Thoughts on SOOC

In article , Neil
wrote:


Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the dark.

Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

you can use the same filters if you're comfortable with that, or
preferably, make a custom white balance, which will be more accurate.

On 04/03/2016 03:48, Savageduck wrote:
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

http://blog.thomasfitzgeraldphotogra...ings-in-action
(perhaps that link wraps ok)
It's worth a look for entertainment value - because that guy presents a
page full of photos which are underexposed, flat, garbage. There's even
a photo of garbage cans - oops "recycle bins" - which is where all those
photos belong.
He's even watermarked one of those with his signature. He really needs
to find another hobby, or at least to stop pretending that he's got some
skills worth sharing.

Quick(er) menu access to something I'd never use isn't enticing. IIRC
the D70 didn't have the "picture control" presets. You can save
frequently used menu items for quick access in "my menu" or whatever
they call it with the D300 and later. I think it could do much the same
as the adjustments the Fuji does, an extra button press to access the
setting, but whatever - not an interesting feature IMO.
I rarely use the menu in the field - and I'd prefer if it could be
never. Exceptions being to set exposure delay mode if I'm going to use a
tripod, and flash mode - because I almost always use the internal flash
as commander for off-camera flash only, and on rare occasions where I
might want to use it for fill-flash, it's never turned on - and a good
chance I won't remember or notice unless I review the image.

On 3/3/2016 2:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the dark.

Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

you can use the same filters if you're comfortable with that, or
preferably, make a custom white balance, which will be more accurate.

Yes, after 15+ years of professional digital photography, these basic
practices are well-known. If they worked sufficiently, I wouldn't have
mentioned the issue at all.

--
Best regards,

Neil

In article , Neil
wrote:

Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under
differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the
dark.

Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

you can use the same filters if you're comfortable with that, or
preferably, make a custom white balance, which will be more accurate.

Yes, after 15+ years of professional digital photography, these basic
practices are well-known. If they worked sufficiently, I wouldn't have
mentioned the issue at all.

they work quite well, much better than film.

On 3/3/2016 11:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Mar 3, 2016, PAS wrote
(in article ):

On 3/3/2016 9:20 AM, Savageduck wrote:
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.
You've just insulted all the fine hucksters.

Just two, Rockwell and Trump.


Wrong. Trump is not a "fine" anything. It blows my mind that TV
interviewers I thought I respected will ask him a sensitive question. He
responds with a rant consisting of catch phrases from his prior
speeches, and they let him get away with it.

Last Friday I heard Trump denying knowing anything about David Duke and
the KKK. His memory suddenly returned after a few days, and Trump
claimed he would never accept endorsements from David Duke.
His claim that the headpiece caused hearing issues has minimal validity.
The great deal maker is hearing through a faulty speaker, and was too
polite to point that out to the interviewer. Yep! Sure! and some guy I
lent money to forty years ago will thank me for the loan and give me a
Ferrari, as a gift, and nospam and Sandman, will each give every member
of this group a fully paid round the world cruise.

--
PeterN

On 3/3/2016 2:51 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Neil
wrote:


Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the dark.

Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

you can use the same filters if you're comfortable with that, or
preferably, make a custom white balance, which will be more accurate.


Which is why some of the top media photographers prefer film. I guess
they should have consulted you.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under
differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the
dark.

Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

you can use the same filters if you're comfortable with that, or
preferably, make a custom white balance, which will be more accurate.

Which is why some of the top media photographers prefer film.

vague bull**** noted. assuming that's even true (no support given),
they're not doing it for accuracy.

digital is more accurate than film. if you think otherwise, then
provide proof, otherwise you're trolling as usual.

I guess
they should have consulted you.

no need.

unlike lawyers, math doesn't lie.

On 3/3/2016 5:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under
differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the
dark.

Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

you can use the same filters if you're comfortable with that, or
preferably, make a custom white balance, which will be more accurate.

Which is why some of the top media photographers prefer film.

vague bull**** noted. assuming that's even true (no support given),
they're not doing it for accuracy.

digital is more accurate than film. if you think otherwise, then
provide proof, otherwise you're trolling as usual.

I guess
they should have consulted you.

no need.

unlike lawyers, math doesn't lie.


You have one here who says he uses film just for that reason.

BTW while I sometimes use your logic, the difference is that i know what
I am talking about. Tell us, oh great one, whose word would you accept
as proof? Careful, I may know that person quite well. And I will also
require an agreement to confess you are wrong, if i show such proof. We
already have one example where you wouldn't even agree to admit you were
wrong, if I prove it. (plus you must make your next ten posts using
generally accepted capitalization.) But, what else can we expect.


--
PeterN

On 3/3/2016 5:43 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Perhaps the divergence in our viewpoints is attributable to the level of
accuracy we're referring to. My work involves accurate color matching of
products in different lighting conditions, and I find this to be far
more challenging with digital than it was with film.

If you are shooting where color accuracy and color matching under
differing
lighting conditions are critical, you should be shooting WB, and color
reference and calibration shots. Without them you are shooting in the
dark.

Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

you can use the same filters if you're comfortable with that, or
preferably, make a custom white balance, which will be more accurate.

Which is why some of the top media photographers prefer film.

vague bull**** noted. assuming that's even true (no support given),
they're not doing it for accuracy.

digital is more accurate than film. if you think otherwise, then
provide proof, otherwise you're trolling as usual.

I guess
they should have consulted you.

no need.

I agree. they would only have wasted their time.


unlike lawyers, math doesn't lie.


Too bad you don't understand the subject.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


Of course. I don't always have control of the environment, and on
occasion auto WB is of no help. It's at those times that problems that
could be solved with film and filters are not so easy to solve with
digital.

you can use the same filters if you're comfortable with that, or
preferably, make a custom white balance, which will be more accurate.

Which is why some of the top media photographers prefer film.

vague bull**** noted. assuming that's even true (no support given),
they're not doing it for accuracy.

digital is more accurate than film. if you think otherwise, then
provide proof, otherwise you're trolling as usual.

I guess
they should have consulted you.

no need.

unlike lawyers, math doesn't lie.

You have one here who says he uses film just for that reason.

he's doing something wrong and/or doesn't know how to do what he wants
with digital.

BTW while I sometimes use your logic, the difference is that i know what
I am talking about.

not about this you don't, nor do you for many other things.

Tell us, oh great one, whose word would you accept
as proof? Careful, I may know that person quite well.

who cares. just because you know someone doesn't magically make their
opinion valid. if anything, it makes their opinion *less* valid because
you're deliberately not relying on factual data.

the only proof that's necessary is from objective measurements, which
have been done many times over and consistently shown that the colour
accuracy for digital is better than for film.

And I will also
require an agreement to confess you are wrong, if i show such proof. We
already have one example where you wouldn't even agree to admit you were
wrong, if I prove it. (plus you must make your next ten posts using
generally accepted capitalization.) But, what else can we expect.

more trolling.