Behind the Scenes of Fro Knows Photo's RAWtalk

If you're a fan of listening to photography podcasts then you're probably no stranger to Jared Polin's (Fro Knows Photo) RAWtalk where Jared and buddy Stephen Eckert (an incredibly talented concert photographer) chat about all things photography. The podcast is also recorded for Youtube and is actually a pretty extensive setup.

In this behind the scenes video of RAWtalk Jared shows just what it takes to create the show. He's incredibly detailed in explaining exactly how they film the show and what gear they use. I think it's pretty awesome of Jared to give us a little insight and some tips to how to film a great show like RAWtalk.

If you want a written breakdown of everything that he uses go check out the full article on Fro Knows Photo.

Via: Fro Knows Photo

Log in or register to post comments


"Bro" needs to evolve his photography and his show. Aside from shooting in raw, his videos are very basic IMHO.

Why? Why does "bro' need to evolve his photography? I'm not quite sure you understand what his target demographic and market audience is.

His target market is people who have just picked up a DSLR for the first time and don't know anything else so they don't realize most his advice is at best arbitrary opinion and at worst absolute nonsense. In essence he has turned into Ken Rockwell - the person he likes to think he is superior to. Anybody who has done photography for a couple of years outgrows his "teachings" and stops taking him seriously.

As far as his photography goes, he is at best average. Besides a few concert pictures (usually in black and white and super high contrast), and some amateur sports pictures, I have not seen anything remotely challenging- no use of lights, no compelling landscapes, no night photography, and nothing to show he is beyond a talking head. I'm sure he would retort by saying that's not his style but that's sort of a copout.

He's full of copouts. What blows my mind is that his portfolio has little to show for anything he talks about. The guy never uses off camera flash yet releases a full blown guide in essence of an informercial. The guy is a complete joke. I don't know a single person who works in the field of photography that respects him or what he does. He's just a marketer that is taking advantage of newbies and amateurs for sales of shirts and stupid guides that they think is innovative and informative. It makes me cringe.

Steve Gorse's picture

please don't tuck your tshirt into your jeans again...ever

Mr. Gorsey D. Fashionpolice, reporting for duty!

lol ,he looks like a total dweeb. The guy rocks XS shirts to appear big but in reality he's roughly 5'5-5'6 at best. The guy has short man syndrome and it's evident in his videos.

Kurt Langer's picture

I shoot Jpg and proud of it.

You don't know what you're missing! I only shoot jpg by accident - sort of like accidentally loading internet explorer and I end up regretting it.

Kurt Langer's picture

Im missing a lot of external HD's, and no regrets! I only shoot raw by accident ;-) Ok I shoot it when its all about 1 or a few important shots for those serious clients. But not walking the streets or a job that makes me shoot hundreds of frames for. Raw makes you spend more time on the computer, more computer power. I get sick of sharpening and noise reduction and all that extra sliding tweaking I have to do just to get where the jpg starts off with ;-) I get the exposure right so I don't need to compensate.
And who has ever accidentally downloaded internet explorer?

Well this is the ultimate in first world problems, but sometimes the icon for IE is too close to Chrome and I hit it. Then I have to wait for it to load before closing it and it's 5 seconds of my life wasted.

For me, shooting raw is important because I don't want to let the camera decide what settings look good before the shoot and live with them. Sometimes I notice things in the photograph afterwards and think "Hrm, that detail could really stand out better if I recovered some shadows. JPG is so final.

Kurt Langer's picture

Ohhhh - so thats how you accidentally download IE.

What you're really saying is that you don't know how to use your on-camera tools and a technical knowledge of how cameras operate in order to save post-processing time later.

Nothing wrong with shooting Raw, nothing wrong with shooting JPEG either...however, JPEG is more forgiving and you have to get it right on location, so I would say shooting JPEG takes more skill and know-how.

I know some terrific photographers who maintain a steady workload who ONLY shoot in JPEG. I tend to shoot almost everything in Raw because I tend to favor a highly stylized look that you simply cannot get normally. But I could probably close that gap if I took some time to actually get my settings in camera to be what I'll do in post anyway.

Shooting JPEG means you're letting your camera colour profile do the editing FOR you, so in fact, it makes you more lazy. True skill is being able to take a proper exposure in relevance to the type of post-processing you wish to achieve. Creative edits are next to impossible with a JPEG file.

"Creative edits are next to impossible with a JPEG file."

Yeah, yeah, sure.


So those are not creative edits?

It proves nothing. Let's see them try it with the raw file and put them side by side. Other than that, it makes no point.

Doesn't matter. This is either creatively edited or it is not.

Besides, you would more than likely fail a double-blind test of Raw vs. JPEG anyway. Getting it right in line with pure chance guessing.

You have much less information with a JPEG file, take the same image as a RAW and you can add much more detail and explore many more creative possibilities. There's a reason established and reputable professionals use RAW instead of JPEG. RAW Files are the negatives of the digital word, and using JPEG is like letting Wal-Mart process your film.

