Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Beginner's Questions => Topic started by: Andy M on May 17, 2008, 09:12:20 AM

Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Andy M on May 17, 2008, 09:12:20 AM
I stumbled upon Ken Rockwell's piece about portrait lenses (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/portrait-lenses.htm) earlier today, and found interesting some of the things he stated.

It's his opinion the photographer should "want to be at least about 15 feet away when photographing people in order to achieve realistic proportions", as "Our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet (5 meters) away."

So, "If you want the whole person standing, you can use a 50-70mm lens. If they sit down, a 70-105mm works great. If you want just head and shoulders, you'll want a 200mm to 300mm lens, at least, since you want to stay at least fifteen feet away."

Fair enough, but I'm not sure I'd want to be using a 300 lens unless it was for a very specialised shot.

So, to cut to the chase, what have you found to be the best method of maintaing pleasing features?
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: michael on May 17, 2008, 09:22:50 AM
I won't. No I really won't. I absolutely refuse to say anything about Ken Rockwell. I really do. I refuse. Seriously!

But, to address the question – most portrait photographers seem to find that a focal length between 85mm and 105mm provides the most natural perspective for head and shoulder portraits, Shorter makes noses too big and longer tends to flatten perspective unnaturally. (That's in full-frame 35mm terms, of course).

Or, do what Mr. Rockwell suggests. Whatever.  

Michael
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Andy M on May 17, 2008, 10:58:22 AM
Thanks for the replies

I asked because I've never really thought of there being a set 'best' distance to take a photo. Though I probably shouldn't admit it, I usually just plonk on the lens I think most appropriate for which shot I see in my minds eye; in most cases this is usually the 85 or 135 primes I have.

My camera is currently away being repaired, but once it's returned I'm going to have a play with the 15ft recommendation.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 17, 2008, 09:26:59 PM
I can't see any blatant misinformation in this article. Ken seems to be addressing here some pretty basic principles to do with perspective. He's not being dogmatic. He's suggesting a perspective guideline of 15 ft from the subject, as a rule-of-thumb.

He also states it's a matter of art. The point is, the appearance of a person's features do change depending on perspective. Whether one prefers an 85mm lens, a 105mm lens or a 135mm lens for portraiture is not only a matter of taste, but as Ken also states, can depend to some extent on the facial characteristics of the individual being photographed. What's wrong with that?

Here are a couple of 'joke' snapshots I took with my 5D & 15-30 zoom at 15mm.

That great bulbous front element of the Sigma 15-30 zoom would have been less than a foot from the subject's face.

[attachment=6630:attachment]  [attachment=6631:attachment]
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 18, 2008, 02:14:00 AM
Ken Rockwell site is for smart people.

P.S. This site as well.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 18, 2008, 11:22:55 AM
Quote
Ken Rockwell site is for smart people.

P.S. This site as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I'm pleased you added 'this site as well', albeit as an after thought   .
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: KeithR on May 18, 2008, 12:22:50 PM
Quote
Ken Rockwell site is for smart people.

P.S. This site as well.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196340\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

PLEASE!
I have read a few of mr. Rockwell's comments on various topics including equipment. The last straw for me was when I started doing research on a lens that I was considering. I stayed away from his site because of my doubts of his knowledge based on other times I visited his site and found his opinions for the most part to be not founded on fact.
On various other sites people were commenting favorably on the lens in question, when all of a sudden, there were comments on Rockwell's "report" on the lens. People on other sites were expressing doubts about the quality and reliability and whether to even bother getting the lens. Such a swing in opinion made me consider seeing what this "report" contained. I should have listened to my gut feeling and ignored going to his site, but I did. His "report" was based on a PREPRODUCTION MODEL that he briefly handled at a trade show-"I tried three samples at PMA 2006". People on other sites were falling all over themselves with doubt about the usability of the lens.  Why? Because his "report" would not recommend it due to it's inability to autofocus to his likening. He recommended that people pass on upgrading to this lens based, primarily, on his findings.
The lens in question?

The 105 f2.8 AF-S VR Micro Nikkor!

