[AdamM]

Once you shoot RAW, you'll never go back - provided you have a good workflow. There is just no comparison to jpg.

RAW gives you fantastic control over the exposure, so many shots can be 'saved' if you've got some whites that are clipping or blacks that have crushed.

With RAW, you can also adjust white balance after the fact - which is more handy than you might initially suspect.  There's improved tools to deal with noise, chromatic aberrations, lens distortions, and gamma.  I can go on...
 
There's simply no comparison.  RAW is like CD or vinyl and jpg is like AM radio.  You've got a way larger bandwidth of data to work with.  It's not a hassle if you have a good workflow/program.

So what's a good workflow?   Try Adobe Lightroom.  FANTASTIC image and colour manipulation and control.  Great sorting, organization, searching, printing and website making tools too.  I've used Apple Aperture, iView management, and the standard Canon software - and they don't hold a candle to Lightroom.

If you're even slightly serious about photography, shoot RAW, try Lightroom, be happy.

Ken Rockwell is a joke because he can't compose an image, keep his horizons straight or do much else but take snapshots.  People wouldn't make fun of him for that alone, it's only because he tries to come across as this major shooter. (and he shoots Nikon!)  hehehe

/Adam   

(a Canon shooter, and Zeiss and Contax lens-on-a-Cannon shooter)

Photos and lens tests here: http://www.robotbreeder.com/photography/v/

[nathanm]

I've read a few of Ken's articles in the past (not the RAW one yet, though, gonna do that now...) and he comes across as a very down to earth, no B.S. kind of guy who gives his honest opinion and experiences. I like his writing style.  Although there's no accounting for a person's taste in images, browsing through his galleries I'm not really seeing poorly composed, crooked horizon images.     Personally they are a bit over the top in regards to saturation for my tastes, but that's just me.  Granted I haven't read everything he's got there, but from what I did read I didn't get the impression that he was puffing his chest up about being a "major shooter".

I assume you are kidding about the whole brand-loyalty Nikon vs. Canon thing, right?  Coke vs. Pepsi, Chevy vs. Ford...we all know this is ultimately completely silly back and forth, right?  Ken's piece on how your camera doesn't matter makes all kinds of sense.  I would argue that the equipment matters TOTALLY to the photographer using it, but it truly doesn't make a lick of difference in what the viewer thinks and feels when looking at the end result.  Out of my own personal photos some of my favorites were shot on crappy digitals.  I still wince at the pixels, but the shots are still pleasing.

I wouldn't be surprised if Lightroom is great, but personally I decided that if I want to take a long and futzy route to get good technical quality photography I'll shoot with my 4x5!  Ha!  It took me an hour to process 8 shots the other day!  And they weren't even good shots!    When I'm at the computer I want speed and responsiveness.  Although I can't really complain, I still think that we've been screwed on speed.  Every advancement made with processors has been beaten down with slower, more bloated code.  There's a freaggin' 8-processor Mac out now; haven't used it but something tells me that using Photoshop on it might not be all that far removed from ye olde beige powermacs of yore.  I dunno, it's all relative I guess.  We get spoiled easily when those progress bars start zipping by and we want to move onto the next operation.

[JohnR]

Heh, I like Ken Rockwell If you're wondering about something there's a good chance that at least he has an opinion on it At the least it's a starting point. For example I just read the sRGB vs Adobe RBG article earlier, prior to that I had no idea what this was about. YMMV 

nathanm, looking to see some of those shots soon 

[AdamM]

heheh   If you guys like Ken's work, then great.  Other people will still hold their considerations on the matter.    I'm not going to try to convince to you to shoot RAW.  Maybe you'll discover it on your own

As for Canon / Nikon, they both make great gear.  I'm partial to the Canon bodies, with Zeiss and Contax lenses for short range, and Canon for longer ranges.  You may discover that in time too.

If you've got it all figured out, why ask questions?

/A

[JohnR]

  I don't get it. Who is it that's got it all figured out?

As for shooting RAW, I thought exploring that was why I started this thread. I must have been mistaken! 

[AdamM]

Look, shoot RAW.  It's got over three times the bandwidth of Jpeg.  You just need a proper management program (like Lightroom)

Shooting jpeg is like pouring cement that has just hardened.  You've got no control.  Like it or leave it.  Why accept that when there's RAW?

The only time i EVER shoot jpeg, is if my memory card is almost full. 

One hour (or less) spent with RAW's in Lightroom, and you'll see what the fuss is about.

/A

PS  If you can't see the problems with Ken Rockwell's images, then you need to learn more about photography

[JohnR]

Um, I thought that learning more about photography is why we are here.

Anyway, so Ken Rockwell is kinda like the Bose of the photography world then? Poor Ken... I bet he makes a motza from that site of his though

[AdamM]

Learning is good, no qualms there.
Honestly, no serious or semi-serious photg gives motza for the KR.  Others seem to pile in regardless.

