiplier was 120x for ev comp.... sigh...
I will say I do shoot some SOOC...
8x10 B&W Neg film 80 ISO with pyro straight baked... contact print on normal paper... is that close to SOOC? (honestly ROF LMHO)
This seems a little like the chicken and the egg thing... impossible to define or explain. I will say that WYSIWYG is an old term derived from the publishing world. Back in the dark ages, before page layout software like we have today, you couldn't view the page like it would appear when printed. Then Aldus (eventually Adobe) came out with PageMaker (it's possible it started before that, but I'm unaware of anything).... it caused quite a stir in the publishing world to be able to see what the finished page would look like.... what you see is what you get.
@ronah I think you're right. About all of it. In fact, in regards to the defining of, I think it likely folly to try!
I love Adobe. I hate them too (for what they did to colour), but I love them for their foresight. I just wish they weren't so conservative! In regards to WYSIWYG, really I was just making a point - that being people assume that WYSIWYG when you push the shutter on a camera.
And dear Adobe, please give me the ability to adjust luminance and tone separately from colour without going into L.a.b.!
@jinximages - "that being people assume that WYSIWYG when you push the shutter on a camera." no that is only with Pentax... and NO one shoots pentax... natural colours... please thee is no pop in nature!
@icywarm Haha! I had a play with a 645D the other day. Really nice. Well, other than taking two full seconds to write an image file. I'll stick with the H4D when I go MF digital. ;)
i work with film and used to do most of my work in the dark room where id use chemicals and filters and dodging/burning to do my editing but now that i don't have access to one because im out of high school, i scan my negatives, instead. i've realized a lot of the small edits i do on a computer are the same edits i'd do in the dark room, i may have actually done more editing in a dark room then on my computer (idk if this belongs in the discussion since i use black and white film but i guess the different zones could work)
First of, as you say, there is nothing wrong with SOOC from me. If that is the "art" or "truth" you want to show the world, as "yours" then so be it. I want mine, to be polished and when I upload a pic, that is really what I want it to look like.
I've seen a lot of people look at my pictures, tell me they're great, but the look of their eyes tell me that it's only great, because it was edited? I made great edits (just brightness, color and crop) on some photos, and they still want to see the original, just to see what my "skill" really is... or they want to say that my photo is great just becase I edited it. Some people equate TALENT to SOOC. That is where I get pissed. I made some cloning shots, levitation shots, and I love them. Then, some will say, that's Photoshopped right? With a tone that's descending. Pisses me off.
I compare SOOC to an initial draft of a report. You write it, without any spelling or grammar rechecks and submit it to the teacher. Yes, you may brag that it's the original draft and you didn't need to tweak it. It may be perfect, but a lot of times, lots of errors will surface. Having passed a report which you edited to take out the useless parts, to make more emphasis on finer points, and to check for any errors, doesn't make it less than an "original".
Thanks Jinx for this discussion. You are probably wondering why on earth you started this but it's one of the discussion that really triggered something.
I'm sure I mentioned SOOC somewhere in my captions and I've been looking back for the shot because I wanted to know in which context my SOOC was used. Unfortunately I couldn't find it. It was probably 'edited' out of the text for a better result :-)
Anyway. I still believe you think a little too strict about the term SOOC. In the beginning of the digital era, concerning photography of course, it became a trend to edit each and every image just because it was possible. To indicate the difference between 'real' photos and 'photoshoped' ones the term SOOC was introduced. Am I right? If so, a SOOC shot is an image not edited afterwards. It does not matter what camera settings were used for that photo.
If SOOC only mean an unedited shot with 'neutral' settings of the camera and minimal 'computer magic' (I know you don't mean this literally) it was 'dead' already before it was used for the first time. A digital camera really doesn't have neutral setting anymore. It has default settings and an 'auto' option for easy usage. There is so much software working very hard to translate the reality into something that looks like it, no matter any setting on the digital camera.
Maybe best for qualifying the term SOOC are snapshot camera's, like those simple thingies for children. No settings what so ever. Just snap away and see the result. Really SOOC, lovely :-) Funny enough that is what my hipstamatic tries to simulate, with a lot of math...
A lot of us here are not professionals but are doing our best. We may get confused over terms and use them incorrectly, although it seems to me that there is a lot of debate about what IS correct terminology anyway, so how do we stand a chance?
There is no shame in ignorance and I'm sure we're mostly trying our best to learn. I have stopped using the term and note that the shot is just what the camera took. I don't know why other people say their shots are SOOC but if I don't do editing on a shot I'm pleased with, I like to say so.
I like to try to maintain a sense of proportion about these things. At the ripe old age of 58 I've come to realise that if an issue is not life threatening or does not harm anyone in any way, it doesn't matter a whole heap.
@nbedi That all still fits. It illustrates one of the points perfectly - that Photoshop is just a digital darkroom. :)
@yotan18 Hear, hear! I've had clients ask me for the unedited images. What the? Haha! Not likely, I say. I explain that they hired me for my style, and that includes my eye for the way I process my images. I explain that, as I'm shooting, I'm seeing the processing choices as I'm pressing the shutter. I know when I have a gorgeous black and white image (that I just shot in raw), and there's no way they're going to get a hold of the colour version that wasn't a part of my vision for the shot (let alone with no retouching, adjustment layers and dodging and burning). I create art for people - I'm not a monkey with a camera! I like your analogy to a rough draft. However, I must say, editing for me isn't about fixing, but rather about enhancing. There is only a small distinction, when it comes down to it, but that one thing sticks in my mind.
