Thoughts on SOOC

In article m,
Savageduck wrote:

IMO, the digital photographer needs to have a much more in-depth
understanding of their equipment than the film photographer. With
digital cameras, we are interacting with a "robot" making decisions
about how to render the image. So, many are taking far more shots of the
scene and then selecting the best outcome in post, ergo, magnificent
accidents might become the rule rather than the exception.

It's not always easy to know your robot!

the camera only makes decisions if it's asked to make a decision.

In most cases there is a head behind the VF, and a finger to trip the
shutter. Sometimes the human CPU doesn¹t make great choices regarding shot
selection, or exposure settings. Don¹t blame the camera.

it's always the head behind the vf.

Savageduck wrote:
Technical perfection does not necessarily make a great or memorable image.


This is quite similar to classical music, where sometimes technical
perfection is lifeless and boring if not combined with feeling and
appropriate interpretation.

To paraphrase the great pianist Arthur Rubinstein, about a certain piano
recital:

I heard the notes,and I felt nothing.

Mort Linder

In article 2016030120421452705-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096

I shoot RAW+JPEG, then process the RAWs and compare the result with the
out of camera JPEG. Sometimes the processed RAW is better, sometimes the
out of camera JPEG. But please note that I have spent some time finding
the optimal out of camera JPEG settings.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Mar 2, 2016, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In article2016030120421452705-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096

I shoot RAW+JPEG, then process the RAWs and compare the result with the
out of camera JPEG. Sometimes the processed RAW is better, sometimes the
out of camera JPEG. But please note that I have spent some time finding
the optimal out of camera JPEG settings.

For the most part I also shoot RAW+JPEG these days. However, to say that one
is better than the other you have to consider that usually the RAW file is
going to need some degree of post processing before a true comparison can be
made.
There is a place for both, especially when you need camera original JPEGs for
immediate sharing, or for the pro/am PJ’s, submission to AP or Reuters. The
RAW files will always give you a wider margin when it comes to PP, but many
times, as you stated, you can get great JPEGs SOOC. The important thing is
you know what settings you need to make with your camera to obtain JPEG
images you are satisfied with SOOC.

In this respect my Fujifilm X-E2 is far more flexible than my D300S, in that
I can fine tune my JPEG captures with exposure push/pull, WB, NR, Highlight
tone, Shadow tone, Sharpening, Aspect Ratio, Film simulation (Provia, Velvia,
Astia, Classic Chrome, Pro Neg Hi, Pro Neg Std, Monochrome, Monochrome+Yellow
filter, Monochrome+Red filter, Monochrome+Green filter, and Sepia. It is
something else I am experimenting with, but I am no ready to abandon RAW, it
meets my need to have something to tinker with.

Today there are a whole bunch of Fuji X shooters foregoing RAW and shooting
JPEG only, with a many of those choosing to get their files SOOC. I am not
one of those.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On 03/03/2016 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In article2016030120421452705-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096

I shoot RAW+JPEG, then process the RAWs and compare the result with the
out of camera JPEG. Sometimes the processed RAW is better, sometimes the
out of camera JPEG. But please note that I have spent some time finding
the optimal out of camera JPEG settings.

For the most part I also shoot RAW+JPEG these days. However, to say that one
is better than the other you have to consider that usually the RAW file is
going to need some degree of post processing before a true comparison can be
made.
There is a place for both, especially when you need camera original JPEGs for
immediate sharing, or for the pro/am PJ’s, submission to AP or Reuters. The
RAW files will always give you a wider margin when it comes to PP, but many
times, as you stated, you can get great JPEGs SOOC. The important thing is
you know what settings you need to make with your camera to obtain JPEG
images you are satisfied with SOOC.

In this respect my Fujifilm X-E2 is far more flexible than my D300S, in that
I can fine tune my JPEG captures with exposure push/pull, WB, NR, Highlight
tone, Shadow tone, Sharpening, Aspect Ratio, Film simulation (Provia, Velvia,
Astia, Classic Chrome, Pro Neg Hi, Pro Neg Std, Monochrome, Monochrome+Yellow
filter, Monochrome+Red filter, Monochrome+Green filter, and Sepia. It is
something else I am experimenting with, but I am no ready to abandon RAW, it
meets my need to have something to tinker with.

