Reading mode: Light Dark

Ken Rockwell has confirmed my suspicions!

Go to last post
I should have simply ignored this post - which was obviously designed to drive traffic to his site.

I would answer your questions in detail except . . . for the giant sucking sound I hear which should be a warning.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
It's a money, site. Silly.
snowwrestler said:
Which is one of the big advantages to Ken--he puts in the time and
money to share his testing and opinions so we can all debate them.
He's even kind enough to be nice and blunt with his opinions, which
of course gives people even more to think and talk about.

The key to Ken and his site IMO is to have the right attitude. He's
unabashedly opinionated and very upfront about stating that it's
his site, they're just his opinions, take them or leave them. Keep
that in mind and it's fun and interesting. But I think too many
people take it way too seriously--seeming to get personally
offended when they read something they think is wrong. Personally I
like to read things I disagree with--I might be wrong after all.
Click to expand...
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
 
I agree with you, although Steve has a very interesting site too with many valuable tips.

I do not often visit Ken's site, usually only when someone here starts a thread about him, but I do appreciate his texts. I certainly do not agree with all he writes but as with this jpeg vs nef topic he does get me sointerested I'll test what he writes and after I've done that I'll draw my own conclusions.
snowwrestler said:
Which is one of the big advantages to Ken--he puts in the time and
money to share his testing and opinions so we can all debate them.
He's even kind enough to be nice and blunt with his opinions, which
of course gives people even more to think and talk about.

The key to Ken and his site IMO is to have the right attitude. He's
unabashedly opinionated and very upfront about stating that it's
his site, they're just his opinions, take them or leave them. Keep
that in mind and it's fun and interesting. But I think too many
people take it way too seriously--seeming to get personally
offended when they read something they think is wrong. Personally I
like to read things I disagree with--I might be wrong after all.
Click to expand...
--
Philip
 
I don't get the Ken bashing going on.

I totally agree with his posts, although some of his comments on the photos are to his taste.

Bottom line - he states RAW is best.

Bottom line - he states JPEG is pretty darn good.

What is the problem? I shoot 90% JPEG b/c RAW is a total PITA when one has hundreds of files.

Test after test have shown that JPEG and RAW stand up so close most cannot tell for most applications.

No one doubts RAW is better, but JPEG is incredilble.

What is even better - the stupid green box on my D70 with JPEG. My wife gets it right 100% of the time with this. I wish my D2X had the idiot green box - it would really help out.

My point is anything automatic, which JPEG is, can be at a price. Its a one size fits all approach.

You guys are hanging poor Ken for no reason.
 
I visited it for years when it had no ads whatsoever, and the tone has not changed one bit. He still has the note about the camera covered in elephant phallus skin, for instance, which should give anyone an idea of where his sensibilities lie.

He's a guy who loves photographry and dares to share his opinions. I just don't see where the animosity comes from.
 
clickhiker said:
Funny how Ken can write an entire article on JPEG vs NEF and never
once mention the ability to edit in 16-bit. I wonder how Ken
converts his JPEGs to 16-bit? Does he know the difference?
Click to expand...
Norm - how do you print? 16-bit?
 
All the esoteric mumbo jumbo coming out now. Ken seems to be interested in results. Can you show us an example where your 16 bit arguement has resulted in a superior print? You do make prints, right?
 
Please regale us with a well thought out article including examples showing how his results are incorrect
 
Steve Bingham said:
I should have simply ignored this post - which was obviously
designed to drive traffic to his site.

I would answer your questions in detail except . . . for the giant
sucking sound I hear which should be a warning.
--
Steve Bingham
http://www.dustylens.com
Click to expand...
--

I guess I'm missing something in your "sigh" Steve.

I realize there is a way to convert 8-bit JPEG's to 16-bit TIFF, but they can't possibly carry as much data as 12-bit to 16-bit. I've also read information on how many colors and detail the eye can see and 8-bit being more than enough. Yet experience has taught me my prints edited from original 12-bit NEF look better than 8-bit JPEG even from an 8-bit printer (even from the identical exposure using NEF + JPEG large). Especially when they are large prints. I enjoy your explanations, and would enjoy hearing your answer. Maybe if you put some earplugs in the sucking sound won't be so giant. Or did you mean "thread" instead of "post"? I certainly wouldn't intentionally drive traffic to Mr Ken.
Norm

 
Ken's tests have a major fault. They compare properly exposed, properly white balanced etc pictures. Where I've found RAW to excel is when things are not perfect.
 
SteveDoubleU said:
All the esoteric mumbo jumbo coming out now. Ken seems to be
interested in results. Can you show us an example where your 16
bit arguement has resulted in a superior print? You do make
prints, right?
Click to expand...
That really was my point.
 
BJN wrote:
Ken's observation that the
BJN said:
nasty high compression jpeg artifacts will make people think
there's more detail in a sharper image is LOL stupid.
Click to expand...
You couldn't see how someone might think that? Did you roll your mouse over that image? Frankly, yours may be the laughing out loud stupid conclusion.
 
Sure...if you want just as shot out of the camera pictures.....dang straight....no reason to even open that RAW option on your camera.

But that is very limited....and only one camp.

There is another camp of photographers that use the Ansel Adams approach. They visualize what they want....take RAW shot(s) and proceede to make shots that actually show what the eye saw (which almost no camera can do right out of the camera...unless dynamic range is well within the limits of the camera...which is my number 1 reason to use RAW.)

So...if you want shots right out of the camera....you probably wolnt notice a diffrence.

If you want to explore the MAXIMUM of what your camera is capable of.....Read Real world ACR for CS2 and never look back.

Roman
--

Photography in short...is about the love of the beauty of your subject. Without that....all the technology in the world will not help you get a good picture.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
for giving balanced..intellignet well thought out advice that actually works in the real world.

No need to kiss up to him......

His reputation stands on its own two legs.

Roman
--

Photography in short...is about the love of the beauty of your subject. Without that....all the technology in the world will not help you get a good picture.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/
 
I'll be waiting for you to post an image demonstrating how the wider dynamic range of NEF allowed you to previsualize and create one of these masterpieces!
 
Hogans work stand on it's own 2 legs. He states fact backed up by hard data. I challenge to to disprove any of Thom's statements. Where as rockwell's half truth and inaccuracies could allow him to run for Congress. Those who know photography know that Thom is the real deal. Thom is a published professional. Think about the scrutiny his work has to undergo to be published..

Rockwell is nothing more than a guy with a website and enough newbies and those who lack knowlege people to follow him. It's an internet phenomenon, just because it is in text on a screen doesn't make it true.
SteveDoubleU said:
to Hogan? A guy who sells and overpriced guide that for the most
part states the obvious....
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top