do you shoot raw?
/forum/topic/1170333/1

1      
2
       3       end

markd61
Registered: May 26, 2009
Total Posts: 461
Country: United States

A pro delivers pro quality and service irrespective of gear or file format.
Paying a hack for garbage does not make them a pro. An excellent hobbyist that does superb work for fun/free is not a pro.

Being a pro is more than buying business cards and relying on your spouse's income to make ends meet. It is the complete package of hard work, service and constant improvement. It is not screwing the customer by claiming to be able to make something they have no understanding of.



whtrbt7
Registered: Apr 22, 2012
Total Posts: 428
Country: United States

Wow it's interesting reading this thread. For my own business, I shoot a combination of RAW and JPG depending on the situation. If I'm shooting a time lapse or a 100+MP image, I always use JPG instead of RAW because I hate waiting on the edits. Time = money hence less time spent on pointless waiting for edit time, is money earned. I've shot some stuff for clients SOOC just because they request it or the images are good enough. If JPG fits the bill of sale, I use it.

For my W2 work, I shoot only JPG because it's a matter of speed instead of quality. The loss in quality is acceptable for the speed that the company needs. Even funnier is that I have a PS action built for the edits to dumb down quality even more so I consider the full quality of the photos to be pretty low. I've tried to use Custom WB on their little DSLR but that turned out to be a waste of time so now I just shoot full AWB, large JPG, Aperture priority, with auto ISO. Those photos are apparently everything the company needs so it is what it is. For the next phase for my W2 job, I am to man a semi-automated DSLR system so that takes even more control out of my hands in terms of angles and composition. I guess the point is, being a pro means that you get what the customer/company needs. If that is JPG with "green" mode on, then that's what it is.

Edit/addition: If you ask me if I consider myself a professional in terms of my quality, I would say that I'm no master of photography or even come close to someone that produces "pro" style images. If you ask me if I'm making money from photography for a living then I would say yes. If only I could train a monkey to do what I would do, I could be a great businessman....



anthonygh
Registered: Jan 09, 2006
Total Posts: 1844
Country: United Kingdom

Ralph Thompson wrote:


Remember back when we shot "chromes"? You had to get it close in camera. You could not cut corners and fix it in post. Shooting digital is alot like shooting chromes (or should be). err for you folks that have only shot digital, chromes are slides....


I have to disagree.....raw capture is not like any type of film.

People sometimes say that raw capture is like having the ability to go back to a neg and re printing it from scratch depending on your current interpretation. It is far more than that. It is more like being able to alter the neg as well and then doing a different interpretation.

And it gets even better......I look at raw files I worked on when I first had a 10D and the then current PS version...and compare them now when having another go with CS6.....massive improvement in many cases. What will CS7 and so on be able to do?

Of course it might be that some jobs just need a basic image banged out quickly and there is no doubt a properly set up camera will produce great jpgs. In all other instances...shoot raw!!



Micky Bill
Registered: Nov 25, 2006
Total Posts: 2637
Country: N/A

I really don't see the point of shooting jpegs....maybe 8 years ago when a 2 gb card was $75 and everyone's computer was 1/10 as powerful, but today why not shoot raw and large jpg, pitch the raw if everything is fine unless you have an affinity for jpgs.
But that said if you are doing jobs shooting 8-10 k images in an afternoon, it's more of a quantity vs quality gig so do what works...



trenchmonkey
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Total Posts: 35305
Country: United States

If you ask me if I'm making money from photography for a living then I would say yes. If only I could train a monkey to do what I would do, I could be a great businessman...
Interesting choice of words Anyway, I do too...difference being I now teach others how to shoot.



RDKirk
Registered: Apr 11, 2004
Total Posts: 8976
Country: United States

People sometimes say that raw capture is like having the ability to go back to a neg and re printing it from scratch depending on your current interpretation. It is far more than that. It is more like being able to alter the neg as well and then doing a different interpretation.

It's like being able to go back and choose a different kind of film and processing.



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12890
Country: United States

Camera jpg = RAW + camera PP

RAW = RAW ... you have to add your own PP

For some, the camera's PP is sufficient for their needs, for others they need or want to do their own. RAW + your own PP will always have more latitude than camera jpg ... but a good surgeon can perform well with a single scalpel, not necessarily needing a Swiss army knife full of options. If the newer jpg algorithm meets you needs, great ... if not, use your RAW ... your call.

Different strokes for different folks ... choose your tool according to your needs.



rhyder
Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Total Posts: 3785
Country: United States

nugeny wrote:
" a pro is one who makes a living from his /her photography"
I would add: he doesn't have to be an artist. An artist is "a dreamer" , some times a hungry one, he doesn't care if his work sells, as long as he achieves in rendering his vision, he is happy.


