Postprocessing, SOOC, and shooting film

[DanK]

I have no desired to persuade anyone to do photography as I do, but some recent posts about postprocessing, shooting SOOC, and shooting film led me to organize my own thoughts about the role of postprocessing. So I may just be talking to myself, but perhaps this will spark some interesting discussion.

First, some posts say, in effect, 'I don't postprocess (much or at all) because I was used to shooting film.' So, did the great film photographers not postprocess? There are some photographic media that don't allow processing after initial development--in the semi-modern era, most notably slides--but in fact, many of the greats did extensive darkroom work to make the final image look different from the original. Ansel Adams used to say that "the negative is the score; the print is the performance." His own darkroom work was often quite complex, and it was not just a matter of manipulating tones; he even removed things. For a great example, watch this video: https://www.shutterbug.com/content/watch-ansel-adams-son-discuss-how-his-father-made-his-most-famous-photo-video.. The title is self-explanatory. Toward the end, Ansel's son Michael returns to this point and he shows the original photo--the simple reversal of the negative--to the final print. He also shows a large chart that was Ansel's plan for postprocessing, most of which I (and his son) couldn't interpret.

When I did my own wet darkroom work, I did some of what would now count as postprocessing, but it was pretty simple stuff, just straightforward dodging and burning.

So, what's different with digital? The obvious one is that postprocessing is enormously easier, and the range of what one can alter is orders of magnitude greater. However, there is another difference that I think is more fundamental: there is no original image. In earlier photographic systems, a blind developing process always produced a visible image--either a negative or a positive. In digital, the initial capture doesn't. Even in generating a 'neutral' image from the digital capture, someone has to make decisions about how the image is rendered. And I don't think I have ever seen anyone deliberately display a "neutral" or a "faithful" image; when people display SOOC images, they usually are selecting a picture style that determines the postprocessing changes made by the camera's computer. They are postprocessing, but asking someone else to make the decisions. That's often a perfectly reasonable thing to do, but that doesn't alter the fact that a decision has been made about postprocessing.

So, where does that leave me? My own tastes run strongly toward realism--e.g., highly detailed macros. I dislike many of the unrealistic genres I see, e.g., highly tone-mapped HDR. And I was initially daunted by postprocessing because the seemingly endless array of techniques and the time required to sort through them to find what I wanted and practice it. Nonetheless, I find postprocessing an absolutely essential part of the process, and I virtually never shoot jpeg. In some cases, the changes I make from the initial LR rendering are so small that I might has well have used a picture style and shot jpeg to get my processing done. Other times, no jpeg would have come close, and postprocessing gives me the pleasure of seeing the image at least approximate what I want.

Despite decades of shooting film (I started doing darkroom work in 1968), I wouldn't consider not doing my own digital processing. I have no interest in extreme stuff, but the fact that I can now do so much more than simple dodging and burning is a pleasure. I have prints hanging on my walls and others' that would have been trashed without it.

Just my perspective. To each her or his own. However, I do bristle a bit when someone implies that shooting SOOC and making use of another person's predetermined processing recipe is somehow purer photography.

[Tringa]

My experience from developing and printing B&W many years ago (I never got to developing and printing colour) to the current day is very similar to your own and I agree with your views.

I shoot in RAW and have all of the presets in the camera set to neutral/zero, although even these settings must have an effect on the image, well the presets that alter RAW files and, if I'm honest, I don't know which settings have an impact and which do not.

Very rarely does the processing of one of my digital images salvage a poor shot. As the saying goes, 'you can't make a silk purse out of.... etc', but every shot has some processing.

I think some who claim their shots are SOOC and therefore they do not do any processing are just unaware that the camera's software has made some decisions for them.

Dave

[tbob]

My attitude has changed over the past decade. I started out with minimal processing simply because I did not enjoy the time spent processing, mainly because I did not have mastery of the tools. Consequently it was a time consuming and frustrating effort. One day I took some advice and learned what each tool did and how they interacted. Not a process I enjoyed but after several weeks I suddenly had intent and control. Much more rewarding and now I enjoy the processing as I can do some artistry.

