Sweet! No reason to shoot RAW!! (Rockwell)

bwield · 04-01-2009, 06:12 PM

..... ok I sometimes feel bad for this guy on occasion, but sometimes some of the stuff he says just makes me shake my head.
Obviously the next question is " Well if you don't like him that why go to his site you masochist!!!" And in general I do avoid it, however I was looking for reviews on Lightroom 2 and thought perhaps he would have some insights for the general user.

However along with a review I also found out that I have been WASTING memory on all those silly raw files when JPEGS can do the same thing!!

"....These exposure and WB adjustments work the same in JPG and raw. It's only been an old-wives tale that JPGs don't allow for the same corrections as raw"

Not perhaps I am being unfair. But this statements makes me just think.... what is he talking about!!?? ... Please (sincerly) correct me if I am wrong, but when using sliders and such on RAW files the user is APPLYING WB settings not changing them. This is why you can always find perfect WB with Raw. On the other hand JPEGS have already been processed by the camera and software can only adjust it.

I suppose the point on this thread is to ask the question... is my understanding of the advantages of RAW (WB just being an example) correct? Or is... Ken Rokwell...
correct in his notion that its an "Old Wives tale"

(yes it was Ken Rokwells site)

Robert S Donovan · 04-01-2009, 07:15 PM

Ken constantly contradicts himself. One day digital is great, the next it's film. On another day it's Nikon he loves, later that day it's Leica. I always come away more confused from his site than enlightened. But, like watching a car wreck, I keep going back...

You are correct about the differences between RAW and JPG files. Ken was probably thinking about film scans and his "real RAW" files when he wrote this ;-)

alohadave · 04-01-2009, 08:41 PM

Originally posted by bwield

"....These exposure and WB adjustments work the same in JPG and raw. It's only been an old-wives tale that JPGs don't allow for the same corrections as raw"

Not perhaps I am being unfair. But this statements makes me just think.... what is he talking about!!?? ... Please (sincerly) correct me if I am wrong, but when using sliders and such on RAW files the user is APPLYING WB settings not changing them. This is why you can always find perfect WB with Raw. On the other hand JPEGS have already been processed by the camera and software can only adjust it.

I suppose the point on this thread is to ask the question... is my understanding of the advantages of RAW (WB just being an example) correct? Or is... Ken Rokwell...
correct in his notion that its an "Old Wives tale"

(yes it was Ken Rokwells site)

The reason you can do it is because WB changes are simply color shifts.

You can adjust WB in a JPEG in certain circumstances. If you shoot in Tungsten in Daylight, there isn't much that can be recovered (most everything reads very blue and it kills other colors), but you can with other light sources. The difference is that with RAW treats WB as a setting not as a change to the image data.

If you shoot in Daylight, it gives you the most flexibility for adjusting the WB, but you should get as close as possible in camera.

What LR is doing is making the change in a database, not the original JPEG file. It's not until the file is exported that the changes are written to the file.

marcdsgn · 04-01-2009, 08:41 PM

I suppose it is possible that one man is right and the world's entire image-publishing industry is wrong.

But, likely ... ?

Robert S Donovan · 04-01-2009, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by marcdsgn

I suppose it is possible that one man is right and the world's entire image-publishing industry is wrong.

But, likely ... ?

LOL

But as alohadave reminds me, Ken only shoots in daylight so maybe he has a point.

Wheatfield · 04-01-2009, 09:35 PM

If jpegs didn't work, point and shoot cameras wouldn't work either.

MRRiley · 04-02-2009, 04:16 AM

RAW is just a conspiracy by SanDisk, Lexar, Transcend and the other memory media manufacturers. The bigger your RAW file the more of their cards you need. Heck, shoot JPG and 2 cards will last your entire lifetime.

Now really... Sure, JPGs can be adjusted but not to the extent or precision that RAW files can.

As for Rockwell, he only says stuff like this to generate hits on his site and to keep his name going around the photography circles of the internet.

Mike

bwield · 04-02-2009, 04:34 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

As for Rockwell, he only says stuff like this to generate hits on his site and to keep his name going around the photography circles of the internet.
Mike

And in that regard he is an evil genius! I have fallen into his trap it would seem

axl · 04-02-2009, 04:37 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

RAW is just a conspiracy by SanDisk, Lexar, Transcend and the other memory media manufacturers. The bigger your RAW file the more of their cards you need. Heck, shoot JPG and 2 cards will last your entire lifetime.

Now really... Sure, JPGs can be adjusted but not to the extent or precision that RAW files can.

As for Rockwell, he only says stuff like this to generate hits on his site and to keep his name going around the photography circles of the internet.

Mike

why on earth???
I mean if he enjoys everybody else laughing at him, fair enough.... but with reputation like his, I'd try to dig myself so deep underground.... I don't even want to continue...
BR

Robert S Donovan · 04-02-2009, 06:25 AM

Keep in mind that Rockwell makes his living by people clicking on his links and buying new stuff. He got everybody to buy Canon 5Ds and Nikon D300s. Now, his latest Leica film kick is likely just a way to get people to dump those DSLRs and buy $10,000 worth of new kit. Once those sales have tapered off he'll move on to something new.

emr · 04-02-2009, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by MRRiley

As for Rockwell, he only says stuff like this to generate hits on his site and to keep his name going around the photography circles of the internet.