Today there are a whole bunch of Fuji X shooters foregoing RAW and shooting
JPEG only, with a many of those choosing to get their files SOOC. I am not
one of those.

You could actually do the same (or at least most of it) with your
ancient D300. You could create your own picture controls using free
software on a (hopefully well calibrated) PC (or download those made by
others - including twee "velvia" or whatever film emulation you wanted),
name them, share them, and upload them to the camera and use them for
default jpeg rendering (including the preview embedded jpeg in the *.nef
file).
A glorious waste of time of course, as even if you could be bothered to
create a number of picture control profiles, you'd be wasting more time
menu diving selecting the appropriate picture control. If you're that
particular, then raw is the best option anyway.
When I bought my first "serious" digital camera (D70) I made the mistake
of reading Ken Rockwell's site, and took notice of his advice that
"shooting raw was stupid". Big mistake - I lost shots on a once in a
lifetime trip to moire (problem with that camera) and some to exposure
errors, both of which may have been fixable if I had the raw files.

On 3/2/2016 4:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/2/2016 12:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-02 16:41:29 +0000, said:

On 3/1/2016 11:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096
This notion has always puzzled me. Is not capturing the best rendition
of a subject the important part of photography?

This is one of those questions that can only be given a ‘yes/no’
answer.
That can only be based on the intent of the photographer. Some of that
intent can be achieved SOOC with specific lens selection and exposure
settings. However, consider how simple today’s AE makes it to get good
exposure values and no character to the image. Technical perfection does
not necessarily make a great or memorable image.
How is an image without character a good exposure? ;-)

Unfortunately, there are images shot with perfect exposure values and zero
memorable, or inspirational qualities. One might say, a good exposure wasted.

I regard exposure values as being an artistic parameter, and as such
it's only "good" if it enhances the image. For example, the same
negative can be rendered in a number of ways by using different grades
of print paper, e.g., the exposure values may all be proper, but the
image will appear differently on each print. So, e.v. becomes relative
to the intent of the photographer.

If so, whether one has to crop irrelevant content, adjust color and
tonality or any other manipulation to accomplish that end is just part
of the overall process, as is whatever is 'SOOC'.

Much the creative work can be done in post. These days, with the
exception of good cropping there is also much that can be done SOOC, but
the photographer needs to have a good idea of what they are doing,
magnificent accidents don't count.

IMO, the digital photographer needs to have a much more in-depth
understanding of their equipment than the film photographer. With
digital cameras, we are interacting with a "robot" making decisions
about how to render the image. So, many are taking far more shots of the
scene and then selecting the best outcome in post, ergo, magnificent
accidents might become the rule rather than the exception.

...and that is problematic when it comes to taking one’s photography to a
level beyond snapshot and the magnificent accident. The basic principles
still apply even if there is a CPU in the camera to help you.

The principles may apply, but when dealing with parameters that can
approach infinity, managing those principles becomes a matter of luck
rather than skill.


It's not always easy to know your robot!

Practice, practice, practice, and take the time to read up on understanding,
and fine tuning your robot.

Unfortunately, "reading up" to know one's robot would require knowledge
of sensor physics, electronics, computer programming, access to the
camera's firmware code (which can change drastically with each
"upgrade"), and more. What many photographers have access to amounts to
little more than opinions from other photographers who also lack the
requisite knowledge.

--
Best regards,

Neil

On Mar 2, 2016, Me wrote
(in article ):

On 03/03/2016 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In article2016030120421452705-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096

I shoot RAW+JPEG, then process the RAWs and compare the result with the
out of camera JPEG. Sometimes the processed RAW is better, sometimes the
out of camera JPEG. But please note that I have spent some time finding
the optimal out of camera JPEG settings.

