Are the White House pics a good measure of what Canon cameras can do?

So it's probably well known that the official WH photographer uses Canon, seems it's often a 5D III and 24-70ii.

https://flic.kr/p/pfqj​Ta

Above is an example.

To my eyes, these pictures don't seem to have much post processing if at all (any idea if he shoots RAW or JPEG?).

They just seem very straightforward, technically good, well exposed shots. Sharp images.

So many sample images you see here or Flickr or elsewhere have some decent amount of PP, or some preset like VSCO. So do you think these shots are a good example of what you can expect from this equipment almost SOOC if you expose well?

sure, if you're looking for SOOC performance, many cameras can perform just as well. Just shoot jpg.

Now-a-days basically all cameras are capable of making good photographs. Even if it was shot in RAW it can still look straight forward and not heavily processed.

Charlie wrote in post #17159648
sure, if you're looking for SOOC performance, many cameras can perform just as well. Just shoot jpg.

https://www.flickr.com​/photos/whitehouse

I've got a hunch Pete Souza shoots RAW

watt100 wrote in post #17160390
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/whitehouse

I've got a hunch Pete Souza shoots RAW

I couldnt imagine a professional photographer (for the white house) who is shooting in JPG anyways?

Thanks for the link. Started to follow.

The Dark Knight wrote in post #17159627
So it's probably well known that the official WH photographer uses Canon, seems it's often a 5D III and 24-70ii.

https://flic.kr/p/pfqj​Ta

Above is an example.

To my eyes, these pictures don't seem to have much post processing if at all (any idea if he shoots RAW or JPEG?).

They just seem very straightforward, technically good, well exposed shots. Sharp images.

So many sample images you see here or Flickr or elsewhere have some decent amount of PP, or some preset like VSCO. So do you think these shots are a good example of what you can expect from this equipment almost SOOC if you expose well?

Maybe SOOC, but good technique in terms of lighting the room and subjects, while contending with windows in the background. Given that type of lighting, you either get the exposure right in the field (with intelligent use of natural light and/or flash), or correct it in post....or more practically, do a little bit of both.

davidfarina wrote in post #17160408
I couldnt imagine a professional photographer (for the white house) who is shooting in JPG anyways?

What is wrong with shooting in RAW ?

Did I miss something, From all the books i have read they have all suggested i shoot in raw or raw/jpeg.

Heya,

Many professionals with 1D series cameras shoot JPG. And they don't even shoot full resolution, they shoot smaller JPG resolution, in camera. Photo-journalists. But they are using top notch gear often, and are shooting small JPG for fast transfer for small print (web, tv, print, etc). So JPG performance still is a valid thing. And professionals do not have to shoot RAW depending on subject & goal of final use of the media.

I shoot RAW mostly because I don't get it right, nor does the camera, in every instance, and I like having the greater flexibility RAW provides in post.

Very best,

farmer1957 wrote in post #17160565
What is wrong with shooting in RAW ?

Did I miss something, From all the books i have read they have all suggested i shoot in raw or raw/jpeg.

Re-read my statement again...

It's a doc shot. I wouldn't expect any fancy post-processing. As a matter of fact, if it is to be disseminated to the news media, the editors would frown upon heavy post-processing. They might not publish an image if they thought it was manipulated.

To me it just looks like this guy (or gal, or guys, ...) really understands exposure, framing, and timing. FWIW I recently attended a small backyard event at which Biden was in attendance. The staff photog on hand (not sure if he travels exclusively with Biden, or they rotate, or what) was indeed mainly using a 5Diii and 24-70ii, along with a 70-200ii on a second body if I recall correctly - and no flash. At any rate, the VP graciously posed for photos with all the various guests, and when he approached our little group, a security agent thoughtfully handed my S110 to the WH photog so we could all be in the photo. In anticipation I had already dialed in fill-flash and exposure settings (in RAW), but sure enough his two photos (and of course he knew to take two) looked really great in composition etc. It all happened so quickly (and needless to say you don't want to approach anyone or walk in the wrong direction during these high-security close encounters) that I barely had a chance to say thanks, and did not get the photog's name or any other info. I suppose when you do this all day, every day.....

gossamer88 wrote in post #17160414
Thanks for the link. Started to follow.

This.

Here is a nice piece on Pete Souza, Official White House Photographer and his legendary shot when the Bin Laden raid was going on. A wonderful image indeed.

http://en.m.wikipedia.​org/wiki/Pete_Souza

Documentary shots are usually lightly PP to correct WB and exposure. Flickr and other photo sharing websites see more PP because its an artistic preference