Raw vs Ken Rockwell, what should I be doing ?

joeteds

joeteds

Suspended / Banned
Messages
279
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello all
Right, not long ago when i started taking an interest in photograpghy I obviously started with jpegs then the more I read I turned to raw as I felt I was missing out on something and then recently I was reading alot of Ken Rockwell's site and the settings he uses etc and it seems hes not too keen at all on raw and I liked his explanations so I went back to jpegs because I must admit I was getting frustrated with the fact that every snap I was taking I had to mess with it in PS which Im not very good at at all so that frustarted me also.
Now Im starting to think Im missing out again especially after reading digital photo every month and seeing the great things you can do with your pics.
I was thinking about getting an editor for beginners which would maybe ease me in to editing, what does everyone think ? Ive heard coral ulead photo impact is good for beginners.
Also Im going to New York soon and really want to make sure Im shooting in the right format as its not every day you get to take photos in a city like that.
Thanks everyone
Joe
 
Go for the middle then, shoot RAW + JPG that way if your happy with the photo keep the JPG if not then get the RAW out and do some PP
 
Get the pic right in the first place and you shouldn't need to mess with it.
jpeg for me.
(If I was doing something important like a wedding, I'd save the files in both)
 
As suggested, shoot raw+jpeg! Memory cards are pretty cheap nowadays anyway.
As for editing, I personally find lightroom very easy and fast for normal editing which should be sufficient. You should download the trial and try it, especially the new noise reduction function! Iso over 1000 is nothing!
 
Ok cheers everyone
Doesnt raw+jpeg take up alot of memory though ?
I was thinking for things like a photo I took last night of a wine glass with a heart shaped torch light trail around the glass you can see my arm shadow on the wall and it would of been good to remove the shadow but wouldnt quality deteriorate in jpeg if i edited it ? Landscapes and stuff like that Im happy enough shooting in jpeg i suppose. Would simple things like borders put the quality down on a jpeg ?
 
I'm not a fan of Ken. So much of what he says is bull, and as points out a lot is only ever written in jest anyway.

I shoot raw and it produces the best results. If you want a quick and easy approach jpeg will get you by but for the ultimate PP possibilities jpeg is rubbish compared to raw.

Any once in a lifetime opportunity definitely deserves a raw photo. It may be that jpeg satisfies you for now but in a few years time you'll have developed and refined your skills and be unable to produce the very best from your back catalogue of photos because the file format is too limiting.
 
JPG= Man in Japan guesses the colour sharpness etc of your photo RAW= you control colour sharpness etc..
If you just wanna shoot pics and upload em JPG is just dandy... if you intend to process your image in any way even if its to rotate or crop then RAW is king as JPG degrades each time you change it.
 
Ok lads thats great thanks alot for replies
Looks like Im going back to raw. Could you get away with not having to touch up a raw every now and then or is it something that always needs doing even if its 1 notch to the right on the exposure bar and thats it?
 
joeteds said:
Ok lads thats great thanks alot for replies
Looks like Im going back to raw. Could you get away with not having to touch up a raw every now and then or is it something that always needs doing even if its 1 notch to the right on the exposure bar and thats it?
Click to expand...

You will always need to sharpen them Joe.
 
Tight Fart said:
Get the pic right in the first place and you shouldn't need to mess with it.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with getting the pic right in the first place and shooting RAW? It helps to get around technical limitations of JPG and in-camera processing. :)
 
You'll always need to sharpen and maybe up the contrast but it's easy to create a pre-set in lightroom or similar that can apply all pre-determined adjustments at the click of a button to either one or a batch of images.
 
joeteds said:
Ok lads thats great thanks alot for replies
Looks like Im going back to raw. Could you get away with not having to touch up a raw every now and then or is it something that always needs doing even if its 1 notch to the right on the exposure bar and thats it?
Click to expand...

Sure. "Getting it right in the camera" as a RAW file allows you to simply use settings presets. If you know you prefer your images with a particular curves adjustment or contrast setting, just set the settings you require in Adobe Camera RAW, and save it as a preset. Job done.

oskanoears said:
You will always need to sharpen them Joe.
Click to expand...