For the most part I also shoot RAW+JPEG these days. However, to say that
one
is better than the other you have to consider that usually the RAW file is
going to need some degree of post processing before a true comparison can
be
made.
There is a place for both, especially when you need camera original JPEGs
for
immediate sharing, or for the pro/am PJ’s, submission to AP or Reuters.
The
RAW files will always give you a wider margin when it comes to PP, but many
times, as you stated, you can get great JPEGs SOOC. The important thing is
you know what settings you need to make with your camera to obtain JPEG
images you are satisfied with SOOC.

In this respect my Fujifilm X-E2 is far more flexible than my D300S, in
that
I can fine tune my JPEG captures with exposure push/pull, WB, NR, Highlight
tone, Shadow tone, Sharpening, Aspect Ratio, Film simulation (Provia,
Velvia,
Astia, Classic Chrome, Pro Neg Hi, Pro Neg Std, Monochrome,
Monochrome+Yellow
filter, Monochrome+Red filter, Monochrome+Green filter, and Sepia. It is
something else I am experimenting with, but I am no ready to abandon RAW,
it
meets my need to have something to tinker with.

Today there are a whole bunch of Fuji X shooters foregoing RAW and shooting
JPEG only, with a many of those choosing to get their files SOOC. I am not
one of those.
You could actually do the same (or at least most of it) with your
ancient D300. You could create your own picture controls using free
software on a (hopefully well calibrated) PC (or download those made by
others - including twee "velvia" or whatever film emulation you wanted),
name them, share them, and upload them to the camera and use them for
default jpeg rendering (including the preview embedded jpeg in the *.nef
file).

Personally, with both the D70 and D300S I explored those adjustments and they
are not particularly pleasing, or simple to implement. The best that could be
said is they are somewhat unpleasantly crude, and change the appearance of
the JPEG in-camera. Not even close to the Fuji X-System. I would rather shoot
RAW. Also as another personal note, I don’t particularly like the over
saturated Velvia or attempts to emmulate it.

The Fuji implementation for in-camera JPEG adjustment is a different animal
to that used by Nikon.

A glorious waste of time of course, as even if you could be bothered to
create a number of picture control profiles, you'd be wasting more time
menu diving selecting the appropriate picture control. If you're that
particular, then raw is the best option anyway.

For the D300S and the D70 agree completely, it is not worth the effort,
rather shoot RAW and be done with it. However, Fuji makes this less of a
kludge with their “Q� menu which provides 7 presets accessible without
menu diving.

When I bought my first "serious" digital camera (D70) I made the mistake
of reading Ken Rockwell's site, and took notice of his advice that
"shooting raw was stupid". Big mistake - I lost shots on a once in a
lifetime trip to moire (problem with that camera) and some to exposure
errors, both of which may have been fixable if I had the raw files.
Ken Rockwell is a huckster, entertainer who appears to spout wisdom, but
actually delivers BS wrapped in deception. He is not to be taken seriously.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Mar 3, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/2/2016 4:02 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Neil wrote
(in article ):

On 3/2/2016 12:30 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-02 16:41:29 +0000, said:

On 3/1/2016 11:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:
Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096
This notion has always puzzled me. Is not capturing the best
rendition
of a subject the important part of photography?

This is one of those questions that can only be given a ‘yes/no’
answer.
That can only be based on the intent of the photographer. Some of that
intent can be achieved SOOC with specific lens selection and exposure
settings. However, consider how simple today’s AE makes it to get
good
exposure values and no character to the image. Technical perfection
does
not necessarily make a great or memorable image.
How is an image without character a good exposure? ;-)

Unfortunately, there are images shot with perfect exposure values and zero
memorable, or inspirational qualities. One might say, a good exposure
wasted.
I regard exposure values as being an artistic parameter, and as such
it's only "good" if it enhances the image. For example, the same
negative can be rendered in a number of ways by using different grades
of print paper, e.g., the exposure values may all be proper, but the
image will appear differently on each print. So, e.v. becomes relative
to the intent of the photographer.

Correct. I learned in a wet darkroom where there were other variables other
than whatever you had done to produce the negative.