This site, LL, is indeed for smart people. mr. Rockwell's is for the gullible.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: NikoJorj on May 18, 2008, 02:46:57 PM
Quote
His 15 ft rule is probably due to his being scared of photographing people.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196241\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
 
Well said : I think that the relationship you have with your model is WAY much more relevant that the tiny differences in perspective arising from different working distances - at least when you're not filling a WA frame with a single face.
For me, the ideal portrait working distance is the one of a casual conversation (1-2m), and therefore I think the 80mm-equivalent fits best my needs for portrait. Your meterage may vary!
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on May 18, 2008, 08:17:01 PM
Quote
... found his opinions for the most part to be not founded on fact...
So, based on your story about KR's review of 105 f2.8 AF-S VR Micro Nikkor, which exactly facts did he get wrong?
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: zlatko-b on May 18, 2008, 11:45:16 PM
Quote
It's his opinion the photographer should "want to be at least about 15 feet away when photographing people in order to achieve realistic proportions", as "Our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet (5 meters) away."
Some of Ken's comments about human vision may well be correct, but his "15 feet" assertion seems to be quite wrong.  Is there scientific support for the claim that our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet away?

I suspect that we remember people from the distances at which we most commonly see them and interact with them, and that is generally not 15 feet.  Sometimes there are good reasons for photographing people at such a distance, but "how brains recall facial features" is not one of them, IMO.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: KeithR on May 18, 2008, 11:50:51 PM
Quote
So, based on your story about KR's review of 105 f2.8 AF-S VR Micro Nikkor, which exactly facts did he get wrong?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=196456\")
I would have to go back and reread the report, but the fact that he wrote this review based on handling a preproduction model at a trade show before the lens is released is not a very accurate method of making a subjective review of the lens.
Contrast his review then read one by someone that actually took the lens out and used it:
[a href=\"http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm]http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm[/url]

Or POPPhotos lab tests:
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2804/...8g-vr-af-s.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/2804/lens-test-nikon-105mm-f28g-vr-af-s.html)

After you read these two, which are backed by examples and lab findings,(KR dosen't seem to have anything to prove his point)make your own judgement as to whom you wish to trust. Like Mr. Reichmann, I'll choose to make no further comments about mr. Rockwell or his "knowledge"
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 19, 2008, 02:52:08 AM
Quote
Some of Ken's comments about human vision may well be correct, but his "15 feet" assertion seems to be quite wrong.  Is there scientific support for the claim that our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet away?

I suspect that we remember people from the distances at which we most commonly see them and interact with them, and that is generally not 15 feet.  Sometimes there are good reasons for photographing people at such a distance, but "how brains recall facial features" is not one of them, IMO.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=196478\")

That's a good question. I surmise that the distance of 15 ft might be a rough average of the many different distances at which we see people during our various activities, but I'm just guessing and I admit I have little experience in portraiture.

Doing a Google search to find the answer, I came across the following abstract of a scientific paper, which unfortunately one has to buy to read so I didn't get to read the full text, just the abstract below, which you might find interesting.

Quote
Realistic portraits, whether paintings or photographs, are traditionally obtained using perspective projection. Pictures of the face taken from different distances along the same viewing direction (e.g. frontal) may be scaled to occupy the same size on the image plane. However, such portraits differ systematically: e.g. when the center of projection (the camera) is closer to the face the nose is proportionally larger in the picture. These differences are small (for typical camera distances of 50-500cm): do they have an effect on how the face is perceived?

Ten naive subjects of both sexes, viewed equally scaled frontal pictures of 15 neutral-expression adult male faces, each photographed from distances of 56, 124 and 400cm. The photographs were corrected for lens distortion to obtain ideal perspective projections. The subjects were asked to rate each portrait according to 13 attributes (evil-good, repulsive-attractive, hostile-friendly, pushy-respectful, sad-happy, dishonest-honest, introvert-extrovert, violent-peaceful, dumb-smart, distant-approachable, evasive-candid, week-strong, unpleasant-pleasant). While the subjects were unaware of the manipulation, their ratings are systematically correlated with the distance: faces imaged from the closer distance appear significantly more benevolent (good, peaceful, pleasant, approachable), those taken from a larger distance appear more impressive (smarter, stronger). Intermediate-distance portraits appeared more attractive. The remaining attributes are not significantly different across distance.

