There are some photographers out there who will tell you to “Shoot in RAW” as a cure-all for just about any problem you happen to bring up.  It’s just a file format.  That’s it.  It is not a solution.  It doesn’t change a damn thing to actually address or try and fix the actual problem.

Brief background:  If you’re not familiar with what “raw” is, it’s the camera’s native image storage format.  It’s the digital equivalent of a negative.  And, for the record, raw is not an acronym, so stop writing it in all caps!

Software programs (e.g., Lightroom 2) have allowed us to make just about as many changes to a JPEG (that is an acronym) as to a raw file.  So it no longer really matters.

Get it right in the camera and file format is irrelevant.  A raw file is a digital negative.  So start thinking of it as a negative.  Once you fully embrace the philosophy that you need to get it right in the camera, your post processing time will be greatly reduced.

So.  Why do those photographers tell ya to “shoot in raw”?  Simple.  Programs do allow a (however slight) greater range of changes to a raw file as to a JPEG.  Also, JPEG is a “lossy compression” based file format.  That means that data is literally thrown away when you save an image as a JPEG (either on your computer or in your camera).  The amount is dependent upon the settings used when saving that JPEG.  You have some control over this when you save a JPEG on your computer, but you have no control over this on your camera.

What changes can you make?  Easy.  Name something.  Did you not get the exposure correct in the camera?  (Shame on ya, meter better next time.  lol)  Programs (I’ll just use Lightroom from now on) allow you to “correct” the exposure by up to 4 stops of exposure.  It’s been my experience that anything beyond about 1.5 stops “recovery” is iffy.  I’ve personally never been able to get good results from anything beyond 2 stops.  Let’s face it.  If you’re off by that much, you screwed up royally.  Yes.  I’ve been there.  I’ve done that.  We all have at some point.  It’s not the job of software to cover our asses — that’s our job as photographers.

White-balance is another common area of post-processing correction of screw ups that shooting in raw format allows you to fix — if you can correctly see color.  If you can’t — and 15-20% of the population has some form of color blindness — then you need to use some mechanical means to set the white-balance.  A popular method is to use a gray card.  I personally don’t like this method as most often it is used as a post-processing-only method.  (Sure, you can use it to set the white-balance in-camera, but that requires changing the vantage point by zooming in to fill the frame with the card… and really, how often is that possible or easy.)

My preferred method of white-balance is to use an ExpoDisc.  This makes it very simple to get the correct white-balance — providing you have access to your subject’s location under the lighting condition you’ll be shooting with. Yeah.  A couple of pretty big prerequisites.  But no different than using the gray-card method.  The nice thing about the ExpoDisc, is that it’s an in-camera-only solution.  I have the white-balance set correctly when I press the shutter — most of the time.

Occasionally the color balance will change over the course of a shoot.  This means that the white-balance setting from the start of the shoot will not be correct for later in the shoot.  When that happens, you’re stuck trying to white-balance in post — unless you have access to the subject’s location during the shoot (which isn’t the case for music performances).  In those situations, shooting in raw doesn’t fix the white-balance for you.  If you’re like me, you’re stuck guessing.  Sure, I use something that’s in the image that I think is white, black, or neutral gray, but I’m never 100% sure.

Shooting in raw doesn’t fix anything — you have to do it yourself.  So get it right in the camera and you won’t have to fix it.

It seems to me that very few photographers use prime lenses often any more.  I have one, and only one, and I wind up using it quite often — but really only because it’s my “fastest” lens (it’s an f/1.8 lens).  Yet, I find that when I do use it, I am wishing that it was a zoom.

Prime lens:  a lens with a single focal length (e.g., 50mm*)
Zoom lens:  a lens that has an adjustable focal length (e.g., 19-35mm)

Zoom lenses make it so much easier to photograph subjects.  They allow you to change the focal length to either include more or less of the scene.  Prime lenses, on the other hand, require that you, the photographer, physically change position in order to control what is included.

