SOORC Challenge!

[jake337]

Raw, straight out of the camera. Ok, I added a touch of green

You can actually look at a raw file as an image prior to any software processing beyond the A/D conversion applied to the sensor signal. To show that here I have to at least convert the photo to a JPEG. Raw files are in fact green because there are two green filters for every one red and blue filter. Really SOOC for the above image looks like this:

View attachment 92908

Anything beyond that is some form of software processing and interpretation. I also re-sized it to show here. If you look at the original full-size and enlarge it you can see the CFA still in place. For curiosity here it is: SOOC.JPG

Joe

Well ****, now I'm glad my camera doesn't show me the "true" raw file as photography would not be as fun.

 

[Ysarex]

Not to split hairs Joe, but you did say "absolutely no editing", so lets see it NOT converted to a jpg

I can't post a TIFF file here on TPF. You'll have to stop over and I can show it to you. Raw files are actually saved in a format very much like a TIFF file.

Joe

 

[photoguy99]

SOOC vs not. Photoshop or not. Cropped or not.

These are all process. Process does matter, make no mistake. But it matters to you.

 

[snowbear]

I used Notepad. It won't all fit, but it starts like this:

MM * þ x 0 8
L ½h x á X ` ( 1
h2 tJ ˆ ‡i Ԑ À’ NIKON CORPORATION NIKON D40 , , Ver.1.11 2014:12:11 16:08:45 žh žà ÿ ÿ ÿ 2014:12:11 16:08:45 ‚š P‚ Xˆ"  ` t’
ˆ’ ’ ’ ’ ’
˜’| ¹Œ Ü’† , ’ 30 ’‘ 30 ’’ 30 ¢ £ £ £ ̤ ¤ ¤ ¤ Ô¤ K ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤
¤
X 8
2014:12:11 16:08:45 2014:12:11 16:08:45
ô
I # ' * . 2 6 : > B F J N R V Z _ c g k o s x | € „ ‰  ’ – › Ÿ £ § ¬ ° µ º ¿ Ã È Ì Ñ Õ Ú ß ä è í ò ÷ û
"',16;?DINSX]chmrw|†‹•š ¥ª¯µº¿ÄÉÎÔÙÞãéîóøþ #).38>CINSX^cinty~ƒ‰Ž”™Ÿ¤©®´¹¿ÄÊÏÔÙßäêïõúÿ
$*/5:?DJOUZ_djoty„‰Ž”™ž£¨³¸½ÂÇÌÑÖÜáæëðõúÿ "&+05:?CHMRW\`einsx|…ŠŽ“—œ ¥©®²·»ÀÄÉÍÑÕÚÞâæëïó÷ûÿ#'+.26:=ADHKOSWZ^adgknrux{‚…ˆ‹Ž’•˜›ž¡¤§«®±´·º½ÀÃÆÉÌÏÒÕØÛÞáäçêíðóöùüÿ"%(+.1469<?BEHKMPSVY\^adgiloruxz}€ƒ…ˆ‹Ž“–™›ž¡¤¦©¬¯±´·º¼¿ÂÅÇÊÌÏÒÕ×ÚÜßâåçêìïòõ÷úüÿ
!$&)+.0369;>@CEHJMORTWY\^acfhkmpruwz|„†‰‹Ž“•˜šŸ¢¤§©¬®±³¶¸»½ÀÂÅÇÉËÎÐÓÕØÚÝßâäæèëíðòõ÷ùûþ
!$&)+-/2479;=@BEGIKNPRTWY\^`begiknpsuwy|~€‚…‡‰‹Ž’”—™› ¢¤¦©«¯²´¶¸º¼¿ÁÃÅÈÊÌÎÑÓÕ×ÙÛÞàâäçéëíïñôöøúüþ

 

[snowbear]

and ends like this:

