@burnetrhoades so answer the question.... and you aren't seeing the original clip via youtube, or knowing what format I exported to.

I shot some clips in prores....because I CAN. And no, the GH2 doesn't quite have the same DR as a BMCC shooting prores.

can anybody explain the importance of RAW being adapted to video?

That's funny, I remember seeing the last couple clips you uploaded where shot ProRes. I couldn't help wondering to myself, "why is this kid shooting ProRes that doesn't look any better, worse in some cases, than hacked GH2 footage when he's got a RAW camera?"

Maybe it's time to close this thread before the guy get's even more attention...

No, I want to set new time record for the topic to reach 1K posts. :-)

can anybody explain the importance of RAW being adapted to video?

@burnetrhoades

oh, I don't have to. I shoot RAW hahahahaha

just to make it clear to everyone, the topic title was supposed tobe "RAW has killed the "Photographer" or something along those lines. because like I said earlier, I know REAL photographers that have got out of the business because everybody and their brother has a digital camera.

i'm not saying that RAW makes a person a photographer, but it enables/encourages them to pretend to be a photographer.

My personal view is:

• From the inside, this is, self-opinion, it works pretty much as the curve Dunning-Kruger effect describes if you're a proffessional. It has for me at least. So RAW giving you more options ain't different from JPEG's or old SLRs, anyone with them would think "I'm the best" at the beggining. People in Instragam believe they're good photographers. It's bullshit. If you don't win money you're not proffesional, if you don't learn the tool and make experiments with it, what the etymology of the word photography tells us it is (light drawing or writing), then you're not even a poor street artist.

• From the outside, the opinion the rest have about you, everyone believes they have a good, critical eye. So, everyone says "hey what a nice picture!" once you have stupid colors, good composition in a photograph of a lighter or a cigarette, or you captured a good moment, doesn't matter what happened with the light or the composition. One of those is MORE than enough to have lots of followers, you just need to have a lot of friends, or know a tiny bit of marketing.

RAW has given the opportunity for ANY photograph to look a lot better than it could have looked before. Low-res color capped inet and monitors even more. So everyone has access to criticising, uploading, downloading, the full chain, but they know no shit and have no education on the matter. This means: we believe we are the best, yet we are just growing more and more stupid. It's the full chain of stupidness. It's worked in lots of other art disciplines.

It's like...everyone think they are philosophers " 'cause man, I know what I'm talking about, it's life", musicians, or whatever they wanna think they are.

RAW has made GOOD photography go under the shadows of BAD photography, so while far back in time only way to understand photography was watching it in galleries, and reading good books, learning about Ansel Adams and so on, now, shitty photographers write shitty books and they can even get famous.

Yeah I'm not a positive kind of guy (some people say, the positive guys, the more competition, the more we develop and improve, yeah...we're much better than the greeks now due to that way thinking, aren't we?), but look to the music picture: once, it was The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, and Rolling Stones making the massess move. Now, it's Jonas Brothers, Lady Gaga not Radio Gaga...you can say that mass aproval means it's better. A lot of people reject, and so do I.

Music went almost the same road, and it's getting worse and worse as MIDI things can do everything today. Is music getting any better? Ain't cheap production and distribution just everything? You know it's a lot to talk about...

But yeah sure RAW has led to more good looking photographies than ever, no doubt about it. At what cost, we'll see. Or...we're already seeing it. Have you gone to the cinema lately?

Same old story, "new" art discipline moving towards mediocrity. I don't give a shit, I'll try to keep on learning, watching and living to tell something, that's it. TO TELL SOMETHING. Good thing is most people don't know how to show anything with their photos, cinema or music. Bad thing...that doesn't mean money. Oh well...it's a hard life.

@dailyfilmfix

I have shot a "little local commercial" for my wifes fathers business, and there was nothing wrong with the workflow. the workflow isn't near as complicated as people have made it out to be. The beauty is, you don't HAVE to shoot raw if you don't want.

read my comment above your last post....it is understood that experience is better, but with the help of technology, so called "amateurs" are becoming "experienced" at a faster rate.

