mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Most people here who know what they are doing don't have very much respect for Ken Rockwell for a number of reasons besides his bizarre opinions on raw processing.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Which camera and which format?

Quixdraw Loc: x

And you have accomplished what equivalent to Ken? Don't always agree with his views, but don't ever recall consulting yours.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And his equally bizarre images that he posts - oversaturated, oversharpened, crispy/crunchy details, etc etc etc. Subtlety is not in his dictionary.

And the shameless self promotion isn't helping him gain any recognition among anyone other than the newbies.

And then there is this, taken right from his website:

"I continue to do this site all by myself for fun — probably the last remaining 1990's for-fun website that hasn't sold out to other interests. Even though it has become popular, presumably because so many people find it helpful, it is still run just for fun. I am this site's only author. I have no one to proofread, spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors and omissions. 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 — even on this page."

Anyone who takes someone seriously who doesn't even take himself seriously, and just comes out and says he is pranking people, well - you'd really need to rely on better sources to get your knowledge.

https://kenrockwell.com/about.htm

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The right edge of the steak and the fat reflecting the light on the top are blown out. Might not have happened if you shot this as a raw file and gave precedence to that area so that you could avoid that distraction - aka - an exposure error - or what happens when you try to shoot a wide contrast image with the wrong image format.

Just kidding - now I have to go eat a steak. That one looks good enough to eat black and blue - or as some refer to that as Pittsburgh-style.

Malco

It's not how fast you can uoload the files. It's how fast you can shoot them. You can shoot many more frames at 16 fps in jpeg than raw before your camera bogs down.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Issue is, if you are into rules, (in re: Raw or beyond) none of my business till you to imply only your way has merit or try to force your "one true path" on me. Lemmings are great at following, doesn't work out well for them. For good or ill, per a very old friend, I'd rather "cut my own trail" than follow. Y'all are on your own as well. Make good choices.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Everyone should be allowed to try their own ideas, even the wrong ones.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Yup - I tried Raw for a calendar quarter - bad choice. I learned from it.

ButchS Loc: Spokane, WA

I became a photographer at the age of 12, when I was given a B&W darkroom for my 12th birthday. For 44 years I shot film-only. I loved B&W, still do. But there was something magical about color, too. I learned very quickly that I didn’t like color negative film. So from early on, all my color photography was done on transparency film (slides).

Given that the final photo came out of the camera, it became my challenge to create color slides that looked exactly the way I wanted them, straight out of the camera. After many years, I became very good at framing, exposing and shooting images that were exactly what I wanted with no manipulation.

In 2000, I bought a Nikon D100. Like most of the digital cameras at that time, it did not produce raw images. The choices were JPEG or tiff. I got a copy of Photoshop and was able to use it. But I really didn’t like spending hours at a time futzing around on one image. I really prefer to keep post processing to a minimum. I have the skills to create the images I want straight out of the camera. So, my “work flow” takes advantage of that. The only images that I spend long hours working on, are my infrared photos. But then, I don’t take hundreds of them at a time. I generally only shoot a dozen or so.

I always shoot JPEG+RAW, so I have a raw version if I really feel like heavy manipulation. But, 99.999% of the time my jpegs are just fine.

(And no, I do not have an aversion to computers. I’ve been a computer programmer for 42 years.)

ButchS Loc: Spokane, WA

When I am considering buying a used camera or used lens, I often start by looking at what Ken has written about it. He clearly has an ax to grind in regards to many of the big-name camera companies. But I just ignore that.

I especially like to consult his writings in regards to used lenses. His analysis of the image quality is usually pretty accurate.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I don't have to be a good singer to know when someone is singing flat. Don't take my word for it. Read the opinions of many of the most respected photographers on this site.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I read him too, along with a number of other reviewers, in order to get a consensus. We just need to be careful not take a lot of what he says too seriously, and to read between the lines.

rochephoto

If you do any serious photography you shoot only RAW!!! RAW is like having a full-toned negative. Jpeg is like having a polaroid...

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You are what your tools say you are.