[khardur]

This isn't my only reason for shooting RAW, but I wanted to throw it out because it's different than the "in camera jpg vs. raw quality" debate.

With my K200D, the camera adjusts the temperature and tint ever so slightly depending on the situation. I'm not talking using AWB - I'm talking "Daylight" or any of the other settings. I've seen a few too many shots side-by-side where the color balance is ever so slightly different. Doing something like stitching a panoramic together, something tiny can throw the whole frame off.

So when I shoot RAW I can easily convert the entire batch to the exact same white balance much quicker and easier than I can with jpegs.

[Robert S Donovan]

@khardur: Good point. I find the same is true with studio shots.

[stevebrot]

Isn't Ken Rockwell the guy that claims that we don't need to use a tripod because high ISO is going to save us from camera motion?

Steve

[Robert S Donovan]

Isn't Ken Rockwell the guy that claims that we don't need to use a tripod because high ISO is going to save us from camera motion?

Steve

That was last month.

[a a i b]

This isn't my only reason for shooting RAW, but I wanted to throw it out because it's different than the "in camera jpg vs. raw quality" debate.

With my K200D, the camera adjusts the temperature and tint ever so slightly depending on the situation. I'm not talking using AWB - I'm talking "Daylight" or any of the other settings. I've seen a few too many shots side-by-side where the color balance is ever so slightly different. Doing something like stitching a panoramic together, something tiny can throw the whole frame off.

So when I shoot RAW I can easily convert the entire batch to the exact same white balance much quicker and easier than I can with jpegs.

I see this happen too, and it's not predictable.

[lithos]

Ken Rockwell never needs RAW because he's Ken Rockwell. Ken Rockwell never takes a bad photo.

Ken Rockwell (you must always adress Ken Rockwell by Ken Rockwell's first name) also once shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die.

Oh, not with a gun, you understand. With a Nikon F.

Ken Rockwell beat the charges in court, despite the hundreds of witnesses, because Ken Rockwell had incriminating photos of the judge, the prosecution, and all the members of the jury.

But then again, Ken Rockwell has incriminating photos of everyone. Even the Dalai Lama.

Ken Roswell is Chuck Norris. How do I know this? Have you ever seen the two of them together?

[Wheatfield]

I see this happen too, and it's not predictable.

I've found if Im shooting where I want identical colour balance I pretty much have to nail the WB down in ºK. I can't trust AWB or even one of the presets. I really think that the presets are still AWB, but with a baseline colour temperature.
I've found this with both Pentax and the Nikons we use in the studio, so it isn't just a Pentax thang.

This is one of those times when Kenny Boy is actually right often enough to have his opinion respected. Obviously there are many situations where RAW is the best choice (pan stitching, HDR, etc), but there are more situations where jpegs will do just fine than there are where RAW is a necessity.

[WMBP]

I want to defend Mr Rockwell.

Yes, he's a shameless self-promoter. So is Scott Kelby and so are a lot of successful photographers. Perhaps ALL of the successful photographers are shameless self-promoters. I often think that's my big problem: I do have a sense of shame and I don't have a sufficient urge to promote myself. There has to be some reason that I'm not rich and famous and it couldn't be that I'm not as good as everybody else. :-)

Anyway, back to Mr Rockwell. He's a provocateur, a contrarian. I'm quite sure this isn't just a self-promotional gimmick for him, it's who he is. If everybody else thinks that full-frame is the future of photography, Rockwell can be counted on to start touting micro four-thirds or something like that.

And some of his positions are not just right (I mean, after adjusting for the hype factor) but profoundly and importantly right. I'm grateful to him in particular for his essay "Your camera does not matter." It's not literally true, of course, and he doesn't say "Your camera does not EVER matter" or "Your camera does not matter AT ALL." But his basic point in that essay is a really valuable reminder that buying cameras and taking photographs are different activities only loosely related to one another.

Nothing wrong with ol' Ken. I don't think he takes himself too seriously, and if you don't take him too seriously, either, then he can be fun to read; and as I said, occasionally he says something really useful that most other writers about photography would either be afraid to say or would say in such a nuanced fashion that the basic point would get lost. If I have to choose between Mike Johnston and Ken Rockwell, well, there's no contest. I check The Online Photographer every day, Rockwell's site gets a look once a month. But I'm happy to have Rockwell out there trying to stir things up.

Will

[OregonJim]

I want to defend Mr Rockwell.
[...]
He's a provocateur, a contrarian. I'm quite sure this isn't just a self-promotional gimmick for him, it's who he is. If everybody else thinks that full-frame is the future of photography, Rockwell can be counted on to start touting micro four-thirds or something like that.

And because of that, he quite often contradicts himself, which is why many of us don't take him seriously.

I agree, though, that he's a fun read and, ocassionally, his articles can be thought provoking.

[chhayanat]

White balance continues to be a problem with DSLRs (as it was with film) and RAW seems a good way to correct it. Sometimes even RAW does not help when the picture has gone really wrong.

[Wheatfield]

I want to defend Mr Rockwell.

Will

Well, I'm not sure I'd go quite that far....

[TaoMaas]

And some of his positions are not just right (I mean, after adjusting for the hype factor) but profoundly and importantly right. I'm grateful to him in particular for his essay "Your camera does not matter." It's not literally true, of course, and he doesn't say "Your camera does not EVER matter" or "Your camera does not matter AT ALL." But his basic point in that essay is a really valuable reminder that buying cameras and taking photographs are different activities only loosely related to one another.

I had never read one of Rockwell's columns until the fight started over his "Your camera does not matter" article. I read it so that I could find out why everyone was so upset. I still find it incredible that so many people totally missed his point. Much ado about nothing, IMHO. I haven't read his article about JPEG vs RAW, but I probably should because I've been thinking about changing over to shooting JPEG's.

[sebberry]

Ken Rockwell doesn't shoot RAW because when he stares intently at JPEGs they fix themselves.

[sebberry]

If I have the capability to shoot in an uncompressed format, like RAW, why would I limit myself to only editing, manipulating and printing JPEGs?

It's like the old MP3 is better than CD is better than Vinly debate. There are many upsides to MP3s like portability and the ability to store lots of them and listen to them quickly, however there are also downsides. They're fine for listening on an MP3 player with cheap headphones, but you wouldn't want to sit down in a nice listening room and listen to them.

Same thing with RAW/JPG. JPG is fine for looking at them on the screen, printing them on your inkjet printer to stick on the fridge door or uploading them to a forum, but when you want to really enjoy the quality of the picture, print on a high quality printer or make a photo CD of a special occasion, you'd be regretting not having uncompressed versions.