If so, whether one has to crop irrelevant content, adjust color and
tonality or any other manipulation to accomplish that end is just
part
of the overall process, as is whatever is 'SOOC'.

Much the creative work can be done in post. These days, with the
exception of good cropping there is also much that can be done SOOC,
but
the photographer needs to have a good idea of what they are doing,
magnificent accidents don't count.

IMO, the digital photographer needs to have a much more in-depth
understanding of their equipment than the film photographer. With
digital cameras, we are interacting with a "robot" making decisions
about how to render the image. So, many are taking far more shots of the
scene and then selecting the best outcome in post, ergo, magnificent
accidents might become the rule rather than the exception.

...and that is problematic when it comes to taking one’s photography to a
level beyond snapshot and the magnificent accident. The basic principles
still apply even if there is a CPU in the camera to help you.
The principles may apply, but when dealing with parameters that can
approach infinity, managing those principles becomes a matter of luck
rather than skill.

That is only true if you just roll the dice everytime you trip the shutter.
To produce consistent acceptable work you have to have a grounding in the
fundementals. Without that, every shot is going to be a random hope for the
magnificent accident and dependance on the camera CPU.


It's not always easy to know your robot!

Practice, practice, practice, and take the time to read up on
understanding,
and fine tuning your robot.
Unfortunately, "reading up" to know one's robot would require knowledge
of sensor physics, electronics, computer programming, access to the
camera's firmware code (which can change drastically with each
"upgrade"), and more. What many photographers have access to amounts to
little more than opinions from other photographers who also lack the
requisite knowledge.

Not necessarily, some research, practice and understanding of the process can
go a long way to producing good, and outstanding images consistantly. Don’t
undervalue the knowledge and capabilities of some of those “other
photographers�.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Mar 3, 2016, Savageduck wrote
(in news.com):

On Mar 2, 2016, Me wrote
(in article ):

On 03/03/2016 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In article2016030120421452705-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
says...

Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096

I shoot RAW+JPEG, then process the RAWs and compare the result with the
out of camera JPEG. Sometimes the processed RAW is better, sometimes
the
out of camera JPEG. But please note that I have spent some time finding
the optimal out of camera JPEG settings.
For the most part I also shoot RAW+JPEG these days. However, to say that
one is better than the other you have to consider that usually the RAW
file

is going to need some degree of post processing before a true comparison
can be made. There is a place for both, especially when you need camera
original JPEGs for immediate sharing, or for the pro/am PJ’s,
submission to AP or Reuters. The RAW files will always give you a wider
margin when it comes to PP, but many times, as you stated, you can get
great JPEGs SOOC. The important thing is you know what settings you need
to make with your camera to obtain JPEG images you are satisfied with
SOOC.
In this respect my Fujifilm X-E2 is far more flexible than my D300S, in
that I can fine tune my JPEG captures with exposure push/pull, WB, NR,

Highlight tone, Shadow tone, Sharpening, Aspect Ratio, Film simulation
(Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, Pro Neg Hi, Pro Neg Std,
Monochrome, Monochrome+Yellow filter, Monochrome+Red filter,
Monochrome+Green filter, and Sepia. It is something else I am
experimenting with, but I am no ready to abandon RAW, it meets my needs
to have something to tinker with.

Today there are a whole bunch of Fuji X shooters foregoing RAW and
shooting JPEG only, with a many of those choosing to get their files
SOOC. I am not one of those.
You could actually do the same (or at least most of it) with your
ancient D300. You could create your own picture controls using free
software on a (hopefully well calibrated) PC (or download those made by
others - including twee "velvia" or whatever film emulation you wanted),
name them, share them, and upload them to the camera and use them for
default jpeg rendering (including the preview embedded jpeg in the *.nef
file).

Personally, with both the D70 and D300S I explored those adjustments and they
are not particularly pleasing, or simple to implement. The best that could be
said is they are somewhat unpleasantly crude, and change the appearance of
the JPEG in-camera. Not even close to the Fuji X-System. I would rather shoot
RAW. Also as another personal note, I don’t particularly like the over
saturated Velvia or attempts to emmulate it.