Exactly. He even says on his website in other words that everything shouldn't be taken quite seriously. And also that he partly has the website to provide his growing family. More hits -> more advertisement revenue -> more butter on the bread.

And in order to induce discussion and to generate hits...

Gooshin · 04-02-2009, 07:15 AM

ofcourse you can colour correct in jpeg

only you have less colours to correct with less colours

Ken just doesnt care for small details like that.

stewart_photo · 04-02-2009, 07:29 AM

Originally posted by bwield

(snip) However along with a review I also found out that I have been WASTING memory on all those silly raw files when JPEGS can do the same thing!!

"....These exposure and WB adjustments work the same in JPG and raw. It's only been an old-wives tale that JPGs don't allow for the same corrections as raw" (snip)

For some people, Ken Rokwell may be entirely right. I shot using raw with my K20D for about six months last year, only to realize I was wasting my time since I never really needed to color correct beyond what the camera would have already done with JPEG in the first place or beyond what I can do with most image editors. At this point, since I just don't have a lot of time to waste, I'm back to using JPEG.

stewart

pingflood · 04-02-2009, 07:37 AM

Really, Ken is no worse than the people who say that shooting JPEG is a waste and nobody should ever do it -- there's a time and place for everything.

emalvick · 04-02-2009, 07:58 AM

I think the point is that you can do a lot of what you can with RAW files with JPG, it just isn't necessarily going to come out as well.

I utilize various programs to correct white balance errors in all my old JPGs and have generally not noticed any huge issues since the JPGs were pretty close to begin with. Of course, I don't advocate that too much since I can now shoot RAW, and there is more to post-processing than just white balance that JPGs don't offer an advantage for.

04-01-2009, 06:12 PM	#1
bwield Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 444	Sweet! No reason to shoot RAW!! (Rockwell) ..... ok I sometimes feel bad for this guy on occasion, but sometimes some of the stuff he says just makes me shake my head. Obviously the next question is " Well if you don't like him that why go to his site you masochist!!!" And in general I do avoid it, however I was looking for reviews on Lightroom 2 and thought perhaps he would have some insights for the general user. However along with a review I also found out that I have been WASTING memory on all those silly raw files when JPEGS can do the same thing!! "....These exposure and WB adjustments work the same in JPG and raw. It's only been an old-wives tale that JPGs don't allow for the same corrections as raw" Not perhaps I am being unfair. But this statements makes me just think.... what is he talking about!!?? ... Please (sincerly) correct me if I am wrong, but when using sliders and such on RAW files the user is APPLYING WB settings not changing them. This is why you can always find perfect WB with Raw. On the other hand JPEGS have already been processed by the camera and software can only adjust it. I suppose the point on this thread is to ask the question... is my understanding of the advantages of RAW (WB just being an example) correct? Or is... Ken Rokwell... correct in his notion that its an "Old Wives tale" (yes it was Ken Rokwells site)

04-02-2009, 04:34 AM	#8
bwield Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 444 Original Poster	Evil genius Originally posted by MRRiley As for Rockwell, he only says stuff like this to generate hits on his site and to keep his name going around the photography circles of the internet. Mike And in that regard he is an evil genius! I have fallen into his trap it would seem

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Why I shoot RAW...	m8o	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	7	08-19-2010 07:57 PM
Do you shoot in Raw Vs JPeg??	Softsoap	Photographic Technique	14	02-25-2010 02:52 PM
Why I shoot Raw (2 imgs)	sajmmiller	Post Your Photos!	12	07-10-2008 06:50 AM
How To Shoot Raw!!!	NYpHoToGraphEr	Pentax DSLR Discussion	22	10-24-2007 11:46 AM
Why do I lose all exif info when I shoot raw	fevbusch	Pentax DSLR Discussion	28	03-01-2007 09:33 PM

04-01-2009, 07:15 PM	#2
Robert S Donovan Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Anderson, SC Photos: Gallery Posts: 361	Ken constantly contradicts himself. One day digital is great, the next it's film. On another day it's Nikon he loves, later that day it's Leica. I always come away more confused from his site than enlightened. But, like watching a car wreck, I keep going back... You are correct about the differences between RAW and JPG files. Ken was probably thinking about film scans and his "real RAW" files when he wrote this ;-)