Prime lenses, purportedly, do a better job at producing tack sharp images at their focal length than a zoom at the same focal length.  I personally don’t feel this is as big of a difference as it may have been at some point in the past, and it certainly shouldn’t be your only reason for buying a set of primes over a zoom.

It’s been my experience, however, that prime lenses are less expensive than zooms, when you compare “lens” to “lens”.  They’re simply less complex lenses and therefore require less “stuff”, so don’t cost as much to manufacture.  However, prime lenses are much more expensive than zooms when you compare “focal length” to “focal length”.  Why?  Because you’ll have to buy several primes, but only one zoom, to achieve the same focal range.

Q: So, why do I even have a prime lens at all?  You certainly sound like a zoom advocate.
A: Well, I sound that way, because I am.  I love my zooms and wouldn’t trade them for a whole slew of primes for anything.  The reason I have the 50mm f/1.8 prime lens that I have is twofold: 1) it’s just a newer version of the very first lens that I ever used on an SLR; and 2) it was $80, so it was “very affordable” to buy as a “toy”.  I honestly didn’t have any need for it when I got it, and it actually sat in my camera bag for several months before I even took it out to play with it at all.  I guess I was figuring on using it just to experiment around with the very small depth of field (DoF) that it would allow me to achieve.

Q: Are you regretting buying it?  You kind of sound that you are.
A: Heck no!  I’m glad I got it when I did.  Shortly after I bought this lens, the price jumped to where it is now:  $100.  I’ve also found that it’s a good low-light lens… and that’s what I primarily use it for.  Somewhere back around when I ordered it, I stopped shooting “art” — and since that was the purpose I had in mind (small DoF) I didn’t have a use for it.  Jump forward to today, and I’m once again wanting that small DoF.  However, this time it’s for portraiture instead of “flowers and such” (AKA “art”).

Q: Would you recommend buying a prime lens?
A: Sure.  Just not as your only lens.  Shooting with a prime requires a different mentality that can be challenging at first, especially if you’re like me and very used to zoom lenses (heck, even our cell phone cameras have zooms).  If you have some extra money, love photography for the sake of photography, love pushing your boundaries, then by all means get a prime lens.  Just don’t do like I did and let it “gather dust” for a few months.  Stick it on your camera and go out and shoot.  Leave the zooms to home so you’re forced to use that single lens.  It’ll change how you view the world.

* Note:  50mm is, in the 35mm film/digital world, also a “normal lens” meaning that it gives a view of the world very similar to what we see with our own eyes.

Fear can be a tricky emotion for photographers to control.

If you don’t have steady paying clients, fear can begin creeping into your mind.  Fear about where your next rent check or car payment will come from can be a very strong paralyzing emotion.  This can lead you to selling all of your equipment and giving up on your dreams.

I’ve been close.

Very close.

Several times.

If you are finding yourself close to that point, I highly recommend reading this article in Rangefinder Magazine about Atlanta-based music/editorial photographer Zack Arias:  http://www.rangefindermag.com/storage/articles/RF0410_Arias_Smith.pdf If you aren’t familiar with Zack’s work, check it out… and take a look inside his mind on his blog.

I read that article recently and found myself reading an article about a photographer who has overcome a lot over the last few years to become one of the better photographers who I’ve encountered online.  I also found myself realizing that the only thing stopping me from achieving the level of success Zach has — or more — is my own fear of failure.

Fear, however, can be a motivator.

Fear of loosing our work can lead us to develop better backup systems.

Fear of equipment damage can lead us to develop better equipment handling, storing, and transporting methods or procedures.

Fear of missing the “perfect shot” can lead us to become better photographers.  Instincts become honed to know when the decisive moment will happen or what camera settings are required or even what equipment is needed.  (Having the lens cap off is a good start.)

Don’t let fear control your life, but do let it guide you.