If they're resized down. I never sharpen for print, and have never felt a need to (and too often it introduces halo artifacts in high contrast areas). For the web, sure. :)
 
As has been said, Mr Rockwell talks a lot of crap, mixed in with 'some' useful information, unfortunately the uninformed don't realise that he talks 'crap' some of the time. He posts some bad information just to generate traffic through his site, which he is very good at doing.

Rule of thumb, anything you read on his site, get confirmed in as many other places as you can. I used to say two other places, but he has a lot of fans, and crap spreads as you may know if you have ever stepped in it. :bonk: :lol:


As for RAW or Jpeg, shoot both. :shrug: Memory is cheap. If the Jpeg is how you want it, fine. :) If the image needs any work, do it to the RAW file.

If you use your camera manufacturers software to edit RAW files, then the RAW file will normally have the same picture style, or whatever it is called in the camera you have applied, in which case if you were happy with the way the camera had rendered the image, you just convert to a Jpeg.

Even if you use Adobe Camera Raw, you may be able to find some presets that match the in camera picture styles.

People say they don't use RAW because of the extra work, but if you're in the habit of sharpening or altering the contrast, then you're probably doing the same amount of editing already. ;)

As always with the RAW v Jpeg debate, use what you're happy with. ;)
 
Joe T said:
ken rockwell = pinch of salt
Click to expand...

HUGE pinch of salt! If you know enough to filter out the good stuff from the bovine faeces, you probably know enough not to need Ken's "advice".

oskanoears said:
JPG= Man in Japan guesses the colour sharpness etc of your photo RAW= you control colour sharpness etc..
If you just wanna shoot pics and upload em JPG is just dandy... if you intend to process your image in any way even if its to rotate or crop then RAW is king as JPG degrades each time you change it.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the bolded bit just ain't quite correct. Repeated save/open cycles are what causes JPEG degradation, not the changes you make between opening and saving. If you keep saving at top quality JPEG in PS(E), you can get away with 3-4 cycles before you see real problems. Try it and see for yourself what works for you.
Personally, I don't like messing around with raw files and do all the PP in one session so avoid too many save/open cycles.
Yes, raw files do carry more information but use more memory (not a problem these days since cards are so (comparitively) cheap now and take more time to process (batch processing is just you making a guess as to the best compromises with your images rather than the Joint Photographic Expert Group).

If you're happy with the results you get from shooting and processing JPEGS, why move to raw?

FTR, few of my pics end up purely online and as many as possible get printed, up to A3 if they deserve it.
 
Nod said:
Yes, raw files do carry more information but use more memory (not a problem these days since cards are so (comparitively) cheap now and take more time to process (batch processing is just you making a guess as to the best compromises with your images rather than the Joint Photographic Expert Group).
Click to expand...

It's not the J.P.E.G. that are making the guesses, it's the camera's settings - and you could have two different cameras from the same manufacturer and identical in-camera processing settings can achieve different results (My D200 and D300s both produce very different JPG files even with the settings as identical as they can get).

At events I shoot RAW+JPG on the D200, the JPGs are printed and sold at the event, the RAWs are saved for possible future higher quality/larger size print orders and processed as ordered.

For timelapse on the little Canon Powershot A460s I shoot JPG (although with CHDK they are capable of shooting RAW).

For everything else I shoot RAW.
 
Nod said:
HUGE pinch of salt! If you know enough to filter out the good stuff from the bovine faeces, you probably know enough not to need Ken's "advice".



:lol: that actually made me LOL, so very true :thumbs:
Click to expand...
 
If you shoot raw, it's not always best to get the exposure "right" in-camera. It might be necessary to slightly under-expose a high-contrast shot to preserve highlight detail, or slightly over-expose a low-key scene to get the best image quality. It's become known as ETTR (expose to the right), and it enables raw shooters to get the best image quality from their gear.

If you're not into post-processing then JPEG is a better choice, as it's quick and space-efficient. However, if you like to fiddle with your photos, TIFF is a better choice, as it allows better-quality post-processing.

Raw gives you the maximum potential for reworking your photos, as many times as you like. It also allows to use new technology on old photos, without any loss of quality. For example, the latest version of Camera Raw now auto-corrects distortion, vignette and chromatic aberration, and has improved sharpening and noise reduction. I can re-process photos I took 3 years ago and get better results. Try that with JPEGs and you'll lose image quality.
 
