# SOORC Challenge!



## Ysarex (Jan 9, 2015)

That's Straight Out Of Raw Converter. Absolutely no editing permitted. Just load that raw file and press the default profile.

Can you do it? Are you a good enough photographer to kick that camera JPEG processing crutch? Think you can bring back a proper exposure without chimping that camera JPEG. Duct tape over your LCD -- DO IT!

Can you shoot without that massive pile of built-in camera software backing you up? No ADL? No HTP? No Auto DR? No scene modes? No film simulations? Can you be a real photographer and not a chimp?

Just you, the camera, and the sensor -- hardcore! 

I'll start:

Joe


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 9, 2015)

Nice Joe. Sounds like a fun challenge, Can mine be a full frame shot of an 18% gray card?


----------



## bribrius (Jan 9, 2015)

if that isnt edited than how did it get a frame?


----------



## jake337 (Jan 9, 2015)

Shitty that my PC is out of commission at the moment.   I don't use ADL, No HTP(not even sure what this is), No Auto DR, scene modes,  or film simulations anyways.

I wonder what the best way to emulate raw in a custom picture setting.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 9, 2015)

I don't know how to understand this thread except as satire.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 9, 2015)

i shot this early today just randomly for kicks does it count?


----------



## bribrius (Jan 9, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I don't know how to understand this thread except as satire.


it is, just go with it....


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

photoguy99 said:


> I don't know how to understand this thread except as satire.



You got that -- I wasn't too subtle then?

Joe
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just running into too much of the SOOC ignorance and foolishness lately and had to vent a little. The other thing that happened recently was an encounter I had concerning Adobe's (LR) tendency to display a default rendering on the flat side. Just because Adobe does it that way doesn't mean Moses had that at the bottom of the list as #11. I can't tell you how many photographers I've met now who actually believe that a raw file is by nature "flat and dull" because that's their experience using LR and they can't figure out that what they're first seeing is a software interpretation. I've actually had photographers tell me that a raw file default-opened in LR is how a raw file looks unedited.

In digital photography there is no special default rendering that can be referenced as non-interpreted (unless you want to see it without a tone curve and the CFA still in place). So I showed this photographer how C1 and or in the above case RT produce very different default renderings of the same file compared with LR -- all, including SOOC, just different software interpretations. RT's default for the above file just happens to come out looking pretty good (my version is better).

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

jake337 said:


> Shitty that my PC is out of commission at the moment.   I don't use ADL, No HTP(not even sure what this is), No Auto DR, scene modes,  or film simulations anyways.
> 
> I wonder what the best way to emulate raw in a custom picture setting.



emulate raw?

Joe


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 10, 2015)

Raw, straight out of the camera. Ok, I added a touch of green


----------



## jake337 (Jan 10, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Shitty that my PC is out of commission at the moment.   I don't use ADL, No HTP(not even sure what this is), No Auto DR, scene modes,  or film simulations anyways.
> ...



Not sure how else to put it.   I wish my camera would be able to display the raw file with no picture setting but it can't.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

Rick58 said:


> Raw, straight out of the camera. Ok, I added a touch of green




You can actually look at a raw file as an image prior to any software processing beyond the A/D conversion applied to the sensor signal. To show that here I have to at least convert the photo to a JPEG. Raw files are in fact green because there are two green filters for every one red and blue filter. Really SOOC for the above image looks like this:





Anything beyond that is some form of software processing and interpretation. I also re-sized it to show here. If you look at the original full-size and enlarge it you can see the CFA still in place. For curiosity here it is: SOOC.JPG

Joe


----------



## jake337 (Jan 10, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know how to understand this thread except as satire.
> ...



What do you mean by SOOC ignorance and foolishness? Just wondering.  The only reason people think raw files are "dull" is because we can't see what the file looks like while our in the field.   Our cameras only show us the image with a picture setting.