This statement proves you have NO IDEA of what an artist is.



rhyder
Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Total Posts: 3785
Country: United States

nugeny wrote:
" a pro is one who makes a living from his /her photography"


This would be a very "loose" interpretation of the word. I prefer to split the category differently....There are what I like to call "working" photographers...they take a good picture...they may even make their entire living from shooting. And then there are "professional" photographers that attain a level above and beyond the "working" photographer. I know that every "working" photographer out there consider themselves to be a "pro", but to me its about reaching a level of competence and talent that stands out from the rest. An example on this thread would be John Surace. The "Monkey" is right up there in his niche also.

1. Pro Photographer
2. Working Photographer
3. Really good amateurs
4. Guys who post "JPG or raw" threads.



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12890
Country: United States

nugeny wrote:
" a pro is one who makes a living from his /her photography"
I would add: he doesn't have to be an artist. An artist is "a dreamer" , some times a hungry one, he doesn't care if his work sells, as long as he achieves in rendering his vision, he is happy.




nugeny wrote: The important location of a picture is the center. In the real world, I want my picture to be really sharp on the main location--that is mostly around the center, that where people look at first and last. The corner and the far distant location: I purposely make them less sharp TO ACCENTUATE THE IMPORTANT AREA. Some times vignetting helps.

I do landscapes and now wildlife, both don;t need to be sharp every where. Quite often, it is not good arstistically to be sharp every where.



So do you consider yourself to be a "pro" or an "artist"


IMO ... shooting print film always had more latitude than shooting chrome ... yet pro's and artists alike shot chrome, while other pro's and artists shot print (and others B&W) ... not to mention the variation in film profiles used by each. Personally, I shot VPS 160 for weddings, FujiChrome 50 for most everything else.

IMO, the medium you choose (print vs. chrome or RAW vs. JPG) is not indicative of your "status" as either pro or artist. There are plenty of people here at FM who are obviously both professional and artistic ... and some that are obviously, neither. But in neither case is their level of professionalism or artistry dictated by the reduction to their use of RAW or JPG files ... irregardless of how much we might struggle to achieve an (unattainable) consensus definition of either.



rhyder
Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Total Posts: 3785
Country: United States

"nugeny wrote: The important location of a picture is the center. In the real world, I want my picture to be really sharp on the main location--that is mostly around the center, that where people look at first and last. The corner and the far distant location: I purposely make them less sharp TO ACCENTUATE THE IMPORTANT AREA. Some times vignetting helps.

I do landscapes and now wildlife, both don;t need to be sharp every where. Quite often, it is not good arstistically to be sharp every where."

Wow...as I said above..."This statement proves you have NO IDEA of what an artist is. "



anthonygh
Registered: Jan 09, 2006
Total Posts: 1844
Country: United Kingdom

RDKirk wrote:
People sometimes say that raw capture is like having the ability to go back to a neg and re printing it from scratch depending on your current interpretation. It is far more than that. It is more like being able to alter the neg as well and then doing a different interpretation.

It's like being able to go back and choose a different kind of film and processing.


That is basically what I was saying when saying the neg can be altered......raw is quite fantastic in many respects...and it is a product of software..and the software will keep on improving.

With this in mind, and a computer's ability to batch process large numbers of files quickly...not shooting raw seems a bit short sighted. A jpeg straight from a camera is still a raw file being converted...why leave it to the more limited raw converter in the camera to do the job when a decent raw converter will do it a lot better?




Mescalamba
Registered: Jul 06, 2011
Total Posts: 3070
Country: Czech Republic

Theres only one truth about art..

"It cant be quantified, classified or measured in any way."

Art is like beauty, it lies in the eye of beholder. Or to put it simply, in his point of view.


And RAW or JPEG doesnt have much to do with it. Thats just tech aspect.



anthonygh
Registered: Jan 09, 2006
Total Posts: 1844
Country: United Kingdom

I think the question of pro vs artist is somewhat more involved that the issues raised above.

Just one consideration......is it even possible to be an artist with a camera...if so, how? And does an artist have to sell work to be a pro...and is selling stuff a mark of a good artist / a pro.

Keep in mind that Van Gogh sold two paintings while alive...one to his brother...one to a friend of his brother. So there isn't necessarily a link between talent and sales. Also keep in mind there are few if any photographers that are as known and admired as Van Gogh...and certainly none that have created works that sell anywhere near what a Van Gogh sells for ...even a minor work by him.



rhyder
Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Total Posts: 3785
Country: United States

anthonygh wrote:
I think the question of pro vs artist is somewhat more involved that the issues raised above.

Just one consideration......is it even possible to be an artist with a camera...if so, how? And does an artist have to sell work to be a pro...and is selling stuff a mark of a good artist / a pro.

Keep in mind that Van Gogh sold two paintings while alive...one to his brother...one to a friend of his brother. So there isn't necessarily a link between talent and sales. Also keep in mind there are few if any photographers that are as known and admired as Van Gogh...and certainly none that have created works that sell anywhere near what a Van Gogh sells for ...even a minor work by him.