„q‘U*Õ;Eâl'RžŽhJ‚Ȑ²©@åjÆ©}‹]Ï1d÷65
Ô|-TjÕ"e¤Æ'J¨ºfê±{-$QÄÕN½RD.¾å•$FýÓ¼¡åHâ5O
©VS2™ÚÔÉ! Ú÷G+^¥Æ¼˜ƒÂUKJ9Õ8ò¤é¼Ú†•8ëì‘Õ]ˆ‹J¶ënê±ãÓ²±Ô*—Y„¢ÕIýÖTý]Hçl/qJBÕÆè«ÖJå’@‘o_c
(Ž¨¹î¸´¬«s¤W µS¬ÙP–ˍéÏݤէù«ÕRjªyŠq³4¡ž8‘+Š¸eÇNB¨xSŽ´ÆoÕÉF¾³Ì±çiê2óÊõ´éÝb$F©ú.âuo «iöÍ¡}‘ý&¿Ã|£Ì m¢*&‘;Šú™«%$´z~4ͨú¢~«m"•\"ÐGnˆÑ‹«ª^v©Ìy›1Ô¤^H®¬6šîê~ã÷ã>ã½CëQR[œ¢¾‘B¤Œ¸ÃO0Ú†Ô+@‘{AÞ £Ž«B„’±ì,EÒNñ*ª¦RÛO+H0Ґt|—>B¨V)ŽÎ¼ò…‰‡4¹36ñj"HI&.]=Xú–Øê«SÑ—òõÍlZWÚlŠ£]&ßšh…§»õªtKߢ«UË0¬žF®ýòdï®e+Uëx…瑹VP•S¡z»Ãüe¡Jq;”n½QGÙePÀΘQÛ0óV°—ßNí[r„¯|ýS¡»èž ÒqrŠù•J
Lqh>º™O*êui^ŠEw]Oâ)Òº¶Ï¬
íÐ=U•H¦£Ø"¹8õ¤E§tŠ±ÉzÕ?Y¿œ" pz‘L‰rDªW¨a¥¦åÞP·IGnâ¦[õº¥ åî°XäV³ŠÒ½_뎤§/«¢ªþ¨§“ WDuRBÃÝP™[ã8Qñ©Ò¬9V©åµbÈP««Ñ6m§ØÅ~FóþeA£lÛŸy€·uQGP|» ”¡!"¤k‰ ¯fµó z·JÑ”l(£I”Û¯§Gâ4Q¤¶¹”ï'ë–^Âk2I¶Z²šòŠõ©VT¹ïQÕb?Z¾>Ž]eÙ}c ýDLZ9õ(Z²{½{!(èÔõPê¦S¥NRëÃümEûæ©ÖTyŽ]Û#lR¦V±”Ýs‰øNƒÐ¨ Ý“yE^¿[u*5N-m5ÙTF 6ÍZT•£Kert\ój|ûm7cÒ/u†lÏ—Õ:«¬V…:5]äŽy:7 Ð?O¶Ò¦!\ú7H+U!Ñ–¨sDÆq`ďµu‰šªå,ó•LýRSÏ41I5ÖB‘µJYt—›fÍ0¥º»f(ß]UÄ}V¥+.,QT)³ÕaÎ6Ò¾ŽT•Ói†Ô’ѹGÔVWÈœRËýJâE¤ªŽ‹¸-»:O¢qkVq;\AE¾§=æß\âT®^ÈÛCâv×ãw}¯!xÈÑJÖù’,0⮋`ó—*IGßíPÙJ:<·”Crƒ*I¦ÓQG’ÑÖT8z‚TâëuˆhÓ§pŠtN+JÍ”*SĬI0çàÕÔL^ÈØdI^ÍáF¨½›,i®²ï.±´ŒhŠ·“„ñÞ%D¤n‡®rÜ¢öÁ/¸ôJ'LÒ’oÂâ6¯]ëÃ*+ΡN·•"B‰SϪNÚ’BGHoN
mæ.¹”ÍêFЋ}žª"óm%fìÒèÔ)ms"ú刾0}”¯àÖȐHºÈSØx¢e_FÅ[éÅýÀÉWºã‰Ü}¤l—|FÔ¶Ú.ªZ]R(HÁKŽJ¸²A÷óÊ›ëånò"âE.UÛ7봍RûÍ©rÜuMè:®'ò…J9õilžªúZ‘ÉÔ+§,Ê·,0ARKטF¾ÉWÙ¦N™z‡¼•«§å*¹SJÂFÛ\ê/ó, *®–å†ò½R’é[/äÕQŠŒ²nd}z⎤«4"Ûv«ÏVéÙX×TµK´‚ï*m
Ö•(Í”(s©†\Ê6•2¡ÿ#nÏ>šÊÙ«#UÙ:ëUÛ&ó¯:Ï’%]ÎZÜc¬³EVŒ©÷ÝqM…´@se%H©B%«P²úU$lŸñ7H¼ÓV£)Ⱦœ{D.û||JS•NA¤¨Ó¨R×Xê„Š:Ç^í”Qäu(g2‡R)V‰åU‹uYJ¦ÈìA{I;dv4ÊY²ÆÐ&Ân6Ón£±|ê7—§kË•"eCtDë¯ã”,òÚ Kç¸Ñ+³VëWùÇpšT‹ÿ