----------



## Rick58 (Jan 10, 2015)

Not to split hairs Joe, but you did say "absolutely no editing", so lets see it NOT converted to a jpg


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

sounds like you are back to the same ole argument joe. As the camera does minimal processing equivilent to minimal dark room processing  just required to produce a image, it is the same as extensive post processing which would be the equivalent of extensive dark room editing. so basically we are right back to discussing degrees of post processing. whats the point? shooting sooc jpeg is about the closest thing i can find to instant film or dropping off the rolls to be developed but some are okay with that. If you notice my adjustments in the metadata, if you understand how it will be rendered and adjust as such you are still engaged in photography by controlling that outcome of rendering to a degree.


----------



## jake337 (Jan 10, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Raw, straight out of the camera. Ok, I added a touch of green
> ...



Well ****, now I'm glad my camera doesn't show me the "true" raw file as photography would not be as fun.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

Rick58 said:


> Not to split hairs Joe, but you did say "absolutely no editing", so lets see it NOT converted to a jpg



I can't post a TIFF file here on TPF. You'll have to stop over and I can show it to you. Raw files are actually saved in a format very much like a TIFF file.

Joe


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

SOOC vs not. Photoshop or not. Cropped or not.

These are all process. Process does matter, make no mistake. But it matters _to you._


----------



## snowbear (Jan 10, 2015)

I used Notepad.  It won't all fit, but it starts like this:

MM *   þ                 x    0            8  
  L   ½h             x    á    X    `    (    1  
  h2    tJ    ˆ    ‡i    Ô    À’              NIKON CORPORATION   NIKON D40     ,    ,   Ver.1.11    2014:12:11 16:08:45  žh žà         ÿ           ÿ           ÿ   2014:12:11 16:08:45  ‚š    P‚    Xˆ"        `    t’ 
     ˆ’    ’    ’      ’         ’
     ˜’| ¹Œ  Ü’†   ,   ’   30  ’‘   30  ’’   30  ¢    £       £     £    Ì¤    ¤      ¤      ¤    Ô¤   K  ¤      ¤    ¤      ¤       ¤
     ¤              
  X   8  
2014:12:11 16:08:45 2014:12:11 16:08:45            
  ô  
I                                                                   # ' * . 2 6 : > B F J N R V Z _ c g k o s x | € „ ‰  ’ – › Ÿ £ § ¬ ° µ º ¿ Ã È Ì Ñ Õ Ú ß ä è í ò ÷ û
"',16;?DINSX]chmrw|†‹•š ¥ª¯µº¿ÄÉÎÔÙÞãéîóøþ    #).38>CINSX^cinty~ƒ‰Ž”™Ÿ¤©®´¹¿ÄÊÏÔÙßäêïõúÿ
$*/5:?DJOUZ_djoty„‰Ž”™ž£¨³¸½ÂÇÌÑÖÜáæëðõúÿ    "&+05:?CHMRW\`einsx|…ŠŽ“—œ ¥©®²·»ÀÄÉÍÑÕÚÞâæëïó÷ûÿ#'+.26:=ADHKOSWZ^adgknrux{‚…ˆ‹Ž’•˜›ž¡¤§«®±´·º½ÀÃÆÉÌÏÒÕØÛÞáäçêíðóöùüÿ"%(+.1469<?BEHKMPSVY\^adgiloruxz}€ƒ…ˆ‹Ž“–™›ž¡¤¦©¬¯±´·º¼¿ÂÅÇÊÌÏÒÕ×ÚÜßâåçêìïòõ÷úüÿ
!$&)+.0369;>@CEHJMORTWY\^acfhkmpruwz|„†‰‹Ž“•˜šŸ¢¤§©¬®±³¶¸»½ÀÂÅÇÉËÎÐÓÕØÚÝßâäæèëíðòõ÷ùûþ
!$&)+-/2479;=@BEGIKNPRTWY\^`begiknpsuwy|~€‚…‡‰‹Ž’”—™› ¢¤¦©«¯²´¶¸º¼¿ÁÃÅÈÊÌÎÑÓÕ×ÙÛÞàâäçéëíïñôöøúüþ


----------



## snowbear (Jan 10, 2015)

and ends like this:

