LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


Even Ken Marcus prefers JPEG over RAW!!

FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 08 Jun 2012 (Friday) 10:04   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
AxxisPhoto
Goldmember
AxxisPhoto's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
1,833 posts
Chicago, IL
[MORE/SHARE]

Interesting read.external link

He makes some good points, but I'll still shoot in RAW.

Post #1, Jun 08, 2012 10:04:16


Alex
2x 5Dmk2 | 70-200mm f2.8L IS | 24-105mm f4L IS | Alien Bees lights |
AxxisPhotoexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
tzalman's Avatar
Joined Apr 2005
12,598 posts
Gesher Haziv, Israel
[MORE/SHARE]

The only point I see is 'don't let somebody else convert your Raws.'

Post #2, Jun 08, 2012 12:48:53


Elie / אלי
I look at the world and I notice it's turning, while my guitar gently weeps.
With every mistake we must surely be learning, still my guitar gently weeps.
Paul Harrison
Siteexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
René Damkot's Avatar
Joined Feb 2005
39,854 posts
enschede, netherlands
[MORE/SHARE]

Nice read indeed. And good arguments to never deliver an unfinished product.

For my work, I prefer raw as well, for the reasons he states ;)

Post #3, Jun 08, 2012 13:09:28


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpaceexternal link
Get Colormanagedexternal link
Twitterexternal link
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

LOG IN TO REPLY
criTalon
Member
criTalon's Avatar
Joined Mar 2010
40 posts
SoCal
[MORE/SHARE]

Very interesting and great post from a different POV.

Post #4, Jun 08, 2012 13:18:12


"I've found there's a fine line to chasing a dream and being a bum...but along the way, it's always an adventure - life is what you make it" - Lindsey Stirling
500px

LOG IN TO REPLY
TeleFragger
Goldmember
TeleFragger's Avatar
Joined Aug 2010
2,795 posts
Williamstown, NJ
[MORE/SHARE]

wow.. nice read thanks..
im a hobbyist.. was doing .jpg and raw.. but deleted the raws without processing
i was at my neighbors and took some pics in the house.. the kitchen was dark and a lot of people over.. the cabinets looked way off.. i attempted an edit on the raw and it looked way better.
i converted over to raw only to force me to edit raw and learn...
but just recently i have figured im going back to raw +jpg and only edit what needs to be..

im a hobbyist and want the memories for my kids...

Post #5, Jun 08, 2012 13:19:49


GearBag - Feedback****Flickr - my playhouseexternal link****RF-603 Discussion
Canon T2i-Gripped|64GB| YN-468 Flash | YN-468 II Flash | RF-603 | EF-S 18-55 IS|EF 24-105L|EF 50 MKII 1.8|EF-S 55-250 IS |EF 85 1.8 |Primo's Trigger Stick Monopod | Manfrotto Carbon Fiber Tripod
if I post a pic.. it is there to be picked on... (I have thick skin.. im in IT)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Preeb
Goldmember
Preeb's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
2,422 posts
Logan County, CO
[MORE/SHARE]

I can see his point since he has full control of the lighting and subject. He has the luxury of being able to shoot for hours without any surprises. And he can make the in-camera settings work in partnership with studio control to put out quality jpegs.

I never know what I might point my camera at next. He even admits that if he shot in conditions where the lighting changes constantly that he'd probably shoot RAW too (although he does seem to have plenty of RAW in his jpegs ;) )

Post #6, Jun 08, 2012 13:22:01 as a reply to René Damkot's post 12 minutes earlier.


Rick
60D - EF-S 10-22 f3.5-f4.5 -- EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS -- EF-S 60mm f2.8 Macro -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

LOG IN TO REPLY
rpaul
Senior Member
Joined Jul 2011
624 posts
BC NJ
[MORE/SHARE]

Seem's like he's dismissing RAW because it requires post processing? That shouldn't be a new or foreign concept, at this point... RAW when you want to process, JPG when you want SOOC.

Post #7, Jun 08, 2012 13:22:40


Rob | rmpaul.comexternal link
Gear 'n Stuff
C&C always welcome

LOG IN TO REPLY
Brain ­ Mechanic
Goldmember
Brain Mechanic's Avatar
Joined Apr 2010
3,526 posts
[MORE/SHARE]
banned

His basic complain is how some people manipulate RAW files, why he is against RAW again?? I mean RAW is superior form a postprocessing point of view but of course, it will depend on who does this postprocessing. RAW is not automatically better. If today's digital cameras give you the option of shooting both (RAW/JEPG) it makes perfect sense to shoot with both. For a quick pic without too much post work I go JPEG, for serious post I go RAW.

Post #8, Jun 08, 2012 13:29:53


Gear: a toothed wheel :p
"To be of good quality, you have to excuse yourself from the presence of shallow and callow minded individuals" Michael Bassey Johnson
--Oscar--
flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Kronie's Avatar
Joined Jun 2008
2,174 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #14551124external link
For a quick pic without too much post work I go JPEG, for serious post I go RAW.

This is what I try to do but it sucks when I forget to go back to RAW and realize that I just took a number "serious" images, that were taken in JPEG....

Post #9, Jun 08, 2012 13:44:44


5D Mk III's | 40D | Σ 50 1.4 | 100L | 16-35 MKII | 24-70 MKII | 70-200 MKII | Kenko 1.4TC | 600 & 580 EX'S | Gitzo Explorer

LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
do I really have to respond?
tonylong's Avatar
Joined Sep 2007
53,001 posts
Vancouver, WA USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Like he said, the majority of his work is in the studio where he has control over all the aspects of lighting/exposure. Plenty of photogs have expressed a similar preference. And, he acknowledges that for other types of photography he'd shoot Raw. However, I wouldn't look to him as an expert/teacher on the subject!