"You have much less information with a JPEG file, take the same image as a RAW" Much less of what information? Try to be as specific as possible. And how much of this information is noticeable to the human eye? Do you have any studies of double-blind tests where subjects picked the Raw consistently? (what does RAW stand for? Really Awesome Wares? JPEG is is an acronym for Joint Photographic Experts Group, but Raw is not).

"There's a reason established and reputable professionals use RAW instead of JPEG."

Not all of them. Ken Marcus, Kenneth Tanaka, Will Crockett, Damon Winter and so on. Not that they shoot *only* in JPEG, but that they don't see JPEG as useless.

"and using JPEG is like letting Wal-Mart process your film."

Well, that's a totally bullshit line. Here's a better description from this link (

of my acquaintances who is a professional photographers' technical
contact at Canon summed up the differences between RAW and JPEG in a
useful, understandable manner. He suggested that photographers consider
RAW to be the digital equivalent of print film, and JPEG to be the
digital equivalent of transparency (slide) film."

Again, take the same image both RAW and JPEG and let me know how much room you have to adjust the file in photoshop.

You really need to look into and understand RAW and JPEG more clearly, do some research. RAW files have more information in the shadows and highlights than a jpeg file. There's also more colour information than a JPEG. JPEGS are great for backups, or images you take on the go ad for leisure but using a JPEG for an image that will require some level of post-processing is extremely stupid. If JPEG was fine and the ultimate way to capture image information than RAW wouldn't exist.

What did you do back in the film days?

I'm not saying JPEG is every bit as good, that's a complete misstatement of my position.

Only that it has a place when you can achieve the look you want-in camera, or with slight adjustments via post processing.

That you somehow think Raw (again with the RAW from you...what does it stand for again?) and JPEG are worlds apart is telling that you don't really know the practical applications of either.

Not at all. The camera settings do the exact same thing but using a tiny monitor and a tiny set of tools. It offers zero benefit so why waste time when I can do the exact same thing plus hundreds of other adjustments on a 24 inch monitor. These are the stupid fake macho measures of ability that photographers come up with that I can't stand. All that matters is the final result - not your ability to take pictures while tying one hand behind your back and hopping on one leg.

"The camera settings do the exact same thing but using a tiny monitor and a tiny set of tools."

That sentence does not make sense. First, you shouldn't use your monitor to "eyeball" anything but composition. Second, the size of the on-screen tools does not matter.

Third, the "camera settings" are what you play with beforehand, knowing what they do and what they should be set at to achieve a desired result. You would know this by doing tests and then viewing the result on a 24" monitor.

"These are the stupid fake macho measures of ability that photographers come up with that I can't stand."

Anyone can take an amazing photo due to luck. Knowing what the technical side of your camera, how to read what the indicators and histogram are telling you, and how to utilize your camera settings in order to get exactly what you want is what makes you a consistent photographer, not just a lucky one.

You're just ranting on and trying to be condescending using strawman arguments. The camera settings are not the same as exposure and composition. Those things are the only things that matter when you are doing the actual shooting. The in camera settings are very basic tools in PROCESSING. Processing after the fact has a much bigger advantage. Just picking a particular setting and hoping things turn out ok is the lazy man's way.

"You're just ranting on and trying to be condescending using strawman arguments."

I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.

"Just picking a particular setting and hoping things turn out ok is the lazy man's way."

That is a strawman argument. I never said any such thing, and it's a complete misstatement of my position.

With all of the negative comments, I will leave a positive one. I really enjoy Jared (and Stephen) on the podcast/videos/tutorials.

Stephen seems to be the one who actually gets things done and knows the technical side of things. Sort of the way it was when Craig Cazillo was with the Bro and there was the "falling out" - whatever that was. It's easy to see that the entire marketing and appeal of the show is based on the wacky hair-do so all the other parts are interchangeable. Like a DSLR. That wasn't too negative I hope.

You're right. It IS all Stephen. without him Fro wouldn't KNOW anything.

The guy is a complete hack. He shoves guides and shirts down people's throat constantly. The guy is barely a photographer, he just tries to appear as a photographer first because his audience are newbies and don't know any better. He's stopped making quality tutorial videos and now only makes stupid shows where he talks about irrelevant things and talks about how great he is and how much better his work is than anyone else's.
Can you believe this guy is trying to sell people guides to using off camera flash when he's repeatedly admitted to not knowing flash very well? But he expect you to drop 70+ bucks to get his "guide"? He's a tool. He's going to come out with a wedding guide and DLSR video guide, both things he has little to no experience in. This guy is just trying to milk the naive viewers he has.. I'm really excited for his flame to burn out and see how falling back on photography will work out for him because his work is mediocre and he rarely, if ever, gets paid to shoot anymore.

More comments