Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    3,209

    2 raw vs jpeg articles...one from ken rockwell

    holy crap, i found two raw vs jpeg articles and one of them really cracked me up.

    i found this one very factual and informing.
    http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2196/j...explained.html

    and then there's ken rockwell. who basically says that there's no difference and if you shoot raw then you will lose your images in 10-20 years. i can't believe people actually take this guy seriously.
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
    40d | 5d mk II | 2.8/16 zenitar fisheye | 16-35L | 35L | sigma 1.4/50 | sigma 2.8/50 Macro | sigma 1.4/85 | 70-200L IS
    website
    disclaimer: posts are for personal entertainment only...not to be taken seriously...ever.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,200
    I've always liked Michael Reichmann and his Luminous Landscape site. I've purchased a few of his DVDs and enjoyed them very much. His are some of the photo vacations that I'd most like to attend.

    As for KR, when graded on a curve against his previous writings this is actually pretty good! There should be a warning label when clicking over to his site. When I was first starting out I didn't realize how full of BS he was- he really is dangerous to new photographers.
    _______________
    Nikon D3, D300, F-100, 10.5 Fisheye, 35 f/1.4, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4, Zeiss 100 f/2, 105 f/2.5, 200 f/4 Micro, 200 f/2 VR, 300 f/2.8 AF-S II, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8, SU-800, SB-900, 4xSB-800, 1.4x and 1.7x TC
    (2) Profoto Acute 2400 packs w/4 heads, Chimera Boxes

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    3,209
    I'm sharing what works for me gathered across three decades of continuous full-time paid professional experience in digital imaging. In addition I was studying digital imaging for ten years before I got my engineering degree and started as a professional working with the guys with PhDs in mathematics who invented all this.
    and that's the sad part...he will actually trick them into thinking he's right.

    it's borderline propaganda.

    he writes something like this...
    If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you.
    but leaves out the fact that you can edit hundreds at a time through programs like lightroom.

    and he tells you that you will lose your files because there isn't a raw standard, but completely leaves out adobe's .dng format.

    one of these days i'm gonna make a how to website.
    40d | 5d mk II | 2.8/16 zenitar fisheye | 16-35L | 35L | sigma 1.4/50 | sigma 2.8/50 Macro | sigma 1.4/85 | 70-200L IS
    website
    disclaimer: posts are for personal entertainment only...not to be taken seriously...ever.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    So Calif
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by adam75south View Post
    holy crap, i found two raw vs jpeg articles and one of them really cracked me up.

    i found this one very factual and informing.
    http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2196/j...explained.html

    and then there's ken rockwell. who basically says that there's no difference and if you shoot raw then you will lose your images in 10-20 years. i can't believe people actually take this guy seriously.
    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
    I don't. He's insulting.
    Pentax K20D/K5/15/21/40/70/10-17/12-24, Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5/150-500, Tamron 90 Macro/70-200 2.8, Canon SX20 IS/Elph 500HS
    (formerly Pentax 50 1.4/50-200/55-300/K100D, Sigma 18-50 2.8/70-300 APO, Tamron 28-75, Viv 800, Tele-Tokina 800, Canon S3 IS, Samsung L210)
    http://s133.photobucket.com/albums/q78/KylePix/

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,251
    This is all I need to know about Rockwell: here's a well-written well-reasoned point by point refutation of Rockwell's article. And Rockwell calls it a "hate article." (Although to be fair, Rockwell did provide the link.)
    Adam
    -------------
    Canon 60D & lenses & flashes & stuff
    A bunch of cheap vintage film cameras


    My Etsy store

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan/from Canada
    Posts
    1,313
    This is my favorite bit in Ken's article about RAW and people who use RAW
    Software takes much longer to do the same thing the camera's hardware does, but gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later.
    I guess I am less confident because I use RAW, does that make sense?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124
    Some of the things he's right on such as processing time going up (by a lot if you just used "out of camera jpegs" before) less/no gain for small prints (again assuming you got WB exposure right) and size issues (let's face it, a raw, config files and a jpeg is more space then a jpeg alone)

    Having said all that I'd never switch off raw. Being ABLE to do those things doesn't mean one MUST. Often at family events I shoot raw + L jpeg just for the cast of quick prints or stuff I really have no wish to edit.

    Tim

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249
    Currently, I shoot in RAW when I am concerned about WB issues - especially when shooting indoors or if I am shooting flowers.
    However, I find myself slowly shooting in RAW more and more often, simply due to the flexibility that it offers.
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan/from Canada
    Posts
    1,313
    Here's my question, I've heard some people here say that they are switching back to jpeg now that they are using "Adobe Lightroom." Does anyone have an opinion on this. If Lightroom can do everything to jpeg that could only be done to RAW in the past, it would revolutionize my photographic life, so to speak.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,124
    Jpeg can never do what raw can which is adjust white balance before processing or give added headroom in highlights or shadows.

    It just can not. If the JPEG value of a pixel is pure white it's pure white. It can not recover anything where the raw value may not be "pure white."

    Tim

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •