Ken has me worried about RAW

[gmosc]

Man ever since he played with the Jeff Lorber Fusion group, it's been all downhill. I thought it was cool trying to find out that the "G" stood for Gorelick and he played pretty hot stuff- burning licks , ya know?

Then I saw him on stage, and I had a hard time linking the cool sounding sax to the picture of how he looked on stage (my bias I know),

Then that terrible "Songbird" came out. Man to think he'll have to play that song as an encore EVERY time he plays a concert for the rest of his life, man I feel sorry for the dude. It was bad enough seeing Stan Getz zone out when people asked for "Girl from Ipanema" for the 700th time- but that was, and is a cool song with complex changes, but "Songbird"! Man, just goes to shows ya the power of TV. Get your song on TV and you're set for life. But like I said he'll have to play that song forever, so there is a god. (Or a devil depending on your viewpoint.)

But as Pat Metheny said, he has started to go too far, like putting his sax on a duet with Louise Armstrong on What a Wonderful World. Just because your name is Kenny G and you earn lots o cash doesn't give you the right to put your sax on a classic Satchmo tune. Too bad Metheny got so much flak for saying his opinion on Ken. I just hope we don't get crucified for knockin' Ken here but sometimes ya gotta live life dangerously and say what ya mean.

Guy Moscoso

 

[Bob Walters]

Don't you know anything about photography? You've got the wrong Ken.

The one referred to in this thread is obviously Barbie's gay friend and please don't make fun of him.

Thanks

--

 

[AmbientLight]

I agree somewhat with Ken. It would make sense if proprietary raw
files are phased out before JPEG is.

Actually, in this case, that wouldn't make much sense for Nikon. One of the reasons you introduce a proprietary format is to keep people using your products. If I'm Nikon and I change or phase out my own format, don't I risk having my customers simply switch to a generic format... or worse, one released by one of my competitors?

aL

 

[gmosc]

Don't you know anything about music! (Sorry, just HAD to say that!)
Yes, I thought it was obvious I was joking.

Guy Moscoso

 

[Bob Walters]

..............> Yes, I thought it was obvious I was joking.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh..............me too. LOL

--

 

[TheGremlinLives]

The whole thing about RAW is that you can bring the exposure down ( up to 1 stop apparently ) and set the white balance without any loss of information. Everything else can be done pretty much just as well in other 16-bit file formats.

I wouldn't worry about it though. Nikon are not planning on ending support of NEFs. And if they do the software that does support them is not going to suddenly dissapear over night. Unless you think your going to have an accident ,fall into a coma and awake decades later, only to discover ( horror of horrors ) NEFs are no longer supported, I wouldn't worry about it.

Mr rockwell has his opinions. Some of them good. Some of them innacurate and unrealistic.

If you are worried. Just batch convert them.

 

[Jeff Maanum]

Since starting to use Capture NX I've started shooting RAW plus Basic JPEG.

The JPEGs allow me to quickly review the pics on the computer and discard the shots I don't want. Then I can tweak the RAW images that I have decided to keep and delete the basic JPEGS.

 

[RomanJohnston]

Ken is not a source I would call....um.....a reliable source.

So...lets just take a look at who uses RAW.

Just about every pro (except journalists...who need to send in shots almost immediatly) out there uses RAW.

If you REALLY want to know the dirt on RAW.....get this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0321334094/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_k2a_2_txt/002-0701497-4744831?ie=UTF8

its a thin but info packed book....and if you don't belive after one of the industrys top minds explain fully to you.......or better yet....plop your camera on a tripod......and shoot in manual mode at a scene....one in RAW...and one in .jpg....and see for yourself.

Keep the results of the raw shot in 16bit format....and compare it to the 8bit format.....(almost twice the information) and see smooth transitions for yourself....see how eiditng is smoother in the larger format....

Roman
--
Schrodinger's cat is alive...no...dead...no...alive.....no, wait....
http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

 

[Kim Letkeman]

... that this was an amazing save ... one of Ken's points is that you should try to capture the scene correctly in the first place. There is no question in my mind that this scene did not look like that jpeg at all ... the WB is completely off. All it saw was red. The processed RAW no doubt reflects a lot more closely what was actually visible.

I don't know if your camera was in a wierd custom WB (based on some strange colored object) or whether the camera got auto WB that wrong (that would surprise me) ... and since there is no EXIF, all we can do is speculate about what happened.

But I do know that I've shot lots of concerts with my little Fuji compacts and have never seen anything like that. Admittedly, I have never got that close to the performer either.

So, though it is a spectacular example of how RAW can save a truly horrible exposure, it is not necessarily a good example of why people should shoot RAW for every shot. It is in fact a superb example of why people should pay attention to WB when shooting jpeg ... if the shot looks all red on review, then something has to change and the shot be taken again.

I would agree, though, that if you are getting a couple of shots off before being led away by security, then shooting RAW makes sense because you have little time to get the exposure right in cam.

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos

 

[Thomas Comerford]

The whole thing about RAW is that you can bring the exposure down (
up to 1 stop apparently ) and set the white balance without any
loss of information. Everything else can be done pretty much just
as well in other 16-bit file formats.