Is it possible? Of course. If you knew anything about the history or anything about the market for fine art photography, you wouldn't post something so inane.



jason9101
Registered: Dec 22, 2012
Total Posts: 32
Country: N/A

I normally take JPEGs but when I have a lot of time and much to explore, I take RAW photos - peace of mind.



anthonygh
Registered: Jan 09, 2006
Total Posts: 1844
Country: United Kingdom

rhyder wrote:



Is it possible? Of course. If you knew anything about the history or anything about the market for fine art photography, you wouldn't post something so inane.


I suspect I know rather more than you by the sounds of it. The question of whether a photograph can be a work of art has been a seminal issue in the UK since photography came on the scene in Victorian times, several books and papers on 'fine art photography' have been published here that spend a lot of time examining the status of photography in the art world...and just last month the BJP argued that photography was, in some circumstances, finally accepted as fine art (and even this was partly premised on the fact that auction houses were marketing photographs as economic investments during the sale of artistic artefacts (if by the right photographer)...not on on their inherent qualities as works of art.

But as the varying arguments are complex it is probably better that those who have any interest in the subject spend time researching it and enhance their knowledge....others can attempt to be insulting. It might be best to start with the numerous discussions on what is art and who can produce art...the study of Aesthetics is a good place to start and there is quite a lot of reading material.....it was a hot topic in Plato's time and has been ever since.



rhyder
Registered: Jul 10, 2004
Total Posts: 3785
Country: United States

anthonygh wrote:
rhyder wrote:



Is it possible? Of course. If you knew anything about the history or anything about the market for fine art photography, you wouldn't post something so inane.


I suspect I know rather more than you by the sounds of it. The question of whether a photograph can be a work of art has been a seminal issue in the UK since photography came on the scene in Victorian times, several books and papers on 'fine art photography' have been published here that spend a lot of time examining the status of photography in the art world...and just last month the BJP argued that photography was, in some circumstances, finally accepted as fine art (and even this was partly premised on the fact that auction houses were marketing photographs as economic investments during the sale of artistic artefacts (if by the right photographer)...not on on their inherent qualities as works of art.

But as the varying arguments are complex it is probably better that those who have any interest in the subject spend time researching it and enhance their knowledge....others can attempt to be insulting. It might be best to start with the numerous discussions on what is art and who can produce art...the study of Aesthetics is a good place to start and there is quite a lot of reading material.....it was a hot topic in Plato's time and has been ever since.


I love when pseudo-intellectuals attempt a discourse on art and/or photography. They always refer to Van Gogh (as you did (in terms of the monetary value)) and/or Adams. There have been articles and papers published since the very beginnings of photography and most are just the type of mental masturbation that pseudo-intellectuals love.

The beauty of Aesthetics is that it can be anything to anyone. Anyone with a modest ability with vocabulary can claim that their view of aesthetics is the correct one. One can postulate and hypothesize all evening and not really say anything of any real value.

Bottom line....Art is what artists do. Aesthetics is what pseudo-intellectuals talk about because they don't really grasp what the artists are doing. Photography was invented by artists and artists have been profoundly involved in the technology and Art of photography throughout history.

You don't have to go back to Plato...just explore those involved with photography from its earliest days. Spend some time investigating what been happening from Stieglitz to Recuenco. If you can't see that Art in these works...that says so much about you...........

I've yet to see "talk" (I use the term in the broadest sense) produce an image........



BenV
Registered: Jan 01, 2008
Total Posts: 8008
Country: United States

rhyder wrote:
nugeny wrote:
" a pro is one who makes a living from his /her photography"


This would be a very "loose" interpretation of the word. I prefer to split the category differently....There are what I like to call "working" photographers...they take a good picture...they may even make their entire living from shooting. And then there are "professional" photographers that attain a level above and beyond the "working" photographer. I know that every "working" photographer out there consider themselves to be a "pro", but to me its about reaching a level of competence and talent that stands out from the rest. An example on this thread would be John Surace. The "Monkey" is right up there in his niche also.

1. Pro Photographer
2. Working Photographer
3. Really good amateurs
4. Guys who post "JPG or raw" threads.


It doesn't matter how you like to dissect the word, nugeny is 100% correct. All a professional is:

"A professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialized set of tasks and to complete them for a fee."

Nothing more, nothing less.



RustyBug
Registered: Feb 02, 2009
Total Posts: 12890
Country: United States

All a professional is:

"A professional is a person who is paid to undertake a specialized set of tasks and to complete them for a fee."

Nothing more, nothing less.



So, when Suzy asks Joe to take some full length and headshot pictures of her down by the train tracks and inside some old building (specialized set of tasks), he does so (completes said task) and she gives him $20 (paid fee) to do so ... Joe is now a professional photographer ... gotcha.



1      
2
       3       end