# How accurate is Ken Rockwell?



## tecboy (Jun 2, 2014)

Some of Ken Rockwell's articles have some good points.  Just wonder, where he gets all those information.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jun 2, 2014)

This ought to be fun. 

Word of advice, take Ken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Overread (Jun 2, 2014)

Ken Rockwell is not consistent nor reliable.

some of his gear reviews are good and most of the facts are correct, but his shooting advice and methods are often wrong or just very heavily biased. His style is to present HIS approach to things, discounting and dismissing any other approach to photography. As such he's often not very good to read if you're a beginner because he'll not give you choice, instead he'll give you his way or no way. And experienced photographer can pick through the opinions to find the fact; but at that stage he's not really saying much that an experienced photographer needs to read.

So he's mostly good at promoting himself - heck his stances on things like tripods often works greatly in his favour at generating discussion and debate and thus more attention. So he ranks well on Google and is a fantastic example of why "just google it" is not a valid answer for many questions when you've high ranking sites putting out opinion as fact or just plain wrong information.


----------



## lambertpix (Jun 2, 2014)

Opinions vary pretty wildly.  My personal suggestion: anything he (or anyone else) writes is just one opinion and one data point.  Like other bloggers, I take his stuff with a grain of salt.  Though it's generally pretty well-written and easy to read, I trust it as just one guy's opinion.

There are a handful of review sites that have information available about how they test and what they do to keep results relevant from one test to the next, and I'll typically place a bit more weight on information from sites like that, but still, I usually find that truth emerges when you start hearing the same thing from lots and lots of sources.

Except Facebook -- don't ever trust anything you read on Facebook.

;-)


----------



## Derrel (Jun 2, 2014)

He has some very useful information and is pretty "up on" a lot of cameras and lenses, since he has the means, and the "type of job" where buying and trying and using different camera gear is a part of the job. In recent years he's moved away from being all-Nikon, and has acquired Canon, Sony,Leica, and Fuji equipment, and has begun reporting on how he likes that stuff.

I think Rockwell has some good advice for people interested in practical picture-taking and hobby photography, and for people who want a strong, plain, simple opinion on equipment under consideration. Today's major *corporate-type sites*, like dPreview for one specific example, (dPreview is owned by Amazon.com) really tenderfoot around issues and problems with things under review. Ever since AMazon.com bought dPreview, their reviews have tended to gloss over issues or weaknesses with carefully-worded phrases, and an overall effort to mention-but-minimize weaknesses in products.

Just yesterday, I was going to tell a new potential buyer this bit of advice: Go to dPreview and carefully read the review of the Pentax K-30 and the Nikon D5200, and then note each instance of an "issue or problem", and then give each mention of an issue or problem about three times the weight in your mind as to how big a problem that issue is. Rockwell is not like dPreview; if something is stupidly designed, he states it that way.

On the other hand, Rockwell is tricky to use as a review source on some things because his reviews and comments are all mixed together over the span of years, and things can, and do change over time. At ONE TIME, the Nikon D70 was a great d-slr...today it's pretty lame by comparison. I used my D70 late last year...OMG...what a turd that thing is. But if you pull up a KR review of the D70, it's lauded pretty heavily. Same with his Nikon D40 reviews. And you know, for a time, the D40 WAS hot stuff! The old-mixed-with-new is one reason each new generation of zoom lenses is touted as, "The sharpest ___ to ___ lens ever!"

The one thing you will get from KR is an opinion. Clearly stated, no punches pulled, and I think that for the hobbyist and non-gearhead, his buying recommendations are usually pretty good; like what a competent,capable camera salesman would tell a customer. The more-advanced a shooter, the more-likely he will disagree with Rockwell, since Ken's buying advice is geared toward MAKING PICTURES, and less toward buying a *war chest set of gear*, which is what the majority of internet forum posters tend to favor. For example, KR (and Thom Hogan as well) both favor the Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR OVER the 14-24mm f/2.8 for ACTUAL USE and CARRY; the 16-35 costs less,takes filters, is smaller and lighter, and has a wider and more-useful range of lengths; they prefer the 16-35 for most uses; on forums, that preference for the 16-35 over the 14-24/2.8 is regarded by buyers of the 14-24 as heresy, and so, people will bash him because he will buy and use lenses that they consider "inferior". I see that all the time here too.


----------



## sscarmack (Jun 2, 2014)

I only listen to people who have the work to back up what their saying.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jun 2, 2014)

Seems to have a certain amount of knowledge but what he writes seems to be his own opinions - I find it somewhat entertaining and sometimes informative but if you read something on his site I'd look it up elsewhere too. I don't take his site too seriously.


----------



## TCampbell (Jun 2, 2014)

All reviews are opinion... but I prefer to read reviews where they endeavor to show evidence, and when something is opinion, to be honest that it's an opinion.

Of all the reviewers that I've read, Ken is possibly the most controversial.  From time to time I would read something so outrageous that it made me wonder if he could possibly be that mis-informed... (which is a bit difficult to believe if someone has been in the industry for years) or whether they're stating something because they deliberately want to stir up controversy.  Controversy drives traffic (even if the point of the traffic is to flame).  Traffic drives rankings.  Rankings drive revenue generation.


----------



## runnah (Jun 2, 2014)

Photography wise he is a mixed bag, but man he can hit 3-pointers all day long.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 2, 2014)

TCampbell said:


> All reviews are opinion... but I prefer to read reviews where they endeavor to show evidence, and when something is opinion, to be honest that it's an opinion.
> 
> Of all the reviewers that I've read, Ken is possibly the most controversial.  From time to time I would read something so outrageous that it made me wonder if he could possibly be that mis-informed... (which is a bit difficult to believe if someone has been in the industry for years) or whether they're stating something because they deliberately want to stir up controversy.  Controversy drives traffic (even if the point of the traffic is to flame).  Traffic drives rankings.  Rankings drive revenue generation.



And Ken addresses some of his motivation, directly, on the site. About KenRockwell.com

A small excerpt:  "Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful, but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here &#8212; even on this page."


----------



## nzmacro (Jun 2, 2014)

About as reliable as white balance 

Danny.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 2, 2014)

Derrel said:


> .........I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories ..............



Here's the proof (_*NSFW!!!!!!!*_)


----------



## mikeyidaho (Jun 2, 2014)

I only got seriously into photography a year or so ago and at the beginning I put a lot of stock into what Ken Rockwell said which did me absolutely no favors and took a while to recover from. I followed his advice which means all my photos from when I first got a DSLR were shot in JPEG basic instead of RAW which just about killed any post processing potential. 

Definitely focus on widening your horizons, don't take any one review site or blogger too seriously until you get a good knowledge base. Jared Polin has turned out to be my favorite YouTube channel (FroKnowsPhoto), and DigitalRev for some comedy.

Essentially just take every opinion you ever hear with a grain of salt, or a handful in the case of KR

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 2, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> This ought to be fun.
> 
> Word of advice, take Ken with a grain of salt.



And a dash of paprika.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 2, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > This ought to be fun.
> ...




And a full frontal lobotomy.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 2, 2014)

mikeyidaho said:


> I followed his advice which means all my photos from when I first got a DSLR were shot in JPEG basic instead of RAW which just about killed any post processing potential.



That's gotta' be one of the sillier things I've read today.

How does shooting in JPEG instead of raw "kill" any post processing potential?


----------



## table1349 (Jun 2, 2014)

Is it just me or is there a real resemblance?








I think this says a lot: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/8d/8df6ba8e6e0c4ad28dbb28fabb5ce9dc9eabe9c7f009ef599a1078242fa75323.jpg


----------



## 71M (Jun 2, 2014)

If you know nothing, he can teach you something. If you know something, his pronouncements offer the chance to reflect upon it/question it/affirm it; if you know everything, you don't need to worry about his accuracy, just enjoy his updates/archive. I view all the other reviewers in the same way.