I was never a "purist" about SOOC. I do not understand why it is even regarded as superior to processing. As you pointed out all digital images are processed; either by me or some technician in the factory.

[Donald]

A good opening post and one of worthy of reading.

Indeed, all those who aim for purity and say they just accept what comes out of the camera don't seem to realise that what they get is not what the camera took, but is what the camera took and then processed.

The term post-processing has come in for some criticism. Post-what? It is not processing after anything else, it is processing the image for the first time. The term 'finishing' has been offered as one term that explains what we are doing. I find the term 'finishing' much more suitable. Capturing the photo is one part of image-making, finishing it the second part.

Ansel Adams is cited by Dan. His most famous work is Moonrise, Hernadez, New Mexico. To see the negative of that is to look at something that is completely different to the image that the world has come to know. He finished (post-processed) the image in the darkroom.

People who adopt a superior stance by saying they only use images SOOC are really saying that they don't know how the making of an image really works and/or they don't know how to finish an image.

[billtils]

Totally agree with Dan. I posted a thread here a while back on the origin of halos in some shots and as a result switched off as much as I could in the camera (and have no intention of going back), but what is downloaded will always have had something done to it. In a way, SOOC is correct - what your processing software works on is indeed straight from the camera, just not unprocessed at some point.

Perhaps we should call it ACIC (As Created In Camera) and perhaps a number to indicate the extent of any in-camera processing 😆.

[DanK]

Perhaps we should call it ACIC (As Created In Camera)

Or maybe as APBC: as processed by camera.

[Manfred M]

Dan - this is definitely something that gets debated a lot and I do have mixed feelings on it as I don't feel that this is an easy either or answer.

Like you I started off in the B&W darkroom and was very much someone who would burn and dodge a lot. I also tried some toning as well as tilting my easel to correct perspective distortion. There were times I tried combining using polycontrast filters for different parts of an enlarger exposure to change the contrast in different parts of the print, but that really was the extent of my post-processing work. My colour printing was far less adventurous, probably because of the time and cost involved; I was looking for a "good enough" colour print and my standards were lower than in B&W work.

That being said, the main reason I got into darkroom work was that I was not satisfied with the quality of the prints that I got from the local photo-finisher and I could not afford the services of the custom printers, so I decided to be come my own "custom printer".

Looking at your example of Ansel Adams, he was at the extreme end; he shot and printed his own work and every one of his shots could have been a work in progress and some of his shots were printed hundreds of times; the Moonlight - Hernandez, New Mexico you have referred to as being one that feel into that group.

Yousef Karsh, on the other hand employed a negative retoucher (something that was quite common practice when shooting with an 8" x 10" camera) and a custom printer.

Henri Cartier-Bresson handed his exposed films over to a lab technician and supposedly paid no attention to the PP side of things at all, although I believe he admitted to cropping one of his image, once.

As I almost always shoot JPEG + raw, I obviously go both ways. When it comes to a pure "documentation" image, I find posting the JPEG is more than adequate and do that all the time. When posting to social media, same thing. Why spend the time and effort on a shot that a very limited number of people are going to glance at once. That means relying on getting it right in camera and using the camera settings to get it "right".

On the other hand, if I am planning to print, then I will take the time and effort in PP to clean up the shot and will work from the raw data. I will spend somewhere between a couple of minutes to several hours on an print, depending on the look I am after. Just like in the wet darkroom, most of my time is spent dodging and burning.

[DanK]

Manfred,

I wasn't suggesting that doing one's own processing (I'm picking on Donald's comment about "post") is something everyone should do. If I did many shots for documentary purposes, I might shoot jpeg occasionally, but I don't do that kind of shooting much, and for that matter, the basics of processing are so quick in LR and so easy to sync to other images that I am not sure there would be much saved time. Other than explaining my own preferences, I am only criticizing the notion that SOOC images aren't processed or that avoiding doing one's own processing--and leaving it to the recipes in the camera--is somehow purer photography.

