Expert ???

Mal

Veteran
Location
Liverpool / UK
I was in a branch of Jessops yesterday just doing a bit of 'window' shopping.... there was a guy talking to one of the assistants...

He was telling the assistant... how he had a top Canon model (didn't catch the number), but he had a lens which cost him £2000 amongst others and had been doing photography as a serious amateur most of his life (looked in his early 40's). he then asked the assistant to show him information on the new Canon EOS 1D X.... the assistant gave him the low-down on the camera... it was quite interesting to listen in..

However, I nearly laughed out loud, when he stopped the assistant to ask "what does 'IT SHOOTS IN RAW' mean?"

OOP's
 
However, I nearly laughed out loud, when he stopped the assistant to ask "what does 'IT SHOOTS IN RAW' mean?"
OOP's

Well, I'm not surprised at all. I have several good friends, very involved in photography, shooting several thousands pictures a year, with HQ DSLR, who do not ever shoot in RAW.
They have put the camera in HQ Jpeg after buying it, and haven't changed that ever since !
Sometimes, I get strange looks, because I shoot so few pics ... like 1/10 or less of what they shoot ... and when I tell them I shoot in RAW and have to process the whole bunch of shots, they can hardly believe it ... maybe think I'm crazy.

Like that weekend in Nov2011, when we went birding in France, some of my friends shot as many pics as 5000 in one WE, all JPG !

C u,
Rafael
 
I see what you're saying..... but there's is a vast difference in a self confessed 'SERIOUS' amateur photographer choosing not to shoot RAW and one who doesn't know what RAW is...
 
Or maybe he was a bit dim. Or maybe he used film all his life and this was his first foray into digital. Or maybe he was simply naive or uninformed.

I had no idea what "raw" meant until I started looking at other than P&S cameras two years ago ...

It seems a bit unfair to heap derision on someone about whom we only know one snippet of reported conversation.
 
Or maybe he was a bit dim. Or maybe he used film all his life and this was his first foray into digital. Or maybe he was simply naive or uninformed.

I had no idea what "raw" meant until I started looking at other than P&S cameras two years ago ...

It seems a bit unfair to heap derision on someone about whom we only know one snippet of reported conversation.

Agreed. I've been into photography for many years, both film and digital, and everyday it seems like I'm having to Google some new term that I've never heard of before(mostly with digital). Sometimes it can make me feel like a real idiot, but life's a constant learning experience. Nearly everyone I know has a digital camera and I would guess that none of them are aware of what a RAW file is, or whether or not they're camera is even RAW capable.
Good point!
 
Titter ye not, my friends... we all have to start somewhere.

And it's probably a good idea, if writing "knowledgeably" about raw to remember that unlike JPEG it is not actually an acronym (Joint Photographic Experts Group) and therefore should not be capitalised throughout ;)
 
I am not so keen to allow the guy any leeway. If you are going to brag that you have a "top" camera model, and that you spent 2000k on glass, and that you've been a "serious amateur", then you are quite deliberately giving the impression of knowing what you are doing. I'm with the OP. The situation is laughable. And the probable truth is that he actually does not have the gear he claimed to... even if he considers himself a serious amateur. With that gear, *if* he had it, he would have discovered something to do with RAW (sorry, I'll continue to capitalise) long before going to that store and having to ask the question. He was bignoting himself and he came undone.
 
I really don't understand why anyone feels it necessary to express such hostility and contempt towards this chap.
 
Back
Top