----------



## Monday (Jun 2, 2014)

I too put a lot of stock in his lenses reviews. Then realized to start looking at unbiased reviewers and actual data. Glad I did as it saved me thousands in the end on lenses that are awesome and in some cases very equivalent,.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


----------



## bribrius (Jun 2, 2014)

I still read him occasionally. Used to be more so.

not so much for gear recs or anything deep. But he has a certain "take" and simplified perception of photography I really enjoy and find favor with. And I still learn things from time to time or get reminded of things I forgot. It might be his opinion, but the way he explains things cut and dry for the every day joe out there doing it I really like. would I read it all like it was carved in stone? No.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 2, 2014)

mikeyidaho said:


> .* I followed his advice which means all my photos from when I first got a DSLR were shot in JPEG basic instead of RAW which just about killed any post processing potential.
> *
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk


I started digital just doing jpeg. Some of my cameras only shoot jpeg. I still shoot jpeg. If I am using a camera with jpeg plus raw I will shoot jpeg with raw. Even with that, im more likely to just shoot jpeg.

Most of my photos, don't need a raw file. 
I didn't get that from Rockwell. Another old timer told me that. There are benefits to shooting raw, but you don't HAVE to shoot raw. In fact if you have to shoot raw for everything there might be a problem.
Don't they all get transformed to jpegs or tif anyway? jpeg is convenient and quicker as well. jmo
sure, you have more options for processing raw. But why, do you need more options on the majority of your images?


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 2, 2014)

bribrius said:


> ....... In fact if you have to shoot raw for everything there might be a problem...........



And what, in fact, would that problem be?


----------



## bribrius (Jun 2, 2014)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > ....... In fact if you have to shoot raw for everything there might be a problem...........
> ...


The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
All good things. it makes me mess up less.  Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG.. 
shoot RAW!!  Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..


----------



## bribrius (Jun 2, 2014)

hell, just the extra time waiting for the computer and extra large files and more of them is a reason not to shoot RAW unless you really need to.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 2, 2014)

bribrius said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...





bribrius said:


> hell, just the extra time waiting for the computer and extra large files and more of them is a reason not to shoot RAW unless you really need to.



:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

Oh... sorry; you were being serious?


----------



## bribrius (Jun 2, 2014)

tirediron said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


totally actually. Just my opinion of course. You have a specific reason why I am incorrect? Enlighten me. millions of people a day shoot jpeg images everyday..  There is a reason cameras have a jpeg only setting even when they shoot raw.


----------



## tirediron (Jun 2, 2014)

bribrius said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...


There is no 'right' or 'wrong'; it's totally subjective, but I don't see the logic in deliberately sacrificing image data.  To me this would be like shooting Polaroid rather than 6x7 Porta; there's really little you can do with either the .jpg or the Polaroid.  If you're happy with them the way they they come out of the camera, great, if not... too bad.  Personally, even for the most basic of shooting requirements I prefer the flexibility offered by the increased size of a raw file.  You don't have to use it, but if you don't have it and you need it...


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 2, 2014)

bribrius said:


> The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
> All good things. it makes me mess up less.  Honestly, people running around taking regular photos in raw I seriously don't comprehend. Get into more serious things, I see it then. But way overused as a crutch and overkill for most photos. I think they think they are cool the way they type it too.. It's in RAW.. wow!! look! it is in RAW!! dON'T SHOOT JPEG..
> shoot RAW!!  Even if you are taking the most generic photo that ever existed apparently! Look at all that processing extras you get for the kids birthday party shoot! WOW! Hilarious actually. Course, this is my opinion..



Maybe this will help you comprehend it, then:

I shoot raw for everything [except for occasional snapshot] because I sell more than just finshed prints that I think look pretty. 

Many times, I will sell an image to someone who requires extensive editing to the original image. Editing that sometimes makes a raw file a prerequisite.  Trying to edit a JPG to their specifications would be like trying to poke warm butter up a wildcat's anus with a red-hot ice pick.

For the simple reason I _ never_ know the final use of most of my images, this makes shooting in 14-bit raw a requirement.

Case in point: I took a shot of a '55 Chevy at an auto rally. Beautiful sky blue paint job. 4 years later I sold some rights to use the image, but they wanted to know if the car could be red instead.