While I have seen numerous images by Karsh, I have never read anything about what he did or why. However, even apart from their preferences, it's hardly surprising that he relied less on processing than Adams did. Karsh is known for studio portraits, that is, photos taken in a controlled environment in which he could determine the lighting, the background, etc. When Adams jumped out of the car in Hernandez, he couldn't replace the background (the sky) with one that was darker and had less variation in tone (fewer clouds). He had to do that in the processing stage. He also had to make do with the lighting he had, which was changing so quickly that he didn't have time to flip the glass and take a second shot. If you look at the SOOC image, it's so lacking in tonal range and contrast that it would probably never have attracted much attention. With complex processing, he managed to produce an image that many people (he wasn't one of them) considered his best.

I think I first reacted against the 'SOOC is purer' view when I exhibited in a small art show years ago. Not far from my small exhibit--a handful of prints--someone had set up an electronic slide show of a bunch of his images. Some of them looked quite drab to me. Someone looking at the display asked him about his processing, and he said, with evident pride, that he doesn't use anything like photoshop and the the images were straight out of the camera, as if that were some sort of virtue. Of course, he did process them--just using the camera to do it--and in that case, the result of that decision was a bunch of drab images.

[Tronhard]

A lot of people's habits are formed in the early part of their career. From the time I engaged in serious photography I shot transparencies exclusively and I sold them "as was" to clients who picked and chose what they bought and then processed them as to their own choice. I saw a photo of mine in two different publications with totally different finishes. I didn't produce prints myself, although I would get some back from grateful clients - I was too busy on the road (or very much off the road) getting more images. At one point in my career I did shoot for print, but they were forensic images and I was not involved in the printing process - needless to say I didn't keep any either!

Now that I am using digital I have inevitably done some PP, but frankly admit my skills are embryonic - I am striving to learn more. I don't judge others' approach: my only yardstick is whether the resultant image is pleasing to me. I am probably a bit conservative as I am not inclined towards extreme processing, but I accept it as a valid expression of an element of a skill that is not only a science but an art, and that opens up a lot of opportunities and opinions. I do not print (gasp, horror), mostly because I have had to lose too many prints from moving and I prefer the punch of an image that is back-lit rather than reflective. Right now all the space I have is on my computer monitor or TV, but when I can finally get a home built then I will review the situation.

[rpcrowe]

I don't think that the illusory "great SOOC image" will make a person a better maker of pictures. That is what I believe I am, a MAKER, not just a TAKER of images and PP goes a long way in MAKING my images.

[rachel]

I am or have been mainly SOOC, possibly due to lack of skill and patience with editing programs.

Recently I've had more time to play around and have been experimenting with old photos to see what extra detail I can find in them. They were all taken as jpgs, so I'm cheating a bit - I use GIMP to alter the 'exposure' then Corel Aftershot to merge the photos as though they'd been taken at different exposures. I have been astounded at the extra detail I can get this way. I confess that often, comparing the HDR image with the original, it looks overdone (like looking at myself in the mirror with more makeup than I'm used to). If that happens I just layer the two together in GIMP and play with transparency & masks until I get something better than the original but still natural looking.

I still don't like the idea of real manipulation, moving things, pasting things in that weren't there and brushing out what was, but I think using the software to enhance and reveal what is really there is something different.

May start posting some of my efforts so that those with more expertise in processing can help me out....

[xpatUSA]

Pardon me, I am late to the thread and am uncertain as to the meaning of "SOOC" in the thread context, other than, of course, "straight-out-of-the-camera".

Is it the JPEG, the raw, or both?

I find that the actual raw SOOC, opened in RawDigger is both soft and lacking in color. So maybe we could call the initial conversion to RGB "processing" and anything done after that "post-processing" ...

I also know that my proprietary converter applies some defaults e.g. sharpening during raw conversion, the so-called CiC "capture" sharpening. Adding more in post gets you some pretty good halos.

Of, course "most of us" don't use that converter, so it may not be relevant to this discussion.

[Tronhard]

As I have said I don't judge people on whether they do or do not do SOOC. I don't see it should be either a matter of pride or derision, and I see them as neither superior nor inferior. They are what they are - photographers, and as this is an inclusive forum I would hope we just enjoy the fact that we all enjoy the art.

When people on either side of the fence start comparing themselves and feeling superior is when things turn ugly.

[DanK]

Ted,

I've never heard anyone talk about a raw file as SOOC. What people generally mean is that the image, hence a jpeg, not the raw file, is taken from the camera and not further processed. That's certainly what I meant.

Dan

[xpatUSA]

Ted,

I've never heard anyone talk about a raw file as SOOC. What people generally mean is that the image, hence a jpeg, not the raw file, is taken from the camera and not further processed. That's certainly what I meant.

Dan

Thanks for the clarification, Dan; then I guess that "SOOC" includes the Owner's in-camera JPEG settings (color space, compression, color mode, contrast, sharpness, NR, etc). Meaning that one person's "SOOC" is not necessarily the same as another's - even with an identical scene and exposure.

[MrB]

.....I don't judge people on whether they do or do not do SOOC. I don't see it should be either a matter of pride or derision, and I see them as neither superior nor inferior. They are what they are - photographers, and as this is an inclusive forum I would hope we just enjoy the fact that we all enjoy the art.....

This is the very best statement I have ever read on these matters. Thank you, Trev.

Sincerely.
Philip

[xpatUSA]

As I have said I don't judge people on whether they do or do not do SOOC. I don't see it should be either a matter of pride or derision, and I see them as neither superior nor inferior. They are what they are - photographers, and as this is an inclusive forum I would hope we just enjoy the fact that we all enjoy the art.

When people on either side of the fence start comparing themselves and feeling superior is when things turn ugly.

Ah yes, like those who say "I always shoot raw" with a slight head-wobble . .

I only have one caveat with OOC JPEGs. On my cameras, the JPEGs come with chroma sub-sampling, whether I like it or not. Either 4:2:0 or 4:2:2, meaning that some color info is lost, compared with raw.

On the other hand, raw converters offer up to max (often 12) on the JPEG quality slider and that gives you no chroma sub-sampling 4:4:4 and, therefore, no loss of color info.

Which kind your camera gives can be found in the JPEG EXIF if you have a good EXIF reader.

This is a general comment and so it should be of interest to "most of us" ...

[DanK]

then I guess that "SOOC" includes the Owner's in-camera JPEG settings (color space, compression, color mode, contrast, sharpness, NR, etc). Meaning that one person's "SOOC" is not necessarily the same as another's - even with an identical scene and exposure.

Exactly so, which is why I suggested that all digital images we view, SOOC or not, have been processed--either by the camera's software or the user.

As I have said I don't judge people on whether they do or do not do SOOC. I don't see it should be either a matter of pride or derision, and I see them as neither superior nor inferior. They are what they are - photographers, and as this is an inclusive forum I would hope we just enjoy the fact that we all enjoy the art.

Indeed. I hope it was clear that I was not disparaging people who shoot SOOC. My only criticism was directed at people who shoot SOOC and then imply that what they are doing is superior because they supposedly don't process their images--when of course they really are processing their images.

If I shot weddings--which I did once long ago and will never, ever do again--I would probably shoot at least some of the shots SOOC. If you have to turn over a DVD with 600+ photos, time is of the essence.

[Manfred M]

Indeed. I hope it was clear that I was not disparaging people who shoot SOOC.

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

[xpatUSA]

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

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

. . . for what it's worth.