@mastermek Indeed I am wondering! Haha! :) I see your point, and I certainly do remember all the horrid selective colour images and crazy PS effects on almost every photo one ever saw, but one should also remember that, at the beginning of digital photography, 1 megapixel was a major milestone (I've still got a camera lying around somewhere that's less than 1 M-pixel), and it wasn't really considered "photography" by most - it was just cool tech! Those cameras didn't have any settings - you just pointed and pushed the button, so SOOC was, indeed, totally untouched by anything other than the built-in algorithm. Now, that isn't so. But people are still using the term as though making all those choices (camera settings) is somehow a part of the "shooting" and not of the "editing". I don't care where in the timeline the editing falls - it is still a digital manipulation of an image file! IMO, SOOC should apply to an image even if it has been subjected to white balance correction, exposure correction, contrast adjustment, curves and levels - these are all basic darkroom techniques and choices. I leave out dodging and burning because, although it is commonplace in a darkroom, it is heading towards advanced technique for many. To me, it is just a development process, and unless it changes the image dramatically it is nothing even worth mentioning. But now there are all these supposed "purists" who seem to believe that "developing" your images is a crutch for the weak - those who only know how to make nice images because they have computer skills. It annoys me. It also annoys me that it is the high end cameras that have the neutral settings, and all the consumer models have everything but. I suppose that's market-led, but it would be nice if I had more options for a pocket camera, for when I don't want o lug around my 15kg bag of camera kit. Loved your last paragraph, though - there's another entire thread waiting in that, in regards to the development of ways to replicate lo-fi imaging. Oh, the irony!. ;)
@dulciknit Well said. I can't disagree on any particular point. As I've said - I have no issue with people using the SOOC tag (even if it is incorrectly applied, in the truer sense of the term), but rather the divisions caused by those who try to pass off processing as an inferior activity best avoided and one that pollutes (their idea of) "real" photography. I'm a little fed up with the derisive, "Oh, he edits his images. He can't really be much of a photographer then, can he." I'm sure you can see my point. There is nothing wrong with the pursuit of the skills surrounding the taking of the image (the first half of the image creation process). Indeed - it is a vital aspect. But trying to separate it out and say that it is the superior activity is, well, just plain silly. It isn't the pursuit that is the issue, but rather the attitude.
I appreciate that even your "rants" teach me a ton :) Thank you (again) for taking the time out of your day for in depth explanations that teach us such important aspects of photography. A while ago I posted about SOOC feeling confused... like there really wan't anything that was "SOOC" because of the internal software in DSLR's. This really helped me wrap my brain around what all of that really means, and introduced me to what WYSIWYG. Thank you!
btw I love editing. LOVE IT. LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE LOVE. That's why I quit teaching to become a full time editor!! I edit our wedding photos, and also for a wedding videographer Bella Vista Productions
And not only that, I think as far as the color goes, on my art at least, I want it to be so unique people can look at it and see it's mine. eh, sooc schmessooc. Did I mention I LOVE IT?!?
Wow. Just wow. All I can say is that I have NEVER seen a rant about someone who does a lot of processing to their shots. In fact, it's just the opposite. They usually receive mounds of praise. Very perplexing.
Really, who cares? If the photo looks nice, to the photographer, especially on this site, that is all that matters. Period.
I will double that standing ovation!
I so hear you! Everything you say is so very true. My hubby and I are firm believers that you can't possibly get what you 'eye sees' in a SOOC shot. We have put some up occasionally (to show that we do know about composition, exposure, etc) but I don't feel I've done my photos any justice at all unless I process my RAW shots (usually in camera raw or lightroom, followed by many different photoshop layers).
I am so nervous when I send to print. In the last 5 years I have only ever had one lab phone me to let me know I had some serious colour casting. I learnt a lot from that phone call and am very careful now. I am about to test out a new lab here in Brisbane (would love feedback from someone who knows of a good one here) and am very nervous about how my first files will turn out.
I had a client ask me recently for 'just a CD' of her images and I so don't like doing this. I tried to explain that the processing she will get at the local cheapy processor will not have correct colours.... I cringe at the thought. The only reason I have agreed to this for her is that she's my sister (and she's sworn to letting me get some printed for her when she's ready). All other clients NEVER get a disc before they get prints of photos so that I can show how the colour 'should' look. Otherwise they think it's me and not their shoddy lab. I read this advice once in a photo mag (or was it a Scott Kelby book? ... not sure) and I agree totally.
I still have loads to learn about colour space but am totally in agreement with everything you state here. Your photos are sensational and it's clear to see why. Just wish we could convince those that say digital photography is 'fake' because of the processes we all use and the hours we spend in front of a screen. Clearly they never walked into an old fashioned 'light room' and witnessed the processing that happens there. At least we don't have to lock ourselves completely away these days to enter our lightrooms.... not as anti-social as they all may think...lol
Yes. Quite. I think when people put SOOC, it just means it hasn't been fiddled with in an editing program. I'm sure it doesn't mean 'This is EXACTLY what I saw, the colours match PERFECTLY!' That would be TIEWISTCMP.
