A recurring topic on pixls is the question of out of the box results. The questions often include comparisons to commercial software or sooc jpegs.
There has developed a sort of derisory attitude towards sooc jpegs. Of course we develop raws because the jpegs are limiting but the comments reek a bit from either the curious elitism of self made raws or the defensive arguments of butt hurt developers. (excuse my language I do intend it to be friendly)
Sometimes the arguments are couched in ideas about the sooc or commercial output being technically wrong somehow.
I’ve repeatedly mentioned that most of the camera brands have a looong history of “colour science”, camera defaults and tweaks. And that the commercial software companies spend huge effort on developing out of the box experience. Adobe seemingly being somewhat trapped by compatibility and consistency.
Those defaults, settings and colours are designed to look good and provide a huge value for the companies when successful. Many then proceed from this base to do something completely different but having a great out of the box look is hugely helpful.
All pixls software have a default look and work on it but somehow the discussions about it are stunted. There is perhaps comfort in pretending that users will just whip up a completely unique look that they set up as default and that the software is just an open framework allowing for infinite creativity.
My suggestion is to try and apply some of all the knowledge of these forums to look at and decipher the sooc jpegs, the commercial defaults etc. Analyze a bit more carefully what people are looking for and how defaults could be tweaked to approach a better default. The topics are being discussed in play raws etc. but not so much in the context of out of the box settings.