Back here I extolled the virtues of the RAW format when shooting digital. Ken Rockwell, however, kills that notion outright. He says shooting your images as standard or fine JPG's should suffice for most publications. Any thoughts on this? By the way, Ken also has this post on his site that is a must read for the gearheads among us.
Seshu is an Avon, Connecticut based headshot photographer and family portrait photographer. He edits and publishes Tiffinbox and produces Tiffincast for photographers like you!
Latest posts by Seshu | Editor & Publisher (see all)
- 10 Steps To Stay Positive In Times Of Great Stress - July 13, 2022
- Why You Need To Read “Personal Branding For Photographers” Now - April 28, 2021
- How To Master Your Website Content Step By Step? - December 16, 2020
Ken Rockwell say a lot of things in his site. You shouldn’t take his words very seriously ;-)
As for me, I just bought a 1GB card so that I can shoot RAW more. Very useful in long exposures because it’s hard to predict the light.
Another thing I find useful is the exposure compensation. From one RAW file you can get photos with different exposure level, up to +-2 stop. Put them in PS and you can do HDR manually!. JPEG is good too if the outcome is predictable.
Ken Rockwell say a lot of things in his site. You shouldn’t take his words very seriously ;-)
As for me, I just bought a 1GB card so that I can shoot RAW more. Very useful in long exposures because it’s hard to predict the light.
Another thing I find useful is the exposure compensation. From one RAW file you can get photos with different exposure level, up to +-2 stop. Put them in PS and you can do HDR manually!. JPEG is good too if the outcome is predictable.
~I now shoot everything in RAW, and stocked up on 1B compact flash cards as a result, but when it comes to nasty compression issues RAW makes a world of difference over JPEG and the results one sees at 300 dpi~
~I now shoot everything in RAW, and stocked up on 1B compact flash cards as a result, but when it comes to nasty compression issues RAW makes a world of difference over JPEG and the results one sees at 300 dpi~
It seems a waste of time to even begin arguing with Ken Rockwell’s opinionated ignorance. His basic premise is that lot of photojournalists shoot jpg and are happy with it. Well, for a newspaper quality and magazine reproduction maybe its alright. Maybe the fact that Sports Illustrated photographs look like crap in print is also fine(compare them with the pictures with predigital era). I dont know if they shoot in jpg or they dont really care to process the images after shooting in Raw. But to me, the quality sucks. If you argue that quality is a matter of taste, then its a different story.
Ken’s major issue is that Raw processing takes time. Doesnt everything good take time? Dont master printers who spend hours produce infinitely better prints comapared to 1-hour photolab? To me the argument for raw processing and stretching photoshop to its limits is like master printer working in the darkroom.
Ken gives example of Karl Grobl, whose website has images of such low jpg quality that its hard to make any sensible statement looking at them.
“Many people who shoot RAW, which I consider to be a big waste of time, don’t realize that white balance can be adjusted in Photoshop even from JPGs. No, Photoshop doesn’t yet have a “dummies” panel actually marked with common white balance monikers, but skilled photographers have always has been able to do it. I prefer using the “Set White Point” and “Set Neutral Gray” eyedroppers in the Levels command.”
This is a bunch of flawed statements. First of all, Raw images are opened in Adobe Camera RAw in 16 bit and when you balance the temperature, you are actually messing with the Image Histogram, ie the image data. This is not quite same as color balancing in jpg which is already a 8 bit image. This much is just photoshop 101. For your pleasure, please open an image in 16 bit, mess with it and convert it to jpg and compare the same image with the jpg shot in the camera and after messing with it, compare the two histograms.
Jpgs do not respond to ISO noise and noise in general as effectively as Raws would. Check out details in Real World Camera Raw by one of the digital imaging guru’s Bruce Fraser.
Here’s the bottom line: Raw’s are like your negatives, you can go back and interpret and get the best out of them whenever you want depending on your skill level. Jpgs are do not give much latitude for post processing .
I dont understand the cynical repeated use of the word “Tweaker” to designate working with raw images to produce better quality. Quality is an obsession and those who care for it, would call it “Perfection” . And finally, National Geographic accepts only Raw files from its photographers, most of whom have gone digital. Perhaps those guys know a thing or two about photography .
It seems a waste of time to even begin arguing with Ken Rockwell’s opinionated ignorance. His basic premise is that lot of photojournalists shoot jpg and are happy with it. Well, for a newspaper quality and magazine reproduction maybe its alright. Maybe the fact that Sports Illustrated photographs look like crap in print is also fine(compare them with the pictures with predigital era). I dont know if they shoot in jpg or they dont really care to process the images after shooting in Raw. But to me, the quality sucks. If you argue that quality is a matter of taste, then its a different story.
Ken’s major issue is that Raw processing takes time. Doesnt everything good take time? Dont master printers who spend hours produce infinitely better prints comapared to 1-hour photolab? To me the argument for raw processing and stretching photoshop to its limits is like master printer working in the darkroom.
Ken gives example of Karl Grobl, whose website has images of such low jpg quality that its hard to make any sensible statement looking at them.
“Many people who shoot RAW, which I consider to be a big waste of time, don’t realize that white balance can be adjusted in Photoshop even from JPGs. No, Photoshop doesn’t yet have a “dummies” panel actually marked with common white balance monikers, but skilled photographers have always has been able to do it. I prefer using the “Set White Point” and “Set Neutral Gray” eyedroppers in the Levels command.”
This is a bunch of flawed statements. First of all, Raw images are opened in Adobe Camera RAw in 16 bit and when you balance the temperature, you are actually messing with the Image Histogram, ie the image data. This is not quite same as color balancing in jpg which is already a 8 bit image. This much is just photoshop 101. For your pleasure, please open an image in 16 bit, mess with it and convert it to jpg and compare the same image with the jpg shot in the camera and after messing with it, compare the two histograms.
Jpgs do not respond to ISO noise and noise in general as effectively as Raws would. Check out details in Real World Camera Raw by one of the digital imaging guru’s Bruce Fraser.
Here’s the bottom line: Raw’s are like your negatives, you can go back and interpret and get the best out of them whenever you want depending on your skill level. Jpgs are do not give much latitude for post processing .
I dont understand the cynical repeated use of the word “Tweaker” to designate working with raw images to produce better quality. Quality is an obsession and those who care for it, would call it “Perfection” . And finally, National Geographic accepts only Raw files from its photographers, most of whom have gone digital. Perhaps those guys know a thing or two about photography .
yeah..i agree with hari. I find ken rockwell’s opinions a little opinionated and a little ignorant.
yeah..i agree with hari. I find ken rockwell’s opinions a little opinionated and a little ignorant.
Everytime I hear Jpg-Raw debate, it reminds of the
GeorgeBush-Global Warming debate.
….Yaaarrgghh…its getting hot out here(no offense to Ken or Bush)
Hari
Everytime I hear Jpg-Raw debate, it reminds of the
GeorgeBush-Global Warming debate.
….Yaaarrgghh…its getting hot out here(no offense to Ken or Bush)
Hari