NEVER listen to Ken Rockwell

[KIPAX]

Always shoot RAW.

based on that statement I would advise people not to listen to anything you say... far too narrow minded and unable to understand that all setting have a use.. just because you don't need it doesn't mean nobody else does..

 

[boyfalldown]

What exactly do you want me to say?

confused now, I don't want you to say anything. I was a little surprised at your instance that RAW was the only format. Contrary to your last statement you've spent the entire thread calling people who may, sometime, choose to shot in JPEG out for some reason

 

[Byker28i]

See this video (skip to 39:15) for why you should never listen to what Ken Rockwell has to say. Jared Polin AKA 'Fro Knows Photo' explains in perfectly. Rockwell spews lies and false information that no doubt limit beginner photographers when choosing the right equipment and using it in the field.

Always shoot RAW.

How he can say that ^ and then go on to say "you can't take a bad picture with a Nikon D3300" - I just don't get it. How can he be taken seriously?

How he can say that ^ and then go on to say "you can't take a bad picture with a Nikon D3300" - I just don't get it. How can he be taken seriously?

Now I listen to the podcast every week. The singing is annoying but some of the info is interesting, even if all the news is taken straight from PetaPixel. However all those quotes above were straight from the podcast and hence I assume from the video - Word for Word Eddzz.

So are you Jared? Do you have a fro? or just repeating some comments without actually thinking about it.

I listened to it, thought, ok 12 pics on a card when shooting raw etc was just wrong. but didn't see why it needed a rant (other than publicity).

 

[Byker28i]

confused now, I don't want you to say anything. I was a little surprised at your instance that RAW was the only format. Your words

or jareds? Is Eddzz Jared, or one of his minions?

 

[GHP]

I take all reviews/advice etc fom any-one with a pinch of salt.
I take any review which starts with a "sniff test" with a whole fistfull of salt!!
The best way to try a product is to go into a shop and get it in your hands.
They both make entertaining reading though !

 

[redhed17]

If you know enough to sort KR's bullchod from the rest, you don't need his advice.

The problem is that some people don't know that there is 'bullchod' there and take it as good advice.

Contrary to the elitists belief, RAW isn't everything.

Not saying it is, but would you shoot your Jpegs at the lowest/basic quality setting all the time? Would you you shoot at the smallest resolution Jpeg for all but Landscapes? Because those are some of the things he has said over the years.

I was printing superb A3 images from my old 4mp ID years ago so.

I'm assuming that was out of necessity most of the time. Would you do that now if you had the option to take the pics with more pixels? Because according to KR 6mp is enough to print any size, and whilst technically it may be possible to print quite large, I would always say shoot with as many pixels as you can to give yourself as many options to do whatever you want with your pics.

This is not a RAW or Jpeg thing, the c**p he puts out goes way beyond that.

 

[JonathanRyan]

Wait. Has anybody ever actually met LordKen? Do we know for a fact that he's a different person from this FroKnowitall bloke?

Because if I wanted to drive traffic to my site, this is exactly what I'd do.

 

[dave_bass5]

does he? Everything he has said about all the bits i own has been pretty much spot on, i can only accuse him of his rather over enthusiastic style at times.

But he does exist to generate click through income and he does that very well.

Yep, same here. I dont actually read his posts to get unbiased info, but what he says about the gear i own seems to correspond to my own findings.

 

[danbroad]

The words often get in the way of the ethos. Eyes before light, light before lens, lens before camera.... less science and more art etc etc. But hey, this whole thing looks like someone looking to get internet hits by ranting about someone looking to get internet hits. Whatever works, I guess.

 

[Eddzz!!]

based on that statement I would advise people not to listen to anything you say... far too narrow minded and unable to understand that all setting have a use.. just because you don't need it doesn't mean nobody else does..

Perhaps I should have phrased that better? I Always Shoot RAW and I have voiced my justification for it. That doesn't make me narrow minded nor incapable of understanding the various uses of a camera's numerous functions, so don't be so rude.

Now I listen to the podcast every week. The singing is annoying but some of the info is interesting, even if all the news is taken straight from PetaPixel. However all those quotes above were straight from the podcast and hence I assume from the video - Word for Word Eddzz.

So are you Jared? Do you have a fro? or just repeating some comments without actually thinking about it.

I listened to it, thought, ok 12 pics on a card when shooting raw etc was just wrong. but didn't see why it needed a rant (other than publicity).

