What is so bad about RAW?

[runnah]

I wonder if he's reading this right now? I hope he makes an anti-TPF video.

Anti TPF?

Can't be done.

 

[unpopular]

if anyone can, beet-faced quasimoto can.

 

[Gavjenks]

The non over/underexposed examples on that page are not particularly convincing.

 

[pixmedic]

if anyone can, beet-faced quasimoto can.

the funny part was him criticizing turnipwhatshisface for leaving an ugly youtube message and how unnecessary it is to make it personal.....then calls the guy stupid in every other sentence on the video.

 

[unpopular]

I know, right? I mean, I was way over the top. But the irony hadn't escaped me.

Then again, he pretty much admits that these videos are intended for low-end audiences:

Where did we lead you to believe that our info is aimed at big budget Hollywood image creation? It's not. We are the leaders of the pro still shooters that are working toward making profitable eProducts

What he means by this is that it's for people interested in obsolete Web 1.0 marketing techniques.

 

[table1349]

I wonder if he's reading this right now? I hope he makes an anti-TPF video.

I'm just surprised he hasn't blown your brain up with his mind.

 

[unpopular]

or his little mirrorless minions don't track me down.

i think he's starting a cult. i really do.

 

[TCampbell]

if anyone can, beet-faced quasimoto can.

the funny part was him criticizing turnipwhatshisface for leaving an ugly youtube message and how unnecessary it is to make it personal.....then calls the guy stupid in every other sentence on the video.

Yeah -- so I checked his original video (the JPEG video) and then the special video he made for Unpopular.

My impression is... (a) this guy is yet another hack trying to "make a name" for himself by being controversial and (b) lacks class. He's just a wee bit too full of himself.

When he made the comment about photography forums on the Internet, my first thought was "waitaminute... photography forums on the Internet actually HELP people. What are YOU doing to help? While I've never heard of him and this was the first video I watched... I certainly couldn't count that video that JPEG will help you build confidence (as though we have a confidence problem -- I was unaware, but hey... maybe I'm slow.) Yeah that didn't bode well for the "helping" people category.

I'm not always against people being full of themselves. I don't always mind someone who is cocky... when they're talented AND right. But this guy doesn't seem particularly talented and he's certainly not "right" on the issue.

I pretty much agree with the assessment that he likes to hear himself talk. I see a lot of videos... where the person who makes the video, isn't actually IN the video. That's because the video is primarily to show off subject-matter and NOT show off the person who made it or the person talking. His video was... well pretty much the opposite of that. <shrug>

I'm not against JPEG. I use it from time to time (apparently when I need to build confidence) mostly if I know I'll be away from my computer for a few days but want to review my images on my iPad (which can't import my camera's RAW files.) If you put your camera into continuous shooting mode... you'll get a lot more shots before the internal buffers fills and the frame-rate drops (and on some cameras the card-transfer speed is fast enough that the frame-rate will never drop and you can shoot until your card is full.)

While he might think he's a great photographer for "committing" to his image by shooting RAW, I can show him some AWESOME photographers (who certainly blow away his work) who work quite diligently in their post production (even though what they STARTED with before the post work looks a helluva lot better than what most people FINISH with when they're done.) This is because... they're standards are higher.

 

[Compaq]

What's with the downputting? He's not preaching, merely suggesting.

What's the point in telling him he's wrong? What, and you're right? Consider his advice, use it or forget it. What's the big deal?

 

[tecboy]

The point is there are photographers out there giving misleading informations that contradicts what I have learned in photography. It just lead to confusion and controversy. Other Photographers out there need to know who are these misleading photographers before they get themselves into. These misleading photographers are trying to get money and fame in the wrong way, and they succeed. Just to let other photographers to beware of these misleading photographers.

There are plenty of Internet articles out there similar to ken rockwell and will crockett. There is one highly controversial article is worst than rockwell and crockett combined.

 

[Overread]

So at the end of 10 pages we've summarised that part of learning is learning not just the information but WHO to listen to. This is the same as it always has been - lecturers, books, internet articles, friends, professionals, amateurs etc.... - people and information sources are all around us and part of learning is learning who to listen to.

And a part of that in itself is learning that not everyone is right and not everyone is wrong. Sometimes those highly opinionated views might be wrong in the general sense of learning a skill; but they are just right for a segment of the market who want to learn about that far and no further - not everyone with camera wants to learn it all.

