[newmikey]

I watched the video: too many words repeated in too many different ways without actually saying anything in particular even once.

[Dartmoor Dave]

Some people think they can beat Pentax AE meter within +-0.001 ev using the sunny f16 rule, and beat Pentax AF accuracy looking by focusing a Takumar manually looking thru the EVF, that's the Dunning Kruger effect in action.

People who use Sunny 16 know that the best exposure is the one that will capture the range of tones in the negative or raw file that they need for the finished photo, and in many cases that's a long way from the supposedly "accurate" exposure that a through-the-lens AE system will guess at. So yes, in many cases, the human eye and brain relying on Sunny 16 will do a better job than even the most sophisticated through-the-lens AE metering system.

And Takumar users often employ zone focusing, which gives them absolute confidence that they will get the end result they want and is faster than any AF system.

[house]

Honestly I can't take anyone seriously who doesn't understand that out of camera raw and jpeg both has it's advantages and disadvantages depending on personality, use case and photographic style. Being snobbish about it is absurd. It's the results that matter.

Personally I shoot raw because so much of my photography requires dynamic range mangling. The Pentax jpegs also tend to be a bit mushy. If I had confidence that I would never need the full raw I'd shoot jpeg only.

[gatorguy]

I do shoot in Program mode a lot and Av mode a fair amount too. The thing about green mode from Pentax is that it locks you into jpegs, which can be OK, but often isn't what I am looking for.

In Green mode (Auto) on my K3III the files are still raws and not
jpeg.

[biz-engineer]

I watched the video: too many words repeated in too many different ways without actually saying anything in particular even once.

I think it's done on purpose to let forum members build the story themselves. It's like those books and paintings that leave each reader have their own interpretation of the story based on personal experience.

[Rondec]

In Green mode (Auto) on my K3III the files are still raws and not
jpeg.

OK. It used to be that green mode limited you to jpegs, but I haven't shot it since a K-10 or K-20 (I'm sure which), so obviously things change.

[BruceBanner]

What's the relationship between the dunning-kruger effect and shooting in auto, jpeg or raw?

For me, it was about how even at the beginning of my photographic journey I felt I knew enough that RAW was the way to go and that Auto demonstrated perhaps a lack of confidence or knowledge of how to use the camera properly. I would assume based on this knowledge that anyone shooting Jpg or in Auto mode would be BEHIND my current level of knowledge and expertise in this craft. That these options and modes are almost silly and there only for the complete amateur (and even perhaps pointless or insulting options on flagship expensive cameras). However, as time moves on and I learn and grow I can see now I was mistaken. All it takes is ONE good example of someone (a brand ambassador no less) to be using both Jpgs and Auto modes frequently and to a high degree of success to make me realise I was behaving like someone on the early part of the Dunning-Kruger scale.

Are you saying that people who refuse to shoot in auto-jpeg are being arrogant?
- unless they shoot raw because they took on the lazy habit of not pre-processing their images before pressing the shutter button
- or unless they want to produce multiple versions of rendered jpegs files from a single exposure raw
- and other things.

No.

The guy in the video more or less confessed to being arrogant in his own attitude about people who shoot jpeg. I think his overall message was, "Don't dismiss jpeg or auto modes out of hand--they can be useful."

^ That's it.

This video link is perfect timing for something that's been in my head the past several hours. I think Eddy makes some excellent points, and one of which I'm pondering today after a shoot last evening: Is Auto Mode professionally acceptable? I'm leaning towards YES it is.

I think all we need is one good example at times to make us question things, for me that was Kevin Mullins. For sure Auto and Jpg is not for everyone, and it will be very genre specific (I'm not sure a good astro shot can be had from Jpg or Auto ). But that wasn't the point of the video really. It was a confession of sorts, that I was a snob, mocking others for shooting Jpg or Auto and making that assumption that with them 'stuck' on these elements they must be ' behind me' (skill or craft wise). Well... I'm glad that conversation didn't come up with me and Kevin or I would have looked like a right royal twit

Maybe people who shoot RAW (like me) look down on people who shoot jpegs. I think it is more likely that they started shooting a long time ago and have seen too many situations where shooting RAW helped them fix a situation that might not have been savable if they had been shooting jpegs.