Raw file..... no problem. Easy edit..... money in the bank.   JPEG.... no dice. Lost sale..... no money.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jun 2, 2014)

bribrius said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



First, I shoot raw exclusively.  I have a powerful enough machine that it doesn't make much difference if I shoot jpeg or raw, file transfers and edits happen quite quick.   I also tend to carry just over 100GB worth of memory cards in my bag too, so I'm not likely to run out of space.  
Second, I'm a "low volume" shooter.  I don't show up at an event or location looking to shoot a hundred deliverable images, nor do I look to deliver images before I even get home.   So the expediency of JPEG is wasted on people like me.  
Third, I shoot with my post processing workflow in mind.  I pre-visualize the final image, and shoot in a way that will give me the data I need to make that image happen.  For example in this image, I intentionally underexposed the subject to retain detail in the sky.




Amelia as Sleeping Beauty by tltichy, on Flickr​
  Shooting to properly expose the subject in jpeg would have given me a white sky with no detail.  Checking the difference between exposure values however told me I could shoot raw, expose for the sky, and recover the subject in raw.  That kind of latitude isn't there with jpeg, but you have to be able to see it before you trip the shutter.    That kind of shooting requires an intuitive understanding of both your camera sensors capabilities and your post processing workflow.  This example brings me to the most important part, that shooting in raw affords the use of a much larger dynamic range than can be stored in a finished jpeg image.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 2, 2014)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > The fact one would feel they have to so they can process images to that extent for every photo. That they really cant decide on bw or color on any photo before hand. That they need two versions of every photo as im sure many shoot jpeg + raw (I do if I decide to shoot raw habit). I don't use raw for everyday shooting. with what I use for software. I cant change exposure in jpeg, bw in jpeg (least not well) white balance in jpeg.
> ...


okay. so you shoot RAW for the unknown factor, never knowing where such images will end up. I'm pretty sure where most of my images will end up beforehand but okay, I get this it makes sense.



Scatterbrained said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...


And you shoot raw because you don't shoot a lot of images and like in this one particular instance above (cutest kid btw) you knew it would need more processing so Raw is the way to go.

I get this too. I shoot something I know before hand might need "tweaking" (or basically it is screwed) I will shoot raw as well.

But this doesn't explain the propensity of those using RAW when probably only a small percentage of them, or their photos actually need to be in RAW. And I cant tell the difference between raw and jpeg images the majority of the time. They look near identical.

I am curious as to know the amount of dynamic range difference as well. seems if I take one of each in post and purposely try to blow out the highlights there isn't really a ton of difference. (I just tried it).
would you guys at least agree, that in ninety percent of the images people shoot jpeg is perfectly fine?


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 3, 2014)

KR's main point is that people and manufacturers and blogs overate the technical importance of cameras.  Rockwell's point is that digital has progressed to the point that if you can't shoot a meaningful and technically proficient picture, then it's you not the camera.  He constantly reminds people it is the photographer, not the gear.  The rest of what he says is just conversation.  Focus on the first part of his advice and just entertain yourself with the rest of his stuff. Your Camera Doesn't Matter


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 3, 2014)

bribrius said:


> ......And I cant tell the difference between raw and jpeg images the majority of the time. They look near identical........



The reason is simple: Your brain doesn't have the ability to see the difference.

The reason JPEGs are 8-bit images is because there's more information in a simple 8-bit image than the human brain can differentiate.  To give you an example, try this:







One side of this green rectangle is darker than then other side.  Just by looking at it, can you tell which side is darker?  One side is 0:183:0 and the other side is 0:184:0.

This is why JPEGs are, by design, 8-bit images.  The difference in colors at this bit level are imperceptible to the vast majority of people.  Any more visual data is a waste.

This, and most computer monitors are incapable of displaying any more than 8-bit color depth images anyway.  A 12- or 14- bit raw file is rendered on the monitor by the video card as 8-bit.



However, when it comes to *editing*, having as much data as possible makes extreme, heavy-handed edits far more easier.