 

[pixmedic]

I shoot raw because i run everything through LR anyway.
so my question now is....given the fact that i will process everything through Lightroom, and have no need to take something straight from the camera to the web or a tablet, and my time for processing is NOT a concern...(just for the sake of this question)
IS there a scenario where I will get a result by shooting jpeg that i CAN NOT get by shooting raw and processing in LR or PS?
or is the only real advantage is that you don't have to do the post processing?
(I hope i worded this question right)

 

[Overread]

Pix its lost in the sea of madness that is 10 pages, but JPEG has bonuses in some areas - for example if you need a fast instant photo, light in file size and also one where you are unlikely to do anything but crop a little in editing.

Such examples can include:

1) sports photographers who often are sending the files right off the camera to an assistant with a laptop and then direct to the editor pretty much as soon as they are taken (wireless file transfer). In that field they need the small size of JPEG to help speed up the transfer processes and they gain nothing by introducing a RAW photo to the setup as they are unlikely to need the higher potential quality for news or web print and they are unlikely to spend any time over editing.

2) fast studio to print setups - those kind where you've fixed flash setups and just process people through the seat/poses to get the shots and then print them off fast. Again its a situation where RAW just brings no benefit and can slow the overall process.

Note in both cases photographers can shoot RAW+JPEG - giving them the fast JPEG for the now need and a RAW if they want to touch it up for a later use when they've more time.

Affordable batch processing like Lightroom might slowly change things for some photographers, but otherwise JPEG does have a place in the world

 

[Buckster]

I'm reminded that once upon a time, in the earliest days of photography, photographers all did their own developing and processing to print. Learning the darkroom techniques of the day was all a part of that, and the whole process, start to finish, camera to processing to final print was ALL just a means to get to the FINAL product: The image that others could view.

Then Kodak came along and said, "we'll do the processing for you! Not only that, we'll even load and unload and reload the camera for you!!" That was a fundamental shift in the photography landscape, and turned every Tom, Dick and Jane into a "photographer" because all they had to do then was learn to operate a camera well enough to not blow out the highlights or block up the shadows too terribly much. And that's the way it was, for the most part, for the next 100+ years or so, as millions of Toms, Dicks and Janes handed off their undeveloped rolls of film to processing labs, who made most of the processing and printing choices for them, unless given special instructions, which wasn't very common.

Of course, many photographers retained full control of everything from start to finish, and continued to refine the processes used in the darkroom, but they were far, FAR outnumbered by the masses that came to be known as shutterbugs who knew little to nothing about anything beyond the camera operation.

With the shift to digital, a lot of the Tom, Dick and Janes have gone back to taking that developing/processing to print part of photography back into their own hands and are actively making their own developing choices again.

Crockett seems to be stuck in the, "somebody else do it for me" world that Kodak created, and that's fine for him and anyone else that wants to do things that way. But to claim that it makes him more creative, or for him to even imply that it makes him or his choices better in some way is just ridiculous.

For him to claim that he's right because he's shot for so long and gets gigs shooting for Fortune 500 companies is a logical fallacy. There are plenty of people who've shot as long or longer than him that suck, and frankly, I'm not terribly impressed by anything I saw on his web site. As for the Fortune 500 gigs, it's a lot like being a pop star - it's not necessarily talent that gets you the big star - it's more marketing and promotion combined with the fact that the masses and clients we serve often don't know shat from shinola, or we wouldn't have had disco or Justine Bieber.

 

[unpopular]

^^^ very well worded.

But I personally have my doubts about the 'fortune 500' line. I don't doubt that he's maybe photographed some mid-level employee who happened to work for one of the 500 largest corporations in America - that is, after all, a lot of local branches full of paper pushes, maybe he even had a pretty sweet gig at one point. But I doubt very much that he's the Fortune Magazine's 'go to guy' for corporate photography the way he blabs on about it.

Photographing a few head shots for an investment banker at a local Bank of America is hardly the same thing as photographing the CEO. I'm looking through the list to see if I've ever had a Fortune 500 client myself!

I know a few very high-end photographers and some pretty competent cinematographers who have worked on some major high budget television programs. The one thing these people have in common is that they let their work speak for itself. They don't need the admiration from vlog groupies, they don't need to go off on and make a video just for some random troll on youtube.

But who knows, maybe when corporations need a photographer, they go to Crockett. Not to knock people's bread and butter, but that's all that corporate photography is: bread and butter. Wonderbread, to be precise. You'd be fooling yourself if you thought it was anything more.