We respect your email privacy


Jared Polin July 12, 2010 16

This video is kicking off RAW vs Jpeg vs Ken Rockwell week on FroKnowsPhoto.com

Would you try putting out a fire with a garden hose if you had access to a FIRE HOSE? That is like saying I am going to shoot JPEG when I have a D3X or for that matter any camera that shoots RAW.

Did you throw out your negatives when you got them back and just keep the 4×6 to make all future prints? I certainly hope not as you would be left with not such a great file to make prints.

This is just the start of the week, there is so much more on the way.



  1. Cazillo July 12, 2010 at 1:02 pm -

    My name is @cazillo and I shoot RAW!

  2. Peter Dudek aka Wishmaster July 12, 2010 at 1:25 pm -

    My name is Peter and I also shoot RAW! which gives me a lots of problem as I am using PSP X2 and this excellent piece of software doesn’t support NEF, what a twat!

  3. Adam July 12, 2010 at 1:27 pm -

    My name is Adam and my ass is raw from sitting for hours processing my thousands of raw vacation photos. I still shoot raw though :)

  4. Adam July 12, 2010 at 1:38 pm -

    my name is @adam_lerner and I shoot RAW!

  5. Peter Dudek aka Wishmaster July 12, 2010 at 1:58 pm -

    Adam, get you self a pillow it will take fiew more hours lol :P.

  6. Anthony July 12, 2010 at 2:43 pm -

    My name is Anthony, and I shoot RAW. Hey Jarod, how about a new saying for the back of “I shoot RAW’ T-shirt, “JPEGs are for Wimps!”? 😀

  7. guunther1 July 12, 2010 at 3:00 pm -

    my name is Joris and i will b shooting RAW
    and plz xplain why there’s sirens on an empty street??? [[thts illegal] ithink] its impropper in the least

  8. chris July 12, 2010 at 3:51 pm -

    my name is chris and i shoot raw!!!!!

  9. Tristan July 12, 2010 at 5:38 pm -

    I don’t think the negatives vs 4×6 prints is a fare comparison. At 300 DPI a 4 by 6 print is maximally about 2 megapixels, whereas a negative is, depending on who you believe, somewhere between 12 and 40 megapixels (probably between 25 and 40).

    So, if you only keep your 4 by 6 prints you are loosing somewhere data by a factor of somewhere between 6 times, or as much as 20 times (i.e. a 2 megapixel print is 1/20th of the data of a 40 megapixel negative).

    Are you actually saying this magnitude of loss happens when you throw out your jpeg? Obviously not – you yourself convert raws to jpegs before you have a print made. So that jpeg, even if you threw out the raw file, would be sufficient to make infinitely more prints like the first one.

    • Jared Polin July 12, 2010 at 6:10 pm -

      you are right most likely about the comparison of a negative to the 4×6, i personally do not get over technical in many aspects like that. I was more making a comparison from a NEG to a RAW and showing that you would not toss the negative.

      I do process my RAW files and if I need to make a print i export it to a jpeg or same thing for the web. But I do not toss my RAW file as prints get different corrections than online files. But this plays into a story about Ansel Adams that is coming up that talks about how he corrected his prints in the darkroom than made a copy neg to save those changes. Very similar to what we do in LR now.

      I thank you very much for your comments and hope my answer will suffice!!!

  10. Jpeg July 12, 2010 at 6:05 pm -

    I’m jpeg and RAW is better!

  11. Anthony July 12, 2010 at 6:58 pm -

    Jared, I have an idea. Any way you can super-impose Ken’s photo on the face of the dummy? 😀

  12. Tristan July 12, 2010 at 8:41 pm -

    I’m looking forward to a systematic treatment of Ken’s points against raw, i.e. those that can be found here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm


    1) Raw is slower
    2 no standard “raw” format
    3)because of 2 you can’t send raw files to clients unless they have specific software
    4)no standard “raw” format (repeat?)
    5) Raw is slow (another repeat?)
    6) In the future maybe you won’t be able to open raw files (because of 2, 4)

    The point which is persuasive to me concerns speed of processing. Even though I have a fancy duel processor macbook, dealing with raw files slows down my workflow, effectively making photography less fun. For me, fun is the number one reason I do photography – if dealing with my photos isn’t fun, I’m not going to want to take them.

    Of course, if I want to be very careful about the photos I take and only take a few, I could shoot raw. But if I am going to be very careful, why not shoot film? I still have my F90x (N90s in america), and there is no way my D50 takes as wonderful shots as Velvia 50 – so if I’m only taking a few and don’t care about the expense, (and want best possible results) I’ll just shoot slow slide film.

    Considering the very low price of film SLRs today, I’d encourage anyone who takes a lot of care with each image to consider “going back” to slide film – certainly a 300$ F4 or 400-500$ F5 and shooting velvia seems like a better investment than the D3X which you would need to get similar images, at least if you are only shooting a few.

  13. chris July 13, 2010 at 5:37 am -

    im a beginner to photography but for me its not the speed of how fast i process the images its the end results.if by using raw i can save a image then speed does not matter.

  14. LaRae Lobdell July 13, 2010 at 5:06 pm -

    Perfect analogy! This sassy girl totally shoots RAW!

  15. gregDT July 13, 2010 at 5:35 pm -

    I shoot RAW. I use Capture NX2. If I need a jpg I remember that every .nef file has a jpg embedded in it.

    Hold on, that means I shoot raw AND I shoot jpg, without even realising it. So if Ken Rickwool, or whatever his name is…. shot RAW then he would be shooting jpg at the same time. Problem solved, and we all love each other again.

    “I shoot RAW (with a little baby jpg inside it)”