Not everything... there are a lot of other things you can do with a raw file that you can't do with a 16-bit TIFF. Also, with raw it's possible to have a much more efficient automated workflow.

I wouldn't worry about it though. Nikon are not planning on ending
support of NEFs. And if they do the software that does support them
is not going to suddenly dissapear over night. Unless you think
your going to have an accident ,fall into a coma and awake decades
later, only to discover ( horror of horrors ) NEFs are no longer
supported, I wouldn't worry about it.
Mr rockwell has his opinions. Some of them good. Some of them
innacurate and unrealistic.

If you are worried. Just batch convert them.

 

[Tengo]

This is unbelievable. People will still question basics. It was said so many times. Why are we in general so prone to follow loosers in stead of using our own common sense?

So here is my question:

Let's say you have a project where you need 100 nails. You go to the store and there are bags of nails of two sizes. One bag has 100 nails and second one 120 nails. Both are for the same price. Which one will you buy?

What's common sense? Will you risk that you may need more nails or will you just get a bigger one? Isn't it better to decide later what you will do with those nails that you didn't need? What if, at a later stage of the project, you realize you need 10 more nails and the whole thing would look much better?

So will you want to take more information from the photographed scene or not? Or did you buy your D70/50 just to effectively degrade it to a sophisticated point and shoot camera?

Are you striving mediocrity? Count me out!

Anyway, I just should have stayed away from this argument.
Have a nice day everybody.

LN

--
My Photo Gallery: http://www.limanovember.net

 

[knickerhawk]

I think you're on the right track with your analogy, but I'd change it a little: you're at the hardware store to buy some wood screws and you can either choose the cheap regular headed screws or more expensive but stronger Philips head screws. According to Ken, you're wasting your money buying the stronger screws and, besides, what if they stop making Philips head screwdrivers? For proof he notes that he's never had a problem with the cheap screws when he's building with plywood. If you use good technique, you'll never strip the head when screwing into plywood. That argument makes good sense to a lot of people. They only use plywood and don't want to bother with keeping a Philips head screwdriver around. For others, who sometimes or often work with solid hardwoods, the cheap screws can be frustrating and sometimes unusable. Even master carpenters can't always use them on hardwoods, so it's not just a question of sloppy screwing.

Of course, there's no right answer, but Rockwell makes it seem like you're either a dilettante or incompetent if you use RAW. He's just plain wrong to try to simplify the issue that way.
--
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root

 

[jeremyInMT]

I think you're on the right track with your analogy, but I'd change
it a little: you're at the hardware store to buy some wood screws
and you can either choose the cheap regular headed screws or more
expensive but stronger Philips head screws. According to Ken,
you're wasting your money buying the stronger screws and, besides,
what if they stop making Philips head screwdrivers? For proof he
notes that he's never had a problem with the cheap screws when he's
building with plywood. If you use good technique, you'll never
strip the head when screwing into plywood. That argument makes good
sense to a lot of people. They only use plywood and don't want to
bother with keeping a Philips head screwdriver around. For others,
who sometimes or often work with solid hardwoods, the cheap screws
can be frustrating and sometimes unusable. Even master carpenters
can't always use them on hardwoods, so it's not just a question of
sloppy screwing.

Of course, there's no right answer, but Rockwell makes it seem like
you're either a dilettante or incompetent if you use RAW. He's
just plain wrong to try to simplify the issue that way.

Ken distills things down to making no sense. He's either in one ditch or the other on an issue or sometimes after reading his review you have no idea where he really stands. I think honestly he just likes to talk.

--
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root

--

Greens too yellow? Blacks going magenta? check out this thread: http://www.mastersphoto.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79
Gallery: http://www.mastersphoto.net/copper
D70 and photo discussion
D70 custom tone curves @ http://forum.mastersphoto.net

 

[jeremyInMT]

my goodness, where did you learn to spell? hehe

I agree shoot raw then sue the bumbs if their software sucks.

bumbs => bums

Hehe strong words ay" I have always shot raw even ps days.
You decide Photo shop and hacks will always have a converter.
I save my raw direct to dvd but also save psd files with jpgs to dvd.

problem with this is that you back in the gamma curve. I'd like a way to save things without losing sensor data.

A waist but I like to cover the bases. Shoot raw then if their

waist => waste

software does not suport, which sounds to funny, to say the least
complain.

suport => support

They would loose all but the dyhard jpg shooting Pro's

dyhard => diehard

Canon would laugh and carry on. So if super Ken is right well we
better sell now.
--
Really I am smiling

--

Greens too yellow? Blacks going magenta? check out this thread: http://www.mastersphoto.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79
Gallery: http://www.mastersphoto.net/copper
D70 and photo discussion
D70 custom tone curves @ http://forum.mastersphoto.net

 

[TheGremlinLives]

Not everything... there are a lot of other things you can do with a
raw file that you can't do with a 16-bit TIFF.

Like what?

Also, with raw it's
possible to have a much more efficient automated workflow.

Really? I find the processing of RAW to generally be an extra step, where I set the white balance, and make sure the exposure is spot on.

