SOOC version vs Final version -- If I could be nikon cafe king for a day

Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
1,431
Location
Alaska
I wish I could force people to post the sooc version of images they post on here...

How often do you look at an image and wonder if it's great PS skills or great photography and lighting skills. And yes, I know it could be both...

It would be nice to know at which point (the sooc version) people started at to make such great images.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
2,073
Location
St Paul, MN
Sometimes I would like to see the unrefined image as well as the manipulated one, as it reveals the internet trend for people to greatly oversaturate and sharpen their images. The saturation thing is getting out of control.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
6,374
Location
Alabama
It would be nice, but the final image is the product. When camera settings can be changed that change color, exposure, etc, SOOC are rather meaningless as a judge of a photographers abilities.

I under or over expose on purposes knowing how it will effect PP and what I can get away with in regards to gaining detail back in the pics on high contrast scenes. With digital photography, both are important. You don't need to see SOOC to see if a photographer has a good eye for composition. PP enhances a photograph, it doesn't make a bad one better.
 
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
1,516
Location
Georgia
I hope that all the pros are not simply relying on PP skills. If they are then that sucks.

I do think that the modern pro photographer is a mix of PP skills and photography skills, and often the PP skill is much higher, but darn.

All the best photos i have seen I like to imagine with little to no PP work. Look at all the years of photographs that are so amazing, that were done on, crap, what was that called? The windy paper stuff... oh right Film.

If perfect exposure/composition/aperture etc is not your goal, then you are just a guy/gal with an expensive camera.

How depressing.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
774
Location
Austin, TX
People need to make sure not to forget the large amount of manipulation that could be done in the dark room too.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
Every image starts as a raw. They get converted to JPG either by a specialized converter inside the camera or by a raw processor on your computer.

Using the "standard conversion" (either in-camera or straight conversion on computer) is like a darkroom process without adjustments. It's not a bad thing, and in most cases the result will be what it is we're after in the first place.

But in some cases extra darkroom work is needed. Less agitation to increase contrast. Maybe developing one minute longer, or at 1C higher temperature to adjust the exposure. And do something similar when developing prints. (Not to mention the choice of film, developer, fixer and paper in the first place). Ansel Adams relied heavily on his darkroom skills to create his images (then again, Henry Cartier-Bresson did not).

Just because digital makes it easier to adjust our image doesn't mean it's a bad thing. And the "hit rate" for great images increases dramatically if you start off with a good image. Photoshop is no replacement for photographic skills but that doesn't mean that one should shy away from it.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
7,873
Location
Paris, France
I hope that all the pros are not simply relying on PP skills. If they are then that sucks.
I can assure you no amount of PPing skills will ever compensate if you're not at the right place, at the right moment right in the action :wink:

All the best photos i have seen I like to imagine with little to no PP work. Look at all the years of photographs that are so amazing, that were done on, crap, what was that called? The windy paper stuff... oh right Film.
That's an illusion. All the photos you've seen were printed so post processed up to a point in the darkroom. You'd want to see a contact sheet to be sure no PPing was done …

Lets not turn this into a film vs digital thing since any medium can be tweaked at some point.
 
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
7,873
Location
Paris, France
Ansel Adams relied heavily on his darkroom skills to create his images (then again, Henry Cartier-Bresson did not).
Cartier-Bresson admitted that his photos didn't interest him once they were taken but in reality he paired up with great technicians (Georges Fèvre and later Pierre Guillemain) who printed out all his photos :wink:
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
6,374
Location
Alabama
Lets not turn this into a film vs digital thing since any medium can be tweaked at some point.
Yep!

PP cannot compensate for a bad image to begin with, but PP can make a great image stunning by chipping away the elements that are not needed or need enhancing.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
16
Location
Cozumel, Mexico
Sometimes I would like to see the unrefined image as well as the manipulated one, as it reveals the internet trend for people to greatly oversaturate and sharpen their images. The saturation thing is getting out of control.
lol I desaturate a lot of my images. To the OP I, as well as a lot of other photographers, shoot in raw format so post processing is pretty much a must. There really is no difference a great image is a great image whether it is "SOOC" or processed. Photographers in the digital age have to learn how to retouch their images.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
SOOC if I understand what you are getting at is a pipe dream. If you shoot jpeg, in camera controls can change the picture dramatically. If you shoot RAW, all Raw converters handle files differently and apply their own settings.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2008
Messages
1,431
Location
Alaska
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
It would be nice, but the final image is the product.
While the final image may be the product, is the product the result of merely good PS skills with an acceptable image or minor PS skills/editing with a fantastic image.

I'm talking about the starting point. Yes, we see the finish point in the finished product, but where was the starting line? A few yards back and the only thing really done was minor WB and Exposure tweaks, or was the starting line 3 miles back and it took the owner a few hours to get to the finish.

Does this make sense?


When camera settings can be changed that change color, exposure, etc, SOOC are rather meaningless as a judge of a photographers abilities.
I strongly disagree.

SOOC version is the primary standard to measure a photographer's abilities.

If you judge a photographer's abilities on the final product, you're taking into account their PS abilities, which distorts one's ability to truly judge photography skills in the first place.

What about a painter? Would we judge a painter's Painting skills on the painted version of his art, or the scanned in and manipulated/post processed version of his painting?
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
16
Location
Cozumel, Mexico
Every image starts as a raw. They get converted to JPG either by a specialized converter inside the camera or by a raw processor on your computer.

Using the "standard conversion" (either in-camera or straight conversion on computer) is like a darkroom process without adjustments. It's not a bad thing, and in most cases the result will be what it is we're after in the first place.

But in some cases extra darkroom work is needed. Less agitation to increase contrast. Maybe developing one minute longer, or at 1C higher temperature to adjust the exposure. And do something similar when developing prints. (Not to mention the choice of film, developer, fixer and paper in the first place). Ansel Adams relied heavily on his darkroom skills to create his images (then again, Henry Cartier-Bresson did not).

Just because digital makes it easier to adjust our image doesn't mean it's a bad thing. And the "hit rate" for great images increases dramatically if you start off with a good image. Photoshop is no replacement for photographic skills but that doesn't mean that one should shy away from it.
QFT. very well said. It seems people are always complaining about retouching photos and how a good photographer should get it "SOOC" I think that as long as the final image is good does it really matter how you got there?
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
3,704
Location
Rockingham, NC (Currently in Afghanistan)
Here, let me be the first to post some before and after shots from 3 of my latest shoots. These are all shots I've posted before, and gotten good reviews from, so this will show what they looked like straight from the camera, and I'm talking as RAW files, not even how the camera processed them. All I did was open the NEF file, and reset any sliders I adjusted back to default, opened the image, resized it, sharpened it for the web and added my logo. Absolutely nothing else done to the Unedited version. My processing is pretty much standard for all my images unless I'm trying some different edgy action. So, the next time you see one of my images, this should give you an idea of how much I've done to it. :wink:

Unedited #1

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Edited

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Unedited #2

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Edited

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Unedited #3

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Edited

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
Maybe you should better define what you mean. Unless someone has added something that wasn't there, you shouldn't need SOOC to decide if the photographer got it right. The basics are there, exposure, DOF, composition, subject etc....
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom