<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Back to Basics: Shooting in &#8220;RAW&#8221;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/</link>
	<description>Starting and Running a Successful Photography Business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:49:05 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul Davey</title>
		<link>http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/comment-page-1/#comment-7093</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Davey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2008 12:06:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dslrblog.com/?p=873#comment-7093</guid>
		<description>RAW is better, full stop.  JPEG is a compressed format and compression kills detail and depth and adds artifacts.  The fact that RAW allows for better post shoot manipulation is just one factor; RAW offers better highlight and shadow detail and as a professional, it is my duty to give my clients the best images.

There is almost no camera, lens or photographer who can get everything perfect at the moment the photograph is taken. Since the earliest days the true birth of a photograph has been - and still is -  when it is in processing.  Photography is never an accurate record of a fleeting moment. It is an interpretation and all the photography greats became greats because of their ability to manipulate all of the factors that combine to make a photograph.  RAW gives us that power today. JPEG does not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RAW is better, full stop.  JPEG is a compressed format and compression kills detail and depth and adds artifacts.  The fact that RAW allows for better post shoot manipulation is just one factor; RAW offers better highlight and shadow detail and as a professional, it is my duty to give my clients the best images.</p>
<p>There is almost no camera, lens or photographer who can get everything perfect at the moment the photograph is taken. Since the earliest days the true birth of a photograph has been &#8211; and still is &#8211;  when it is in processing.  Photography is never an accurate record of a fleeting moment. It is an interpretation and all the photography greats became greats because of their ability to manipulate all of the factors that combine to make a photograph.  RAW gives us that power today. JPEG does not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad Leclerc</title>
		<link>http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/comment-page-1/#comment-7069</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad Leclerc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:07:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dslrblog.com/?p=873#comment-7069</guid>
		<description>@Mike - Great points. Definitely better to get it right (or as close as possible) in-camera then relying on the safety net of &quot;RAW&quot;. I much prefer to be able to skip any post production (at least for correction), whenever I can, and would hope that people would take more time to get it right the first time around. I&#039;m not sure how often that happens...but it would be nice heh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Mike &#8211; Great points. Definitely better to get it right (or as close as possible) in-camera then relying on the safety net of &#8220;RAW&#8221;. I much prefer to be able to skip any post production (at least for correction), whenever I can, and would hope that people would take more time to get it right the first time around. I&#8217;m not sure how often that happens&#8230;but it would be nice heh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Panic</title>
		<link>http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/comment-page-1/#comment-7067</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Panic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dslrblog.com/?p=873#comment-7067</guid>
		<description>Here are my 2cents on shooting in RAW.  There is a time and place for it.  I&#039;ve found (I work in the photo industry, not just a photographer) that far too many people will shoot in RAW with the mentality of &lt;i&gt;I&#039;ll fix it in post&lt;/i&gt; and the reality is you are hurting yourself and your images.   Let me explain.

If you have the oppertunity to do a custom white balance in camera you will get better color representation in your computer than trying to adjust for it later.  Say you are a wedding photographer doing formal shots outside and the bride is wearing a cream colored dress.  Later that day, or the next day when you edit you will have zero point of reference for what the true color of the dress is and you could give her prints back that look more like egg shell white than cream.  It takes a minute to do it, if you can make a custom white balance, do it, save yourself the time and headache from doing it in post.

Second, I&#039;m a photographer, not a post production artist.  I know how to process my photos but I get paid to take them.  Each hour I sit post processing images is one hour wasted making money shooting the next client&#039;s work, effectivly loosing money on my bottom line.  Even if I&#039;m not shooting, I should be marketing, meeting with clients, etc.  I want to shoot, so I do as much as I can to get the best shots right into my camera as possible.

RAW isn&#039;t for all the time either.  I shoot stock photography as well, some of it is product shots on white.  With controlled studio lighting I can easily get my setup to look great in JPG format, making almost no post production needed other than cropping, sharpening (if even needed) and dust removal.  I get paid for the end result, not the amount of time spent on each image, so again, the better going in, the less time wasted on the way out.

I&#039;ve found most people who shoot in RAW don&#039;t even use a properly calibrated, quality monitor.  You might as well edit with your eyes closed, but that&#039;s a whole nother article for you to write about.

