Very true and I've said this for a long time to my friends. I think that on the camera side, as I understand cameras, it might be even more complex. Each photosite, sometimes called sensel, is to my understanding not even a pixel yet. We have an anlogue charge, that is read out inside the sensor's circuitry, so even before we have all the 0s and 1s we could have different read amplifications and interpretations made by the camera. Then, once we have the digital data, of course we get a lot of mapping going on, ignoring some pixels, not using all the width and length, then we have the bayered digital image and then the debayering happens, etc, etc. To sum it up even at the first layer going from analog to digital the engineers have made choices.
I remember, 50 years ago, developing and printing my own photos, be they paper or transparency, results depended on film stock, how fresh the chemicals were and, for prints at least, how old the paper was and how well the colour analyser was working on the day (or how well I was working, maybe). I embraced digital photography in the early noughties, no editing, just .jpg images. Results were, in general, having photos that looked pretty much as they were taken on the day. Move forward 20 years, my current cameras are much more 'advanced' than that early CCD sensor camera, but need more work, by me, to actually reflect what I saw. Today I use LrC to edit, when the rental I paid Adobe expires next March, I'll be back to Darktable to edit, there are some great teachers out there! SOOC? As you said, it depends on the software engineer who wrote the camera firmware, but results can be very good. (plus, of course, the screen the photos are viewed on - most 'ordinary' monitors are far from being colour accurate, often too bright and saturated, as that is what the manufacturers believe the consumer wants)
The only problem I encounter with SOOC photography is when the photographer uses it as a flex, not a creative choice. They wish to convey that they get their photography right in camera and don't need to post-process (the inference being that post-processing is something that less skilled photographers need to do to make up for what they got wrong when they released the shutter). They SOOC-flex of course betrays a lack of understanding on the behalf of the photographer that thinks it makes them look superior.
In most trades and professions, we look at the work and ways of working of the masters that came before us. In photography, intentional post processing has been integral since almost the beginning.
@@viktorpaulsen627And that's fine. I mean whatever floats your boat. I expressed an opinion about something. Not a fact. An opinion. If you don't like post-processing and would rather guess how a photo should look before hand that's your choice. But my opinion is that it should never be used as a way of trying to promote work as being superior in some way. The only thing that makes one photo better than another is the viewers opinion.
1) Even simple C41 process prints could benefit (or be ruined) by film tech and equipment designer. I can't imagine amount of edits in printing of high end commercial or art photography 2) With film, you also greatly depend on manufacturers vision of colour, much more than in digital. Basically, you can think of your film type as a post-production preset. 3) Best way to get good in Get It Right In Camera? Post process you images! It is best way to review your mistakes and correct for them next time subconsciously. 4) SOOC? In my experience, digital cameras algorithms spits out passable colour results (or fail spectacularly), but to get really good shots, you have to post process it anyway. Automatics are overly cautious and too bold in the same time. Phones (especially high end) is better in this regard, but also not perfect.
Those SOOC photos from your childhood WERE manipulated / edited by the photo lab technician operating the machine that made the prints. The only thing that was truly SOOC was the negatives. Though, if your parents shot slide film, then those images would be truly SOOC. (I shot a lot of slide film in the 70s and 80s.) You are correct that people saying they like their photos SOOC are really saying that they are happy with the color science that the manufacturers have "baked" into the camera.
That seems reasonable although i personally don't really think of 'Getting it right' and SOOC as being anything other than part of a linear process - i seek to do the first so that the work required on the out of camera result is minimized: both are always present because i never take 'casual' shots. Time management is part of the reason for this, but pride in the craft of photography is more important. Good thinking and a good vid, anyway - thanks very much - Lkd&Subd. All the best from a cabin in a swamp in a rainforest in New Zealand.
I purely take casual shots, just of my family, and having 2 toddlers I don't have time for post-processing, I like to learn to get exposure just right, currently experimenting with fill flashes. I often put the SD card in my Canon Selphy and almost literally print SooC.
Typically I have to spend a noticeable effort post-processing an image just to get it as good as the jpg from the camera. The camera is doing some things to make it look nice that I can hardly find and reproduce with the sliders in post processing. Then I can start improving it. All of this has a cost: my time. Many hours. I prefer to have as good images from the camera's jpg as possible, then edit just a little bit on the jpgs if any edit at all. SOOC 'means' to save a lot of time and repetitive work.
Very true and I've said this for a long time to my friends.
I think that on the camera side, as I understand cameras, it might be even more complex. Each photosite, sometimes called sensel, is to my understanding not even a pixel yet. We have an anlogue charge, that is read out inside the sensor's circuitry, so even before we have all the 0s and 1s we could have different read amplifications and interpretations made by the camera. Then, once we have the digital data, of course we get a lot of mapping going on, ignoring some pixels, not using all the width and length, then we have the bayered digital image and then the debayering happens, etc, etc.
To sum it up even at the first layer going from analog to digital the engineers have made choices.