A few years ago, I posted a challenge for TPF members to alter a JPEG image that was taken with the incorrect white balance to make it more in line to one take with the correct WB.  If memory serves, only one member succeeded, with great difficulty, and with mediocre results.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Jun 3, 2014)

bribrius said:


> .................................................................................................
> 
> ...................................
> 
> ...


   You won't be able to tell the difference until you open them up in a raw converter and start to push and pull the file.   For example,  I know that when my camera starts to show clipped highlights on the histogram (as well as the "blinkies) that I still have about a stop of headroom in the raw file.  In the jpeg the highlights are blown (the preview image and histogram are rendered from the jpeg) but with the raw file the data is still there.  The same is true for shadows (even more so for exmor sensor equipped Sony and Nikon cameras); barely visible detail in the jpeg can be lifted to render a properly exposed area, but only if you have the raw file.  This comes in quite useful in challenging lighting situations.   The differences aren't just going to "show themselves" to you, so to speak.  To view the image it has to be rendered into an 8 bit jpeg with a tone curve applied.  That is what you see.  That doesn't have to be the final image.   

  As far as being happy with jpegs, there are a lot of simple situations where raw is better even when you don't plan on doing extensive editing.   For example, you can't apply a custom color profile to your images if they're shot in jpeg, but you can if you shoot in raw.  This can be quite helpful when accurate color renditions are needed but the light source had spectral deficiencies (think doing product or copy work on the cheap with LEDs or CFLs).  You can simply create a color profile for the light source using a color checker, then batch that to all the images.    What if you want to apply a specific tone curve that isn't one of the standard curves applied to jpegs?  For example, in this series of images, I decided with tone curve I wanted to use, and then just batched that and all the other global edits to the whole set of images.   If the tone curve had been baked into the jpeg I wouldn't have been able to get that result.  


Amelia and Natasha: Before the First Recital by tltichy, on Flickr​The tone curve looks like this, and is a variant of what I do to a lot of my portraits:


Sure I could make an in-camera jpeg preset with this tone curve, but it's primarily for high key B&W and portraits; am I going to make 5 different B&W and portrait presets and then keep changing back and forth as I go?  No, it's too easy to forget to change a setting that way.  Shooting in raw lets me fine tune these things to get the optimal result, rather than getting "close enough", I can get exactly what I want.   To drag out a tired cliche, it's like the Ansel Adams way of looking at photography.   You want quality, not quantity.  Every image deserves to be looked over carefully until you get exactly what you want.  Even with something as basic as dodging and burning, you can kill a jpeg pretty quick due to banding.  

Of course, if you're on the sidelines of an NFL game and you are shooting images off to the editor in between plays by all means throw that baby in jpeg and fire away.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 3, 2014)

bribrius said:


> mikeyidaho said:
> 
> 
> > .* I followed his advice which means all my photos from when I first got a DSLR were shot in JPEG basic instead of RAW which just about killed any post processing potential.
> ...



In two words, white balance.  Yes, the final image will end up in jpg format, but by shooting raw I have all the color information the camera captures available when I go to post process.  This gives my editing software a lot more to work with when it comes to things like adjusting the white balance.

I still do shoot jpg on occasion when being able to fire a longer continuous burst becomes important, but I prefer raw when I can for more choices in post.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## tecboy (Jun 3, 2014)

Oh no, we got another Ken Rockwell!


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 3, 2014)

tecboy said:


> Oh no, we got another Ken Rockwell!



Would that then not make him a Rockette?

Step kick jpg - step kick jpg.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 3, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Trying to edit a JPG to their specifications would be like trying to poke warm butter up a wildcat's anus with a red-hot ice pick.



Sparky my friend, stunning imagery - as always.  You know I think you may have missed your true calling.  You might really want to consider a career in poetry.


----------



## tecboy (Jun 3, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Trying to edit a JPG to their specifications would be like trying to poke warm butter up a wildcat's anus with a red-hot ice pick.
> ...


  You just cracked me up!  Leave Sparky alone, he is a cool guy.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 3, 2014)

tecboy said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > 480sparky said:
> ...