Well I linked to the video at the beginning of the thread - of course I'm quoting him, but my views are my own. The same views are shared by many.

 

[KIPAX]

Perhaps I should have phrased that better?.

Perhaps you should have yes.. me being rude? haha .. maybe if you have a little think before you press the pretty little post button then you wont look so silly and then i dont have to be rude..


haha rude... I amy have to change my sig to rudeboy

 

[Byker28i]

of course I'm quoting him, but my views are my own. The same views are shared by many.

With such venom?

 

[Eddzz!!]

With such venom?

What venom? I've said that it's a personal preference for me. If you shoot JPEG I'm sure you have your reasons for doing so, but in my book (and for my photography) there is no clear advantage for me to shoot JPEG over RAW. That's that.

 

[big soft moose]

The only time I would consider shooting anything other than RAW would be if I wasn't concerned about PP... JPGs out of the camera never look as good to me as an image that I am able to process.

so even if you were up against a submission deadline (as with many sports shooters who shoot jpeg) , even if you were trying to get a shot that depended on a split second shot requiring deep burst and fast buffering , even if you were taking 1000s of shots , you'd always use raw, even if it wasn't a suitable format ? If so you are as bad if not worse than KR

Also you can apply PP to a jpeg, you know

 

[Eddzz!!]

so even if you were up against a submission deadline (as with many sports shooters who shoot jpeg) , even if you were trying to get a shot that depended on a split second shot requiring deep burst and fast buffering , even if you were taking 1000s of shots , you'd always use raw, even if it wasn't a suitable format ? If so you are as bad if not worse than KR

Also you can apply PP to a jpeg, you know

I can see the benefit in that, I'm not denying it. Shooting JPEG isn't something I need to deal with as I'm not a sport/action photographer.

 

[Laudrup]

You were going well until you waded into the RAW vs Jpeg quagmire. It's like Canon vs Nikon, there are no winners in that argument.

 

[boyfalldown]

I'm not a sport/action photographer.

or schools or events or anything else where speed is very important, or you have a big volume of images. Of if you simply don't want to PP

 

[PCPhil]

I don't mind Ken. He can be (well) over the top but he is never annoying. He's a bit like the guy at the pub who tells loads of b******t stories but in such a friendly way he's fun to be around.
His website exists to make him and his family income. Obviously works hard on it and, damn, I wish I had the idea.

This post alone will get him a bit more traffic.

 

[big soft moose]

I can see the benefit in that, I'm not denying it. Shooting JPEG isn't something I need to deal with as I'm not a sport/action photographer.

so its possible that in your case RAW is the preferable format - but that isn't the same thing as giving the carte blanche advice "always use raw" or suggesting that Rockwell is a knob for advising people starting out to use jpeg.

Personally I shoot weddings (and christenings etc) in raw, I shoot landscapes in raw, most moving wildlife I shoot in jpeg if I think I'm going to need burst, all my work shots of trees etc get done in jpeg as I don't want to faff about PPing hundreds of record shots

 

[Eddzz!!]

or schools or events or anything else where speed is very important, or you have a big volume of images. Of if you simply don't want to PP

I shoot events - stage and music photography. Always shot in RAW and speed has never been an issue.

so its possible that in your case RAW is the preferable format - but that isn't the same thing as giving the carte blanche advice "always use raw" or suggesting that Rockwell is a knob for advising people starting out to use jpeg.

Personally I shoot weddings (and christenings etc) in raw, I shoot landscapes in raw, most moving wildlife I shoot in jpeg if I think I'm going to need burst, all my work shots of trees etc get done in jpeg as I don't want to faff about PPing hundreds of record shots

The RAW vs JPEG debate isn't what Rockwell is being critcised for. Rockwell is getting some stick because he is actively steering beginners away from experimenting with RAW by highlighting a bunch of 'negatives' surrounding the format. On the other side of things he professes the 'advantages' of using JPEG, why photographers should use JPEG and why there is (apparently) no beneficial reason to shoot in RAW.

 

[boyfalldown]

I shoot events - stage and music photography. Always shot in RAW and speed has never been an issue.

you're picking holes - OK to clarify event photography, with onsite printing as people such as Mike Weeks and Jeremy Nako are very good at

 

[big soft moose]

well as said there are advantages to using jpeg in some circumstances, and there is a case for beginners learning to use their camera properly before they start worrying about raw (not least so that they don't get into the habit of taking crap and the 'rescuing' it

 

[Eddzz!!]

you're picking holes - OK to clarify event photography, with onsite printing as people such as Mike Weeks and Jeremy Nako are very good at

 

[redhed17]

so its possible that in your case RAW is the preferable format - but that isn't the same thing as giving the carte blanche advice "always use raw" or suggesting that Rockwell is a knob for advising people starting out to use jpeg.