Our findings suggest that painters and photographers may manipulate the emotional content of a portrait by choosing an appropriate viewing distance: e.g. a formal and official portrait may benefit from a distant viewpoint, while an effect of intimacy and opennes may be obtained with a close viewpoint. Multiple inconsistent viewpoints found in classical full-length portraits may be explained by the need to combine close-up views of some body parts, within an overall undistorted figure.
D. Freedberg, S. Shimojo, R. Adolphs, P. Hanrahan

According to this study, if you want to make your subjects appear smart and strong, take Ken Rockwell's advice and photograph them from 15 ft. (400cm in the experiment is actually a bit less at 13 ft, but let's not quibble.)

If you want your subjects looking as attractive as possible, get closer, and if you want them to appear as friendly and good-natured as possible, get even closer. Makes sense?  

The link to the website is [a href=\"http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/]http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/[/url]
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Morgan_Moore on May 19, 2008, 12:39:05 PM
Quote
I stumbled upon Ken Rockwell's piece [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think Mr Rockwell is spot on about the distance from the subject being super important

Close seems personal

distant  - more distant

Each photographer must find thier own place, then choose lense suited to the desired crop

S
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 19, 2008, 08:04:59 PM
The Winston Churchill portrait taken by Yousuf Karsch is perhaps one of the most successful and well-known photographic portraits of all time. Does anyone have any details on that shot, apart from the often repeated story of Karsch pulling the cigar out of Winston's mouth.

It would not surprise me if that shot was taken from a distance of at least 15 ft.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: blansky on May 19, 2008, 08:25:23 PM
Quote
Some of Ken's comments about human vision may well be correct, but his "15 feet" assertion seems to be quite wrong.  Is there scientific support for the claim that our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet away?

I suspect that we remember people from the distances at which we most commonly see them and interact with them, and that is generally not 15 feet.  Sometimes there are good reasons for photographing people at such a distance, but "how brains recall facial features" is not one of them, IMO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196478\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not to have to defend Mr Rockwell and some of his mis-information but what he was suggesting was not we recall faces from 15 feet, it was that we "use lenses that place us 15 feet from the subject".

This in most cases is probably correct in that "portrait" lenses, as has been expressed here already are roughly in 35mm terms around 100mm for head and shoulders, and 85 for 3/4 to full length. Probably one of the most popular lenses ever sold was the Hasselblad 150 MM which is around 85mm in 35mm terms.

What the OP and Rockwell was stating was that perhaps the most pleasing rendering of the face is from these lenses. If you wish to use a normal to wide angle on a face have at it.


Michael
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: dalethorn on May 19, 2008, 08:51:15 PM
Here's one - I took this from a car window rolled partway down using a Rollei 35 with a tripod-threaded clamp, from about 20 feet away.  That's a 35mm fixed lens on 35mm film, and cropped about 50 percent.  It's the most realistic portrait I've ever taken, and wasn't intended to be anything important.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 20, 2008, 02:35:25 AM
Quote
Not to have to defend Mr Rockwell and some of his mis-information but what he was suggesting was not we recall faces from 15 feet, it was that we "use lenses that place us 15 feet from the subject".
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't believe that is correct. Ken Rockwell actually states in his article that in facial recognition our brains reconstruct features as they would appear from a distance of around 15 ft.

When standing close to a person, talking quietly or making a transaction at the check-out counter for example, we do not see someone as having a big nose (unless she actually has a big nose). Our brains apparently reconstruct the facial features as they might appear to a camera at a distance of roughly 15 feet.

Here is the relevant quote from his article.

Quote
Our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet (5 meters) away.

Ask a human visual system researcher for the details, but our eyes don't actually see anything by themselves. All our eyes do is send signals to our brains which are then interpreted in ways about which we're still learning.

In the case of facial recognition, when our eyes see a familiar face, it triggers our brain to reconstruct an image of those features as they appear from about 15 feet.

If we see someone from only inches away, we don't see them distorted as a camera would; our brain perceives and reconstructs their features in proportions similar to a distant view.

