How accurate is Ken Rockwell?

[Steve5D]

I followed his advice which means all my photos from when I first got a DSLR were shot in JPEG basic instead of RAW which just about killed any post processing potential.

That's gotta' be one of the sillier things I've read today.

How does shooting in JPEG instead of raw "kill" any post processing potential?

 

[table1349]

Is it just me or is there a real resemblance?

I think this says a lot: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/8d/8df6ba8e6e0c4ad28dbb28fabb5ce9dc9eabe9c7f009ef599a1078242fa75323.jpg

 

[71M]

If you know nothing, he can teach you something. If you know something, his pronouncements offer the chance to reflect upon it/question it/affirm it; if you know everything, you don't need to worry about his accuracy, just enjoy his updates/archive. I view all the other reviewers in the same way.

 

[Monday]

I too put a lot of stock in his lenses reviews. Then realized to start looking at unbiased reviewers and actual data. Glad I did as it saved me thousands in the end on lenses that are awesome and in some cases very equivalent,.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[bribrius]

I still read him occasionally. Used to be more so.

not so much for gear recs or anything deep. But he has a certain "take" and simplified perception of photography I really enjoy and find favor with. And I still learn things from time to time or get reminded of things I forgot. It might be his opinion, but the way he explains things cut and dry for the every day joe out there doing it I really like. would I read it all like it was carved in stone? No.

 

[bribrius]

. I followed his advice which means all my photos from when I first got a DSLR were shot in JPEG basic instead of RAW which just about killed any post processing potential.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I started digital just doing jpeg. Some of my cameras only shoot jpeg. I still shoot jpeg. If I am using a camera with jpeg plus raw I will shoot jpeg with raw. Even with that, im more likely to just shoot jpeg.

Most of my photos, don't need a raw file.
I didn't get that from Rockwell. Another old timer told me that. There are benefits to shooting raw, but you don't HAVE to shoot raw. In fact if you have to shoot raw for everything there might be a problem.
Don't they all get transformed to jpegs or tif anyway? jpeg is convenient and quicker as well. jmo
sure, you have more options for processing raw. But why, do you need more options on the majority of your images?

 

[480sparky]

....... In fact if you have to shoot raw for everything there might be a problem...........

And what, in fact, would that problem be?

 

[bribrius]

....... In fact if you have to shoot raw for everything there might be a problem...........

And what, in fact, would that problem be?

The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less. Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
shoot RAW!! Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..

 

[bribrius]

hell, just the extra time waiting for the computer and extra large files and more of them is a reason not to shoot RAW unless you really need to.

 

[tirediron]

....... In fact if you have to shoot raw for everything there might be a problem...........

And what, in fact, would that problem be?

The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less. Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
shoot RAW!! Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..

hell, just the extra time waiting for the computer and extra large files and more of them is a reason not to shoot RAW unless you really need to.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Oh... sorry; you were being serious?

 

[bribrius]

And what, in fact, would that problem be?

The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less. Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
shoot RAW!! Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..

hell, just the extra time waiting for the computer and extra large files and more of them is a reason not to shoot RAW unless you really need to.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Oh... sorry; you were being serious?

totally actually. Just my opinion of course. You have a specific reason why I am incorrect? Enlighten me. millions of people a day shoot jpeg images everyday.. There is a reason cameras have a jpeg only setting even when they shoot raw.

 

[tirediron]

The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less. Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
shoot RAW!! Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..

hell, just the extra time waiting for the computer and extra large files and more of them is a reason not to shoot RAW unless you really need to.

:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Oh... sorry; you were being serious?

totally actually. Just my opinion of course. You have a specific reason why I am incorrect? Enlighten me. millions of people a day shoot jpeg images everyday.. There is a reason cameras have a jpeg only setting even when they shoot raw.

There is no 'right' or 'wrong'; it's totally subjective, but I don't see the logic in deliberately sacrificing image data. To me this would be like shooting Polaroid rather than 6x7 Porta; there's really little you can do with either the .jpg or the Polaroid. If you're happy with them the way they they come out of the camera, great, if not... too bad. Personally, even for the most basic of shooting requirements I prefer the flexibility offered by the increased size of a raw file. You don't have to use it, but if you don't have it and you need it...

 

[480sparky]

The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less. Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
shoot RAW!! Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..

Maybe this will help you comprehend it, then:

I shoot raw for everything [except for occasional snapshot] because I sell more than just finshed prints that I think look pretty.

Many times, I will sell an image to someone who requires extensive editing to the original image. Editing that sometimes makes a raw file a prerequisite. Trying to edit a JPG to their specifications would be like trying to poke warm butter up a wildcat's anus with a red-hot ice pick.