Post #10, Jun 08, 2012 13:54:48


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBaseexternal link
Wildlife project pics hereexternal link, Biking Photog shoots hereexternal link, "Suburbia" project hereexternal link! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics hereexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Wilt is an old fart who has extensive experience with many brands and many formats of cameras, and extensive lighting knowledge of both studio lighting and speedlights
Wilt's Avatar
Joined Aug 2005
33,481 posts
SF Bay area, CA
[MORE/SHARE]

Ken Marcus says,
"I was asked to shoot RAW files and send those to their editors. I wasn’t too pleased at the prospect, but did as my client asked.
"When the results were published, I was horrified. The printed images were flat, low-contrast, unsaturated, dull and very unexciting—not what I intended at all.
"So, for my next assignment, I decided to provide them with some finalized high-quality JPGs that were corrected, retouched and contrast controlled in addition to the RAW files they requested. These were images that I felt were up to my standards and reflected the quality that the magazine used to (and still should have) exhibit."

What he fails to appreciate is that the problem is merely

  • the magazine's art director told the guy who did the RAW conversion what they wanted, or
  • the idiot doing RAW conversion did not follow the necessary technique to extract output with better contrast and color saturation,


...not the way Ken would have preferred his images to come out.
The replies to that post exhibit far better insight than Ken does!

The other real point is that Ken was essentially forced to deliver the digital equivalent of 'raw exposed, unprocessed film' to his client. In the film days, it was like being the 'low cost hired shutter release' who drops rolls of exposed film the client's hands and walks away. So if the final prints look like a POS, it is solely because the photographer relinquished all quality control after pushing the shutter button, and left it to the mercy of the client.
No film shooting professional in his right might would do that; most likely the veteran pro would NOT even turn over processed negatives and leave it to the unknown of the print maker (it could be Walgreen's, fergawdsake) for the final product, the print. So the fact that he gave the client 'raw film (RAW files)' rather than 'digital prints (JPG)' is what he should have criticized himself for doing.

Post #11, Jun 08, 2012 16:23:01


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost!
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention
Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
Joined Apr 2006
8,423 posts
North Carolina
[MORE/SHARE]

Wilt wrote in post #14551920external link
Ken Marcus says,
"I was asked to shoot RAW files and send those to their editors. I wasn’t too pleased at the prospect, but did as my client asked.
"When the results were published, I was horrified. The printed images were flat, low-contrast, unsaturated, dull and very unexciting—not what I intended at all.
"So, for my next assignment, I decided to provide them with some finalized high-quality JPGs that were corrected, retouched and contrast controlled in addition to the RAW files they requested. These were images that I felt were up to my standards and reflected the quality that the magazine used to (and still should have) exhibit."

What he fails to appreciate is that the problem is merely
  • the magazine's art director told the guy who did the RAW conversion what they wanted, or
  • the idiot doing RAW conversion did not follow the necessary technique to extract output with better contrast and color saturation,

...not the way Ken would have preferred his images to come out.
The replies to that post exhibit far better insight than Ken does!

The other real point is that Ken was essentially forced to deliver the digital equivalent of 'raw exposed, unprocessed film' to his client. In the film days, it was like being the 'low cost hired shutter release' who drops rolls of exposed film the client's hands and walks away. So if the final prints look like a POS, it is solely because the photographer relinquished all quality control after pushing the shutter button, and left it to the mercy of the client.
No film shooting professional in his right might would do that; most likely the veteran pro would NOT even turn over processed negatives and leave it to the unknown of the print maker (it could be Walgreen's, fergawdsake) for the final product, the print. So the fact that he gave the client 'raw film (RAW files)' rather than 'digital prints (JPG)' is what he should have criticized himself for doing.

Aces!

Ken's entire premises is flawed. Instead of relinquishing quality control to others (who apparently don't understand quality), he should have taken the time to maintain and deliver quality himself. Ken is lazy. He took the lazy man's way out.

Post #12, Jun 09, 2012 05:27:54


---------------
Fine Art Photographyexternal link | Painted Photosexternal link | Websiteexternal link | Blogexternal link | Twitterexternal link | Pinterestexternal link
---------------

LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
tzalman's Avatar
Joined Apr 2005
12,598 posts
Gesher Haziv, Israel
[MORE/SHARE]

I find it entirely incredible that a professional would give Raws to anybody - unless he had a clause in his contract that forbid their conversion and use. Or another clause forbidding the use of his name in the photo credit.

Post #13, Jun 09, 2012 07:32:48


Elie / אלי
I look at the world and I notice it's turning, while my guitar gently weeps.
With every mistake we must surely be learning, still my guitar gently weeps.
Paul Harrison
Siteexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Goldmember
Joined Feb 2008
4,317 posts
Philadelphia, PA USA
[MORE/SHARE]

His article could have been one sentence long: "I prefer JPEG because the scenes I shoot do not require raw and, in my situation, raw adds unnecessary work."

He gets into trouble when he deviates from this line of reasoning. The fact that he does not use raw is evident in his opinions about it.

Kirk

Post #14, Jun 09, 2012 11:57:42


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​omexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimmer411
Thank god Im green.
Joined Sep 2007
828 posts
Enumclaw, WA
[MORE/SHARE]

No matter how close I meter the scene I appreciate the extra flexibility that raw gives me. I guess this guy is supposed to be a pro, but he sounds like an idiot to me.

Post #15, Jun 10, 2012 05:11:36


50D | 5D3 | Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM | EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | EF 24-105 f/4L IS | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 430EX | YN-460-II | RF-602 x2 |

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
3,756 views & 0 likes for this thread
Even Ken Marcus prefers JPEG over RAW!!
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00134 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
889 guests, 770 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is Eos23

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.