So I’m finally doing a mass reply to that comment. You think my camera takes great pictures? NO, IT DOESN’T. My camera works really well, and does what I need it to. But it doesn’t take great pictures. If you could see my images straight out of my Canon 5DMarkII, you’d cringe at the thought of buying this camera, and you’d understand that a good camera does not make someone a professional photographer. The images appear to be flat, dull, and lifeless. Much less print-worthy than what you get out of your own camera.

Yes, I could set it on auto, and shoot in jpeg, and it would take photos as good as what you’re getting out of your consumer point-n-shoot, or your consumer level DSLR. Because the camera, in that case, is doing all the work. Almost. You still need to have “an eye” for things like compostion, expressions, or the decisive moment. But consumer cameras are so well-engineered now that you can get great snapshots out of them without having to know anything about photography. That’s why Aunt Betty and the moms of your kids’ friends say “you should do this for a living!”

Before you think about stepping up to a camera that you think will make you a great photographer, you need to be able to create beautiful photography (not just snapshots) while shooting in manual with the camera you have. If you can’t create beautiful photography with a cheap camera, then you’ll be wasting your money buying a new one. I look back at photos I took with my old cheap film camera, and they rival the work I do today. It’s not the camera.

This whole idea of it being the camera that takes good pictures doesn’t just apply to any desire you may have to hang your shingle. It also applies to your decision to hire a photographer. Who are you hiring to do your family’s portraits? Is she really a professional photographer? Or just a mom down the street with a camera that “takes good pictures” ? It makes a difference. Because if it’s the latter (and most likely it is, given the massive number of moms who now have photography websites and logos) then she’s charging you money to do something you could easily do yourself with the camera you already own.

Maybe if I explain what goes into one of my photos, you’ll finally understand why it’s not the camera.

First of all, I shoot in raw format. This is why my images come out of the camera flat and dull. I did learn to shoot digital while shooting in jpeg format, because it forces you to learn exposure really well. I had to re-learn exposure when I switched to digital because back when I did so, the digital cameras tended to blow out the highlights and that was opposite of what film did. So I had to learn to expose for the highlights instead of the shadows. Practicing in jpeg format was a great exercise, because if you got it wrong, the shot was lost.  But once that work was done, it would be ridiculous for me to continue shooting that way.  Why? Because I’d be doing nothing different than what you could do with a point-n-shoot. Even shooting in manual mode, and making the simple choices related to exposure, the camera is applying other settings to the images automatically, and spitting out a perfectly average photo you could take yourself. Worth paying for? NO! You could do it yourself! When you pay for photography, it should be something special.

So why would I want a dull, flat, lifeless image coming out of my camera? Yes, shooting in jpeg does create an image that is print-ready without any need for post-processing, just like you get from your own point-n-shoot, but a real photographer has to create something worth paying for, and wants more control over creation of their images. Every setting that the camera applied automatically to the images is taking artistic control away from me and producing decent, quality, boring, generic images. I don’t want that! And if you’re going to pay for photography, why would you want that?

I could go into a long explanation using really technical descriptions of things like 8-bit vs. 16 bit, the corresponding differences in recorded brightness levels, linear and matrix conversions, and destructive compressions, but I’ll keep it simple, because this discussion is already getting long-winded, and that would just put you to sleep. (Unless you’re an engineer.)

Simply put, a raw file does two things: it provides me with a high quality of captured data, allowing me to produce an image with a much wider tonal range than a jpeg file. Ever seen a palladium print? The tones are luscious. There are so many shades of grey in a palladium print, and all of the data needed to create that is what I want to start with. I may eliminate some of it in a style decision, but I want it all there to start with so the artistic decision is mine, and so that if I decide to use more contrast, my gradations are still smooth.

It also lets me have total control over every aspect of the image. Like a film photographer has control over the developing methods used to turn exposed film into negatives, I now have the same ability to do so with my digital negatives. Except I can selectively apply those choices to different parts of my image. Using the same settings for contrast, saturation, color balance, etc, I use now on my camera, a jpeg file would have those settings “applied” to the image. I shoot in raw format because I don’t want them applied…I may not want them applied to the entire image, and that’s what the camera would do. The application of those things to my images are artistic decisions and my camera has no artistic sensibilities. So what I get back, when shooting in raw,  is a file with all the information the camera captured, BEFORE application of any extra settings your camera applies to your photos. It uses my exposure settings (ISO, aperture, and shutter speed), and I have to get those right, but things like contrast, color temperature, and saturation are left for me to do in post-processing.

Then in my post-processing, I open up each image, and “paint” the various settings, in various ways, to the parts of the image where I think they should be applied. I manually apply those settings in a manner that cannot be done by any camera that exists today.  And hopefully one never will, because what would be the fun in that?

Real photography is an art, and those “pictures” are not taken by the camera! :)