Therefore we want to be at least about 15 feet away when photographing people in order to achieve realistic proportions.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 20, 2008, 03:02:59 AM
Quote
Here's one - I took this from a car window rolled partway down using a Rollei 35 with a tripod-threaded clamp, from about 20 feet away.  That's a 35mm fixed lens on 35mm film, and cropped about 50 percent.  It's the most realistic portrait I've ever taken, and wasn't intended to be anything important.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196682\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes. I think the important point here is that it's not the focal length that matters but the distance from the subject. If you have pixels to spare and are prepared to crop, then you can probably make do with a 50mm lens instead of an 85mm lens, or an 85mm lens instead of a 135mm lens.

However, in using a wider angle lens then cropping the image, there might be DoF consequences. It might not be possible to get the desired shallowness of DoF. For example, your cropped image with 50mm lens taken from around 20ft might have been better with a less intrusive background.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Mack's Work on May 20, 2008, 09:19:12 AM
When it comes to taking foto's of people , there are some many opinions on that subject , one would run of of time to read and understand them all:

number one: who are your shooting
number two: why are you shooting them
number three: where are you shoothing
number four: when are you shooting then
and number five will be answered by the first four questions and will give your the equipment to use and lenses to use :

Keep it simple always:
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 20, 2008, 10:54:27 AM
Quote
When it comes to taking foto's of people , there are some many opinions on that subject , one would run of of time to read and understand them all:

number one: who are your shooting
number two: why are you shooting them
number three: where are you shoothing
number four: when are you shooting then
and number five will be answered by the first four questions and will give your the equipment to use and lenses to use :

Keep it simple always:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196756\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't quite see how that is keeping it simple. Nor do I see how answering those 5 questions will help me choose the right lenses and equipment if I don't already understand the sort of basic principles which Ken addresses in his article.

The interesting issue in Ken's article, or at least one that flows on from the points he raised, is that 15 feet is a good distance to shoot a portrait whatever the camera and lens, if maintaining the most realistic facial proportions is the desired intent.

If this statement is true, then it helps enormously in choosing the right lens. One chooses the lens which allows one to fit the subject and composition into the frame from a distance of 15ft without unnecessary cropping, and one chooses the lens which has a sufficiently wide aperture to throw any distracting or unwanted background out of focus.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: zlatko-b on May 20, 2008, 11:06:48 AM
Quote
Not to have to defend Mr Rockwell and some of his mis-information but what he was suggesting was not we recall faces from 15 feet, it was that we "use lenses that place us 15 feet from the subject".

This in most cases is probably correct in that "portrait" lenses, as has been expressed here already are roughly in 35mm terms around 100mm for head and shoulders, and 85 for 3/4 to full length.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nope, he clearly claims that we recall faces from 15 feet:  "Our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet (5 meters) away."

Head and shoulders with a 100mm lens in 35mm terms is not 15 feet.  With that lens at that distance, holding the camera vertically covers a field of view of more than 5 feet.  Head and shoulder is a field of view of roughly 2 feet, which would put the photographer roughly 6 feet away from the subject.  This is why Ken recommends 200mm to 300mm lens for a head & shoulders portrait, not 100mm.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 20, 2008, 11:39:38 AM
The issues raised here are interesting. They seem to me to be connected to the concept, 'the camera never lies'.

I've often said myself, 'of course the camera lies'. 'What about the unnatural enlargement of close objects when using wide-angle lenses?'

If Ken is right, that our brains process perception of the human face from a perspective of roughly 15 feet away, even when we are standing just 2 or 3 feet away from someone, then perhaps the camera is not lying as much as we thought it was. Perhaps our perceptions are partly a lie.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Morgan_Moore on May 20, 2008, 12:16:06 PM
Quote
The issues raised here are interesting. They seem to me to be connected to the concept, 'the camera never lies'.

I've often said myself, 'of course the camera lies'. 'What about the unnatural enlargement of close objects when using wide-angle lenses?'

