>SOOC photography emphasizes capturing the perfect image in-camera without any post-processing. This approach highlights the photographer’s skill in composition, lighting, exposure, and timing, presenting a more "authentic" or "true-to-life" image that reflects the moment as it happened.

There should be more SOOC threads. Anyone can cheat with post processing! That is why this is a SOOC dump thread. Show me your skill. Only "allowable post processing" is:
>tilting/aligning
>cropping
>size reduction

Anything is cheating and should be called out and the anon autobanned!


P.S why is the metadate gone from /p/?
P.P.S where did anon go that made monthly /p/ contests with themes?

>>4443280 (OP)
fuck off retard

>Skill
>Fucking around with white balance values, DRO settings, etc, just more things to distract from life and photography
>paying thousands of dollars for a camera to use the phone-grade jpeg rendering engine that japs halfassedly build into cameras to tick a feature box
This isn't skill it's a waste of time plus consuming cameras for their jpegs instead of for being better cameras.
>exposure
This doesn't have to do with SOOC, it has to do with camera programming. The correct exposure for the sensor may not render as the correct photo using the camera software simply because digital doesn't work like that. It's not non-linear like film, every photo needs its own curve adjustment, and white balance in digital is a numerical transform that's less tolerant of different lighting than the way white balance works on film.

SOOC jpegs are a regression from shooting film in every single way. Digital NEEDS processed to look its best. Otherwise your nice camera will produce results on par with a nice smartphone, and then floweth forth the cope
"stop noticing things"
or in photographer gear cult speak
"PIXEL PEEPER! NO SOUL!"

>>4443286
>Digital NEEDS processed to look its best.
so does film.

>>4443286
lighting and timing and composition dont have to do with sooc jpegs either, sooc jpegs are the "challenge" of "pre-editing" with garbage fucking software that makes laggy ass lightroom feel like a spaceship. in other words, fucking around with the back screen on your fuji while the world passes you by. how miserable. on film you raise the camera to your eye and take the picture, and kodak's chemistry is so good that no matter the light or scene contrast it'll look good once scanned. film is essentially shooting magical raw files that self-develop into properly edited photos.

> Only "allowable post processing" is:
>tilting/aligning
>cropping
>size reduction
THESE are skill issues. fucking with the DRO and white balance etc etc settings and buying a camera with better jpeg rendering (in other words, a new $2000 one) are not skills. they are stupid wastes of time for techies who enjoy pressing buttons and looking at screens.

framing your shot properly in the viewfinder is a skill.

>>4443288
Film needs processed to have an image at all but if the development instructions are followed, the resulting negative is magically self-developed into a properly edited photo.

Unlike digital which is randomly green/magenta tinted and never gets foreground/sky contrast right because it's a linear digital device with clipping instead of a non-linear analog device that absorbs reality naturally.

>>4443292
dunning kruger

>>4443288

Have you ever directly viewed a slide? It is better than any scan regardless of how much you process it.

>>4443293
>seethe and cope
Film is literal magic. Even the presets on mid tier film scanners consistently get every scene right because the base material is film, which has a versatile response to light. This is not possible on digital. Every digital photo needs precise individual white balance settings and curve adjustments after precise exposure to avoid the clipping point. Serious digital photographers carry gray cards because sometimes, it's not even possible to determine the right WB in post. Film just gets it right. It's the superior technology.

On digital, shooting raw is mandatory, otherwise it's going to look fucked like a phone. Digital photography has always been worse than film.

>>4443293
>film:
>invert negative to film stocks specifications - photo looks good
>expose your slides right - photo looks good
>green tint? magenta tint? that only happens under artificial light
>bright sky, dark land? film just does it, basically can't overexpose, end result clearly shows both realistically
>what's "sharpening"? film doesn't need sharpening because film is always sharp

>digital:
>jpeg is smeary and blotchy, oh sorry you need to use capture one and manually brush over this aliasing instead of smearing the whole image lol
>photo a needs 5600k +1, photo b looks weird and purple unless it's 5400k -0.5, barely anything changed, in natural light
>need to underexpose the fuck out of the foreground to have clouds visible in the sky, if you overexpose the sky random spots turn blue/purple and have jaggies, have to shoot raw or mess with camera jpeg settings on the spot to decide how dark the foreground looks
>sharpening values depend on how strong the light hitting what is because bayer is inherently not sharp and randomly fucks up depending on edge contrast. cloud overhead, 180 sharpening, sun comes out, now it looks like ken rockwell's "work" unless you turn sharpening off

>>4443280 (OP)
SOOC is simply letting the JPEG engine in your camera do the processing. There's no escaping it, you're just letting the camera engineers dictate how your photo comes out.
HOWEVER,
I recently found Canon allows you to custom create picture styles on your PC and upload them to your camera, with heaps of control over the end result, while using a RAW you provide it to tweak things for your liking. I still don't shoot JPEG but if whatever reason I wanted to give photos to friends/family on the spot it at least lets me have more control over the SOOC.
>>4443301
Your overall mantra appears robust and truthpilled, but shooting RAW and spending 5 minutes in post to get everything right isn't exactly a massive undertaking. I enjoy processing as well, so I *do* actually get it if people can't be fucked.

>>4443312
>I recently found Canon allows you to custom create picture styles on your PC and upload them to your camera, with heaps of control over the end result, while using a RAW you provide it to tweak things for your liking. I still don't shoot JPEG but if whatever reason I wanted to give photos to friends/family on the spot it at least lets me have more control over the SOOC.
The built in picture profiles in Canon mirrorless cameras are excellent. I don't need anything else for taking product photography in natural light.

I guess I'll never do this because I only shoot in RAW

>>4443313
its one of those cases where you need to buy a specific camera just to shoot jpeg. sony and nikon jpegs are noticeably lower quality than canon jpegs.

the price is, canon won't let you choose from lenses other than ewaste, dslr, and pro tier, and their bodies are crippled as hard. with prolific reliability issues /p/ is hesitant to mention because it would mess with the brand war clive has been forcing hard since last year.

>>4443280 (OP)
If everyone was restricted to SOOC only then everyone would just be shooting Fujifilm.

>>4443297
>>4443298
>>4443301

please refer to >>4443293