 

[victor beato]

like many dslr owners, i came from p&s (995, 5000, 5700). i shot thousands of pictures and archived them on dvds. all jpegs. when i got my d70, i started shooting jpegs, then raw + jpeg and now back to jpeg. i'm a hobbyist and will never turn pro. i think i love the freedom--go anywhere, shoot everything without being beholden to anyone but myself. and most importantly, no deadline! it's like having my cake and eat it, too.

i went back to jpeg after experimenting with raw because i felt it got more cumbersome to maintain--post processing, archiving, storage space. i accepted the potential loss of quality (i believe raw is a very powerful tool. however, as they say, with great power, comes great responsibility). well, i already have a lot of "great" responsilbilities (like sending my kids to college, keeping the cars running, keeping the roof leakproof and basement dry, and etc). after thousands of jpegs, i have gotten better with practice and experimenting--in fact i recently started using and enjoying my umbrella and monolight again after ditching them in my film days. jpeg is the way for me because it allows me greater use of space and time. this gives me enjoyment more than anything else in this hobby (well, i also enjoyed my film days but not this much). thanks.

 

[jeremyInMT]

Not everything... there are a lot of other things you can do with a
raw file that you can't do with a 16-bit TIFF.

Like what?

-Transform the original sensor data to a different color space with no data loss.

-Adjust the image curve, before gamma adjustment. That's a pretty big one.

Also, with raw it's
possible to have a much more efficient automated workflow.

Really? I find the processing of RAW to generally be an extra step,
where I set the white balance, and make sure the exposure is spot
on.

You have a choice whether you want to do that or not. You'd have to adjust it on a TIFF if you wanted to have it on as well. I don't get the difference. If the exposure was off, wouldn't you adjust that in a TIFF as well? RAW just gives you more latitude/forgiveness.

--

Greens too yellow? Blacks going magenta? check out this thread: http://www.mastersphoto.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79
Gallery: http://www.mastersphoto.net/copper
D70 and photo discussion
D70 custom tone curves @ http://forum.mastersphoto.net

 

[jeremyInMT]

...why people think RAW takes more time. Agreed, it does take more space, but I cull shots I know I don't want anyway. Space is pretty cheap. A 500GB SATAII hard drive is selling today at dell for $164 after coupon.

For those wondering, if you shoot raw, all you have to do is load them on your computer, go into Nikon View and right click the picture and choose "convert to jpg", set like two sliders (which you won't have to change anymore if you like that size/quality) and click OK and you have your jpg.

I know everyone doesn't have to or want to shoot jpg, but as for raw being a time consumer, that's just if you want to take more time. It's dead easy to convert.

like many dslr owners, i came from p&s (995, 5000, 5700). i shot
thousands of pictures and archived them on dvds. all jpegs. when i
got my d70, i started shooting jpegs, then raw + jpeg and now back
to jpeg. i'm a hobbyist and will never turn pro. i think i love the
freedom--go anywhere, shoot everything without being beholden to
anyone but myself. and most importantly, no deadline! it's like
having my cake and eat it, too.
i went back to jpeg after experimenting with raw because i felt it
got more cumbersome to maintain--post processing, archiving,
storage space. i accepted the potential loss of quality (i believe
raw is a very powerful tool. however, as they say, with great
power, comes great responsibility). well, i already have a lot of
"great" responsilbilities (like sending my kids to college, keeping
the cars running, keeping the roof leakproof and basement dry, and
etc). after thousands of jpegs, i have gotten better with practice
and experimenting--in fact i recently started using and enjoying my
umbrella and monolight again after ditching them in my film days.
jpeg is the way for me because it allows me greater use of space
and time. this gives me enjoyment more than anything else in this
hobby (well, i also enjoyed my film days but not this much). thanks.

--

Greens too yellow? Blacks going magenta? check out this thread: http://www.mastersphoto.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79
Gallery: http://www.mastersphoto.net/copper
D70 and photo discussion
D70 custom tone curves @ http://forum.mastersphoto.net

 

[TheGremlinLives]

Not everything... there are a lot of other things you can do with a
raw file that you can't do with a 16-bit TIFF.

Like what?

-Transform the original sensor data to a different color space with
no data loss.

Ok yes there is that.

-Adjust the image curve, before gamma adjustment. That's a pretty
big one.

Ok thanks for that. So setting the image curve in RAW allows you to retain more information?

Also, with raw it's
possible to have a much more efficient automated workflow.

Really? I find the processing of RAW to generally be an extra step,
where I set the white balance, and make sure the exposure is spot
on.

You have a choice whether you want to do that or not. You'd have
to adjust it on a TIFF if you wanted to have it on as well. I
don't get the difference. If the exposure was off, wouldn't you
adjust that in a TIFF as well? RAW just gives you more
latitude/forgiveness.

Ok fair enough. I guess you if your doing the RAW conversion and any extra PP in the same program it probably wouldn't make a difference. I tend to use Nikon Caputre for processing into TIFF's and then do any extra PP in photoshop.

 

[josh007]

I don’t recommend people anymore about JPG vs. RAW, some people take it like I’m messing with their religious believes.

Josh