 

[Ysarex]

I don't know how to understand this thread except as satire.

You got that -- I wasn't too subtle then?

Joe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just running into too much of the SOOC ignorance and foolishness lately and had to vent a little. The other thing that happened recently was an encounter I had concerning Adobe's (LR) tendency to display a default rendering on the flat side. Just because Adobe does it that way doesn't mean Moses had that at the bottom of the list as #11. I can't tell you how many photographers I've met now who actually believe that a raw file is by nature "flat and dull" because that's their experience using LR and they can't figure out that what they're first seeing is a software interpretation. I've actually had photographers tell me that a raw file default-opened in LR is how a raw file looks unedited.

In digital photography there is no special default rendering that can be referenced as non-interpreted (unless you want to see it without a tone curve and the CFA still in place). So I showed this photographer how C1 and or in the above case RT produce very different default renderings of the same file compared with LR -- all, including SOOC, just different software interpretations. RT's default for the above file just happens to come out looking pretty good (my version is better).

Joe

What do you mean by SOOC ignorance and foolishness? Just wondering. The only reason people think raw files are "dull" is because we can't see what the file looks like while our in the field. Our cameras only show us the image with a picture setting.

Very often when I encounter the acronym SOOC it's presented with claims like "no post processing" and attitudes like "I got it right in camera" without having to rely on software processing when of course what they did was rely on the software processor embedded in their camera.

For example we can't take a photo with any digital camera without choosing a WB setting. That's not processing when done using the camera software, but if we load a raw file in a raw converter and set the WB it is processing? All digital photos are software processed. How is the version produced using the camera's embedded software not processing but the version produced from LR is processing?

Joe

 

[snowbear]

Even in the film word, if you can see the image, it has been processed and is not truly SOOC.

 

[Ysarex]

sounds like you are back to the same ole argument joe. As the camera does minimal processing equivilent to minimal dark room processing just required to produce a image, it is the same as extensive post processing which would be the equivalent of extensive dark room editing. so basically we are right back to discussing degrees of post processing. whats the point? shooting sooc jpeg is about the closest thing i can find to instant film or dropping off the rolls to be developed but some are okay with that. If you notice my adjustments in the metadata, if you understand how it will be rendered and adjust as such you are still engaged in photography by controlling that outcome of rendering to a degree.

Yeah, I know this goes around a lot -- I just had, like I said, another encounter that got me to vent a little with the satire there.

Your analogy of SOOC JEPGs to dropping off film at the photo hut is, I think, very good. I use the same analogy in class. I think the instant film analogy is a little weaker -- as in two different photo huts will give you two different results. I've never said there's something inherently wrong with that. It comes up time and again for me when I encounter misunderstanding about what's taking place.

Joe

 

[jake337]

Fair enough. When I bring an image into lightroom/CS I'm always doing more than just WB and basic adjustments.