Shoot RAW or JPG based on what your output will be + how much in camera you can accomplish.  Don&#039;t rely on shooting RAW to fix your consistently under-exposed photos, learn how to shoot better.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here are my 2cents on shooting in RAW.  There is a time and place for it.  I&#8217;ve found (I work in the photo industry, not just a photographer) that far too many people will shoot in RAW with the mentality of <i>I&#8217;ll fix it in post</i> and the reality is you are hurting yourself and your images.   Let me explain.</p>
<p>If you have the oppertunity to do a custom white balance in camera you will get better color representation in your computer than trying to adjust for it later.  Say you are a wedding photographer doing formal shots outside and the bride is wearing a cream colored dress.  Later that day, or the next day when you edit you will have zero point of reference for what the true color of the dress is and you could give her prints back that look more like egg shell white than cream.  It takes a minute to do it, if you can make a custom white balance, do it, save yourself the time and headache from doing it in post.</p>
<p>Second, I&#8217;m a photographer, not a post production artist.  I know how to process my photos but I get paid to take them.  Each hour I sit post processing images is one hour wasted making money shooting the next client&#8217;s work, effectivly loosing money on my bottom line.  Even if I&#8217;m not shooting, I should be marketing, meeting with clients, etc.  I want to shoot, so I do as much as I can to get the best shots right into my camera as possible.</p>
<p>RAW isn&#8217;t for all the time either.  I shoot stock photography as well, some of it is product shots on white.  With controlled studio lighting I can easily get my setup to look great in JPG format, making almost no post production needed other than cropping, sharpening (if even needed) and dust removal.  I get paid for the end result, not the amount of time spent on each image, so again, the better going in, the less time wasted on the way out.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve found most people who shoot in RAW don&#8217;t even use a properly calibrated, quality monitor.  You might as well edit with your eyes closed, but that&#8217;s a whole nother article for you to write about.</p>
<p>Shoot RAW or JPG based on what your output will be + how much in camera you can accomplish.  Don&#8217;t rely on shooting RAW to fix your consistently under-exposed photos, learn how to shoot better.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad Leclerc</title>
		<link>http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/comment-page-1/#comment-7055</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad Leclerc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:46:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dslrblog.com/?p=873#comment-7055</guid>
		<description>@Jim - I agree that it&#039;s always better to get the photo you want in the first place...be it lighting, or other issues. I see the RAW format as sorta the selt belt of the digital photography world. Most of the time you shouldn&#039;t need it, but if you don&#039;t make a habit of wearing it, then the rare time you would have needed it may result in a seriously bad day. I&#039;ve shot 1000&#039;s and 1000&#039;s of photos in RAW, and I could count the times I&#039;ve REALLY needed it on one hand, but those few photos could have cost me my job and/or a lot of money. It&#039;s just my personal opinion of course, but basically my philosophy is &quot;if it can&#039;t hurt, and might help...might as well use it&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Jim &#8211; I agree that it&#8217;s always better to get the photo you want in the first place&#8230;be it lighting, or other issues. I see the RAW format as sorta the selt belt of the digital photography world. Most of the time you shouldn&#8217;t need it, but if you don&#8217;t make a habit of wearing it, then the rare time you would have needed it may result in a seriously bad day. I&#8217;ve shot 1000&#8217;s and 1000&#8217;s of photos in RAW, and I could count the times I&#8217;ve REALLY needed it on one hand, but those few photos could have cost me my job and/or a lot of money. It&#8217;s just my personal opinion of course, but basically my philosophy is &#8220;if it can&#8217;t hurt, and might help&#8230;might as well use it&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Garrett</title>
		<link>http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/comment-page-1/#comment-7054</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Garrett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:59:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dslrblog.com/?p=873#comment-7054</guid>
		<description>I agree but RAW is a nice safety net for beginners</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree but RAW is a nice safety net for beginners</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/comment-page-1/#comment-7053</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:48:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dslrblog.com/?p=873#comment-7053</guid>
		<description>I prefer to just shoot JPEG, and light it right in the first place. I want to be shooting, not tweaking</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I prefer to just shoot JPEG, and light it right in the first place. I want to be shooting, not tweaking</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BradLeclerc.com</title>
		<link>http://dslrblog.com/back-to-basics-shooting-in-raw/comment-page-1/#comment-7052</link>
		<dc:creator>BradLeclerc.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:41:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://dslrblog.com/?p=873#comment-7052</guid>
		<description>[...] Today has been a good day. Not only did the Vinecast receive some donations that will allow it to continus (and expand!) for at least the next couple months, but I landed a blogging gig on one of Chris Garrett&#8217;s smaller sites, DSLRBlog.com. So I&#8217;ll be writting on there hopefully for a while. It&#8217;s giving me a great incentive to get back into photography&#8230;been a while since I&#8217;ve dealt with photography at all. Time to dust off the old Nikon and pack the camera bag again! My first post went up earlier today, and can be found right over here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Today has been a good day. Not only did the Vinecast receive some donations that will allow it to continus (and expand!) for at least the next couple months, but I landed a blogging gig on one of Chris Garrett&#8217;s smaller sites, DSLRBlog.com. So I&#8217;ll be writting on there hopefully for a while. It&#8217;s giving me a great incentive to get back into photography&#8230;been a while since I&#8217;ve dealt with photography at all. Time to dust off the old Nikon and pack the camera bag again! My first post went up earlier today, and can be found right over here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
