SOOC - the case for or against

[brusby]

Some report getting better sooc results after much practice. While there is little doubt that experience can drastically improve keeper rates and sooc results, I wonder about all the missed opportunities -- potentially good photos that are not taken by sooc devotees because something wasn't quite perfect, such as lighting ratios or dynamic range or uneven illumination of the subject, and because no manipulation to correct would be done in post, the opportunity was lost.

The more I studied the work of great printers like Adams and Weston, the less satisfied I would be with any images right out of the camera. As experience with light and composition increased, less manipulation would be required, but even now I rarely make an image where I don't think some, even minor editing, will improve things, often dramatically.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

For SOOC camera's capabilities and limits are matter. With film camera it often compensated by better than digital film latitude on exposure. Digital might give it via HDR (two combined in camera exposures). Or by taking test shot and correcting settings. If possible.

My Canon 5D and 50L was incredibly good combo for SOOC and JPEG1. I switched to JPEG1 only in camera.

SOOC:

I use Canon RP in JPEG1 now as well. Just because my old LR is not supporting their odd RAW files.

SOOC JPEG1 from RP.

 

[Corran]

Well do you think the best photos come from the 1-hour photo develop and print shop? That is "SOOC" in film terms.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Well do you think the best photos come from the 1-hour photo develop and print shop? That is "SOOC" in film terms.

I was reading some memoirs of those machines operator. They did have quick and dirty option for push and pull. But because it was in the rush, it has to be mastered skill.

 

[brusby]

You have the same kind of loss of shadow detail in your second shot that I was pointing out in my jpeg of the young girl above. That's one of the primary failings of sooc images, imho.

For flatly lit scenes, sooc seems to do best. But as the dynamic range of the scene increases, its shortcomings become more apparent.

For SOOC camera's capabilities and limits are matter. With film camera it often compensated by better than digital film latitude on exposure. Digital might give it via HDR (two combined in camera exposures). Or by taking test shot and correcting settings. If possible.

My Canon 5D and 50L was incredibly good combo for SOOC and JPEG1. I switched to JPEG1 only in camera.

SOOC:

I use Canon RP in JPEG1 now as well. Just because my old LR is not supporting their odd RAW files.

SOOC JPEG1 from RP.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

You have the same kind of loss of shadow detail in your second shot that I was pointing out in my jpeg of the young girl above. That's one of the primary failings of sooc images, imho.

For flatly lit scenes, sooc seems to do best. But as the dynamic range of the scene increases, its shortcomings become more apparent.

Shadows are totally irrelevant for this shot. Not sure what you need to see in the bushes and under the table. Nor it was any details available to see in the real scene. It is ISO 12800 ISO shot.

Some people want cameras to be night vision cameras or to show something which wasn't visible in real scene. I like my pictures to show something real. In real life, human eye seeing situations my eyes can't see bright sky and deep shadows at once. Eyes are adjusting to the amount of light for each part of the scene I'm looking at.

Even bw film with its great exposure latitude shows its limits on darkroom prints or scans.

So, I'm not fan of pictures with artificial shadows details.

 

[brusby]

We see detail in almost all shadows. That's what is "real". Try it for yourself by looking at any shadow area. You'll see detail. Even on the brightest sunlit day we can see into most of the deepest shadows. Take for example a white house in bright summer sun with an open garage door. We can usually see details even in that very dark space. Most cameras won't, whether film or digital. The dynamic range just exceeds sensor and film capabilities.

So, it's the camera that gives "artificial shadows detail" as you describe it, by not having any.

Whether you want to lose detail in your shadows is an artistic decision and I won't argue with your choice, except to say it takes skill and practice to maintain it. If, as you say, you "like my pictures to show something real", I would argue against having large areas of pure black or white for that matter. That's not "real". Otoh, if you're just going for artistic effect, that's a different matter.

 

[Rayt]

I used HDR for the first time in my life ever to fix an exposure error. The subject was under by two stops.I could have fixed it in the darkroom but it would have taken me more than the 30 seconds. I am a novice with PS. TMax 400, 35mm Summilux asph FLE

8A074692-358C-454C-8B83-E2BA4C94F211 by ray tai, on Flickr

 

[Rayt]

This was a random snap in a coffee shop. I don’t think I could have drawn out the blackness in the back traditionally. M9 35mm Summicron

Before and after

L1355414 by ray tai, on Flickr


A8D65CDE-7938-4945-B570-DDF112F39E85 by ray tai, on Flickr

 

[farlymac]

Any SOOC shooters wanna show their results?

Okay, I'll try this again.

From my first shoot with a new Nikon D610 that I was not used to yet.

