This dumbass article just came across my Facebook feed. So like someone is a little bit too invested in making the dividing line between the so-called “real” and fake photographer, a telltale sign of being An amateur oneself. I find that amateur photographers are generally concerned with what kind of camera body or lens one has or how expensive your equipment is, which is a way of compensating for the fact that one is not confident about the actual photography. a telltale sign that this article was written by an extremely knowledgeable hobbyist who doesn't do anything with photography professionally is the 1st rule in the article, which is that if you're not using RAW mode, you're not a professional.
Apparently, that makes pretty much every central runway photographer or anybody producing large amounts of images doing a wedding very much not a professional. best because almost no one shooting large amounts of images is shooting RAW. one of the main reasons is that if you're shooting for example runway, there is essentially no room for error as clothing comes out, so you adjust the shutter speed in manual mode based on the brightness of the clothing, which if you are shooting in JPEG mode, you're going to get a spot on every time, and the problem with RAW is the prohibitive file size and the fact that the average runway show produces anywhere from 1200 to 1500 pictures. and in order to get the proper stance and position in the step, you got to be shooting on a still camera that lets you do continuous shutter operation at about 5-10 fps, the faster the better. since you are aiming to hit each article of clothing at each point in the runway completely accurately in terms of exposure because overexposure of the highlights means that detail is lost no matter what mode you're shooting in.
And this idgit doesn't even know that you have abouyt the same exposure latitude in JPEG as you did with film negatives. Anyone coming from film to digital knows that you can fix even JPEGs quite a bit as long as it's somewhat properly exposed, as long as you were pretty close. I shot on film, where if you bonked it, you just bonked it. So to me, JPEG ain't too different. I shoot right the firdt time, not worrying about saving it in RAW unless you've got the time and card space and low output of numbers of images. A studio shoot would be a good choice for RAW. A professional photographer knows that there are no hard and set rules that makes one a "pro" versus "faux" shooter. Anyone shooting RAW on the runway is a crack smoker, just because that's like taking a bazooka to a knife fight.And if you fucked up a set of clothes or an entire show because your color temperature was off, you don't have time to edit 1500 pics, do you? Cause shooting it all in RAW and saying "I'll fix it in post -- white balance and exposure can be fixed after the fact" is about as ghetto-ass amateur hour as you can get. -- No, you, author of this article, are the FAUXtograpgher. What the hell is youarenotaphotographer.com? Overcompensating much?
Try this: You're house photographer for a designer and the rehearsal is all done in tungsten light. You're set and prepped, but then the show starts with a spotlight. WTF?! What do you do? Know your shit and switch from 3400K to 5600K and know that yes, that's a "bright" dress in my internal scale, and despite the fact that black was 1/400 of a second, which would normally make this bright two shutter stops higher at 1/800, you guesstimate that this is +2 stops higher than even that since she's closer and at the end of the runway, and since she's in a spot, she gets brighter the closer she gets, which would make black 1/800 and bright at end of runway in spotlight 1/1250. You either get it right or go home. RAW ain't gonna do shit but eat up card and buffer memory. You blow that dress out, and it's gone, JPEG or not. So real shooters aren't wasting their time with "Am I a Pro or Faux?" silliness. Real shooters ain't got time for that.