I guess when I say SOOC I mean no manipulation or extensive post production with layers, etc.

 

[photoguy99]

In film land SOOC means 'straight out of the can' and refers to developed negatives.

 

[Ysarex]

Fair enough. When I bring an image into lightroom/CS I'm always doing more than just WB and basic adjustments.

I guess when I say SOOC I mean no manipulation or extensive post production with layers, etc.

OK, but what's manipulation? What if I bring a raw file into a raw converter so I can avoid the manipulation that the camera software forces on every JPEG it creates? In other words I want a photo with less manipulation so I do my own raw processing. For example let's say you have a Canon camera. You must select a Canon picture style -- this is no "off" option. You can chose from Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful, and Monochrome. What's the difference between Neutral and Faithful? Is there an option for not manipulated? Those are all manipulated interpretations -- you have to chose one. Nikon cameras have different manipulations etc. etc..

Right now I'm using a Fuji camera. Fuji is and was first a film manufacturer. So all Fuji camera's come with Fuji film simulations. I can't not use a Fuji film simulation when I process a photo in the camera. I have to chose from Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg, and/or Monochrome.

So when I process a raw file it's in part because I want to avoid all that manipulation. I want a photo that's more "true" to what the camera captured.

Joe

 

[jake337]

Fair enough. When I bring an image into lightroom/CS I'm always doing more than just WB and basic adjustments.

I guess when I say SOOC I mean no manipulation or extensive post production with layers, etc.

OK, but what's manipulation? What if I bring a raw file into a raw converter so I can avoid the manipulation that the camera software forces on every JPEG it creates? In other words I want a photo with less manipulation so I do my own raw processing. For example let's say you have a Canon camera. You must select a Canon picture style -- this is no "off" option. You can chose from Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful, and Monochrome. What's the difference between Neutral and Faithful? Is there an option for not manipulated? Those are all manipulated interpretations -- you have to chose one. Nikon cameras have different manipulations etc. etc..

Right now I'm using a Fuji camera. Fuji is and was first a film manufacturer. So all Fuji camera's come with Fuji film simulations. I can't not use a Fuji film simulation when I process a photo in the camera. I have to chose from Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg, and/or Monochrome.

So when I process a raw file it's in part because I want to avoid all that manipulation. I want a photo that's more "true" to what the camera captured.

Joe

Well yes those are basic manipulations. I'm talking about extensive manipulations that cannot be achieved without post production or pre-production planning.

 

[jake337]

I just wanted to add that I'm not some SOOC snob. Post production is great and a very important tool. Sometimes it's fun to try to get the best you can without bringing the files into post while using the cameras picture controls settings add the tools that they are, simple tools.

 

[photoguy99]

Joe's point is that you can't draw a line. Well, you can, but it's totally arbitrary.

 

[bribrius]

Fair enough. When I bring an image into lightroom/CS I'm always doing more than just WB and basic adjustments.

I guess when I say SOOC I mean no manipulation or extensive post production with layers, etc.

OK, but what's manipulation? What if I bring a raw file into a raw converter so I can avoid the manipulation that the camera software forces on every JPEG it creates? In other words I want a photo with less manipulation so I do my own raw processing. For example let's say you have a Canon camera. You must select a Canon picture style -- this is no "off" option. You can chose from Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful, and Monochrome. What's the difference between Neutral and Faithful? Is there an option for not manipulated? Those are all manipulated interpretations -- you have to chose one. Nikon cameras have different manipulations etc. etc..

Right now I'm using a Fuji camera. Fuji is and was first a film manufacturer. So all Fuji camera's come with Fuji film simulations. I can't not use a Fuji film simulation when I process a photo in the camera. I have to chose from Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg, and/or Monochrome.

So when I process a raw file it's in part because I want to avoid all that manipulation. I want a photo that's more "true" to what the camera captured.

Joe

this, is the main part that interest me when doing pp. Making the photos MORE authentic in what is being captured. i am not very good at that as of yet, i get closer shooting jpeg.