I have to kind of agree - I have very rarely but up and SOOC image - I don't have a DSLR - fancy big camera so what I see and what I take never has the same impact, hence I then use photoshop to help portray and more real life photo - my colours aren't photographed as intensely as I see them!
i've had annoyances with SOOC for some time, mainly because NOTHING looks like what I saw in the first place, not at any stage of processing (in camera, on computer, or otherwise). i'm pretty new to this photography stuff, but i'm shooting in raw, and all manual settings (a big deal for novice me), and i'd been beating myself up that i still had to edit nearly every shot in aperture. pffft. i'll be stopping that. thanks jinx. this thread makes perfect (and welcomed) sense.
@eyebrows
Yes, I know it is possible to upload uncompressed images to the web - but I don't think I know of any website which doesn't compress images, purely because of the space they take up! (As you say - hosting them full-size would get expensive quite quickly!)
Furthermore, I just don't see why you would bother with uncompressed pictures for web use; even on a "photography" site (like this one, or Flickr) 99% of the time, your photo will be viewed at small or medium size, on an uncalibrated monitor screen, so there simply wouldn't be a point in taking up tons of server space with a massive image file, when no one's even going to notice!
@jinximages
Thanks - I'm glad you agreed with that analogy. :) I tend to relate most things in life to music (in some way or other) as it is the one thing I can actually do!
I didn't know that about the DPI/PPI thing, though. Just that the guitarist in Witchers works for a printing company during the week, and he did my business cards for me - I designed the cards in Photoshop, and sent him the design to print, as a JPEG file, but I'd forgotten to change the resolution from when I'm editing photos for the web. He was not impressed at my sending 72dpi resolution JPEG images to a professional printing house! haha
@jinximages Cheers for the reply :) I mentioned CMYK because recently I got some plastic swipe cards printed and they wanted the design in CMYK for printing. So right at the end, before submitting the design to them, I switched it from RGB to CMYK, and, much to my dismay, the colours changed into faded versions of their former selves. xD
I checked my camera and I am indeed shooting in sRGB. Is it terrible to do your entire workflow, from capture to print, in sRGB? Will the colours suffer terribly upon print? Or do you think it's far more worthwhile and beneficial shooting and processing in AdobeRGB, then down-converting at the end?
Man, I really need to sit down and learn all this stuff... it all sounds so deliciously complicated and really appeals to my nerdy side. xD
@jinximages Wow, you should rant more often ;-) I knew at least some things about colorspaces and how cameras always already do their own adjustments on whatever you shoot, but your post made it so much more clear what kinds of variables all have an influence on your photo. Thanks! Btw, I fully agree with you, though now I have an even better understanding of why :-)
So tired right now - I'll have to leave some responses until tomorrow.
@pocketmouse It isn't so bad to do everything in sRGB, if what you are shooting contains colours that are covered by the sRGB gamut. Most of your natural tones are going to be fine, but things like sunsets, cars, and anything plastic are going to get ruined. A good rule is to work in the largest colour space you can (considering practical limitations), and then convert at the very end for the medium you are producing. So, if you have a very high-end computer and shoot in raw, use something like ProPhoto the whole way through to the end. If you shoot JPEG, shoot and process in AdobeRGB all the way until the final step. But, the largest colour space isn't always going to be the best for output (printing) - just be aware of that. Of course, if you are sending JPEG to a lab, well, you are going to be converting down to sRGB (most likely) or maybe AdobeRGB (if you use a pro lab). For most work, a final sRGB conversion is going to be fine, remembering of course that you need to do it via a sRGB profile that contains a LUT (look up table) for perceptual conversion, then embed the standard sRGB profile at the end, if there are any vivid colours that may otherwise be clipped. AdobeRGB is a very good compromise between gamut size and efficiency, for most applications, so I'd say that's a safe way to go if you don't want to be chopping and changing. AdobeRGB essentially encompasses the whole of the sRGB gamut (there are no colours in sRGB not contained within AdobeRGB), but a whole lot more as well - about twice as many, in fact. Many images don't need that extra gamut (your profile image, for instance, is all likely well within the confines of sRGB), but at some point you will run into a situation where sRGB is just way too small. I won't go into the whole CMYK-turns-things-to-mud issue right now, but there are certainly ways to minimise that, too.
this has been so informative and helpful. i knew a lot of this info but not all and appreciate picking up all i can learn. thanks for sharing your thoughts on this, jinx.
@amyhughes Haha! Thanks Amy! And I adore your work, so I'm very glad you love editing!
@renelou That is all that matters, indeed. But the divisions, even in this wonderful community, are clear to anyone who looks for them.
@kezzam Thanks Kerry, and thank you for the link, too! I struggle with clients a lot, because they don't understand colour. They usually do once I show them some comparison prints, though!
@tnaki So true, in regards to what you see when you take the image. You don't need a DSLR to make photos with impact, but I can't deny that having all those tools at hand helps.
@lauracaseyfoss It can be reassuring, just the knowing of why things never look "quite right" - but even better, knowing why can help you to overcome those limitations. :)
@manek43509 Oh man, that printer would not have been happy! Haha! I actually don't resize by physical size anymore - I calculate the actual pixels I need, based on the output medium. So, a 240PPI printer, well, I multiply the 240 by however many inches I need, and resize to that number of pixels (ignoring the inches entirely). I just find it to be reliable. And, I like numbers. Haha!
Amen, sir! And people don't even realize that a digital camera doesn't "see" anything before a lot of engineering, technology and engineering convert those millions of minute voltage changes on the sensor into something. To say nothing of color generation which is a whole computational and interpolatory exercise in itself.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I love your rant and agree with everything you have to say. I take a photo, I load it on my computer and I adjust the levels before loading, do I feel bad for this.... NO!!!