Woah! The rabbit hole goes deeper! Thanks for the insight. I'm definitely only scratching the surface.
I remember, 50 years ago, developing and printing my own photos, be they paper or transparency, results depended on film stock, how fresh the chemicals were and, for prints at least, how old the paper was and how well the colour analyser was working on the day (or how well I was working, maybe).
I embraced digital photography in the early noughties, no editing, just .jpg images. Results were, in general, having photos that looked pretty much as they were taken on the day.
Move forward 20 years, my current cameras are much more 'advanced' than that early CCD sensor camera, but need more work, by me, to actually reflect what I saw.
Today I use LrC to edit, when the rental I paid Adobe expires next March, I'll be back to Darktable to edit, there are some great teachers out there!
SOOC? As you said, it depends on the software engineer who wrote the camera firmware, but results can be very good. (plus, of course, the screen the photos are viewed on - most 'ordinary' monitors are far from being colour accurate, often too bright and saturated, as that is what the manufacturers believe the consumer wants)
That's a really good point - the colors will change with every different screen or paper type for prints!
The only problem I encounter with SOOC photography is when the photographer uses it as a flex, not a creative choice. They wish to convey that they get their photography right in camera and don't need to post-process (the inference being that post-processing is something that less skilled photographers need to do to make up for what they got wrong when they released the shutter).
They SOOC-flex of course betrays a lack of understanding on the behalf of the photographer that thinks it makes them look superior.
In most trades and professions, we look at the work and ways of working of the masters that came before us. In photography, intentional post processing has been integral since almost the beginning.
"when the photographer uses it as a flex, not a creative choice". Neither, I use SOOC to save time.
@@viktorpaulsen627And that's fine. I mean whatever floats your boat. I expressed an opinion about something. Not a fact. An opinion. If you don't like post-processing and would rather guess how a photo should look before hand that's your choice. But my opinion is that it should never be used as a way of trying to promote work as being superior in some way. The only thing that makes one photo better than another is the viewers opinion.
Interesting comments... thanks for sharing 👍😃
Thanks for watching - I appreciate the encouragement!
Great video, I hit the subscribe button.
Appreciated!
1) Even simple C41 process prints could benefit (or be ruined) by film tech and equipment designer. I can't imagine amount of edits in printing of high end commercial or art photography
2) With film, you also greatly depend on manufacturers vision of colour, much more than in digital. Basically, you can think of your film type as a post-production preset.
3) Best way to get good in Get It Right In Camera? Post process you images! It is best way to review your mistakes and correct for them next time subconsciously.
4) SOOC? In my experience, digital cameras algorithms spits out passable colour results (or fail spectacularly), but to get really good shots, you have to post process it anyway. Automatics are overly cautious and too bold in the same time. Phones (especially high end) is better in this regard, but also not perfect.
Point 3 is a great one - the feedback loop of doing/fixing something so repetitively in post that you find a way to fix it in pre.
sooc is also an artform, some ppl think a picture's effect is more impressive or more valuable if achived sooc as opposed to through post processing.
Those SOOC photos from your childhood WERE manipulated / edited by the photo lab technician operating the machine that made the prints. The only thing that was truly SOOC was the negatives. Though, if your parents shot slide film, then those images would be truly SOOC. (I shot a lot of slide film in the 70s and 80s.)
You are correct that people saying they like their photos SOOC are really saying that they are happy with the color science that the manufacturers have "baked" into the camera.
Yep. It's similar to the way my clients are happy with the way I baked my processing into their final images.
Canon 5Dc RAW SOOC Faithful picture profile with a slight crop and one click light adjustment on DPP4 results in 10 second photo processing
That seems reasonable although i personally don't really think of 'Getting it right' and SOOC as being anything other than part of a linear process - i seek to do the first so that the work required on the out of camera result is minimized: both are always present because i never take 'casual' shots. Time management is part of the reason for this, but pride in the craft of photography is more important. Good thinking and a good vid, anyway - thanks very much - Lkd&Subd. All the best from a cabin in a swamp in a rainforest in New Zealand.
Yeah - I like how you distilled it to the balance of time management and pride in craft. That's exactly it.
I purely take casual shots, just of my family, and having 2 toddlers I don't have time for post-processing, I like to learn to get exposure just right, currently experimenting with fill flashes. I often put the SD card in my Canon Selphy and almost literally print SooC.
Thank you
You're welcome!
You’re not wrong.
Typically I have to spend a noticeable effort post-processing an image just to get it as good as the jpg from the camera. The camera is doing some things to make it look nice that I can hardly find and reproduce with the sliders in post processing. Then I can start improving it. All of this has a cost: my time. Many hours. I prefer to have as good images from the camera's jpg as possible, then edit just a little bit on the jpgs if any edit at all. SOOC 'means' to save a lot of time and repetitive work.
Well done 👍🏻
Straight out of Camera, while listening to Straight Out Of Compton!… Ahhhh YEAH!… 😎
That's the correct way to do it.