I don't know that there is an arrogance there or an overconfidence in my own knowledge -- in fact, shooting RAW is more an admission that there times that I can save in post the stupid mistakes I made along the way.

I have felt a bit of arrogance from the jpeg shooters and the SOOC folks. We don't need no stinking post processing software. We get it right in-camera...

I do shoot in Program mode a lot and Av mode a fair amount too. The thing about green mode from Pentax is that it locks you into jpegs, which can be OK, but often isn't what I am looking for.

I used to think that it was funny that the noobs who are learning would be put off by the scary 'DNG' or 'PEF' and instead choose the familiar 'Jpg'. Ironically the inexperienced will make more exposure accidents and be stuck with a bad image whereas had they used RAW they might have been able to salvage things. Odd to think that it's the other way around (perhaps) and that RAW is for the noob and Jpg for the seasoned professional who is controlling way more variables at the time of the shooting experience, they can handle and concern themselves with more variables at the shooting time than worrying about things later in post. That is of course the quality of work is actually good. There are plenty of poor Jpg shooters out there

I watched the video: too many words repeated in too many different ways without actually saying anything in particular even once.

Sorry you felt that way Mikey. It is hard to record videos like this and in one take. I thought each point being made was actually different to the last, that there wasn't much repeating or if I was it was to move to a new point. Apologies if you found it dull, please thumb the video down, all feedback is needed and warranted. Cheers.

[Rondec]

I think the main thing has to do with when you started doing digital photography. My first digital SLR was a K-100 and the jpegs weren't that good from it. I very quickly changed to raw. The K-100 screwed up the white balance all of the time and got really soft over iso 800 if you were shooting jpeg. In addition, the post processing software has come a long way since then and back then it was very hard to fix screwed up jpegs.

For photos of my family jpegs would be more than fine, but I don't remember to switch back and forth and there is no particular downside to shooting raw (the time commitment for me mostly has to do with figuring out which images to keep, not the actual editing process).

[biz-engineer]

I think all we need is one good example at times to make us question things, for me that was Kevin Mullins.

For me Kevin Mullins is mostly a Fuji ambassador who makes a living out of promoting Fuji cameras. When I watched Kevin Mullins first steps into photography, I already had 20 years of photography practice behind me. His video that made me smile the most was when he was provided a GFX50S by Fuji and trying to find reason why he would need such camera. Anyway, most photography money is on content marketing these days, there is very little money going into photographic work itself. Most self named professional photographers nowadays are actually vloggers who create video content for indirectly promoting something. There is so little money into creating and selling photographs that even the true professional photographers turned to advertising and workshops to earn enough money to pay their bills. Fuji have a rather substantial sponsorship program, so much so that some photographers are strongly depends on Fuji to survive, take Damien Lovegrove, he is certainly a talent portrait lighting photographer, but his business mostly took off and became known when he affiliated with Fuji. So when Kevin Mullins says he shoots weddings professionally with Fuji Jpeg, he is essentially selling Fuji to the average Fuji hobbyist.

Dunning Kruger effect affects a lot of young people, who begin in a new discipline, learn a little bit something, quickly feel good about it, quickly gain some confidence, like bird chicks flapping their wings for the frst time realizing they fly a few yards without crashing into the ground, feel good about it, and all of a sudden intent to teach everyone else about their discovery, not realizing that old birds flew thousands of miles in various weather conditions without feeling the need to broadcast.

[StiffLegged]

Dunning-Kruger is a seriously slanderous label to slap on anyone. If you wish, there are many much better (worse) examples on the web, but the last person to exhibit the effect properly here finished up banned, and good riddance. I didn’t watch the video and won’t watch it either: better to cut others some slack than slander them for choice of image format.

Just enjoy your photography, folks!

[gatorguy]

Dunning-Kruger is a seriously slanderous label to slap on anyone...
I didn’t watch the video and won’t watch it either...

Well in this case the video owner labeled himself and no one else. He was willing to own the tag, and accept he was wrong.

[reh321]

Maybe people who shoot RAW (like me) look down on people who shoot jpegs. I think it is more likely that they started shooting a long time ago and have seen too many situations where shooting RAW helped them fix a situation that might not have been savable if they had been shooting jpegs.