Once again THANK YOU!!!
I am extremely stupid and dumb when it comes to knowledge of Photography as you will find out in the following paragraph but here we go anyway.
What I want to know is what is photography? it seems to me, that it is taking a picture and editing and processing the hell of it so that it looks nothing like the image first captured!
I know I have processed and edited my pics but would rather post pics that are just simply 'a point in time captured'
The editing and processing talent on 365 is amazing and yes I would like to learn how to do some of the techniques and am in awe of some peoples skills. However I do feel that sometimes when I look at other peoples pics that the 'point in time' has been lost.
I also have tagged some of shots as SOOC, simply to tell people that there hasn't been any fiddling with the pic, it is as it was loaded into my laptop from my camera.
Please if you ever have the time again, please have a 'rant' about something else. You write in a way that is easy to understand. :-)
@frameit Haha! You're welcome! :) One needs to do that, if they want to represent tonality correctly. Or even just to better illustrate the tonal relationships sought in the image as seen in the mind's eye. That's another whole conversation right there! :)
@tori3012 That's... sort-of what I'm saying. In a nutshell - a generalisation. Also, that one has to edit if one wishes to make the image accurately represent reality, because the camera can't do more than a rough approximation. As for processing vs editing. Well, they are (almost) synonymous. Processing is generally the colour correction, white balance, exposure etc and may not necessarily mean editing as such. It is like squares and rectangles - a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. Processing is file preparation, which may or may not involve editing. At least, that's how I define it.
@Cherrill Oh, but you can be proud of a SOOC image! You can show off your "raw" image to show how well you nailed it before processing. Even if you don't process it - what's it matter? You can still be proud in that step of the image creation process. :) Too many people, imo, use editing as a crutch to try to fix poor photos. Keep working on that first step - worry about the processing and editing when you know you can take consistently great shots!
@pennymilner That "playing around" is just learning. That's exactly what I did when I got my first copy of Paintshop about 12 years ago! :) You don't have to know the mathematics of it, to make something look good. It can help, of course, but it isn't essential. I'm still learning, every day, and have a long, long way to go.
@hagscat Well, photography is art. Firstly, at any rate. And then, well, it is the creation of an image in some form of media. It used to be a print, or a slide perhaps, but nevertheless it was something physical. Now it can also just be a digital file. Intangible, but viewable all the same. Yet, still, it needs preparation in order to be displayed as intended. There are things out of our control - like other peoples' monitors with horrible colour, huge saturation and brightness levels, and a gamut the size of a small pea - but there are things we can control, in order to minimise the effects of those "randoms". Photography has never been about "pushing the button and stopping there" - it has always been about producing an image. And before digital, there was not even terminology like SOOC. SOOC is a digital phenomenon, and a terribly inaccurate term at that. It should be treated in the most general sense, in referral to an unpolished file that is yet to be made into an image. In my (not so) humble opinion, at least. And insofar as capturing those moments in time - nothing wrong with that. Photography as a means to document. But what are you documenting? Is it just an event, or is there emotion attached to it? If you want to maintain that emotion, an untouched image file is unlikely to manage it. But yes - it can be taken too far. Editing can destroy an image, as easily (or more easily) than it can improve it. Nothing wrong with that SOOC tag, once again - I have no issue with the use of it. What I am beginning to get narky about (not with you - rest assured) is the idea that edited photos are inherently inferior, because they are edited - that is one big pile of sanctimonious crap! And totally wrong to boot. :)
@jinx Some questions for you :) As an aside, I'm looking to have some of my photos on print soon... I usually shoot in JPG at 15 MP (RAW is too big and I wouldn't shoot in RAW unless I was shooting for something that required it). Is it at all helpful to convert the RGB to CMYK for print? Also, I'm not sure which RGB space my photos are in (sRGB or adobe RGB)... any way of finding that out?
@pocketmouse Exactly! :) In regards to colour spaces, well, avoid CMYK unless you are going to press-print. Like, brochures, business cards etc. CMYK is a nightmare, truly, and the conversion process alone gives me a headache. A good press printer will be able to do the conversions themselves, or at the very least be able to provide a custom profile to you. But anyway, enough on that. Colour inkjet printers use RGB profiles, so for photo printing you should never even have to think about CMYK. Look at your camera settings to see which colour space you are using. Default is sRGB. If you are using a larger profile in-camera (AdobeRGB, typically), you need to ensure your workflow is all in AdobeRGB too. If your printing lab accepts AdobeRGB, great! So long as they know what they're doing with it, that is. If not, you will need to convert to sRGB at the end of your processing. What you can do is download a sRGB profile (from Kodak for example) that has a LUT embedded in it. Then, you can do a perceptual conversion from AdobeRGB to whatever_sRGB which will maintain the colours better (perceptually, that is). Once you have done the conversion you can embed the normal ICC sRGB colour profile to your image - sRGB is sRGB, regardless, so all that last step does is remove the LUT (essentially) and drops about 200KB from your file size, while ensuring it will display correctly or print correctly for someone without the whatever_sRGB profile (the one with the LUT).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK4g8D_2VNU
I'm sick of site compression buggering up colour palettes in to muddy rubbish, mainly because it's really inconsistent batch to batch.
Could say more but it's been said already :-)
Oddly if you upload the same image you download it'll change, so whatever they're doing makes no sense.