Ya, your right.  Probably not to many things that rhyme with "anus" anyway.. lol


----------



## AR76 (Jun 3, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Ya, your right.  Probably not to many things that rhyme with "anus" anyway.. lol



Something to help you with 'anal poetry':

7 Double ryhmes
2083 Last syllable ryhmes


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 3, 2014)

AR76 said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Ya, your right.  Probably not to many things that rhyme with "anus" anyway.. lol
> ...



Well heinous was the only one I could come up with off the top of my head but i'll check out that link.. lol

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2014)

The last really GREAT JPEG camera I owned was the Fuji S2 Pro d-slr. Fuji had a unique, very simplified control panel on the rear LCD of the S1 and S2 models. It had three main ways to control the JPEG result. Color Saturation, Tone Curve; and Sharpening. C-T-S, for Color, Tone Curve, Sharpening

Here is a link to a dPreview review, that shows the simple, easy to access method Fuji used to make one of the best JPEG shooters ever.  rearcontrols-001.jpg

Currently, the Fuji X- line of cameras have gained notoriety as being capable of exceptionally good SOOC JPEG capture, at least according to people like Zack Arias and David Hobby, who have shot numerous professional assignments using nothing but SOOC Fuji X-series JPEG images. But Fuji has a different history and a different approach to color and to images than say, Sony, or Nikon, or Canon. FujiFIlm had decades' worth of experience as a film and color-printing paper manufacturer, and they have approached picture-making with a different set of knowledge than the plain ol' camera makers.

One thing I noticed when I was shooting the Fuji S2, against the Nikon D1h, and then later the Canon 20D...the Fuji JPEGs had more room for editing than the rather flimsy JPEGs older Nikons and Canons created. ANd the other thing is that matching C and T, color saturation and vibrance levels, and Tone Curve, to the subject matter and lighting, was really important. The Fuji S2 Pro made those critical adjustments EASY, because frankly, there were so few buttons, and the system recognized that those two controls are really important to take command of. On today's 10-years-newer d-slrs, there are many dozens of control options, so the options are more or less buried in menus; the Fuji S2 Pro had "hard buttons", dedicated exclusively to controlling the way the images would be processed by the camera. The S2 Pro was, in most ways, really a fine, fine SOOC d-slr, built at a time when RAW image processing was slow, one-file-at-a-time, and really rather clunky and primitive. Controls such as highlight recovery, digital fill light, shadow/highlights, and so on were really NOT available, but were just around the corner, in the future of software.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jun 3, 2014)

I use DXoMark as a guide for the technical side of things. On the practical side, I'm opined that actual test is the best presuming you can rent or borrow what ever equipment you are keen in comparing or to buy.


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 3, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > .........I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories ..............
> ...



that reading really ruined my day  :thumbdown:


----------



## astroNikon (Jun 3, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Famous Anus ...


----------



## 71M (Jun 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> One thing I noticed when I was shooting the Fuji S2, against the Nikon D1h, and then later the Canon 20D...the Fuji JPEGs had more room for editing than the rather flimsy JPEGs older Nikons and Canons created.


10D was a great jpeg camera; S3 also. D1x, D70.


----------



## Steve5D (Jun 3, 2014)

I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.

That's ridiculously wrong...


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 3, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.
> 
> That's ridiculously wrong...




Read post 28 again.  

Perhaps you could enlighten us how you would handle the situation with a JPEG.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 3, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.
> 
> That's ridiculously wrong...



I think the idea that shooting in-camera JPEG with the NEW-generation d-slr and mirrorless cameras "kills any post-processing" potential is indeed greatly overstated. We've seen some extreme DR examples in the past, where a specific scene was shot in RAW and shot in a, what I would call non-optimized manner (strong backlighting with the highlights allowed to almost blow), and then a crappy JPEG offered up as a sacrificial "proof of concept" that, yes, shooting JPEG mode sucks.

