Ken Rockwell should never ever be listened to

NowInc

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Was listening to the FroKnowsPhoto podcast http://froknowsphoto.com/rawtalk-82/ at around 40 minutes in (some don't like him either, but at least he gives decent advice), and he was going on about the review Ken Rockwell did on the D3300...and one part in particular stood out, and that is the image settings:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3300/users-guide/index.htm

Image Quality top

I use BASIC JPG.

To set this, use:

MENU > CAMERA icon > Image quality > JPEG basic > OK.

The default of JPEG Normal wastes twice as much space in your computer, lets fewer photos fit on a memory card, and makes the data take twice as long to transfer or email.

Since the pictures look the same at BASIC, I use it so more pictures fit on my card, and more importantly, I don't clog up my computer and everything transfers, copies and sends twice as fast. FINE is twice as big again as NORMAL.

The D3300 can't make a bad image even at it's lowest setting. The NORMAL, FINE and NEF RAW modes are for people who don't mind fitting only 12 images on a card. The pictures really do look the same; try it and see if you're curious. I did, which is why I shoot JPG BASIC.

This also can be set at the INFO screen using the < i > button.

More details at the SHOOTING Menu.

Image Size top

I use LARGE (24MP) or MEDIUM (13MP) for landscapes, and SMALL (6MP) for family photos.

Large is the default, but unless you want to print everything twenty feet (6m) wide, the Small setting also lets you make prints of any size (20 x 30" or 50 x 75cm is easy) and saves even more room on your computer and memory cards.

I'm serious: even at the Small setting you've got 6 very sharp megapixels, which is more than enough to print at any size if your photo is in focus in the first place. I've sold photos to McDonald's with cameras set down to 4 MP — and McDonalds used those for billboards.

To set this, use:

MENU > CAMERA icon > Image size > Large, Medium or Small.

This also can be set at the INFO screen using the i button.

More details at the SHOOTING Menu.




Now..we all know that this is HORRIBLE advise to give to ANY photographer, especially those starting out new (as those who would buy a D3300 typically are). Saying the camera can't take a bad picture and to use BASIC jpeg? Raw only fitting 12 images on a card? This is disgusting false information to give to anybody.

Sorry for the rant...but It infuriates me as someone who TRIES to give people useful help whenever possible. This guys site is WAY too popular for all the flat out crap he posts.
 

NowInc

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Whats worse is that his sight is highly ranked on google searches...so anyone who doesn't know any better who wishes to google information on that new DSLR they just got, gets this horribly wrong info. In the end it will discourage people from photography when their D3300 which "cant take a bad photo"..does in fact do just that...many many times.
 

whoiscliffwang

Well-Known Member
One thing about his reviews that irk me is :

" Gasket (rear dust and rain barrier): Yes. "

Really dude? You took the time to type out "rear dust and rain barrier" in parenthesis, so why do you have to add your little quip " Gasket"?

Another one that I felt inappropriate was in his review of the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF:

"The overall length doesn't change (handjob style zooming) and the filter doesn't rotate either during zooming."

I don't think much else has to be said about his descriptive choice of words.
 

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
The only nod I'll give in his direction is to shoot JPEG, but within reason.... and the fact that he never comes out and uses this type of explanation anyway. He's a moron and actually thinks theres no difference between JPEG and RAW.

Let me explain...

1.) I always do, or at least always did since I am a film shooter now, work with RAW. But, working with RAW had its reasoning in the power of post and final destination of work. I liked to print, or at least I tried my butt off, to get high quality work printed, matted, and framed. RAW helps in the back end, we all know this.

BUT, a vast majority of casual shooters (even those with high end rigs) are soccer mom style shooters whose final destination with their images is Facebook. In that light, keep the camera on JPEG because it's more than likely not a series of images that has much attention spent on it anyways.

It's the reason 32 GIG cards exist, just so people can walk around and take 12,000 photos a day while on vacation.
 

gsrjedi

Well-Known Member
My problem with him and others is the attitude that you have to do things their way and your stupid if you don't. Those kind of people just turn me off
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
One thing about his reviews that irk me is :

" Gasket (rear dust and rain barrier): Yes. "

Really dude? You took the time to type out "rear dust and rain barrier" in parenthesis, so why do you have to add your little quip " Gasket"?

Another one that I felt inappropriate was in his review of the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF:

"The overall length doesn't change (handjob style zooming) and the filter doesn't rotate either during zooming."

I don't think much else has to be said about his descriptive choice of words.

Thats the old school, push/pull 80-200. I have one of those. Then there's the newer 80-200, it twists to zoom but you can't put a t/c on it like you can with a 70-200.
 

PhotoDave219

Well-Known Member
The only nod I'll give in his direction is to shoot JPEG, but within reason.... and the fact that he never comes out and uses this type of explanation anyway. He's a moron and actually thinks theres no difference between JPEG and RAW.

Let me explain...

1.) I always do, or at least always did since I am a film shooter now, work with RAW. But, working with RAW had its reasoning in the power of post and final destination of work. I liked to print, or at least I tried my butt off, to get high quality work printed, matted, and framed. RAW helps in the back end, we all know this.

BUT, a vast majority of casual shooters (even those with high end rigs) are soccer mom style shooters whose final destination with their images is Facebook. In that light, keep the camera on JPEG because it's more than likely not a series of images that has much attention spent on it anyways.

It's the reason 32 GIG cards exist, just so people can walk around and take 12,000 photos a day while on vacation.

I generally go for JPG for speed. 95% of what I shoot is on deadline.

Example: Basketball.

Q1 - Move 3-5 photos at the 6:00 mark. Be back out for start of Q2.
Halftime - Move 5 more.
End of game: Initially send 5 game/storytelling photos including high scorers for both teams. Then send 5-10 more photos within a half hour.

So I dont have TIME to sit and play with RAW. Some people Do, I don't.

Football is after each team has the ball once and Baseball, you need to send photos of the pitchers in the second inning.

Raw+JPEG is an option... but not really my jam unless its a commercial client.

For Disney? Heck, I still just walk around with a D7000 & an eye-fi card to send to Instagram, minutes after its shot. Always Jpeg.
 

ddbowdoin

Well-Known Member
I generally go for JPG for speed. 95% of what I shoot is on deadline.

Example: Basketball.

Q1 - Move 3-5 photos at the 6:00 mark. Be back out for start of Q2.
Halftime - Move 5 more.
End of game: Initially send 5 game/storytelling photos including high scorers for both teams. Then send 5-10 more photos within a half hour.

So I dont have TIME to sit and play with RAW. Some people Do, I don't.

Football is after each team has the ball once and Baseball, you need to send photos of the pitchers in the second inning.

Raw+JPEG is an option... but not really my jam unless its a commercial client.

For Disney? Heck, I still just walk around with a D7000 & an eye-fi card to send to Instagram, minutes after its shot. Always Jpeg.

I never thought of the eye-fi right to IG... thats cool
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom