13 replies to this topic

[Stalking Light]

Strange how some think that sooc is true to the art.

+1. Unless you are shooting film pretty much every "straight out of camera" shot has already been manipulated by your in camera firmware. Post processing just gives *you* more control.

[PaulT]

+1. Unless you are shooting film pretty much every "straight out of camera" shot has already been manipulated by your in camera firmware. Post processing just gives *you* more control.

Not sure that I'd exempt film. I used to choose Agfachrome for fall photos off the Blue Ridge Pkwy because the fall colors were much better than Ektachrome. I used Kodachrome on the Outer Banks in bright sunlight because I thought that was best choice in those conditions. Ektrachrome for bird photos in the woods because I had a chance to get a shot in the lower light.

Each film put its own stamp on the result but which one true?

Paul

[Stalking Light]

You're right about different films, I was just trying to explain that most digital cameras do picture processing internally and the concept of sooc as a purist thing with them isn't valid. Even shooting RAW just gives you the option of changing some in camera adjustments after the fact. And even then you don't capture the sounds, smells and mood, etc., which all contribute to 'true'. 

[iowahiker]

I do use the camera's picture processing, "live" and "vivid", to add color which helped raise the issue of picture brightness.  Adding color with "vivid" made pictures look darker relative to totally auto pictures.  Brightening in "live" did not reduce the difference (software bug?) and so the question became "which is the right brightness?".   

 

This picture has "vivid" added but no brightness added:

 

Edited by iowahiker, 17 February 2016 - 01:28 PM.