For the simple reason I never know the final use of most of my images, this makes shooting in 14-bit raw a requirement.

Case in point: I took a shot of a '55 Chevy at an auto rally. Beautiful sky blue paint job. 4 years later I sold some rights to use the image, but they wanted to know if the car could be red instead.

Raw file..... no problem. Easy edit..... money in the bank. JPEG.... no dice. Lost sale..... no money.

 

[Scatterbrained]

....... In fact if you have to shoot raw for everything there might be a problem...........

And what, in fact, would that problem be?

The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less. Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
shoot RAW!! Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..

First, I shoot raw exclusively. I have a powerful enough machine that it doesn't make much difference if I shoot jpeg or raw, file transfers and edits happen quite quick. I also tend to carry just over 100GB worth of memory cards in my bag too, so I'm not likely to run out of space.
Second, I'm a "low volume" shooter. I don't show up at an event or location looking to shoot a hundred deliverable images, nor do I look to deliver images before I even get home. So the expediency of JPEG is wasted on people like me.
Third, I shoot with my post processing workflow in mind. I pre-visualize the final image, and shoot in a way that will give me the data I need to make that image happen. For example in this image, I intentionally underexposed the subject to retain detail in the sky.

Amelia as Sleeping Beauty by tltichy, on Flickr​

Shooting to properly expose the subject in jpeg would have given me a white sky with no detail. Checking the difference between exposure values however told me I could shoot raw, expose for the sky, and recover the subject in raw. That kind of latitude isn't there with jpeg, but you have to be able to see it before you trip the shutter. That kind of shooting requires an intuitive understanding of both your camera sensors capabilities and your post processing workflow. This example brings me to the most important part, that shooting in raw affords the use of a much larger dynamic range than can be stored in a finished jpeg image.

 

[bribrius]

The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less. Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
shoot RAW!! Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..

Maybe this will help you comprehend it, then:

I shoot raw for everything [except for occasional snapshot] because I sell more than just finshed prints that I think look pretty.

Many times, I will sell an image to someone who requires extensive editing to the original image. Editing that sometimes makes a raw file a prerequisite. Trying to edit a JPG to their specifications would be like trying to poke warm butter up a wildcat's anus with a red-hot ice pick.

For the simple reason I never know the final use of most of my images, this makes shooting in 14-bit raw a requirement.

Case in point: I took a shot of a '55 Chevy at an auto rally. Beautiful sky blue paint job. 4 years later I sold some rights to use the image, but they wanted to know if the car could be red instead.

Raw file..... no problem. Easy edit..... money in the bank. JPEG.... no dice. Lost sale..... no money.

okay. so you shoot RAW for the unknown factor, never knowing where such images will end up. I'm pretty sure where most of my images will end up beforehand but okay, I get this it makes sense.

And what, in fact, would that problem be?

The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less. Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
shoot RAW!! Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..

First, I shoot raw exclusively. I have a powerful enough machine that it doesn't make much difference if I shoot jpeg or raw, file transfers and edits happen quite quick. I also tend to carry just over 100GB worth of memory cards in my bag too, so I'm not likely to run out of space.
Second, I'm a "low volume" shooter. I don't show up at an event or location looking to shoot a hundred deliverable images, nor do I look to deliver images before I even get home. So the expediency of JPEG is wasted on people like me.
Third, I shoot with my post processing workflow in mind. I pre-visualize the final image, and shoot in a way that will give me the data I need to make that image happen. For example in this image, I intentionally underexposed the subject to retain detail in the sky.

Amelia as Sleeping Beauty by tltichy, on Flickr​

Shooting to properly expose the subject in jpeg would have given me a white sky with no detail. Checking the difference between exposure values however told me I could shoot raw, expose for the sky, and recover the subject in raw. That kind of latitude isn't there with jpeg, but you have to be able to see it before you trip the shutter. That kind of shooting requires an intuitive understanding of both your camera sensors capabilities and your post processing workflow. This example brings me to the most important part, that shooting in raw affords the use of a much larger dynamic range than can be stored in a finished jpeg image.

And you shoot raw because you don't shoot a lot of images and like in this one particular instance above (cutest kid btw) you knew it would need more processing so Raw is the way to go.

I get this too. I shoot something I know before hand might need "tweaking" (or basically it is screwed) I will shoot raw as well.

But this doesn't explain the propensity of those using RAW when probably only a small percentage of them, or their photos actually need to be in RAW. And I cant tell the difference between raw and jpeg images the majority of the time. They look near identical.

I am curious as to know the amount of dynamic range difference as well. seems if I take one of each in post and purposely try to blow out the highlights there isn't really a ton of difference. (I just tried it).
would you guys at least agree, that in ninety percent of the images people shoot jpeg is perfectly fine?