I love viewing things on my phone, it's got a half decent colour range and three easy to access brightness settings so I can get a good idea of what the image looks like elsewhere.
Laptop LCDs are terrible, especially HPs
Uncalibrated imacs, atrocious, they display alright but I edited a set of images without thinking to check and the results look awful everywhere but one mac...
Your text is not about SOOC, which just means Strait Out Of Camera. My hipstamatic shots come strait out of the iphone camera. Besides a few exceptions they are not edited at all and uploaded from my phone to 365, therefore SOOC.
As you say, they are are not like the reality, after heavy editing by the hipstamatic software before saving to the memory card. So, no, they are not WYSIWYG in any way.
To be a little philosophical too. WYSIWYG should not even be mentioned. It does not exist. An artist (painter, illustrator or photographer) can only make an impression of some moment in time. A flat representation (in case of photography mostly) looking like the real thing.
In my opinion WYSIWYG only stands for the unreal, like the display on your camera or the textfield I am looking at while typing this. It's (in this case) just a digital representation of what you will get, not of what you actually saw. These digital 'gets' can differ for each user without editing. like an image changes using a different colour profile on your monitor or the way this website can look totally different with another stylesheet leaving it's content unchanged.
Mmm. What did I just say?
SOOC is just short for 'my camera did all the editing and I was hapy about that or did not know what to do about the errors'. WYSIWYG is not the real thing but some 'in bewteen' representation of it before hitting the 'save' button, already translated in any form for display.
Surely, though, no matter what processing you do, or what kind of colour palettes you're working with, as soon as you upload the image to any website it'll be compressed to kingdom come anyway (at 72dpi - right?)?
Personally, I don't let it bother me. Of course I want my pictures to look good, and I want my colours to be bright and vibrant, but for me, photography isn't about "truth" - it's about "art".
I work full-time in an "arts" industry (albeit in music - the "art" I'm actually good at! - not photography) and I try to apply the same approach to shooting and editing photographs as I do when I'm playing sessions in a recording studio, making somebody's new single, or album...
The way that music is recorded and processed is constantly changing and evolving - this is due partly to steady improvements in the technology being used (the advent of the iPod, for example, altered the way recorded music is mixed and mastered - and this, in turn, helped inform the recent evolution and development of musical genres such as dubstep), and is partly as a result of the same shifting trends and fashions which affect every walk of life.
But the goals that we have, going into the recording studio, are always the same. The aim has always been to produce music which people enjoy listening to - music which the fans will want to buy - regardless of what methods or recording techniques we use on the session.
For me, photography is just the same. It is the end product which matters - the final image that people see - not how I get there. As long as I end up with a photograph that looks good, and that people like, it doesn't much matter what was actually in front of my lens when I pressed the shutter button.
All art is an interpretation, and whether you're using a camera and a digital editing suite as the medium, or microphones and compressors and flangers and all the usual recording studio junk we end up with on a session, that's just a means to an end, to help you communicate with your audience.
Just my opinion.
i have tagged photos as sooc as sooc to me means i tokk it,uploaded it and shared it without going through any editing at all,i do realise that no one else is going to see the picture exactly as i saw it and framed it in the viewfinder because of colour adjustments on different screens but the image is still just as the camera presented it on taking.
i will continue in my sooc tagging as ,to me, photography is about capturing something that i am happy with without the use of editing and i want to acknowledge the times that i manage that
Years ago I worked as a film/ print developing tech where we looked at each frame of the film before we printed it. We adjusted for color balance, contrast, light balance, etc. Unfortunately many of the customers who recieved their prints back didn't understand this and were so pleased with the quality of their photos until they took them to be reprinted by a discount printer. We occasionally had customers who took their film somewhere else to get reprints and didn't understand what the photos didn't look the same. Even within the lab, prints could have a different final result depending on who printed and adjusted them. We all have different eyes for how a photo should look.
Now that digital cameras have changed how we see the final product. People feel like they're giving plastic surgery to a photo by tweaking the very things that would be edited when printed from film.
I wish there was a term for "not edited beyond recognition of the original photo". Sometimes I love a photo that's had a ton of processing if it's done creatively. But as you've said, sometimes people use editing to cover up bad photos. As I'm interested in photography more than photoshop effects, I'm more interested in photos that don't look edited but are. Just as I love paintings that make my do a double take to see that there are brush strokes in places. That's not to say that I don't appreciate Impressionism in painting and photography now and then.
I'm taking a Photojournalism class right now, and have really learned the awesome power of only editing the necessities - exposure, levels, blacks, fill light, etc....things directly related to the histogram. I like to edit - depending on my mood and the photo...but I am starting to like photos that feel more natural more than highly processed ones....unless the processing is to give a "feel" of antiquity :)
I will admit to being lazier about colour space than I should be. I've paid for that at printing time.
I do have to say that I always kind of guess on my color saturation since I have troubles in my yellow/green/blue family and just pass the color blind test. Hence why I wear reds a lot more so I can see if I match.
I think a reason that SOOC is such badge of honor to some people is that they feel that they are accomplishing something with "new" digital technology that was previously done with film. They feel that because digital is so available and familiar to the majority of people that people rely heavily on editing to make their photographs appear to be high quality or their skill level is above what it really is. Those types forget about the differences mentioned above in film brands,types, etc AND the developing process. When people or labs develop film, they don't go into back room wave a wand and come out with a photograph that perfectly represents the vision that the photographer was attempting to capture. Different amounts of chemicals create different results. Because this process was/is transparent to most people, they feel that film is a truer representation of the subject, therefore SOOC is the same as taking a film picture and since they did it with digital, they as a photographer are superior to everyone else that has to use an editing program. This is a sign of the ill informed happy snapper.