„q‘U*ÕÍ¾Eâl'RžŽhJ‚È²©@åjÆ©}‹]Ï1d÷65
Ô|-TjÕ"e¤Æ'J¨ºfê±{-$QÄÕN½RD.¾å•$FýÓ¼¡åHâ5O
©VS2™ÚÔÉ!    Ú÷G+^¥Æ¼˜ƒÂUKJ9Õ8ò¤é¼Ú†•8ëì‘Õ]ˆ‹J¶ënê±ãÓ²±Ô*—Y„¢ÕIýÖTý]Hçl/qJBÕÆè«ÖJå’@‘o_c
(Ž¨¹î¸´¬«s¤W µS¬ÙP–ËéÏÝ¤Õ§ù«ÕRjªyŠq³4¡ž8‘+Š¸eÇNB¨xSŽ´ÆoÕÉF¾³Ì±çiê2óÊõ´éÝb$F©ú.âuo «iöÍ¡}‘ý&¿Ã|£Ì m¢*&‘;Šú™«%$´z~4Í¨ú¢~«m"•\"ÐGnˆÑ‹«ª^v©Ìy›1Ô¤^H®¬6šîê~ã÷ã>ã½CëQR[œ¢¾‘B¤Œ¸ÃO0Ú†Ô+@‘{AÞ £Ž«B„’±ì,EÒNñ*ª¦RÛO+H0Òt|—>B¨V)ŽÎ¼ò…‰‡4¹36ñj"HI&.]=Xú–Øê«SÑ—òõÍlZWÚlŠ£]&ßšh…§»õªtKß¢«UË0¬žF®ýòdï®e+Uëx…ç‘¹VP•S¡z»Ãüe¡Jq;”n½QGÙePÀÎ˜QÛ0óV°—ßNí[r„¯|ýS¡»èž ÒqrŠù•J
Lqh>º™O*êui^ŠEw]Oâ)Òº¶Ï¬
íÐ=U•H¦£Ø"¹8õ¤E§tŠ±ÉzÕ?Y¿œ" pz‘L‰rDªW¨a¥¦åÞP·IGnâ¦[õº¥ åî°XäV³ŠÒ½_ëŽ¤§/«¢ªþ¨§“ WDuRBÃÝP™[ã8Qñ©Ò¬9V©åµbÈP««Ñ6m§ØÅ~FóþeA£lÛŸy€·uQGP|» ”¡!"¤k‰    ¯fµó    z·JÑ”l(£I”Û¯§Gâ4Q¤¶¹”ï'ë–^Âk2I¶Z²šòŠõ©VT¹ïQÕb?Z¾>Ž]eÙ}c    ýDLZ9õ(Z²{½{!(èÔõPê¦S¥NRëÃümEûæ©ÖTyŽ]Û#lR¦V±”Ýs‰øNƒÐ¨ Ý“yE^¿[u*5N-m5ÙTF 6ÍZT•£Kert\ój|ûm7cÒ/u†lÏ—Õ:«¬V…:5]äŽy:7    Ð?O¶Ò¦!\ú7H+U!Ñ–¨sDÆq`Äµu‰šªå,ó•LýRSÏ41I5ÖB‘µJYt—›fÍ0¥º»f(ß]UÄ}V¥+.,QT)³ÕaÎ6Ò¾ŽT•Ói†Ô’Ñ¹GÔVWÈœRËýJâE¤ªŽ‹¸-»:O¢qkVq;\AE¾§=æß\âT®^ÈÛCâv×ãw}¯!xÈÑJÖù’,0â®‹`ó—*IGßíPÙJ:<·”Crƒ*I¦ÓQG’ÑÖT8z‚TâëuË†hÓ§pŠtN+JÍ”*SÄ¬I0çàÕÔL^ÈØdI^ÍáF¨½›,i®²ï.±´ŒhŠ·“„ñÞ%D¤n‡®rÜ¢öÁ/¸ôJ'LÒ’oÂâ6¯]ëÃ*+Î¡N·•"B‰SÏªNÚ’BGHoN
mæ.¹”ÍêFÐ‹}žª"óm%fìÒèÔ)ms"úåˆ¾0}”¯àÖÈHºÈSØx¢e_FÅ[éÅýÀÉWºã‰Ü}¤l—|FÔ¶Ú.ªZ]R(HÁKŽJ¸²A÷óÊ›ëånò"âE.UÛ7ë´RûÍ©rÜuMè:®'ò…J9õilžªúZ‘ÉÔ+§,Ê·,0ARK×˜F¾ÉWÙ¦N™z‡¼•«§å*¹SJÂFÛ\ê/ó, *®–å†ò½R’é[/äÕQŠŒ²nd}zâŽ¤«4"Ûv«ÏVéÙX×TµK´‚ï*m
Ö•(Í”(s©†\Ê6•2¡ÿ#nÏ>šÊÙ«#UÙ:ëUÛ&ó¯:Ï’%]ÎZÜc¬³EVŒ©÷ÝqM…´@se%H©B%«P²úU$lŸñ7H¼ÓV£)È¾œ{D.û||JS•NA¤¨Ó¨R×Xê„Š:Ç^í”Qäu(g2Â‡R)V‰åU‹uYJ¦ÈìA{I;dv4ÊY²ÆÐ&Ân6Ón£±|ê7—§kË•"eCtDë¯ã”,òÚ Kç¸Ñ+³VëWùÇpšT‹ÿ