I don't know that there is an arrogance there or an overconfidence in my own knowledge -- in fact, shooting RAW is more an admission that there times that I can save in post the stupid mistakes I made along the way.

I have felt a bit of arrogance from the jpeg shooters and the SOOC folks. We don't need no stinking post processing software. We get it right in-camera...

I do shoot in Program mode a lot and Av mode a fair amount too. The thing about green mode from Pentax is that it locks you into jpegs, which can be OK, but often isn't what I am looking for.

Personally, I, as someone who aims at JPEG, tend to feel looked down upon by those who use ‘raw’, seemingly {even if that is not true} expecting to fix any problems in post, and using the word “snapshot” in a prejorative way. I still remember the guy who posted a shot from England {he was from the US} and asked how to fix it. In that particular case, he would have been better off doing his thinking in England. Others wrote about ‘cloning out’ the ugly tree branch and cropping the photo. If he had just taken a few steps forward, perhaps zoomed in a tad, and twisted to the right, that tree branch would have never been in the photo, little or no cropping would have been needed, and he would have had a better view of the little shoppes. I don’t claim to ‘get it right in the camera’, but I am usually close enough that a little adjustment in physical level, a little cropping, and a little contrast adjustment is all that is needed - all of which can be done starting with the JPEG my camera yields. I am sorry you feel ‘looked down upon’; it is not true of me. I do feel sorry for someone who expects computer work afterwards, but not superior to him/her. If I do label work as SOOC, it is because I am telling them this is what the equipment can do.


added: I have never used ‘AUTO’; at one time I used ‘P’ mode a lot; with my KP, I am very pleased with its graceful high ISO performance, so I mostly use ‘TAv’ mode.

I’m not sure of this, but most ‘raw’ shooters seem to have used negative film, while I used Kodachrome film and was used to finishing my activity by sending the film off to professional processing.

[slartibartfast01]

Well in this case the video owner labeled himself and no one else. He was willing to own the tag, and accept he was wrong.

What, somebody admitted to being wrong on the internet? In the words of Victor Meldrew "I don't believe it"

[BruceBanner]

I think the main thing has to do with when you started doing digital photography. My first digital SLR was a K-100 and the jpegs weren't that good from it. I very quickly changed to raw. The K-100 screwed up the white balance all of the time and got really soft over iso 800 if you were shooting jpeg. In addition, the post processing software has come a long way since then and back then it was very hard to fix screwed up jpegs.

For photos of my family jpegs would be more than fine, but I don't remember to switch back and forth and there is no particular downside to shooting raw (the time commitment for me mostly has to do with figuring out which images to keep, not the actual editing process).

I think Jpgs have come a long way. It's nice to have RAWs and I don't think I could really recommend to shoot purely Jpgs but sometimes that additional RAW dynamic range and interpretation is overkill and not needed. If the camera is capable of producing something pleasing in camera and the file can handle a 10 second retouch (and not crumble from slider manipulation), then the benefit is getting something in the field that more resembles what your minds eye has in mind (which provides realtime feedback for better exposure choices in my experience), and then you skip a certain amount in post production to time wasting in choosing a rendered look and further slider adjustments... then I can see its merits. It's not a replacement for RAW (I hate this 'Jpg vs RAW' thing), it's just another option for the user to take as part of their photography experience and workflow.

So I can understand how at one time Jpgs maybe were not that great and why RAW was 99% the preferred route but it's 2022 now and Jpgs are pretty damn great on most systems. I find it funny how my 2010 645D has dedicated buttons for basically toggling the SD card slots to recording Jpgs or RAWs (and I guess to a similar extent the K-1 has a 'RAW' button intended to toggle the user between recording Jpg or RAW). But then again I am looking at a lot of things with 'modern fresh' eyes. What were the RAW editors available back in 2010 like? Were people getting better results natively from their 645D's from Jpgs than trying to work with the RAWs etc etc.