Now before anyone gets up in arms about "well I tag SOOC because I am proud of my composition and the fact that I adjusted the camera to get the image I envisioned".....SO AM I. The few that are tagged in my album are exactly because of this fact, I am in the same boat as you. The people I am talking about are the ones who feel that because they manage to achieve it through skill or luck, it makes them a more pure photographer. Rubbish, Art is for Art's sake. It's subjective and one medium or method of executing within that medium does not make you better or worse than the other person. Your work may be more well liked because your style, feel and execution appeals to more people, that does not in anyway make you better, except to the people you appeal to.
Most of my points are echo's of other's opinions mentioned above: @dmortega @manek43509 @herussell @cfitzgerald
Maybe I'll launch a "no resampling" image host... it'd get costly, though...
Thats exactly how I feel, I take it, I'm just happy with it the way it is, end of story. No, I'm not clever, I just like it. End of story for me!
@killerjackalope In regards to the iMacs - it is the backlighting (LED). The LCD panels are actually very good (at least, in the 27" variety) - same panel as used in the Dell U2711 that has the wonderful capability of showing 96% of the AdobeRGB colour space. But Dell use the easier-to-balance traditional CCFL backlighting. Due to this, even with a Spyder3 Elite and controlled lighting, I can't get my 27" displays to look the same (as each other). I trust my Dell, though - it is the same tech as in the $6000 Eizo.
@mastermek I can't agree on a couple of points. The Hipstamatic issue, for one - it is an editing tool, not part of a camera. Of course, it is no different than when someone chooses "black and white with red filter" as their in-camera setting, and then claims the shot to be SOOC. But you're also right in that, well, where does one draw the line? There is indeed no such thing as SOOC. But, that's only if one wants to split hairs (It is useful to make a point, but little else). As with anything, we have to consider what it means in a practical sense. If someone has set everything to "neutral" in-camera, takes a shot, and posts it, it makes sense to label it SOOC. Of course, it isn't in a pure sense, but for practical purposes it states what they are trying to say - that they minimised all of that "computer magic". And of course I never claimed that SOOC is WYSIWYG, but that is exactly what many purporters of SOOC shots are saying. There is no WYSIWYG, even in a practical sense. But I am indeed talking about SOOC. ;) Your final paragraph is a nice, succinct way of putting it all together.
@manek43509 I probably shouldn't get started on DPI - that's another bugbear of mine. In reality, there is no such thing as 72 DPI. To start with, it's a misnomer - DPI is a printing term, mistakenly used (everywhere) in place of PPI. But that's not the thing that sucks. The real issue is that it is an approximation - we save at 72 PPI so that we can guess how large something will display on a screen. Trouble is, all screens are different. The screen I'm on now is roughly 109 PPI, which means that a "standard" 6" wide image on a typical display appears at about 4" for me. This text I'm typing is really small! Lucky my eyes are good. The compression is true, however, as many sites do seem to strip the colour profiles, or reduce bit depth, or both, or simply reduce the "quality" in order to save on space. I love your comparisons with music recording - I wish I'd thought of that! Perfect.
@sallycheese Nothing wrong with that, Sally! My point (the one I think you've grabbed hold of) is that the camera makes a legion of adjustments itself, and the image thus created is simply not the same thing as what you saw through your viewfinder. Take an identical photograph with two different cameras, and you'll see what I mean.
@sdpace Well, the issue is twofold (at least). Firstly, is your screen calibrated? If not, you'll never really have a clue what you're looking at in regards to colour. Secondly, the image you see on the back of your camera is the embedded JPEG - not the actual raw file. In Lightroom you are seeing the raw file. Raw files always look like mud compared the embedded JPEGs. You should also look into profiling your camera, so that that profile can be applied to your images as you import them to Lightroom (thus showing a better representation of your images). Of course, it all goes back to having that screen calibrated, or everything else is a waste of time.
@cfitzgerald Well said! :)
@lilbudhha I think we've all paid for it at one time or another! That first blurb made me chuckle out loud. Thank you. :)
@brumbe Feel sorry for us mere males - we only need one faulty gene to muck up our colour! Sometimes that's all one can do. Or black and white. ;) I think about half the males I know should stick to b&w.
@eyebrows LOL! My wife looked at me very strangely when I laughed earlier, reading this.
@shadesofgrey Beautifully said. I couldn't agree more.
I will say I do shoot some SOOC...
8x10 B&W Neg film 80 ISO with pyro straight baked... contact print on normal paper... is that close to SOOC? (honestly ROF LMHO)
@icywarm Those mixed sources sound troubling! I'd pay that large format b&w as SOOC. ;) But I wouldn't call it that - I'd just call it beautiful!
I love Adobe. I hate them too (for what they did to colour), but I love them for their foresight. I just wish they weren't so conservative! In regards to WYSIWYG, really I was just making a point - that being people assume that WYSIWYG when you push the shutter on a camera.
And dear Adobe, please give me the ability to adjust luminance and tone separately from colour without going into L.a.b.!
First of, as you say, there is nothing wrong with SOOC from me. If that is the "art" or "truth" you want to show the world, as "yours" then so be it. I want mine, to be polished and when I upload a pic, that is really what I want it to look like.