04-01-2009, 08:41 PM	#3
alohadave Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Quincy, MA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 2,024	Originally posted by bwield "....These exposure and WB adjustments work the same in JPG and raw. It's only been an old-wives tale that JPGs don't allow for the same corrections as raw" Not perhaps I am being unfair. But this statements makes me just think.... what is he talking about!!?? ... Please (sincerly) correct me if I am wrong, but when using sliders and such on RAW files the user is APPLYING WB settings not changing them. This is why you can always find perfect WB with Raw. On the other hand JPEGS have already been processed by the camera and software can only adjust it. I suppose the point on this thread is to ask the question... is my understanding of the advantages of RAW (WB just being an example) correct? Or is... Ken Rokwell... correct in his notion that its an "Old Wives tale" (yes it was Ken Rokwells site) The reason you can do it is because WB changes are simply color shifts. You can adjust WB in a JPEG in certain circumstances. If you shoot in Tungsten in Daylight, there isn't much that can be recovered (most everything reads very blue and it kills other colors), but you can with other light sources. The difference is that with RAW treats WB as a setting not as a change to the image data. If you shoot in Daylight, it gives you the most flexibility for adjusting the WB, but you should get as close as possible in camera. What LR is doing is making the change in a database, not the original JPEG file. It's not until the file is exported that the changes are written to the file.

04-01-2009, 08:41 PM	#4
marcdsgn Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery Posts: 265	I suppose it is possible that one man is right and the world's entire image-publishing industry is wrong. But, likely ... ?

04-01-2009, 08:49 PM	#5
Robert S Donovan Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Anderson, SC Photos: Gallery Posts: 361	Originally posted by marcdsgn I suppose it is possible that one man is right and the world's entire image-publishing industry is wrong. But, likely ... ? LOL But as alohadave reminds me, Ken only shoots in daylight so maybe he has a point.

04-01-2009, 09:35 PM	#6
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,975	If jpegs didn't work, point and shoot cameras wouldn't work either.

04-02-2009, 04:16 AM	#7
MRRiley Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Sterling, VA, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,275	RAW is just a conspiracy by SanDisk, Lexar, Transcend and the other memory media manufacturers. The bigger your RAW file the more of their cards you need. Heck, shoot JPG and 2 cards will last your entire lifetime. Now really... Sure, JPGs can be adjusted but not to the extent or precision that RAW files can. As for Rockwell, he only says stuff like this to generate hits on his site and to keep his name going around the photography circles of the internet. Mike

04-02-2009, 04:37 AM	#9
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Originally posted by MRRiley RAW is just a conspiracy by SanDisk, Lexar, Transcend and the other memory media manufacturers. The bigger your RAW file the more of their cards you need. Heck, shoot JPG and 2 cards will last your entire lifetime. Now really... Sure, JPGs can be adjusted but not to the extent or precision that RAW files can. As for Rockwell, he only says stuff like this to generate hits on his site and to keep his name going around the photography circles of the internet. Mike why on earth??? I mean if he enjoys everybody else laughing at him, fair enough.... but with reputation like his, I'd try to dig myself so deep underground.... I don't even want to continue... BR

04-02-2009, 06:25 AM	#10
Robert S Donovan Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Anderson, SC Photos: Gallery Posts: 361	Keep in mind that Rockwell makes his living by people clicking on his links and buying new stuff. He got everybody to buy Canon 5Ds and Nikon D300s. Now, his latest Leica film kick is likely just a way to get people to dump those DSLRs and buy $10,000 worth of new kit. Once those sales have tapered off he'll move on to something new.

04-02-2009, 06:27 AM	#11
emr Guest	Originally posted by MRRiley As for Rockwell, he only says stuff like this to generate hits on his site and to keep his name going around the photography circles of the internet. Exactly. He even says on his website in other words that everything shouldn't be taken quite seriously. And also that he partly has the website to provide his growing family. More hits -> more advertisement revenue -> more butter on the bread. And in order to induce discussion and to generate hits...

04-02-2009, 07:15 AM	#12
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	ofcourse you can colour correct in jpeg only you have less colours to correct with less colours Ken just doesnt care for small details like that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-02-2009, 07:29 AM	#13
stewart_photo Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Heidelberg, Germany Posts: 1,864	Originally posted by bwield (snip) However along with a review I also found out that I have been WASTING memory on all those silly raw files when JPEGS can do the same thing!! "....These exposure and WB adjustments work the same in JPG and raw. It's only been an old-wives tale that JPGs don't allow for the same corrections as raw" (snip) For some people, Ken Rokwell may be entirely right. I shot using raw with my K20D for about six months last year, only to realize I was wasting my time since I never really needed to color correct beyond what the camera would have already done with JPEG in the first place or beyond what I can do with most image editors. At this point, since I just don't have a lot of time to waste, I'm back to using JPEG. stewart

04-02-2009, 07:37 AM	#14
pingflood Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Borås, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,169	Really, Ken is no worse than the people who say that shooting JPEG is a waste and nobody should ever do it -- there's a time and place for everything.

04-02-2009, 07:58 AM	#15
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	I think the point is that you can do a lot of what you can with RAW files with JPG, it just isn't necessarily going to come out as well. I utilize various programs to correct white balance errors in all my old JPGs and have generally not noticed any huge issues since the JPGs were pretty close to begin with. Of course, I don't advocate that too much since I can now shoot RAW, and there is more to post-processing than just white balance that JPGs don't offer an advantage for.