How accurate is Ken Rockwell?

[71M]

One thing I noticed when I was shooting the Fuji S2, against the Nikon D1h, and then later the Canon 20D...the Fuji JPEGs had more room for editing than the rather flimsy JPEGs older Nikons and Canons created.

10D was a great jpeg camera; S3 also. D1x, D70.

 

[Steve5D]

I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.

That's ridiculously wrong...

 

[480sparky]

I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.

That's ridiculously wrong...

Read post 28 again.

Perhaps you could enlighten us how you would handle the situation with a JPEG.

 

[Derrel]

I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.

That's ridiculously wrong...

I think the idea that shooting in-camera JPEG with the NEW-generation d-slr and mirrorless cameras "kills any post-processing" potential is indeed greatly overstated. We've seen some extreme DR examples in the past, where a specific scene was shot in RAW and shot in a, what I would call non-optimized manner (strong backlighting with the highlights allowed to almost blow), and then a crappy JPEG offered up as a sacrificial "proof of concept" that, yes, shooting JPEG mode sucks.

If you're gonna shoot JPEG, you need to have the critical parameters set appropriately for the scene's dynamic range; we've heard some examples here about needing to make huuuuge global shifts, like a blue car to a red car, and so on, as proof that, yes, shooting in JPEG mode sucks. Bad cases make bad laws. Extreme, hyper-unusual examples make bad examples, and ignore the day to day realities. There is more than one way to a good image. Good God, I grew up shooting Kodachrome 64--we had ZERO control over post processing. There was NONE done, ever. You got what you shot. You learned how to make images using a fixed dynamic range and ONE, single, specific development process for Kodachrome. It was *the* de facto standard of millions of American color slide film shooters from the 1940's to the early 1990's.JPEGs from my new Nikon have maybe 4 full EV MORE DR even with the tone curve cranked to HIGH.

What we have not seen much of on TPF are examples of people shooting a JPEG so it HAS some post-processing potential. it seems as if there are people bringing the old, pre-2005 JPEG limitations to the table, over and over again, and not realizing that the new-generation cameras CAN IN FACT make amazing JPEG images...images that USED to, a decade ago, absolutely demand RAW captures.

 

[rexbobcat]

I think the idea that shooting in-camera JPEG with the NEW-generation d-slr and mirrorless cameras "kills any post-processing" potential is indeed greatly overstated. We've seen some extreme DR examples in the past, where a specific scene was shot in RAW and shot in a, what I would call non-optimized manner (strong backlighting with the highlights allowed to almost blow), and then a crappy JPEG offered up as a sacrificial "proof of concept" that, yes, shooting JPEG mode sucks. If you're gonna shoot JPEG, you need to have the critical parameters set appropriately for the scene's dynamic range; we've heard some examples here about needing to make huuuuge global shifts, like a blue care to a red car, and so on, as proof that, yes, shooting in JPEG mode sucks. What we have not seen much of on TPF are examples of people shooting a JPEG so it HAS some post-processing potential. it seems as if there are people bringing the old, pre-2005 JPEG limitations to the table, over and over again, and not realizing that the new-generation cameras CAN IN FACT make amazing JPEG images...images that USED to, a decade ago, absolutely demand RAW captures.

Fujifilm JPEGS are pretty damn great. Their noise reduction is a little heavy-handed even on the lowest setting but the tones are nice.

 

[Overread]

Lets try not to get side-tracked talking about extreme examples here. Sure we can sit here and nit pick every situation where JPEG would and wouldn't potentially "work". And for every situation where we can find in-camera JPEGs working really well we can find examples where its not going to be suitable (at both technical and artistic levels).

JPEG gives you a usable photo right out of the camera with a small file size. It's potential for editing is significantly reduced from RAW, however the majority of users are never going to push that potential envelope anyway. Thus the JPEG to them is more than enough. For hte rest of us RAW presents an ideal option where we can use "auto" and "default" in lightroom or other editing software or we can push and pull the shot as we need. For the keen the latter option of having a RAW is superior because of the "What if" situation of when you end up in a situation that isn't the norm and in which you can't predict it before (and thus change into RAW mode for that one or series of shots).

Of course RAW+JPEG also exists for an ideal in-between setting; but does eat up more card space (which when you think about it is a daft way of doing things since every RAW shot has a JPEG embedded into it anyway - one would think they could have designed software to auto-pull the JPEGs out of the RAWs and thus have no need for RAW+JPEG and simply have it as a download option when importing from the card.

 

[robbins.photo]

I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.

That's ridiculously wrong...

Well, not sure who may have said that but it wasn't me - RAW does give me more options in post, and is especially handy when I'm dealing with situations where the white balance is tricky at best. That happens a lot for me actually, since I'm often shooting in a combination of florescent and ambient light. JPG's can still be post processed to a certain extent, however I've found RAW gives me more options and generally produces better results when the white balance is an issue.

So, I shoot in RAW when needed, JPG when needed, and use whatever the situation requires.

 

[tecboy]

I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.

That's ridiculously wrong...

Forget jpeg! Shoot RAW! Steve!

 

[Josh66]

A few years ago, I posted a challenge for TPF members to alter a JPEG image that was taken with the incorrect white balance to make it more in line to one take with the correct WB. If memory serves, only one member succeeded, with great difficulty, and with mediocre results.

It's not *that* hard...



As far as Ken Rockwell goes, I think his stuff is pretty funny sometimes. People take him too seriously.

 

[pgriz]

Much of my photography is used to document the work that my company does. These are used as a proof of work done, as a record of techniques used, and in our marketing and sales to illustrate how "we" do things and are different from the thirty thousand other contractors competing with us. I usually use fill flash (to reduce the shadows on bright days) or to be able to see (usually at the end of the day when the sun is already down), or to illuminate some nook or cranny that doesn't get direct daylight, ever. Shooting in RAW gives me the processing "headroom" to correct things that I may miss in the field, and to be able to produce nice, professional-looking "how-it's-done" images that I can use to educate my prospective clients. My crew chief used a point-and-shoot to document stuff when I wasn't around, and his camera only shot JPG. That camera's images are much harder to correct without causing visible artifacts. So I solved the problem by giving him a P&S with RAW capabilities.

As for Ken Rockwell - When I started digital photography, and found his site, I thought I struck gold. With some experience, I began to see more and understand how HE saw his site, and it became a place I occasionally go to for some entertainment, one man's opinions, and a look at gear that I may not be exposed to otherwise. I admire what he has done as a site owner, although I do not consider his opinions as uncritically as I did at the beginning.

 

[bribrius]

i heard ansel adams shot jpeg only. Being a environmentalist he was very interested in conservation.

 

[480sparky]

It's not *that* hard.......

I'll try to dig it up so you can show us how easy it is.

 

[sashbar]

I keep shooting basic JPEG+RAW and honestly do not really know why. Probably "just in case". Images that I post here are all basic camera JPEGs with some quick pp. I do not remember when I last used a RAW file.

 

[The_Traveler]

I shoot raw because perhaps only one in a hundred might need that extra room - but I don't know in advance which one.
So the simplest way to be safe is to shoot all Raw + jpg and carry enough memory.

 

[Vince.1551]

I shoot raw simply because it's operationally easier to bring up shadows. And I don't have to start from scrap should I need to make changes to a final image. With JPEG I've to go back to the original image else I'll suffer from lost of data each time I save a JPEG file due to compression.