@stip

what you are not understanding I guess is....i'm not disagreeing with anything you said.

i really haven't disagreed with anything anybody has said. but 90% of the responses are defensive like somebody has "stole their craft" because In reality, its happening, EVERYDAY. I'm fully aware the a GOOD photographer has years of experience, I'm also fully aware that it's easy to manipulate "THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER" into thinking an amateur is a pro. Would anybody that post on P-V be fooled by an amateur? no, because we are all camera/photo/video geeks for the most part.

the definition of Photographer as Webster sees it.

Definition of PHOTOGRAPHER

one who practices photography; especially : one who makes a business of taking photographs

no mention of years of skills & knowledge, just simply "practices"

and although I practice taking pictures, I wouldn't dare call myself a photographer, but guess what Joe Blow up the Road just bought a DSLR and is going into business next week to call himself a photographer, good or not. if he can pull of the illusion with the help of raw & photoshop that he is a good photographer, and is getting paid for it...what does that mean?

All, really, all you are saying is 'You can fix it in the post'. You get kicked off every serious film or video set if you wouldn't care about getting exposure or whatever perfectly right ON SET whether it's recorded raw or not. You'd be kicked out - and you'd deserve it so. But that isn't even the problem - that's just the technical stuff. The problem I have with you is that you're using the phrase 'photographer' as it is something you don't need any creative skills, talent and years of experience to become someone who can REALLY call himsself 'photographer'.

You have just no respect for that word and everything it means. I don't give a shit about your raw-excitement, just pay some respect for those who really deserve calling themselves photographer.

There's a lot of different aspects to producing photos, and being paid, having fans, publicity, living the life of an artist, all of these things enjoy an uneasy, interdependent relationship. Oftentimes, a corporate client will pick the photographer from the bid pool who looks the most corporate, and frame their high-priced piece of junk in the ugly, corporate lobby. . Other clients from Corporate are extremely savvy and amateur photographers who "like Leica". Is it art? Who knows? Even in a museum, people can't tell.

Being a paid professional photographer may be nice work if you can get it (it can be a real hassle, too) but it doesn't mean one is an artist. Most commercial work is recording adverts, events, families and corporate presentations, plus books, magazines, and so on. National Geographic often has amazing photos, but it also isn't always considered art--probably because there simply is too much of it. It's too good, and the artistic voice is lost in a sea of excellence.

Everybody sees different things. Take the two young ladies on the motorcycle. I just jotted down the first things I noticed in the first five seconds: 1. The type compositor was very careful with the spacing of all the letters, but forgot to kern the apostrophe in "Tayor' s style". That's the first thing I noticed. 2. The faces look yellow and have shadows. That may be a look, but for me it was initially engaging but then distracting. The smile on the passenger is not as good as the driver's smile. 3. There are scratches on the exhaust pipe, indicating that the bike has been dropped, but no scratches on the engine case, which is highly polished. That created a level of dissonance that made me think that it wasn't somehow a "right bike". That led me to look at the shocks, which are junk. Then I wondered, the Triumph is classy bike, why not get one that is set up right? It could have been more cool, bike-wise.

I think if you asked 100 ppl what their impressions were, you would get 100 different answers. That's the nature of art. Some people would really like the motorcycle, others would think it isn't a "real" Triumph and would have preferred a Norton anyway, some ppl would think the smiles were perfect and liked the warmth of the yellow color.

Technically minded people--and I'm technically minded but I throw all that away when I'm working, unfortunately--might complain about the fact that the focus is not dead on. Others might say they liked the fact the focus was "soft". Others might say that the specular reflections lacked character.

The question I would ask myself, is: did I take a similar picture that was better? And for me, the answer is, no, motorcycle wise, this one has me beat. Maybe what is missing from the dialog is elements of acknowledgment--hey, I might pick at a few things, but great photo. And then stop yourself from asking what camera (or phone) was used.

Would RAW improve the photo? Maybe, but it is only one element. You could swap out the shocks using Photoshop. That isn't "raw" but most photos are photoshopped.