>>3327571uh
sooc just means the camera was free to make all the errors it wanted according to how much some japanese technician thought was acceptable.
There's nothing accurate or correct in sooc files, it's just half assed digital work. Like taking the wrong film for the wrong subject and calling it a day because "it's film". No, you idiot, you have to pick the correct film for the correct situation, and the correct development for your raw files.
I sincerely hope you're trolling anyways, 10/10.
And about that photo
>>3326553It's just a snapshit in the literal sense of the word. Technically It's a bit too cool and feels dim. The close focus on the trash on the sand has no purpose and drives the image nowhere, because there's no subject or beauty, if you had focused properly it could have been a nice wallpaper but like this it just makes the unfocused buildings on the left corner stick out like a sore thumb even more. The nearly 50/50 division between ground and sky is boring.
Reshoot it.
>>3327624How about common sense and basic photographic knowledge? Claiming "sooc is fine" is just uneducated drivel from a bottom of the bin amateur dipshit. If you're not trolling, you better start taking the hints about what you're doing wrong, or fuck off from /p/.
