Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 08 Jun 2012 (Friday) 10:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Even Ken Marcus prefers JPEG over RAW!!

 
AxxisPhoto
Goldmember
Avatar
1,891 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 63
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
     
Jun 08, 2012 10:04 |  #1

Interesting read. (external link)

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


Web: AxxisPhoto (external link)
Tumblr: Tumblr (external link)
Flickr: AxxisPhoto (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,403 posts
Likes: 169
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jun 08, 2012 12:48 |  #2

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


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Jun 08, 2012 13:09 |  #3

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 ;)


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external 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
Avatar
40 posts
Joined Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
     
Jun 08, 2012 13:18 |  #4

Very interesting and great post from a different POV.


"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 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeleFragger
Goldmember
Avatar
3,155 posts
Likes: 191
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Williamstown, NJ
     
Jun 08, 2012 13:19 |  #5

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...


GearBag - Feedback****Flickr - my playhouse (external link)****RF-603 Discussion
Canon 7Dm2 Gripped | 32GB Transcend CF | 32GB Eye Fi Mobi SD | 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| Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC |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
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,522 posts
Gallery: 48 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 133
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Jun 08, 2012 13:22 as a reply to  @ René Damkot's post |  #6

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 ;) )


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
630 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2011
Location: BC NJ
     
Jun 08, 2012 13:22 |  #7

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.


Rob | rmpaul.com (external link)
Gear 'n Stuff (external link)
C&C always welcome

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brain ­ Mechanic
Goldmember
Avatar
3,526 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Apr 2010
     
Jun 08, 2012 13:29 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

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.


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--
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jun 2008
     
Jun 08, 2012 13:44 |  #9

Brain Mechanic wrote in post #14551124 (external 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....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,637 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 513
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Jun 08, 2012 13:54 |  #10

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!


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,111 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1992
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Jun 08, 2012 16:23 |  #11

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.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Picture ­ North ­ Carolina
Gaaaaa! DOH!! Oops!
9,038 posts
Likes: 118
Joined Apr 2006
Location: North Carolina
     
Jun 09, 2012 05:27 |  #12

Wilt wrote in post #14551920 (external 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.


Website (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,403 posts
Likes: 169
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jun 09, 2012 07:32 |  #13

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.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kirkt
Cream of the Crop
5,495 posts
Likes: 460
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
     
Jun 09, 2012 11:57 |  #14

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


Kirk
---
images: http://kirkt.smugmug.c​om (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimmer411
Thank god Im green.
866 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Pacific, WA
     
Jun 10, 2012 05:11 |  #15

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.


5D3 | Sigma 30mm f/1.4 HSM | EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | EF 24-70 f/2.8L II | EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II | 430EX | YN-568EX II | YN-622c | YN-622-TX |
Selling Sigma 30mm 1.4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,376 views & 0 likes for this thread
Even Ken Marcus prefers JPEG over RAW!!
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Nidge
620 guests, 417 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.