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

jake337 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



Very often when I encounter the acronym SOOC it's presented with claims like "no post processing" and attitudes like "I got it right in camera" without having to rely on software processing when of course what they did was rely on the software processor embedded in their camera.

For example we can't take a photo with any digital camera without choosing a WB setting. That's not processing when done using the camera software, but if we load a raw file in a raw converter and set the WB it is processing? All digital photos are software processed. How is the version produced using the camera's embedded software not processing but the version produced from LR is processing?

Joe


----------



## snowbear (Jan 10, 2015)

Even in the film word, if you can see the image, it has been processed and is not truly SOOC.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

bribrius said:


> sounds like you are back to the same ole argument joe. As the camera does minimal processing equivilent to minimal dark room processing  just required to produce a image, it is the same as extensive post processing which would be the equivalent of extensive dark room editing. so basically we are right back to discussing degrees of post processing. whats the point? shooting sooc jpeg is about the closest thing i can find to instant film or dropping off the rolls to be developed but some are okay with that. If you notice my adjustments in the metadata, if you understand how it will be rendered and adjust as such you are still engaged in photography by controlling that outcome of rendering to a degree.



Yeah, I know this goes around a lot -- I just had, like I said, another encounter that got me to vent a little with the satire there.

Your analogy of SOOC JEPGs to dropping off film at the photo hut is, I think, very good. I use the same analogy in class. I think the instant film analogy is a little weaker -- as in two different photo huts will give you two different results. I've never said there's something inherently wrong with that. It comes up time and again for me when I encounter misunderstanding about what's taking place.

Joe


----------



## jake337 (Jan 10, 2015)

Fair enough.   When I bring an image into lightroom/CS I'm always doing more than just WB and basic adjustments.  

I guess when I say SOOC I mean no manipulation or extensive post production with layers, etc.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

In film land SOOC means 'straight out of the can' and refers to developed negatives.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

jake337 said:


> Fair enough.   When I bring an image into lightroom/CS I'm always doing more than just WB and basic adjustments.
> 
> I guess when I say SOOC I mean no manipulation or extensive post production with layers, etc.



OK, but what's manipulation? What if I bring a raw file into a raw converter so I can avoid the manipulation that the camera software forces on every JPEG it creates? *In other words I want a photo with less manipulation so I do my own raw processing*. For example let's say you have a Canon camera. You must select a Canon picture style -- this is no "off" option. You can chose from Standard, Portrait, Landscape, Neutral, Faithful, and Monochrome. What's the difference between Neutral and Faithful? Is there an option for not manipulated? Those are all manipulated interpretations -- you have to chose one. Nikon cameras have different manipulations etc. etc..

Right now I'm using a Fuji camera. Fuji is and was first a film manufacturer. So all Fuji camera's come with Fuji film simulations. I can't not use a Fuji film simulation when I process a photo in the camera. I have to chose from Provia, Velvia, Astia, Classic Chrome, ProNeg, and/or Monochrome.

So when I process a raw file it's in part because I want to avoid all that manipulation. I want a photo that's more "true" to what the camera captured.