If you're gonna shoot JPEG, you need to have the critical parameters set appropriately for the scene's dynamic range; we've heard some examples here about needing to make huuuuge global shifts, like a blue car to a red car, and so on, as proof that, yes, shooting in JPEG mode sucks. Bad cases make bad laws. Extreme, hyper-unusual examples make bad examples, and ignore the day to day realities. There is more than one way to a good image. Good God, I grew up shooting Kodachrome 64--we had ZERO control over post processing. There was NONE done, ever. *You got what you shot*. You learned how to make images using a fixed dynamic range and ONE, single, specific development process for Kodachrome. It was *the* de facto standard of millions of American color slide film shooters from the 1940's to the early 1990's.JPEGs from my new Nikon have maybe 4 full EV MORE DR even with the tone curve cranked to HIGH.

What we have not seen much of on TPF are examples of people shooting a JPEG so it HAS some post-processing potential. it seems as if there are people bringing the old, pre-2005 JPEG limitations to the table, over and over again, and not realizing that the new-generation cameras CAN IN FACT make amazing JPEG images...images that USED to, a decade ago, absolutely demand RAW captures.


----------



## rexbobcat (Jun 3, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I think the idea that shooting in-camera JPEG with the NEW-generation d-slr and mirrorless cameras "kills any post-processing" potential is indeed greatly overstated. We've seen some extreme DR examples in the past, where a specific scene was shot in RAW and shot in a, what I would call non-optimized manner (strong backlighting with the highlights allowed to almost blow), and then a crappy JPEG offered up as a sacrificial "proof of concept" that, yes, shooting JPEG mode sucks.  If you're gonna shoot JPEG, you need to have the critical parameters set appropriately for the scene's dynamic range; we've heard some examples here about needing to make huuuuge global shifts, like a blue care to a red car, and so on, as proof that, yes, shooting in JPEG mode sucks.  What we have not seen much of on TPF are examples of people shooting a JPEG so it HAS some post-processing potential. it seems as if there are people bringing the old, pre-2005 JPEG limitations to the table, over and over again, and not realizing that the new-generation cameras CAN IN FACT make amazing JPEG images...images that USED to, a decade ago, absolutely demand RAW captures.



Fujifilm JPEGS are pretty damn great. Their noise reduction is a little heavy-handed even on the lowest setting but the tones are nice.


----------



## Overread (Jun 3, 2014)

Lets try not to get side-tracked talking about extreme examples here. Sure we can sit here and nit pick every situation where JPEG would and wouldn't potentially "work". And for every situation where we can find in-camera JPEGs working really well we can find examples where its not going to be suitable (at both technical and artistic levels). 

JPEG gives you a usable photo right out of the camera with a small file size. It's potential for editing is significantly reduced from RAW, however the majority of users are never going to push that potential envelope anyway. Thus the JPEG to them is more than enough. For hte rest of us RAW presents an ideal option where we can use "auto" and "default" in lightroom or other editing software or we can push and pull the shot as we need. For the keen the latter option of having a RAW is superior because of the "What if" situation of when you end up in a situation that isn't the norm and in which you can't predict it before (and thus change into RAW mode for that one or series of shots). 

Of course RAW+JPEG also exists for an ideal in-between setting; but does eat up more card space (which when you think about it is a daft way of doing things since every RAW shot has a JPEG embedded into it anyway - one would think they could have designed software to auto-pull the JPEGs out of the RAWs and thus have no need for RAW+JPEG and simply have it as a download option when importing from the card.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jun 3, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.
> 
> That's ridiculously wrong...



Well, not sure who may have said that but it wasn't me - RAW does give me more options in post, and is especially handy when I'm dealing with situations where the white balance is tricky at best.  That happens a lot for me actually, since I'm often shooting in a combination of florescent and ambient light.  JPG's can still be post processed to a certain extent, however I've found RAW gives me more options and generally produces better results when the white balance is an issue.

So, I shoot in RAW when needed, JPG when needed, and use whatever the situation requires.


----------



## tecboy (Jun 3, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> I'd still like to know how shooting in JPEG "kills" any post-processing potential.
> 
> That's ridiculously wrong...



Forget jpeg!  Shoot RAW!  Steve!


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 3, 2014)

480sparky said:


> A few years ago, I posted a challenge for TPF members to alter a JPEG image that was taken with the incorrect white balance to make it more in line to one take with the correct WB.  If memory serves, only one member succeeded, with great difficulty, and with mediocre results.


