What do we make of Ken Rockwell?

[Peter McLennan]

... I think I have grown to think of cameras as a necessary evil in the process of making an image.
Rob C

I want a copy of that on my darkroom wall.

[WaitingForAnR10]

I can assure you that they had way more fun doing so, and will have for years to come looking at it, than you'll ever have with whatever "serious" equipment you have. Unless, of course, you define fun as owning the latest and greatest gear.

Not the latest and greatest at all.  Just good equipment, that I enjoy using.  It's about taking pictures, not competing in an equipment race.  And I'm perfectly happy taking along my M4/3 camera where the DSLR is just too awkward to use.

Perhaps you should refrain from making a comment unless you actually understand the situation.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Perhaps you should refrain from making a comment unless you actually understand the situation.

You mean the situation in which you displayed your patronizing disdain for people with cameras "inferior" to yours? Oh, no worries, I understood that situation right away.

[stamper]

Quote Alan Klein Reply #108


His point about RAW is that most people don't need it. But if you feel it works for you, he supports it.  Read his whole take on this.  He explains who should use it and who shouldn't.  Why there are problems with it, etc.  I think the problem is many people who knock Rockwell is because other people knock him.  They never really read him to draw their own conclusions.


Quote Alan Klein Reply #111

I'm glad you enjoy his site as I do.  I don't know what his earlier reviews were on RAW.

Unquote

Alan are we supposed to take you seriously in your support for Ken?

[Alan Klein]

Alan are we supposed to take you seriously in your support for Ken?

Yes. 

[LesPalenik]

Just to expand on the RAW usage in the real world, I happen to know a photographer who's been processing his RAW images for almost ten years by using Nikon and Adobe software. He likes his images vibrant (even more than Ken), and applies rather aggressive sharpening, saturation, and other treatments. He also owns a good collection of  cameras and even more plugins.

As long as he used the images just on his personal website and printing, he and everybody else were quite happy. However, when he tried to submit some of his processed images to a publication house, they rejected all of them due to artifacts, halos, color fringing, and some other faults. Fortunately, they were able to use some of his in-camera JPG images which were much cleaner than the JPG's that passed through his RAW workflow.

So sometimes (or with some people), it's a good idea to keep their RAW tools away and locked up.
   

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

So sometimes (or with some people), it's a good idea to keep their RAW tools away and locked up.
   

or maybe to keep their cameras away and locked up.

[Schewe]

So sometimes (or with some people), it's a good idea to keep their RAW tools away and locked up.
   

No, what you are pointing out is that it's important to learn how to use their raw tools...it's not the fault of the raw files that the guy screwed them up.

[Rhossydd]

which were much cleaner than the JPG's that passed through his RAW workflow.

That doesn't make sense. Are you saying he's run JPGs through a RAW workflow ? <understatement>That's not a great way to work.</understatement>

The point about RAW workflow is you always have the original file to go back to. Anyone competent should then be capable of delivering a better file than an OOC JPG.

The smart advice for anyone unsure about using RAW is to shoot with RAW+JPG, then you can retain your future options for increasing quality.

[LesPalenik]

No, what you are pointing out is that it's important to learn how to use their raw tools...it's not the fault of the raw files that the guy screwed them up.

Exactly! The fault is with the user of the tool, not the RAW format.
Actually, I like processing my images in Lightroom and Camera Raw. Last year, I got a copy of your Digital Negative book which I enjoyed a lot and learned a few tricks from reading it. It sits on my reference shelf right beside the Martin Evening's books.  

That doesn't make sense. Are you saying he's run JPGs through a RAW workflow ? <understatement>That's not a great way to work.</understatement>

The point about RAW workflow is you always have the original file to go back to. Anyone competent should then be capable of delivering a better file than an OOC JPG.

The smart advice for anyone unsure about using RAW is to shoot with RAW+JPG, then you can retain your future options for increasing quality.

I apologize for not being clear. He actually shoots RAW+JPG, and all the processing is applied to the RAW file, then exported as JPG. He has great looking histograms, but cranks up the clarity, saturation, and sharpening to the tilt. Some people think that his JPGs are worse than the OOC JPGs. But he likes them. By being aware of the full power of the RAW processing tools, actually, I am not surprised at all, that an overly ambitious person can ruin some images. In Canada, we have strict gun restrictions, but any idiot can buy Lightroom (or even worse, a CC PS7).

Following the CC thing and trying to improve our lives, it might be a responsible idea for Adobe to request and inspect from each LR owner his ten most processed images before allowing him to buy the next LR upgrade.

I keep all my original RAW files, and on occasions (such as after reading the aforementioned books), I have re-processed some old files and made a better image. Nevertheless, I still think that there are situations where using the from-camera JPG can be quite adequate and most practical. For some people for sure.

[Rhossydd]

By being aware of the full power of the RAW processing tools, actually,

Your story has nothing to do with RAW format, just taste. You can do just as outrageous manipulations on a JPG with any image editor.
The only difference is that if you've kept a RAW file and you come to your senses and stop following silly fashion, you make make something decent out of the original.