Postprocessing, SOOC, and shooting film

[pnodrog]

I feel the same way about people who shoot raw who and disparage SOOC JPEG shooters. There are quite a few of those too.

I certainly judge thier work as critically as any other (SOOC is not an excuse) but I will disparage anyone who claims it makes the them superior. To use a SOOC image is simply a choice, nothing more.

[Tronhard]

Here's Rockwell's 2009 diatribe on the subject . . .

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

. . . for what it's worth.

KR is always at least entertaining

I liked him when he raved about the Nikon Df!

[Manfred M]

I certainly judge thier work as critically as any other (SOOC is not an excuse) but I will disparage anyone who claims it makes the them superior. To use a SOOC image is simply a choice, nothing more.

I agree 100%.

I don't care if an image is take with a phone, point & shoot, interchangeable lens camera, film or digital. What is important to me is how well the final image works. Period.

[Manfred M]

KR is always at least entertaining

I liked him when he raved about the Nikon Df!

Yes KR does tend present his opinion as being fact, without him ever providing any solid evidence as to how he came to his conclusions. Given his background, I have never quite understood why he does this.

[Tronhard]

There was a proliferation of Macho T shirts about shooting RAW, and I had to laugh when someone modified one to add a little humour to the thing.

[xpatUSA]

So, as regards the lack of response to my post #17, may I take it that "SOOC" shooters don't care too much about the color accuracy of their images?

[Manfred M]

So, as regards the lack of response to my post #17, may I take it that "SOOC" shooters don't care too much about the color accuracy of their images?

It depends on what I am trying to do Ted. In most of my photography, I am trying to create an emotional response from the viewer, so I try to create a mood. In those cases colour accuracy is something that really doesn't matter as much to me, but rather the impact that those colour / tonal choices bring to the image.

If I were trying to do a documentary shot of a bird, animal, flower, etc, then colour accuracy would be more important. I generally don't do that type of photography I don't get too hung up on colour accuracy.


If I am shooting a classic portrait, I try to be close on the colours. I will generally shoot a grey card and use it to set my initial white balance, but will usually warm the subject up by around 5% because people tend to look better that way than being precisely neutral.

[Tronhard]

So, as regards the lack of response to my post #17, may I take it that "SOOC" shooters don't care too much about the color accuracy of their images?

I'm not sure if you're seeking to poke for a reaction, but I think that is drawing a VERY long bow on that statement.

How do you define colour accuracy? For colour accuracy to be maintained you would have to ensure that you know the colour spectrum being captured, so photographing a colour reference card in the same conditions would be good. Then process (your assumedly RAW image) with software using the correct plug-in, on a monitor that is calibrated to the right colour spectrum and then on a printer (if you are going to print) with the appropriate colour compatibility - even the paper can make a difference. The light you view the image under could alter things too, or even a colour cast in the glass if you frame it. If you view it on another monitor most likely it will look slightly different because not two manufacturers produce exactly the same results, likely even individual displays.
ANY one of those would cause a variation in the colour rendition. So how far does this go?

[xpatUSA]

It depends on what I am trying to do Ted. In most of my photography, I am trying to create an emotional response from the viewer, so I try to create a mood. In those cases colour accuracy is something that really doesn't matter as much to me, but rather the impact that those colour / tonal choices bring to the image.

If I were trying to do a documentary shot of a bird, animal, flower, etc, then colour accuracy would be more important. I generally don't do that type of photography I don't get too hung up on colour accuracy.


If I am shooting a classic portrait, I try to be close on the colours. I will generally shoot a grey card and use it to set my initial white balance, but will usually warm the subject up by around 5% because people tend to look better that way than being precisely neutral.

Thanks Manfred for confirming that ""SOOC" shooters don't care too much about the color accuracy of their images" .

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred for confirming that ""SOOC" shooters don't care too much about the color accuracy of their images" .

I think you mis-read what I said.

I suggested that it depends on what the shooter is trying to do, with my personal approach as an example. A more accurate observation is that one specific SOOC shooter (me) usually is not too concerned about absolute colour accuracy.

As I am a JPEG + raw shooter, you could also infer that raw shooters don't care much about colour accuracy either.

Let me go a step further, as I will often colour grade and image to create a mood, so I will handle the highlights and shadow details differently, rather than having a uniform colour cast.

[xpatUSA]

I'm not sure if you're seeking to poke for a reaction, but I think that is drawing a VERY long bow on that statement.

Was not "poking for a reaction". Sounds to me like you're not too familiar with the many, many varieties of JPEG quality.

How do you define colour accuracy?

If I shoot a color-checker card, I expect that the output image gives me exactly the same readings as the L*a*b* readings for each patch as stated in the leaflet that came with the card. Of course, that never happens. So now we get into "just noticeable differences" . . .

For colour accuracy to be maintained you would have to ensure that you know the colour spectrum being captured, so photographing a colour reference card in the same conditions would be good. Then process (your assumedly RAW image) with software using the correct plug-in, on a monitor that is calibrated to the right colour spectrum and then on a printer (if you are going to print) with the appropriate colour compatibility - even the paper can make a difference. The light you view the image under could alter things too, or even a colour cast in the glass if you frame it. If you view it on another monitor most likely it will look slightly different because not two manufacturers produce exactly the same results, likely even individual displays.
ANY one of those would cause a variation in the colour rendition. So how far does this go?

