Digital BW, The Print

Peter,

Ken Rockwell and I  - and many others - have gone at it for quite some  
time - in his - (Ken's) last email to me he more or less admitted that  
he was wrong - and that RAW is much better but he simply won't admit to  
the world that he is full of it - he just don't have enough gumption to  
admit it - he just dances around the whole issue - but he makes some  
very telling comments!

One of his comments:

"Anyway, many thanks again for the reply.  I love the way RAW looks,  
I'm just too impatiently to wait or to have my files locked by Nikon in  
10 years when I choose not to by a backwards-compatible plug in for it.  
  it was Knoll who discovered the WB encryption in the first place."

Here is another one:

"Hi and Thanks!

Real men still shoot JPG.  RAW is for girlie men.  The NY Times did a  
survey of digital camera users and discovered that there was a  
statistically significant (18% sigma) trend that homosexuals were more  
likely to favor RAW over JPEG..

I chose not to cite that one; I get enough hate mail as it is over my  
page.

It's all preference.  Some people have different strokes!

Thanks again for weighing in on this one and I DO appreciate your time  
writing.

Ken

I think this one says more about Ken Rockwell than anything else -  
"Real men shoot JPG - homosexuals shoot RAW is what he is saying - you  
take this guy seriously?

If you really want to know about RAW versus JPG, go here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw- 
files.shtml

> It is written by an artist who is considered as one of the actual  
> GURUS - AND - also a very, very highly regarded ARTIST - in  
> conjunction with other GURUS, namely Michael Tapes of Phase One and  
> Thomas Knoll of Adobe - If you're at all versed with digital both  
> names should ring a very large bell in your mind. It accurately and  
> honestly spells out the advantages - and disadvantages of RAW versus  
> Jpg!

I'll be more than happy to put the entire "exchange" I had with Ken  
Rockwell on this forum - what he does is leading a lot of beginners  
down the wrong track - it would be one thing if he's even handed and  
explained the pros and cons of each format but he doesn't - and the guy  
calls himself a "teacher".

Hope this straightens out this miscarriage of truth...

It's not impossible to get "excellent" results from Jpg - the simple  
truth is that you can - and will - get more than "excellent" results  
with RAW - it's just the nature of the beast - more work - yes - but  
better final product - that's just the way it is.

Christer


			Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
			  http://www.ChristerArt.com
		  	   3.7 million visitors to date..


On Jun 13, 2005, at 6:32 AM,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

>  From: Peter Johngren <pjohngren@...>
> Subject: RE: Re:Quick mini Platinum poll - and using RAW
>
>
> Ken -
>
> So you actually shoot RAW?  Check out Ken Rockwell's
> article at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
> titled "JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First
> Time
> ".  I never shoot RAW and prefer to make all decisions
> at the time of taking the picture.  Ken makes a solid
> case for doing it this way.  I am getting excellent
> results with my D-70 shooting jpeg's and having the
> camera do a little sharpening and saturation
> enhancement - which it does on the full RAW output
> before saving it to jpeg so absolutely no artifacts.
>
> Peter

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]