For me Kevin Mullins is mostly a Fuji ambassador who makes a living out of promoting Fuji cameras. When I watched Kevin Mullins first steps into photography, I already had 20 years of photography practice behind me. His video that made me smile the most was when he was provided a GFX50S by Fuji and trying to find reason why he would need such camera. Anyway, most photography money is on content marketing these days, there is very little money going into photographic work itself. Most self named professional photographers nowadays are actually vloggers who create video content for indirectly promoting something. There is so little money into creating and selling photographs that even the true professional photographers turned to advertising and workshops to earn enough money to pay their bills. Fuji have a rather substantial sponsorship program, so much so that some photographers are strongly depends on Fuji to survive, take Damien Lovegrove, he is certainly a talent portrait lighting photographer, but his business mostly took off and became known when he affiliated with Fuji. So when Kevin Mullins says he shoots weddings professionally with Fuji Jpeg, he is essentially selling Fuji to the average Fuji hobbyist.

Dunning Kruger effect affects a lot of young people, who begin in a new discipline, learn a little bit something, quickly feel good about it, quickly gain some confidence, like bird chicks flapping their wings for the frst time realizing they fly a few yards without crashing into the ground, feel good about it, and all of a sudden intent to teach everyone else about their discovery, not realizing that old birds flew thousands of miles in various weather conditions without feeling the need to broadcast.

Sounds like you have a bit of a poor attitude towards Kevin. Fuji found him and I believe they had a mutual relationship that benefitted both of them (but he has now left the ambassador program). I don't believe Kevin to be a liar and peddling Fuji, if he says he shoots RAW+Jpg, often retouches the Jpgs for clients (and its enough) and occasionally throughout a wedding day will use Auto... then I believe him. If the Fuji system can deliver well under those conditions then that's credit to Fuji and Kevin.
The GFX he has I believe he sold, because he simply felt the system was overkill and too slow for his line of work, I think he does have credibility, transparency and has been quite critical of Fuji.

But he is not the only one to adopt this mentality of shooting Jpg and being ballsy enough to use Auto on paid work, there are many others (myself included)... he's possibly just a very good noteworthy one and his work is out there for everyone to see and critique.

Kevin will make all the money he needs from weddings and events (the last 2-3yrs have been tough due to Covid of course which has seen a few togs diversify). He is an international wedding tog, not many can say that. If he runs workshops, attends Fuji conventions and does speeches etc, then it won't be that well paid (in comparison to his wedding rate of pay), he'll be doing it because he likes to do it and it benefits his overall business image.

Now that he is an ex X Brand Ambassador he has said he will continue to use Fuji and has no ill will with them. I just think it's a ridiculous notion that Kevin would need Fuji to survive. When he started out (before Fuji noticed him) he did 1 wedding on his first calendar year, the second year he did 70... SEVENTY! Now you do the math.... he has since done over 600 weddings I think. He most certainly does not need Fuji nor never did. He has stated numerous times he gets no salary with Fuji, only perks such as testing things before they are released, giving feedback and suggestions to the designers, discounts on products (and this is similar to every other brand). To be a brand ambassador usually means you WORK HARDER (doing YT reviews and such is a huge time commitment for very little gain!), not things get easier, but it is a bit like winning a photography comp or award, you get to advertise this status on your sites etc and that can elevate you in the public eye.

---------- Post added 06-26-22 at 11:12 AM ----------

Well in this case the video owner labeled himself and no one else. He was willing to own the tag, and accept he was wrong.

Sometimes I think the Dunning-Kruger is everywhere, like people posting in this thread and not even taking the time to watch the damn video

Like it's more important to have their say about something/anything (be heard!) and with that bring their own assumptions to the actual topic matter which they won't take 10mins to investigate properly... good lord..

[biz-engineer]

Sounds like you have a bit of a poor attitude towards Kevin.

I always question the objectivity of claims and practice when someone is a brand ambassador.

---------- Post added 26-06-22 at 08:19 ----------

Fuji found him and I believe they had a mutual relationship that benefitted both of them

I don't believe in people being chosen. Working hard to become excellent and being chosen is what people are being told in schools, and popular beliefs. In reality, things rarely work that way because there are simply too many people on earth for any business to evaluate them all and select the best. Usually, only applicants get jobs (or people who manage to get themselves especially visible, presenting themselves in from of the right door), after they are hired they get paid to do what they are told to do (the marketing job can be "promote jpeg" because we have film simulation that others don't have). It's like for the election process of political leadership in democratic countries, you vote for individuals who are officially candidates and you can't vote for individuals who aren't candidates no matter how skilled and capable they are.