For Canon shooters, if you shoot in raw then Canon's own DPP software can read and understand all the in camera settings (white balance, picture style, sharpening, noise reduction etc.), apply them automatically to the raw files and spurt out JPEGs with only a few clicks of the mouse. The files will be similar to the results you would get straight from camera, but hopefully a little better since the processing can be optimised for maximum quality rather than fast throughput. The beauty of this is that you can easily change shooting parameters after taking the shot, with no penalty in IQ whatsoever. For most people there really is little need to shoot raw+JPEG at the same time. If you shoot raw and process with DPP then you retain the power of raw, should you wish to take advantage of it, but the convenience of JPEG if you don't. The procedure is....

1. Download your raw files and save them to a folder;
2. Within DPP, navigate to that folder and hit CTRL-A to select ALL files;
3. Press CTRL-B to start a BATCH process. There are a few fields that need setting up, like destination folder and image quality, but once you've done that once they will mostly remain unaltered for ever more;
4. Press "Execute".

It could hardly be simpler.

I assume other camera manufacturers have software that allows their raw files to be converted, with or without adjustment, in an equally simple and efficient manner.
 
Last edited:
There was loads of great videos posted on FroKnowsPhoto last week about this, well worth checking out here (start from the bottom video, the page was updated as each video was added): Link
 
Would another advantage of RAW+JPEG be that you can shoot in RAW whilst retaining the ability to see your images instantly?
 
Skips said:
Would another advantage of RAW+JPEG be that you can shoot in RAW whilst retaining the ability to see your images instantly?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by seeing them instantly. If you shoot raw only, you can still see your shots on the back of your camera and, with the right software (plenty of free downloads out there) you can see them as soon as they're uploaded to your computer.
 
I honestly cannot see why anyone other than a press togger would choose to shoot jpeg and limit the information they capture to save a few megs of memory disc space after spending a fortune on body and glass.
 
Skips said:
Would another advantage of RAW+JPEG be that you can shoot in RAW whilst retaining the ability to see your images instantly?
Click to expand...

Depends entirely on the environment you're going to use them in.

My Mac displays thumbnails of the RAW files in Finder (the OS file browser) and will happily open them in Preview.app, which is also the default viewer for JPEG files. It does take a moment longer to render a RAW than a JPEG, but the difference is negligible for most practical purposes.

The other difference is that the computer will ignore any Picture Style or sharpening settings I may have applied in the camera, but I never use them anyway.

On Windows I believe you have to add some extra Microsoft software to be able to do something similar. I'm not sure if there's anything like that for any flavour of Linux or BSD OS, but I'm open to correction on either point.

If you're going to take your card straight into Boots for printing, I suppose it could be an advantage.

Personally, I've never seen much point in RAW+JPEG for my workflow.
 
Kaouthia said:
It's not the J.P.E.G. that are making the guesses, it's the camera's settings - and you could have two different cameras from the same manufacturer and identical in-camera processing settings can achieve different results
Click to expand...

Partially true, but I turn off all my camera settings and setup the camera as neutral, so no in-camera adjustment to contrast, sharpening etc, and still shoot JPEG and happily print upto A2.

As tdodd said, DPP a great piece of software few canon togs use to process RAW images and its free with the camera (also will get all the settings right rather than adobe best guess) rather than forking out hundreds of £s on Adobe photoshop.
 
Couldnt' agree more with the pinch of salt comment. Ken is a great read I think. He is refreshing and makes lots of good points. I wouldn't read too much into it though, he says one thing and does another (by his own admittance).

Personally I always use RAW. I could never imagine not doing so as it fits my work flow for post processing.
 
Last edited:
Personally I always shoot Raw but that's mainly because I print most of my shots and want the best "flexibility" possible at the processing stage.

IMHO you should always aim to get the best results possible when you're taking the shot, don't let RAW make you lazy !! While I'm no great fan of KR, to a degree I agree with him, why spend loads of time processing if you don't need to as it's certainly possible with some experimentation to "tweak" your in camera .jpg settings to get excellent results - more time left than to spend taking the photos instead of processing them:thumbs:

It's very much "horses for courses", of course give RAW a try if you think it will improve your images but if you are happy with the .jpgs as they are and it suits your needs then stick with it !!

