SOOC Raw vs SOOC Jpg?

amp'damp'd Registered Users Posts: 59 Big grins
edited June 22, 2009 in Technique
So I have a few friends into photography. I shoot Raw always (preference), often they shoot Jpg. They ask to see my Sooc images, but I think it is unfiar to compare a Raw sooc file to a Jpg sooc. What is the acceptable limit for sharpening/contrast/color mode selection in say Lightroom and still be called sooc? Or am I stuck with having to show Raw images sooc to compare to their sooc jpg?

Sorry if this is a dumb question- who else to ask? LOL Thanks!

Comments

  • pyrypyry Registered Users Posts: 1,733 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2009
    I think that at least Canon's DPP software can match the camera jpg pipeline setting for setting, so if you need accurate conversions, thats the way to go. I would assume other big manufacturers have similar features in their raw conversion tools.

    I'm not certain what the in-camera jpg-settings (depending on parameter sets and all) would look like in Lightroom, but you could produce presets to mimic it by shooting several with raw + jpeg and matching raw to jpeg in LR. There might even be such presets on net.
    Creativity's hard.

    http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited June 18, 2009
    amp'd wrote:
    So I have a few friends into photography. I shoot Raw always (preference), often they shoot Jpg. They ask to see my Sooc images, but I think it is unfiar to compare a Raw sooc file to a Jpg sooc. What is the acceptable limit for sharpening/contrast/color mode selection in say Lightroom and still be called sooc? Or am I stuck with having to show Raw images sooc to compare to their sooc jpg?

    Sorry if this is a dumb question- who else to ask? Laughing.gif Thanks!

    It's not a dumb question, but I'm not sure what purpose the comparison is meant to serve. ear.gif
    My Pics
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2009
    amp'd wrote:
    So I have a few friends into photography. I shoot Raw always (preference), often they shoot Jpg. They ask to see my Sooc images, but I think it is unfiar to compare a Raw sooc file to a Jpg sooc. What is the acceptable limit for sharpening/contrast/color mode selection in say Lightroom and still be called sooc? Or am I stuck with having to show Raw images sooc to compare to their sooc jpg?

    Sorry if this is a dumb question- who else to ask? Laughing.gif Thanks!

    While not entirely accurate, the request is akin to comparing a negative to a finished print. The beauty of RAW is that it's, err, raw, i.e. not ready for delivery, yet holding a lot on information that allows you to achive quite different results off the same source.

    Tell your freinds to grow up and stop their peeing contests... mwink.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • amp'damp'd Registered Users Posts: 59 Big grins
    edited June 18, 2009
    Nikolai wrote:
    While not entirely accurate, the request is akin to comparing a negative to a finished print. The beauty of RAW is that it's, err, raw, i.e. not ready for delivery, yet holding a lot on information that allows you to achive quite different results off the same source.

    Tell your freinds to grow up and stop their peeing contests... mwink.gif

    haha Too funny!

    Thank you for the responses!

    Well we are supposed to share sooc images as much as possible and when I am requested to share a sooc- I get confused because a jpg and raw are 2 totally different file type. And I take my raws and tweak in LR- is that still considered sooc- I mean can I take the label 'sooc' and still use the term truthfully if I bumped up sat, increased contrast, etc?
  • amp'damp'd Registered Users Posts: 59 Big grins
    edited June 18, 2009
    Richard wrote:
    It's not a dumb question, but I'm not sure what purpose the comparison is meant to serve. ear.gif

    The comparison isn't jpg vs raw per se, but since I shoot in raw my 'sooc' images lack snap, contrast, color mode etc and their jpg 'sooc' images have a more finished look. I had been adjusting contrast, color, saturation and still calling it 'sooc' but I guess some aren't comfortable with that being called 'sooc'? I am not annoyed with them or anything, I was really curious if there was a 'line' in photography that you crossed when working with raw when you could not use the term 'sooc'? Hope that makes sense. =) Thank you for the response!
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2009
    amp'd wrote:
    haha Too funny!

    Thank you for the responses!

    Well we are supposed to share sooc images as much as possible and when I am requested to share a sooc- I get confused because a jpg and raw are 2 totally different file type. And I take my raws and tweak in LR- is that still considered sooc- I mean can I take the label 'sooc' and still use the term truthfully if I bumped up sat, increased contrast, etc?