Here's a little guide to how things might proceed for you:

1. Get a DSLR.  take a ton of shots.  It's exciting and happy.  You'll have a great time
2. Lust for more lenses...
3. Get a wide and maybe a telephoto zoom
4. Realize that cheap lenses are just that.  Purchase a 'good' zoom.
5. Realize that prime lenses are better than zooms.
6. Shoot mostly primes, near wide open.  The look of a fast prime near wide open is intoxicating for you.  You can't go back to 'regular' lenses ever again.
7. Start to use non-whatever-your-camera-body-is lenses on your body.  You'll search for SMC pentax's, taukmars, Zeiss's and old Contax lenses for your DSLR (Canon is a MAJOR advantage with this..)
8. Buy your first really 'long' lens.  Probably a 400mm f/5.6L (great lens)
9. Get some flashes and reflectors
10. Go back to a handful of primes - because - if you can't shoot with a 28mm 50mm and 85mm, you ain't worth shyt!

/A

[byteme]

It took me an hour to process 8 shots the other day!  And they weren't even good shots!    When I'm at the computer I want speed and responsiveness.  Although I can't really complain, I still think that we've been screwed on speed.  Every advancement made with processors has been beaten down with slower, more bloated code.  There's a freaggin' 8-processor Mac out now; haven't used it but something tells me that using Photoshop on it might not be all that far removed from ye olde beige powermacs of yore.  I dunno, it's all relative I guess.  We get spoiled easily when those progress bars start zipping by and we want to move onto the next operation.

Holy hell I couldn't agree more!  I was so fed up with our previous XP based PC with who knows how fast Intel processor and 1GB ram because startup and shutdown were so damn slow and when I used the SlimServer it just about hung the computer.  So we pony up for a new Dell XPS or some other fast sounding acronym with the super fast dual core Intel processor, 4gb RAM, 128MB video card, Vista Pro and the ONLY thing that's different now is that it doesn't hang after running Slim server.  I can't process photos any more quickly, it doesn't start up or shut down any more quickly, nothing.  When I open Adobe Bridge even if I have only like 20 pictures on the card (which is rare) I can open Bridge, go take a leak or get a beer, come back and have thumbnails for about 10 of them.  SWEET!

Let's not even mention the 4 days it took off and on to get everything software and settings wise back to where it was previously.

To bring this back on topic I'm a RAW convert as well because of the control and "fixability" it offers.  This is a lengthy and very technical article but it's what finally convinced me - http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

It can be a PITA to process them but I usually don't do too much before final conversion to jpg.  Usually just a little touching up and sharpening.

[JohnR]

Here's a little guide to how things might proceed for you:

Great, I think I'm at step 10 already. (Although not in that order.) Do I get a medal or something? How about if my reward could be that you post some of your own shots...

Ken gets his motza, I would be fairly sure, from advertising and affiliate programs. He's geeky, he loves talking, and he started doing it way back when. I bet his page rank is worth a fortune.

[AdamM]

Great, I think I'm at step 10 already.

So then, what primes do you shoot?

As for my shots, there's my casual site here:  www.robotbreeder.com  Mostly snaps and friends, but a few real shots if you dig around.

Beastie Boys, Fischerspooner, Elvis Costello, Massive Attack, Nike, Addidas, EA Games, - they've all hired me.

/A

[JohnR]

Err... in Nikon mount I have primes at 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, and 135. But I don't see why it matters.

I did notice that your site is mostly snapshots. That's why I asked you to post some yourself. You know, processed from RAW and all that....?

[AdamM]

Nice range of Nikon primes!

I'm bidding on a Nikon 135 as we speak (to go on on the Canon)  i hpe i win

Show me your better shapshots and i'll eat my shoe

/A

[nathanm]

Gee, Adam sure has a funny way of not convincing us to shoot RAW.  

John, here's one test shot with the 4x5. Unfortunately I had to "cook" the RAW scanner data with evil JPEG compression, so it will be of course impossible to tell if it is any good.  The only way one could tell if it was worthwhile would be to see it in person.  I do not know if a snapshot of a bunch of stainless steel tanks will pass muster before the gods of photography, but I humbly lay it here for their noble judgement.  I am just learning, and have not yet reached the Correct Conclusions® about photography which have now been clearly defined.

[AdamM]

That's why I asked you to post some yourself. You know, processed from RAW and all that....?

This was a semi-serious project:
http://www.robotbreeder.com/photography/v/SWSP/

I'm not going to try and convince you of RAW. If you don't understand the merits by the discussions so far, perhaps it's best not for you.

/A

[AdamM]

This boring shot somehow convinces us to shoot RAW?

[byteme]

Great, I think I'm at step 10 already.

Beastie Boys, Fischerspooner, Elvis Costello, Massive Attack, Nike, Addidas, EA Games, - they've all hired me.

/A

I assume they all hired you to insult them?

[JohnR]

Oh dear oh dear. I swear to never touch RAW again. Dang Japanese.

nathanm, are you sure those are stainless steel? They look like cardboard to me. But nice DOF control with that antiquated 4x5

[AdamM]

I assume they all hired you to insult them?

No, just to help them with carving out an image.

If people are going to be cliquey about it, then fine.  I'm ultimately just trying to be friendly and share information.

[JohnR]

I want to see a photo of Adam eating his Adidas shoes!

Just kidding man

BTW nathanm is a clique all of his own. I want to join but my wit isn't sharp enough