It's not *that* hard...



As far as Ken Rockwell goes, I think his stuff is pretty funny sometimes.  People take him too seriously.


----------



## pgriz (Jun 3, 2014)

Much of my photography is used to document the work that my company does.  These are used as a proof of work done, as a record of techniques used, and in our marketing and sales to illustrate how "we" do things and are different from the thirty thousand other contractors competing with us.  I usually use fill flash (to reduce the shadows on bright days) or to be able to see (usually at the end of the day when the sun is already down), or to illuminate some nook or cranny that doesn't get direct daylight, ever.  Shooting in RAW gives me the processing "headroom" to correct things that I may miss in the field, and to be able to produce nice, professional-looking "how-it's-done" images that I can use to educate my prospective clients.  My crew chief used a point-and-shoot to document stuff when I wasn't around, and his camera only shot JPG.  That camera's images are much harder to correct without causing visible artifacts.  So I solved the problem by giving him a P&S with RAW capabilities.

As for Ken Rockwell - When I started digital photography, and found his site, I thought I struck gold.  With some experience, I began to see more and understand how HE saw his site, and it became a place I occasionally go to for some entertainment, one man's opinions, and a look at gear that I may not be exposed to otherwise.  I admire what he has done as a site owner, although I do not consider his opinions as uncritically as I did at the beginning.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 3, 2014)

i heard ansel adams shot jpeg only. Being a environmentalist he was very interested in conservation.


----------



## 480sparky (Jun 3, 2014)

Josh66 said:


> It's not *that* hard.......




I'll try to dig it up so you can show us how easy it is.


----------



## sashbar (Jun 4, 2014)

I keep shooting basic JPEG+RAW and honestly do not really know why.  Probably "just in case".  Images that I post here are all basic camera JPEGs with some quick pp. I do not remember when I last used a RAW file.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jun 4, 2014)

I shoot raw because perhaps only one in a hundred might need that extra room - but I don't know in advance which one.
So the simplest way to be safe is to shoot all Raw + jpg and carry enough memory.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jun 4, 2014)

I shoot raw simply because it's operationally easier to bring up shadows. And I don't have to start from scrap should I need to make changes to a final image. With JPEG I've to go back to the original image else I'll suffer from lost of data each time I save a JPEG file due to compression.


----------



## bribrius (Jun 4, 2014)

I shoot raw when I forget to change my settings, if I know the photo is going to need a lot of tweaking from the beginning, or it is serious enough I cant afford to miss.

But realistically, since I shoot a lot with a camera where raw isn't even a option and only jpeg I have become pretty reliant on just using jpegs. And even shooting raw + jpeg I usually only use the jpeg


----------



## AlanKlein (Jun 4, 2014)

sashbar said:


> I keep shooting basic JPEG+RAW and honestly do not really know why. Probably "just in case". Images that I post here are all basic camera JPEGs with some quick pp. I do not remember when I last used a RAW file.


  Pretty much what I do.  With travel photos and family shots, jpeg is usually perfectly acceptable.  Who wants to waste a lot of time processing each individual picture especially when I spend time make DVD's slide shows of the trips.    My edits are usually cropping only.  

As an aside, what did photographers do when they were shooting chromes?  Other than using graduated ND filters, you just dealt with the range of the film and that was it.  I think a lot of what we do, we do just because we can do it.  We get caught up in the technical aspects rather than focusing on the more important aesthetic and content.  Pretty much Rockwell's main and recurring point if you actually are reading his blog and not just repeating the negative comments from people who never look at his site.


----------



## Solarflare (Jun 5, 2014)

I shoot RAW.

I dont see why I would use JPEG, which is a format that throws away a huge part of the information my camera has recorded.

If at all, I would store 16-bit TIFF so my images are more easily readable for future generations.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Jun 5, 2014)

Vince.1551 said:


> I shoot raw simply because it's operationally easier to bring up shadows. And I don't have to start from scrap should I need to make changes to a final image. With JPEG I've to go back to the original image else I'll suffer from lost of data each time I save a JPEG file due to compression.



That I said I do use JPEG for snap shots


----------