    Well, I understand your position, but the line is very gray and very wide. I also understand the underlying goal of actually getting the image "right" in the camera, but just like the darkroom was inevitable and very important step in film days, raw (and folling PS) processing is similarly important today. If you wanna be on the same level with your friends, set picture style to neutral, shoot raw + jpeg, give them jpeg to get rid of them and then spend some quality time with your raw without constantly looking over your shoulder... mwink.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • Art ScottArt Scott Registered Users Posts: 8,959 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2009
    Nikolai wrote:
    Well, I understand your position,
    If you wanna be on the same level with your friends, set picture style to neutral, shoot raw + jpeg, give them jpeg to get rid of them and then spend some quality time with your raw without constantly looking over your shoulder... mwink.gif

    15524779-Ti.gifagree15524779-Ti.gifCOMPLETELY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY
    "Genuine Fractals was, is and will always be the best solution for enlarging digital photos." ....Vincent Versace ... ... COPYRIGHT YOUR WORK ONLINE ... ... My Website

  • RichardRichard Administrators, Vanilla Admin Posts: 19,962 moderator
    edited June 18, 2009
    amp'd wrote:
    The comparison isn't jpg vs raw per se, but since I shoot in raw my 'sooc' images lack snap, contrast, color mode etc and their jpg 'sooc' images have a more finished look. I had been adjusting contrast, color, saturation and still calling it 'sooc' but I guess some aren't comfortable with that being called 'sooc'? I am not annoyed with them or anything, I was really curious if there was a 'line' in photography that you crossed when working with raw when you could not use the term 'sooc'? Hope that makes sense. =) Thank you for the response!

    As Nik says, there's no clear line. I shoot RAW exclusively and don't expect to see snap, crackle or pop straight out of the camera. I look to see that the framing is good, the exposure is correct, the focus and DOF are what I wanted and most important, that the pic still looks interesting. Photoshop can't help you if you don't get those things right in camera--well, maybe a little exposure help, but only if you're shooting RAW. Whether you add saturation in post, or a camera does in producing its JPG doesn't matter in the slightest. What matters is the finished image.
    My Pics
  • pyrypyry Registered Users Posts: 1,733 Major grins
    edited June 18, 2009
    Nikolai wrote:
    Well, I understand your position, but the line is very gray and very wide. I also understand the underlying goal of actually getting the image "right" in the camera, but just like the darkroom was inevitable and very important step in film days, raw (and folling PS) processing is similarly important today. If you wanna be on the same level with your friends, set picture style to neutral, shoot raw + jpeg, give them jpeg to get rid of them and then spend some quality time with your raw without constantly looking over your shoulder... mwink.gif

    Neutral assuming said friends are using similar settings, which shows how vague the line is. You can't really put a limit on post processing because the camera is already doing some (even composites in some cases).

    I'm with Nik, shoot raw and do what you want with it. Makes for better final products.

    They say movies really come into existence in the editing room, photos come to life the darkroom as long as the basics are there in the raw file.
    Creativity's hard.

    http://pyryekholm.kuvat.fi/
  • pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,708 moderator
    edited June 18, 2009
    Shoot RAW + jpg and play with the Picture Styles, so that when your friends want to see your "SOOC" jpgs, your shots have some nice POP.

    Gives you something to aspire to in your RAW processing as well.

    Then, discard your jpgs; or keep them, as you decide.

    When shooting film, people made decisions about which film they were going to use, and the industry technicians who designed the film, made a lot of the processing decisions - white balance, tonal scale etc.

    The straight out of the camera stuff is just that - images processed by someone else, other than the shooter.

    You may actually find you like that.

    I find I can shoot pretty sweet jpgs, sometimes if the light is soft. But I choose to shot RAW for the greater control it allows me.
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
  • amp'damp'd Registered Users Posts: 59 Big grins
    edited June 22, 2009
    Thank you to everyone! This was most helpful! I am such a control freak in real life, that jpgs kill me! That lack of control over all the data that I throw away if I dont shoot raw. I am not a snobby raw shooter- just someone who likes to control what she can control and some days...that's not much!rolleyes1.gif

    I will take your tips, use'em, share the jpg captures, dump'em and then go back to my black hole (aka digi darkroom) and control all I want over my raw file. haha!

    Thanks again!! =0D
Sign In or Register to comment.