Joe


----------



## jake337 (Jan 10, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough.   When I bring an image into lightroom/CS I'm always doing more than just WB and basic adjustments.
> ...



Well yes those are basic manipulations.   I'm talking about extensive manipulations that cannot be achieved without post production or pre-production planning.


----------



## jake337 (Jan 10, 2015)

I just wanted to add that I'm not some SOOC snob.   Post production is great and a very important tool.   Sometimes it's fun to try to get the best you can without bringing the files into post while using the cameras picture controls settings add the tools that they are,  simple tools.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jan 10, 2015)

Joe's point is that you can't draw a line. Well, you can, but it's totally arbitrary.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Fair enough.   When I bring an image into lightroom/CS I'm always doing more than just WB and basic adjustments.
> ...


this, is the main part that interest me when doing pp. Making the photos MORE authentic in what is being captured.  i am not very good at that as of yet, i get closer shooting jpeg.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

jake337 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...



Basic versus extensive -- where's the cut-off. If I had to tolerate those Fuji film simulations that Fuji's EXR processor forces on all my camera JPEGs I'd consider the camera unusable -- those forced image manipulations are too extensive for me.

Where's the line get drawn? The software in the cameras is getting more sophisticated. Does SOOC mean it's OK to use Canon's HTP or Fuji's DR expansion mode since they're built into the cameras now? Some cameras have HDR functions built into their image processors now -- that's extensive manipulation. What used to be only possible in post production 5 years ago is turning up in point and shoots right now. Is the line between basic and extensive always moving? If it is then what does it really mean?

Does SOOC for digital cameras mean you can't use any of the cool stuff that's on your cell phone if it shows up on your DSLR?

Joe


----------



## jake337 (Jan 10, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Honestly,  I couldn't tell ya.   I don't use those features and turn off all features that modify the file,  DL lighting,  etc.  I usually use monochrome or neutral picture settings and that's it.  

When I can do everything that is possible in CS6 or other high end programs within my camera I probably won't use a PC at all except when I need a large screen to edit with.

But again, to me,  SOOC is creating an image with your camera without the use of secondary post production.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2015)

jake337 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > jake337 said:
> ...



But everything the camera does after the raw file is created is post production. Is there really a difference in substance -- what's actually done to the photo -- between all these terms; processing, post processing, editing, post production. They're all software processing. Is there a substance difference if they're done in a second by a computer in the camera or in a second by a computer on your desk the next day? If there are differences they're only in common usage. The real substance difference that exists in what can happen to a raw file as it's transformed into a finished photo is whether what's done is automated or under the control of the photographer.

"Post" means after. All digital cameras must run the sensor signal through an A/D converter and create a raw file. I see anything that happens after that as "after" -- "post." And I draw that line there for this reason: To that point you're really dealing with electronic hardware that leaves little to no room for interpretation of the image: raw file created. *No interpretive manipulation has yet occurred.* Beyond this point everything that occurs will be interpretive manipulation. By the time the final JPEG is created dozens of interpretive, manipulative decisions have been made. You're still in control to the extent that you must make selections that alter or shift the software algorithms behavior. You have to select a picture style so you chose "Landscape" on a Canon camera. *There's no way that's not post production -- it's processing that happens after the image is captured.*

So I would describe what your doing as creating an image with your camera in conjunction with the camera's interpretive post production software. I think it's fine to do that -- I'm not saying that's bad but I think it's important to acknowledge the role of the camera's processing software -- the raw file generated by your camera's sensor and A/D converter is getting post processed. You can't create a digital photo without software processing.

So you phrased it as "secondary" post production. Your use of the term "secondary" there then acknowledges the original post production done by the camera software, or does it? That's the issue for me. So often when I encounter people using the SOOC acronym they're claiming the photos aren't processed and it's often explicitly stated or implied that they didn't have to sit at a computer to "fix" them or "photoshop" them.

"Secondary" really connects for me. Avoiding anything secondary is why I make the effort to process raw files. I don't see myself engaged in secondary production at all but rather I'm going back to the point of image origination before any production took place so as to start from scratch and do as little as possible but do it right.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Jan 10, 2015)

sounds to me like joe is a closet purist...


----------