I've seen a lot of people look at my pictures, tell me they're great, but the look of their eyes tell me that it's only great, because it was edited? I made great edits (just brightness, color and crop) on some photos, and they still want to see the original, just to see what my "skill" really is... or they want to say that my photo is great just becase I edited it. Some people equate TALENT to SOOC. That is where I get pissed. I made some cloning shots, levitation shots, and I love them. Then, some will say, that's Photoshopped right? With a tone that's descending. Pisses me off.
I compare SOOC to an initial draft of a report. You write it, without any spelling or grammar rechecks and submit it to the teacher. Yes, you may brag that it's the original draft and you didn't need to tweak it. It may be perfect, but a lot of times, lots of errors will surface. Having passed a report which you edited to take out the useless parts, to make more emphasis on finer points, and to check for any errors, doesn't make it less than an "original".
End of rant too... :)
I'm sure I mentioned SOOC somewhere in my captions and I've been looking back for the shot because I wanted to know in which context my SOOC was used. Unfortunately I couldn't find it. It was probably 'edited' out of the text for a better result :-)
Anyway. I still believe you think a little too strict about the term SOOC. In the beginning of the digital era, concerning photography of course, it became a trend to edit each and every image just because it was possible. To indicate the difference between 'real' photos and 'photoshoped' ones the term SOOC was introduced. Am I right? If so, a SOOC shot is an image not edited afterwards. It does not matter what camera settings were used for that photo.
If SOOC only mean an unedited shot with 'neutral' settings of the camera and minimal 'computer magic' (I know you don't mean this literally) it was 'dead' already before it was used for the first time. A digital camera really doesn't have neutral setting anymore. It has default settings and an 'auto' option for easy usage. There is so much software working very hard to translate the reality into something that looks like it, no matter any setting on the digital camera.
Maybe best for qualifying the term SOOC are snapshot camera's, like those simple thingies for children. No settings what so ever. Just snap away and see the result. Really SOOC, lovely :-) Funny enough that is what my hipstamatic tries to simulate, with a lot of math...
He stays up far too late and leaves me to get up to the two toddlers in the morning when you lot encourage him ;)
There is no shame in ignorance and I'm sure we're mostly trying our best to learn. I have stopped using the term and note that the shot is just what the camera took. I don't know why other people say their shots are SOOC but if I don't do editing on a shot I'm pleased with, I like to say so.
I like to try to maintain a sense of proportion about these things. At the ripe old age of 58 I've come to realise that if an issue is not life threatening or does not harm anyone in any way, it doesn't matter a whole heap.
@yotan18 Hear, hear! I've had clients ask me for the unedited images. What the? Haha! Not likely, I say. I explain that they hired me for my style, and that includes my eye for the way I process my images. I explain that, as I'm shooting, I'm seeing the processing choices as I'm pressing the shutter. I know when I have a gorgeous black and white image (that I just shot in raw), and there's no way they're going to get a hold of the colour version that wasn't a part of my vision for the shot (let alone with no retouching, adjustment layers and dodging and burning). I create art for people - I'm not a monkey with a camera! I like your analogy to a rough draft. However, I must say, editing for me isn't about fixing, but rather about enhancing. There is only a small distinction, when it comes down to it, but that one thing sticks in my mind.
@mastermek Indeed I am wondering! Haha! :) I see your point, and I certainly do remember all the horrid selective colour images and crazy PS effects on almost every photo one ever saw, but one should also remember that, at the beginning of digital photography, 1 megapixel was a major milestone (I've still got a camera lying around somewhere that's less than 1 M-pixel), and it wasn't really considered "photography" by most - it was just cool tech! Those cameras didn't have any settings - you just pointed and pushed the button, so SOOC was, indeed, totally untouched by anything other than the built-in algorithm. Now, that isn't so. But people are still using the term as though making all those choices (camera settings) is somehow a part of the "shooting" and not of the "editing". I don't care where in the timeline the editing falls - it is still a digital manipulation of an image file! IMO, SOOC should apply to an image even if it has been subjected to white balance correction, exposure correction, contrast adjustment, curves and levels - these are all basic darkroom techniques and choices. I leave out dodging and burning because, although it is commonplace in a darkroom, it is heading towards advanced technique for many. To me, it is just a development process, and unless it changes the image dramatically it is nothing even worth mentioning. But now there are all these supposed "purists" who seem to believe that "developing" your images is a crutch for the weak - those who only know how to make nice images because they have computer skills. It annoys me. It also annoys me that it is the high end cameras that have the neutral settings, and all the consumer models have everything but. I suppose that's market-led, but it would be nice if I had more options for a pocket camera, for when I don't want o lug around my 15kg bag of camera kit. Loved your last paragraph, though - there's another entire thread waiting in that, in regards to the development of ways to replicate lo-fi imaging. Oh, the irony!. ;)
And not only that, I think as far as the color goes, on my art at least, I want it to be so unique people can look at it and see it's mine. eh, sooc schmessooc. Did I mention I LOVE IT?!?
Really, who cares? If the photo looks nice, to the photographer, especially on this site, that is all that matters. Period.
I will double that standing ovation!
I so hear you! Everything you say is so very true. My hubby and I are firm believers that you can't possibly get what you 'eye sees' in a SOOC shot. We have put some up occasionally (to show that we do know about composition, exposure, etc) but I don't feel I've done my photos any justice at all unless I process my RAW shots (usually in camera raw or lightroom, followed by many different photoshop layers).