But KR isn't just saying shoot Jpeg, he is saying shoot a basic quality Jpeg, and that 6mp is enough (for anything other than Landscapes) because you can print with that as large as you want. As long as it is in focus and sharp enough.

If he can print large enough with 6mp why is he using more mp for Landscapes?

 

[boyfalldown]

I love a sensible response. It makes your point so well

 

[Winkyphoto]

With 96GB of storage on my camera, seamless NEF editing in Lightroom, I don't see any significant downside to shooting RAW/NEF, apart from the length of bursts due to buffer filling. It does seem that it retains more detail/dynamic range that gives me more options in PP. (and I was glad to have the NEF files when I messed up the WB on one set of shots.)

 

[big soft moose]

But KR isn't just saying shoot Jpeg, he is saying shoot a basic quality Jpeg, and that 6mp is enough (for anything other than Landscapes) because you can print with that as large as you want. As long as it is in focus and sharp enough.

I'd disagree with him about basic quality if you want to print it - although if you only want to put it on farcebook etc it will be fine, and realistically 6mp is enough to print as large as most people are going to - I remember seeing an Andy Rouse print of a hyena cub at A0 which was taken at 4MP (back in the day with a 1D mk1)

If he can print large enough with 6mp why is he using more mp for Landscapes?

Because he isn't a beginner ?

I don't agree with everything KR says, after all his job is to be contentious - but it is equally silly to say "never listen to KR" as some of the stuff he says is decent advice in some circumstances - such as if you are starting out you shouldn't get obsessed with MPs and you should learn to use your camera before you start worrying about other stuff

 

[Gary Coyle]

I can see the benefit in that, I'm not denying it. Shooting JPEG isn't something I need to deal with as I'm not a sport/action photographer.

Then why be such a dumbass and diss my post when i am a sports/acton photographer

I'll stand aside because i dont want to fall into the hole youre digging which is getting bigger all the time, i might just give the BBC a call as i think ive found out where all those sink holes came from the other month

 

[big soft moose]

With 96GB of storage on my camera, seamless NEF editing in Lightroom, I don't see any significant downside to shooting RAW/NEF, apart from the length of bursts due to buffer filling. It does seem that it retains more detail/dynamic range that gives me more options in PP. (and I was glad to have the NEF files when I messed up the WB on one set of shots.)

Which is fine if you have the equipment to do that

If you are someone just starting out chances are you might not want to spend the cash

 

[redhed17]

I'd disagree with him about basic quality if you want to print it - although if you only want to put it on farcebook etc it will be fine, and realistically 6mp is enough to print as large as most people are going to - I remember seeing an Andy Rouse print of a hyena cub at A0 which was taken at 4MP (back in the day with a 1D mk1)

I mentioned earlier that some people can print large with a low number of mp, mainly because they had to in the past. It didn't all start with 36mp. It takes some working to get 4mp to A3/A2 or whatever and look good, and beginners, and even those with lots of photography experience, may struggle to print well from so few pixels, so why advocate people only need 6mp? Would you advise anyone to limit themselves to 6mp if they have a 24mp camera?

I met someone last year who had their Canon DSLR (18mp) set to 3mp. I asked why, and she said she 'could get lots of pics on a memory card', (10k+ ) and the pics were 'easy to send in an email'. Ok I said, how many pics had she ever taken in a day? She said 1-200. Why do you need space for 10,000 pics then? I said do you ever print pics? 'Sometimes' she said. I said do you know you may be limited in how large you can print your pics? 'No' she said.

Memory is cheap, why limit yourself with regards to quality and resolution if you don't need to. Yes there may be situations for lowering the quality and resolution, but KR advocates that as default.

I don't agree with everything KR says, after all his job is to be contentious - but it is equally silly to say "never listen to KR" as some of the stuff he says is decent advice in some circumstances - such as if you are starting out you shouldn't get obsessed with MPs and you should learn to use your camera before you start worrying about other stuff

The thing is that he writes c**p on purpose, and the uninformed/inexperienced can't always determine the good from the bad. I advise people to steer clear. As with everything though, people are free to do whatever they want.

