@stonebat Get all the goosebumps you want, those are not my words.

@rockroadpix In most ways, it is. You know, the idea of amateurs charging $3k for 3 hours worth of work because RAW opened the door for them. And yeah, the fine folks of P-V won't be fooled by an amateur. But a woman getting married in desperate need of a photographer would be....duh a

RAW for photos and video will of course make life easier for everyone. You all are waiting to sink your teeth into the BMCC for the EXACT reasons amateur photographers have taken advantage. Less required skill, quicker prep, less concern with WB. Although, if you think you are going to shoot in low light with the BMCC and boost the exposure in post, better think twice about trying to cheat that.

Good people are really trying to help you open your mind.

The best post in this thread was made by burnetrhoades on page 2, the one with the smashing family portraits. It succinctly encapsulates the sentiment most people who disagree with GMG are trying to express in the form of a hidden question. MGM's reply to that post makes abundantly clear the futility of this effort since the core issue exists not within the bounds of rational faculties but somewhere much more complex: Taste.

@GravitateMediaGroup

Well the thread's subject title says it all, "RAW makes obsolete all your skill."

Each time I see the title, it gives me goose bump. I don't really care about "professional" this "professional" that or RAW or not. Yes it's just your opinion... but your closed mind is giving me the creeps. Good people are really trying to help you open your mind.

@GravitateMediaGroup - I think you would be better served by saying "Mediocre photographers are convincing people with little knowledge that they are professional with the help of technology." A fool and his money are soon parted, or however that goes...

As to why RAW for video? I have a BMCC on order. I came from the commercial world of shooting mostly 35mm, I like the look of the RAW out of the BMCC. I like that I can change a scene to a certain look if the budget does not include enough $ for a grip truck full of Deep Straw. In other words, I mostly agree with @bannedindv . I look to RAW to help make lighting decisions a little easier on set. I have never held to the prayer that image can be fixed in post. Sometimes, it cannot and you are screwed. I've worked enough to have seen it. I'm willing to bet that you aren't just pointing and shooting your BMCC and getting Vittorio Storaro images, now are you? I looked at your pictures. Some are nice, some are ok. I wouldn't guess that you're a high $ photog from them. You have claimed to have been shooting video for the better part of your 26/27 years now. (Can't remember that thread, whatever) I would hope that you could frame a shot at this point. There, you already have a leg up on someone that got a D700 a year ago. When I am looking at good photography, I expect for some emotion to be elicited as I view. To me, pretty pictures are just pretty pictures. Yeah, some people just like pretty pictures with colors and such, but I have never been one for that. Firing away with little knowledge of what makes a good photo, you can sometimes find a nugget and clean it up, but they are rare...

Your quote is off topic.

Last time I checked you are not moderator :-)

@gravitatemediagroup:

this is a line by sebastiao salagado, one of the most famous and best photographers of the past 40 years: for a photographer good shoes are more important than a good camera!

I really like this quote. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/magazine/an-interview-with-sebastiao-salgado.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

@GravitateMediaGroup

Get any good book about painting techniques and principles.

Right now it is pointless to countinue discussion.

P.S. Painting, btw, is a absolute raw :-)

@stonebat I understand that a good photographer can take an amazing picture with the worst camera.

But could your average/regular so called photographer be able to pull it off without the help of RAW or photoshop?

With RAW the "average photographer" will continue to flood the industry everyday and get away with it because the development of technology helps them every year.

It's scary to think about when & if vector photo/video cameras hit the scene. There is already progress being made everyday for it, same with holographic technology. (Not holographic cameras, just other weird sci-fi stuff, but if anybody has seen rumors of holographic camera technology, please share)

@Zmu Can I come AC or PA for you! :)

RAW on my GH2 is a godsend. I would never go back to shooting without it. It captures so much more than what traditionally you would be able to. And when I get home and edit I have the ability to mold the picture to how I remember it. Film had tremendous range but RAW can and no doubt will go further. If the aim is to capture what you see then RAW wins every time in circumstances where highlights get blown out and shadows get starved of light. So where a traditional photographer might know to compensate with lighting or a reflector etc to get a shadow to fill, this isn't as necessary when the sensor records this information for you so you can bring it back if needed. It's a pretty complex subject because this doesn't even scratch the surface of composition.

But it goes further. The reason photographers and cinematographers rely on lights to recreate reality is because of the inherent limits of film/digital in comparison to the naked eye. Think of how one shoots an interior scene with an exterior view. You have to either limit the light coming in the window with ND or increase the level of light in the interior. That's the reason feature films have huge trucks packed with lights. But RAW is really starting to make a difference in this area and I believe that give a professional cinematographer the ability to shoot low light and a much greater Dynamic Range and they would jump at the chance. I remember one famous cinematographer whose name escapes me marvelling at the fact that you could if you wanted shoot with the light of the moon using a Nikon DSLR. He was excited by the prospect. Lighting then comes down to personality and mood because you aren't lighting just to achieve perceived reality, you are embellishing to create texture and enhance the design.

I also think that most amateurs would not know RAW or how best to use it. I know people who have expensive 7D's who rarely put it out of full auto mood. Which is a crying shame but a fact of life.

@bannedindv eh? Its sunday go have a beer mate :-D

Oh Noes - everyone can be a photographer now that this came out:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownie_(camera)

I haven't seen one compelling thing to back up your "thesis" here.

Lets back up to the beginning.

What is your thesis? Next, make a case for it.

If your argument is that you are a purist and RAW makes your shooting skills obsolete - then what the fuck do you think people were doing in a darkroom for over 100 years? Processing and correction. It just took some more manual labor. Or did you think that all pictures came out of a Polaroid camera, or were processed by magical elves at Walmart?

Do you know what a thin negative and a thick negative are? If not I would like to propose a crowd sourcing based on $1 increments to send you to a community college photography class emphasizing shooting on the "everyone can do it" 35mm Nikon/canon/Olympus/Pentax/whatever SLRs and the darkroom process, as well as the history of photography.

I'd like it if the public paid for you to take an entire semester of photography and Cinema related classes at community college in New York, Chicago, or California - then get back to us with your view on RAW and what it means to your work.

If your argument is that you have to be a purist then please donate all of your camera equipment to Charity - and get some paint brushes. It's cheating to make a picture with the assistance of a lens and emulsion or sensor - you need to draw every image by hand.

Scratch that - we can't make any representational images because that's the work of god. Let's just go live in caves and keep womenfolk covered from head to toe.

Your lack of a clear mission statement here has turned me into a cynical fuck.

Politely - I'm going to ask how old are you, and where were you raised?