Simon
 
I'm not a fan of RAW+JPG as I think it wastes time and space, and I don't see any reason to do it.

Ken Rockwell has never taken a decent looking photo in his life, don't take his word for anything.

Shoot RAW, there's no disadvantage? If you're feeling a need to have the camera presets (eg Vivid, Neutral, B&W) just download or make them for LR/ACR/whatever.

The big problem with JPG is that, once in a while, you will get a ruined shot because the camera determined the WB wrongly or something clips and can't be retrieved.

RAW prevents that. Depending on what you're shooting sometimes you can't work around these things.
 
Last edited:
I wish people would stop saying why spend a fortune on a camera and shoot jpeg. The camera manufacturers might just know a thing or two and include that option for the people who want and need it.

Personally, 90%+ of my work is jpeg for printing right up to A2 without a problem. Correction of wrong exposures, dodgy white balance is surprisingly easy with a jpeg. Granted, it doesn't have quite as much scope as RAW, but there's not the big difference people like to believe.

edit: Not having a pop at you The23rdman, it's just something that gets said too often IMO :)

edit 2: the other thing I was going to say was if you're thinking about the shot, know your camera, how often do you really get a bad exposure, really?? Cameras today really are very good at getting even difficult exposures right.
 
dod, you are right, however, since there's no reason to NOT shoot RAW, why loose the odd shot to wrong exposure or wrong WB?

Also, if you shoot fast action under sunlight it can be a lot of shots, not just the odd one. Loosing a shot that's the best of the set and thinking "*******s! Why did I shoot that in JPEG?" is something you shouldn't ever say to yourself.
 
I see it the other way round. Most of the time there's no reason to shoot RAW. :shrug: Just dial in an extra stop and a half, maybe two, if you're against the light or use fill flash, simples :)
 
I see it as let people shoot whatever the hell they want, I'll keep shooting whatever the hell I want. :)
 
I totally agree with Kaouthia, and dod. The camera maufacturers go to great lengths to programme processors that produce jpegs that most people are more than happy with.

I've never used raw either and never will and if I choose to use the dreaded green box mode I'm guessing that Nikon/Canon et al have spent millions to ensure that it produces excellent images in most circumstances too.

The whole point I'm making is no photographer should be made to feel less than just because she/he does not spend a fortune in time and money to PP their images.

Whatever you do just ENJOY PHOTOGRAPHY :).
 
Aways RAWS...

As your skill increases you can always go back to the original RAWS to make a better conversion.

As software gets better you'll get a better conversion - I have just converted some 8 year old Kodak RAWS with Lightroom 3 - wow - so much better colour and far less noise...
 
Agree with Dod, nearly always jpeg with an occasional jaunt into RAW.

As for this jpeg degradation lark, I use Lightroom to make a virtual copy and PP that, so no degradation of the original jpeg.
 
I shoot both RAW+JPEG I guess it's a belt and braces thing as most of the heavy use my camera sees is on forign trips which I am unlikely to repeat. I've tweaked the in camera JPEG settings to produce a level of sharpness and contrast with which I am normally happy. If I feel a pic needs a very minor tweak I make it on the JPEG and save it too a new file thus preserving the origional. I only use the RAW files if there is something I want to seriously alter or if I fancy a bit of HDR.

Life for me is too short to spend it processing pictures on a computer, I love taking them and looking at them but I hate staring at a computer screen it reminds me of work!
 
trencheel303 said:
What, not at all? I thought all digital cameras had an anti-aliasing screen on the sensor?
Click to expand...

Nope, not at all (at least, I can recall no examples where I've specifically sharpened an image for print). At appropriate viewing distances, regardless of the size of the print, they all appear sharp (at least all the ones I've printed or had printed).

I might occasionally make contrast adjustments (often a black & white layer set as an overlay between 20-40% opacity) as a part of my post-process that have the side effect of giving an appearance of extra sharpness, but I never specifically sharpen an image for print.
 
loplyg said:
I'm not a fan of RAW+JPG as I think it wastes time and space, and I don't see any reason to do it.
Click to expand...

I do it when I'm shooting for the paper and need to send fast. Take the jpeg's off the card and send, then I keep the RAW files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top