The Fuji implementation for in-camera JPEG adjustment is a different animal
to that used by Nikon.

A glorious waste of time of course, as even if you could be bothered to
create a number of picture control profiles, you'd be wasting more time
menu diving selecting the appropriate picture control. If you're that
particular, then raw is the best option anyway.

For the D300S and the D70 agree completely, it is not worth the effort,
rather shoot RAW and be done with it. However, Fuji makes this less of a
kludge with their “Q� menu which provides 7 presets accessible without
menu diving.

BTW: Here is another take on the Fuji in-camera JPEG settings:
http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotogra...xamples-of-my-
fuji-jpeg-settings-in-action



--

Regards,
Savageduck

On Mar 3, 2016, Savageduck wrote
(in news.com):

On Mar 3, 2016, Savageduck wrote
(in news.com):

On Mar 2, 2016, Me wrote
(in article ):

On 03/03/2016 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 2, 2016, Alfred Molon wrote
(in . com):

In article2016030120421452705-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck
says...

Here are a few thoughts on 'Straight Out of Camera' or SOOC.
http://palleschultz.dk/?p=1096

I shoot RAW+JPEG, then process the RAWs and compare the result with
the
out of camera JPEG. Sometimes the processed RAW is better, sometimes
the
out of camera JPEG. But please note that I have spent some time
finding
the optimal out of camera JPEG settings.
For the most part I also shoot RAW+JPEG these days. However, to say
that
one is better than the other you have to consider that usually the RAW
file

is going to need some degree of post processing before a true
comparison
can be made. There is a place for both, especially when you need camera
original JPEGs for immediate sharing, or for the pro/am PJ’s,
submission to AP or Reuters. The RAW files will always give you a wider
margin when it comes to PP, but many times, as you stated, you can get
great JPEGs SOOC. The important thing is you know what settings you
need
to make with your camera to obtain JPEG images you are satisfied with
SOOC.
In this respect my Fujifilm X-E2 is far more flexible than my D300S, in
that I can fine tune my JPEG captures with exposure push/pull, WB, NR,

Highlight tone, Shadow tone, Sharpening, Aspect Ratio, Film simulation
(Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, Pro Neg Hi, Pro Neg Std,
Monochrome, Monochrome+Yellow filter, Monochrome+Red filter,
Monochrome+Green filter, and Sepia. It is something else I am
experimenting with, but I am no ready to abandon RAW, it meets my needs
to have something to tinker with.

Today there are a whole bunch of Fuji X shooters foregoing RAW and
shooting JPEG only, with a many of those choosing to get their files
SOOC. I am not one of those.
You could actually do the same (or at least most of it) with your
ancient D300. You could create your own picture controls using free
software on a (hopefully well calibrated) PC (or download those made by
others - including twee "velvia" or whatever film emulation you wanted),
name them, share them, and upload them to the camera and use them for
default jpeg rendering (including the preview embedded jpeg in the *.nef
file).

Personally, with both the D70 and D300S I explored those adjustments and
they
are not particularly pleasing, or simple to implement. The best that could
be
said is they are somewhat unpleasantly crude, and change the appearance of
the JPEG in-camera. Not even close to the Fuji X-System. I would rather
shoot
RAW. Also as another personal note, I don’t particularly like the over
saturated Velvia or attempts to emmulate it.

The Fuji implementation for in-camera JPEG adjustment is a different animal
to that used by Nikon.

A glorious waste of time of course, as even if you could be bothered to
create a number of picture control profiles, you'd be wasting more time
menu diving selecting the appropriate picture control. If you're that
particular, then raw is the best option anyway.

For the D300S and the D70 agree completely, it is not worth the effort,
rather shoot RAW and be done with it. However, Fuji makes this less of a
kludge with their “Q� menu which provides 7 presets accessible without
menu diving.

BTW: Here is another take on the Fuji in-camera JPEG settings:
http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotogra...xamples-of-my-
fuji-jpeg-settings-in-action

and this:
http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotogra...i-x-in-camera-
settings

--

Regards,
Savageduck