I am so nervous when I send to print. In the last 5 years I have only ever had one lab phone me to let me know I had some serious colour casting. I learnt a lot from that phone call and am very careful now. I am about to test out a new lab here in Brisbane (would love feedback from someone who knows of a good one here) and am very nervous about how my first files will turn out.
I had a client ask me recently for 'just a CD' of her images and I so don't like doing this. I tried to explain that the processing she will get at the local cheapy processor will not have correct colours.... I cringe at the thought. The only reason I have agreed to this for her is that she's my sister (and she's sworn to letting me get some printed for her when she's ready). All other clients NEVER get a disc before they get prints of photos so that I can show how the colour 'should' look. Otherwise they think it's me and not their shoddy lab. I read this advice once in a photo mag (or was it a Scott Kelby book? ... not sure) and I agree totally.
I still have loads to learn about colour space but am totally in agreement with everything you state here. Your photos are sensational and it's clear to see why. Just wish we could convince those that say digital photography is 'fake' because of the processes we all use and the hours we spend in front of a screen. Clearly they never walked into an old fashioned 'light room' and witnessed the processing that happens there. At least we don't have to lock ourselves completely away these days to enter our lightrooms.... not as anti-social as they all may think...lol
Bring on the revolution!
Just got sent another alert about great x-rite colour workshops online. These are always great. I have watched a few. Just thought I might share.
Yes, I know it is possible to upload uncompressed images to the web - but I don't think I know of any website which doesn't compress images, purely because of the space they take up! (As you say - hosting them full-size would get expensive quite quickly!)
Furthermore, I just don't see why you would bother with uncompressed pictures for web use; even on a "photography" site (like this one, or Flickr) 99% of the time, your photo will be viewed at small or medium size, on an uncalibrated monitor screen, so there simply wouldn't be a point in taking up tons of server space with a massive image file, when no one's even going to notice!
@jinximages
Thanks - I'm glad you agreed with that analogy. :) I tend to relate most things in life to music (in some way or other) as it is the one thing I can actually do!
I didn't know that about the DPI/PPI thing, though. Just that the guitarist in Witchers works for a printing company during the week, and he did my business cards for me - I designed the cards in Photoshop, and sent him the design to print, as a JPEG file, but I'd forgotten to change the resolution from when I'm editing photos for the web. He was not impressed at my sending 72dpi resolution JPEG images to a professional printing house! haha
I checked my camera and I am indeed shooting in sRGB. Is it terrible to do your entire workflow, from capture to print, in sRGB? Will the colours suffer terribly upon print? Or do you think it's far more worthwhile and beneficial shooting and processing in AdobeRGB, then down-converting at the end?
Man, I really need to sit down and learn all this stuff... it all sounds so deliciously complicated and really appeals to my nerdy side. xD
@pocketmouse It isn't so bad to do everything in sRGB, if what you are shooting contains colours that are covered by the sRGB gamut. Most of your natural tones are going to be fine, but things like sunsets, cars, and anything plastic are going to get ruined. A good rule is to work in the largest colour space you can (considering practical limitations), and then convert at the very end for the medium you are producing. So, if you have a very high-end computer and shoot in raw, use something like ProPhoto the whole way through to the end. If you shoot JPEG, shoot and process in AdobeRGB all the way until the final step. But, the largest colour space isn't always going to be the best for output (printing) - just be aware of that. Of course, if you are sending JPEG to a lab, well, you are going to be converting down to sRGB (most likely) or maybe AdobeRGB (if you use a pro lab). For most work, a final sRGB conversion is going to be fine, remembering of course that you need to do it via a sRGB profile that contains a LUT (look up table) for perceptual conversion, then embed the standard sRGB profile at the end, if there are any vivid colours that may otherwise be clipped. AdobeRGB is a very good compromise between gamut size and efficiency, for most applications, so I'd say that's a safe way to go if you don't want to be chopping and changing. AdobeRGB essentially encompasses the whole of the sRGB gamut (there are no colours in sRGB not contained within AdobeRGB), but a whole lot more as well - about twice as many, in fact. Many images don't need that extra gamut (your profile image, for instance, is all likely well within the confines of sRGB), but at some point you will run into a situation where sRGB is just way too small. I won't go into the whole CMYK-turns-things-to-mud issue right now, but there are certainly ways to minimise that, too.
@amyhughes Haha! Thanks Amy! And I adore your work, so I'm very glad you love editing!
@renelou That is all that matters, indeed. But the divisions, even in this wonderful community, are clear to anyone who looks for them.
@kezzam Thanks Kerry, and thank you for the link, too! I struggle with clients a lot, because they don't understand colour. They usually do once I show them some comparison prints, though!
@foolmoon That made my day! :D
@tnaki So true, in regards to what you see when you take the image. You don't need a DSLR to make photos with impact, but I can't deny that having all those tools at hand helps.
@lauracaseyfoss It can be reassuring, just the knowing of why things never look "quite right" - but even better, knowing why can help you to overcome those limitations. :)
@manek43509 Oh man, that printer would not have been happy! Haha! I actually don't resize by physical size anymore - I calculate the actual pixels I need, based on the output medium. So, a 240PPI printer, well, I multiply the 240 by however many inches I need, and resize to that number of pixels (ignoring the inches entirely). I just find it to be reliable. And, I like numbers. Haha!
@catsmeowb You're welcome! :)
@kimmistephens Me too! :D