It needs threads like this every so often though to tell people why others think it is good or bad to read what he writes.

 

[Nod]

The problem is that some people don't know that there is 'bullchod' there and take it as good advice.

To be fair to him, he does point out that he deliberately spouts the brown/green smell stuff somewhere in the introduction pages.

 

[Winkyphoto]

Which is fine if you have the equipment to do that

If you are someone just starting out chances are you might not want to spend the cash

Yep. True enough. Just relating where I currently am on this.

 

[Dr_O]

I bet you Ken is treating himself after this months traffic

He does admit he makes stuff up and anyone that can't work out for themselves that there will be a difference in quality between different JPEG settings is an oxygen stealer. It's like saying the performance from a 2,3 and 4litre BMW is the same.

 

[Eddzz!!]

Then why be such a dumbass and diss my post when i am a sports/acton photographer

I'll stand aside because i dont want to fall into the hole youre digging which is getting bigger all the time, i might just give the BBC a call as i think ive found out where all those sink holes came from the other month

How pathetic. I didn't 'diss' your post, I made a valid point. Don't get your nickers in a twist.

 

[redhed17]

To be fair to him, he does point out that he deliberately spouts the brown/green smell stuff somewhere in the introduction pages.

I know, but not everyone will have seen his home page, and even if they did, they may not have seen that little nugget.

 

[Byker28i]

What venom? I've said that it's a personal preference for me. If you shoot JPEG I'm sure you have your reasons for doing so, but in my book (and for my photography) there is no clear advantage for me to shoot JPEG over RAW. That's that.

You quoted Jared, said you quoted him but your views are the same and qualified it with The same views are shared by many.

My point is, rather than simply jumping on the bandwagon and simply regurgitating the same words and arguments is to take a reflective view, think about it and then discuss the points. There are many valid and non valid points to be made from both sides of the argument, but when you sit back and think about it, it's rather a small storm in a teacup.

Venom, because you have stated:
Rockwell spews lies and false information - post 1
His personal opinions, however, are just poison to new photographers - post 3

Libellous at least? You have after all written that on a forum.

 

[big soft moose]

He does admit he makes stuff up and anyone that can't work out for themselves that there will be a difference in quality between different JPEG settings is an oxygen stealer. It's like saying the performance from a 2,3 and 4litre BMW is the same.

Depends what you use it for - if all you do is drive a mile in a 30mph limit each day to take the kids to school the real world difference will be negligible

likewise if all you ever do is put your images on facebook , or on forums , then jpeg basic and 6mp will be more than ample

 

[Vertigo1]

Ken Rockwell doesn't care if you actually take his advice. Good or bad publicity still gets him traffic through his site and that's what keeps his family supported...

Plus, once you know how to take him, he can be funny.

This is the whole point - he may be funny to those of us who already know what we're doing but, to new photographers who treat his word as gospel, he's dangerous.

Isn't this the same muppet who compared an 18-55 kit lens to a 24-70 II and said they were basically the same quality?

 

[big soft moose]

This is the whole point - he may be funny to those of us who already know what we're doing but, to new photographers who treat his word as gospel, he's dangerous.?

not really - if they are just starting out and treat his word as gospel they won't come to any harm, and can expand their photographic horizons later when they know more

likewise the practical difference between a kit lens and a 24-70 in the hands of a rank beginner is also going to be negligible - for things like speed of focus, quality of glass etc to matter they have to be the limiting factor on the quality of the photo - if the limit is actually the ability of the photographer the picture won't be significantly better even if its taken with a lens costing the best part of a grand instead of one that costs 50 quid

 

[AshleyC]

I bet you Ken is treating himself after this months traffic

He does admit he makes stuff up and anyone that can't work out for themselves that there will be a difference in quality between different JPEG settings is an oxygen stealer. It's like saying the performance from a 2,3 and 4litre BMW is the same.

can you link the blogs where he admits to making things up? This is the whole myth of KR, people make more stuff up about him than he does himself!

I just found this thread interesting in that the OP started it off with claims that KR is the spawn of satan and then it ends up with him agreeing with some of what he says. So you agree with some stuff he says and not the rest. You can say that about anyone alive, apart from Mugabe i guess.

And the whole jpeg thing, if i brought another fuji x-whatever then id be more than happy to shoot jpeg. It processed the raw files as well as i could.