ISO 400
FL 120mm
SP 1/2000
A f5.6
Nikon D610
AF Nikkor 24-120mm 1:3.5-5.6 D

SOOC


D610 Test: Cloud 2 by P F McFarland, on Flickr

After Corrections
Smart Fix
Warming Filter 81 @ 20% Density


D610 Test: Cloud 2 Adjusted by P F McFarland, on Flickr

After adjusting some of the factory defaults the results got much better.


2008 Ford Mustang GT/CS by P F McFarland, on Flickr

PF

 

[Beemermark]

For those not in the know, SOOC = “straight-out-of-camera”.

Thank you.

 

[cboy]

Really nice PP folks! When it comes to PP its horses for courses!

 

[571514m3]

In one of his books Ansel Adams shows the straight print from ‘Clearing Winter Storm’ and the final print. You probably would not give the straight print a second glance, it’s so dull.

Is that the one on the MOMA site?
https://www.moma.org/collection/works/52135

It is stunning but quite unrealistic. I don't get the sheer darkness because the world is not like that. But obviously others feel different and that is ok with me.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Playing around with a 1940's Graflex Crown Graphic 2x3, my "mini Ansel Adams camera". Below is "Out of Camera" scan and the "How I Pre-visualized It" image.

Out Of Camera scan

How I Pre-Visualized It

Best,
-Tim

 

[Michalm]

This was a random snap in a coffee shop. I don’t think I could have drawn out the blackness in the back traditionally. M9 35mm Summicron

Before and after

L1355414 by ray tai, on Flickr


A8D65CDE-7938-4945-B570-DDF112F39E85 by ray tai, on Flickr

I prefer image before here. Noise is very distracting and colors start falling apart in case of the second image .

It seems to me that with raw editing there is often a temptation to push the shadows , saturation white balance sliders too far. On the other hand fine detail , tonal nuances are usually lost in case of SOOC and there is no way for camera to know what photographers intention was in terms of the what final output should really look like.

 

[agentlossing]

I think I'd prefer something in between. I think the second image is a bit too lightened, but I'd like to be able to see more suggestion of detail than in the first image, which is sort of blocked up... I like in-camera RAW editing in order to be able to fine-tune just a tad of the effects of highlights and shadows without having to wrangle it at time of shooting, sort of like how printing off a negative could be dodged, burned or just slightly changed overall intensity in the final print.

Obviously only newer cameras have this capability, and it's only just getting to be a useful enough feature in the last couple years.

 

[peterm1]

There IS no case to be made for or against! At least in the sense that this is or should be an issue that is open for abstract debate.
It all depends on the image taken (whether it works straight out of camera), the results you are looking for in the image, and the photographer's personal sense of style.
Simple as that.

 

[benlees]

This was a random snap in a coffee shop. I don’t think I could have drawn out the blackness in the back traditionally. M9 35mm Summicron

Before and after

L1355414 by ray tai, on Flickr


A8D65CDE-7938-4945-B570-DDF112F39E85 by ray tai, on Flickr

The first image is stronger, IMO. The diagonal of the lights to the woman's head, framed by the vertical beam of light on the right, accentuated by the negative space of the black, make the picture more interesting. Sometimes shadow details aren't worth showing... YMMV

 

[brusby]

'Had a shoot recently at a local park at the request of a couple of young ladies who are sisters. But the natural light was terribly harsh. The skies were almost clear and the sun was not diffused in any real way. We weren't using any supplemental lights or fill so I had to expose in a way to try to preserve enough highlight and shadow detail that would allow me to salvage something useful in post. The SOOC results looked dreadful to me when I was shooting and I was wondering whether I'd be able to come up with anything anyone would want to see.

Here is the straight out of the camera image followed by the edited image. Please note that the sky in the edited image looks a bit HDR to me, but that is very close to how it appeared at the time just as the sun was setting -- very saturated.

SOOC
4529 by Brusby, on Flickr

edited
4529 1 by Brusby, on Flickr

 

[markjwyatt]

Give reasons for your preference and illustrate with photos.

I'll start.

Leica M240, 35mm Summaron f2.8 hand held

Edited to resemble the feel of the location as I perceived it, which was sunset over a dark marshy area off the roadside:

M2403855 by Brusby, on Flickr


SOOC

M2403855 4 by Brusby, on Flickr

I get much better results than that SOOC, because I selectively meter. I still prefer RAW, but that is not a very good example. Your final product is beautiful, but you probably could have gotten pretty close SOOC if you selectively metered and locked it in. I use a Fujiflim XT-2, so I get a reasonable preview in the EVF. Maybe the Leica does not do that.