Thank you again for a big lecture on color accuracy. Unfortunately, I don't print. May have mentioned that before ....

[Tronhard]

What happens if I shoot monochrome or, if you will, B&W?

[Tronhard]

Was not "poking for a reaction". Sounds to me like you're not too familiar with the many, many varieties of JPEG quality.

If I shoot a color-checker card, I expect that the output image gives me exactly the same readings as the L*a*b* readings for each patch as stated in the leaflet that came with the card. Of course, that never happens. So now we get into "just noticeable differences" . . .

Thank you again for a big lecture on color accuracy. Unfortunately, I don't print. May have mentioned that before ....

Ted, I was asking you about your definition of "colour accuracy", which you have failed to address. As regards using monitors, if you did mention it I'm afraid it didn't rank high in my list of things to remember. In that case the comment I made about colour accuracy in monitors is even more valid Ted. There are many purists who will give you a lecture on the failings of screens to render accurate tone and colour - but don't worry, as I am one who doesn't print either I shall refrain from doing so.

[xpatUSA]

I think you mis-read what I said.

Yes, probably so, I took your post as referring to "most people", sorry.

I suggested that it depends on what the shooter is trying to do, with my personal approach as an example. A more accurate observation is that one specific SOOC shooter (me) usually is not too concerned about absolute colour accuracy.

OK

As I am a JPEG + raw shooter, you could also infer that raw shooters don't care much about colour accuracy either.

I could?

[xpatUSA]

Ted, I was asking you about your definition of "colour accuracy", which you have failed to address.

I said: "If I shoot a color-checker card, I expect that the output image gives me exactly the same readings as the L*a*b* readings for each patch as stated in the leaflet that came with the card."

Do you have a color-checker card?

Did it come with a list of color data for each patch?

Any idea why it has such a list?

As regards using monitors, if you did mention it I'm afraid it didn't rank high in my list of things to remember.

(sigh)

In that case the comment I made about colour accuracy in monitors is even more valid Ted. There are many purists who will give you a lecture on the failings of screens to render accurate tone and colour - but don't worry, as I am one who doesn't print either I shall refrain from doing so.

Sounds like you're a member of the "have you calibrated your monitor" crowd.

Unfortunately, for that POV, I examine the image file data which is independent of what the monitor presents to my eyeballs, sorry.

No need to come back with more misunderstanding of what I wrote. "Color accuracy" is a huge subject and this thread is not the place to discuss it.

[Tronhard]

I said: "If I shoot a color-checker card, I expect that the output image gives me exactly the same readings as the L*a*b* readings for each patch as stated in the leaflet that came with the card."

Do you have a color-checker card?

Did it come with a list of color data for each patch?

Any idea why it has such a list?



(sigh)



Sounds like you're a member of the "have you calibrated your monitor" crowd.

Unfortunately, for that POV, I examine the image file data which is independent of what the monitor presents to my eyeballs, sorry.

So according to what I understand from what you are saying... you use a colour check card on [ALL?] your images. It must take you a long time to take photos of wildlife.
Ignoring your dismissive tone...

My point is this. You have a definition of colour accuracy that you are comfortable with - fine. It works for you but I have POLITELY tried to point out that there can be many variables on the road to that place.
When taking a photo of a wild animal I generally don't have a lot of time to hold up a colour calibration card. Street photographers probably have the same issue.

Accepting that you have the time to do that as you say, you also say that you colour check according to your file data that that is irrelevant to what your eyeballs see. But if your eyeballs are going to see something then you will need a device to display the image and that is when some of the variables I listed come into play. You say you don't print, so that leaves us with displaying on a digital device, yet you are dismissive of calibration of such a device.

Am I missing something here?

[DanK]

"Color accuracy" is a huge subject and this thread is not the place to discuss it.

Have to agree with that.

If in post 26, you had written something like "may I take it that APBC shooters, if they are satisfied with their images, are also satisfied with whatever color rendering is produced by the camera's recipe", it would have been on topic. Unfortunately, the thread meandered off topic after 26.

Keep in mind that people who shoot raw are not necessarily aiming for perfect color accuracy (whatever that may be) either. I virtually always shoot raw, but I often don't accept the WB I get from a neutral card, and I don't even own a color checker. The issue isn't "accuracy." The issue is whether you want the camera to do the processing, using a preprogrammed recipe, or you want to take more control and do it yourself.

[NorthernFocus]

I've got an interesting question for the SOOC "purist". I shoot RAW 100 percent of the time. However last week I found myself in a situation such that I had the need to upload images directly from my camera to the internet (via cell phone) without the benefit of post processing that I would normally do. To accomplish this I utilized the feature in my Nikon camera that allows in camera processing of RAW files and produces jpeg output files. The method of processing is to choose the same "picture control" settings that are used when shooting jpeg. The only difference is that the picture control settings are applied to the RAW files after the fact rather than at time of capture. So is the resulting jpeg image still considered SOOC? Is it legitimate for me to now point at those images and proudly proclaim that they are SOOC?

[pnodrog]

Dan, if it makes you happy I willingly accord you with all the extra respect that I give to any SOOC shooters....

[NorthernFocus]

Dan, if it makes you happy I willingly accord you with all the extra respect that I give to any SOOC shooters....

I'm hearing the words but somehow not feeling the love...