If Ken is right, that our brains process perception of the human face from a perspective of roughly 15 feet away, even when we are standing just 2 or 3 feet away from someone, then perhaps the camera is not lying as much as we thought it was. Perhaps our perceptions are partly a lie.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One thing to consider is that most of us have two eyes and the camera only one

Using our stereo vision we are indeed making internal (brain) reajustments to the perception of the image

While a person may not appear unnatural when viewd close with both eyes try shutting one eye and one can become aware of 'wide angle' type distortion

Whether 15 feet is right who knows but I think it is of critial importance to choose ones dietance first then the lens dependant on the desired crop of the portrait

I have got shorter with my lenses over the years and beleive it has increased the intimacy of my portraiture

this closeness can be challenging to compose in a flattering manner

S
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on May 20, 2008, 01:03:20 PM
Quote
While a person may not appear unnatural when viewd close with both eyes try shutting one eye and one can become aware of 'wide angle' type distortion
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm at my studio retreat at the moment, but when I come in contact with someone, I'll try that, even though she might think I'm afflicted with some disposition.  
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Plekto on May 20, 2008, 02:17:32 PM
Gah.  Baka-boy is at it again.

It's so much more complex that he can even understand.  So much so that he really just needs to earn to shut up and NOT even bring it up.  Just ask any wedding photographer about the literally dozen or so different factors in every single shot.

Faces are damn hard to deal with.  He should know that he doesn't know anything about it and not even bring it up.  Of course, since he apparently still does it anyways...  Yeah, I'd take anything he says with a small boulder of salt, because he just doesn't know how much he truly doesn't know.

But he is entertaining, I have to admit   I read Ken's site every day as part of my entertainment.    
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: dalethorn on May 21, 2008, 09:56:44 AM
Quote
.....This is why Ken recommends 200mm to 300mm lens for a head & shoulders portrait, not 100mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196782\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's pretty radical.  I wonder if he was being serious about 300mm (or should I even ask).
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: dseelig on June 19, 2008, 11:32:39 PM
And yet another view of rockwell
http://chrisweeks.uber.com/blogs/damn_.html (http://chrisweeks.uber.com/blogs/damn_.html)
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Digiteyesed on June 20, 2008, 02:21:04 AM
Quote
If you want the whole person standing, you can use a 50-70mm lens. If they sit down, a 70-105mm works great. If you want just head and shoulders, you'll want a 200mm to 300mm lens, at least, since you want to stay at least fifteen feet away.

Damn betcha. But only if you're photographing the Baron Munchausen or Barbara Streisand (before she had several yards of her schnozz cosmetically amputated). For normal people a shorter lens might work better.

Just sayin'.

Of course, since the photographer in question is <genuflect>Ken Rockwell</genuflect>, I'm sure he can just whip one of his Brownies off the shelf and use it for the portrait. Maybe he'll win another award, too.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: dalethorn on June 20, 2008, 12:11:15 PM
When I was growing up with this stuff, 30-40 years ago, it was common knowledge that you'd take landscapes with the widest lens, most other photos with whatever fit, but for portraits you'd usually opt for 90mm or thereabouts to avoid the facial distortions you'd get shooting close-up.  Since when did Rockwell or digital tech rewrite the logic of portrait shooting?
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Ray on June 20, 2008, 08:31:12 PM
Quote
When I was growing up with this stuff, 30-40 years ago, it was common knowledge that you'd take landscapes with the widest lens, most other photos with whatever fit, but for portraits you'd usually opt for 90mm or thereabouts to avoid the facial distortions you'd get shooting close-up.  Since when did Rockwell or digital tech rewrite the logic of portrait shooting?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202584\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


According to the specialist site on vision from which I quoted on the previous page, the logic of portrait shooting has already been rewritten as a result of careful experimentation.

The long and short of it is, using a short focal length tends to cause people to look a bit chummy and benevolent; using a long focal length causes people to look smarter and stronger in character, which is the effect one might want to achieve with a formal portrait, and using a lens somewhere between the two extremes, 80mm or 90mm, is a compromise between too chummy and too smart, a sort of bland average or normalcy; the middle way; stay out of trouble.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: dalethorn on June 20, 2008, 08:58:01 PM
Quote
According to the specialist site on vision from which I quoted on the previous page, the logic of portrait shooting has already been rewritten as a result of careful experimentation.

The long and short of it is, using a short focal length tends to cause people to look a bit chummy and benevolent; using a long focal length causes people to look smarter and stronger in character, which is the effect one might want to achieve with a formal portrait, and using a lens somewhere between the two extremes, 80mm or 90mm, is a compromise between too chummy and too smart, a sort of bland average or normalcy; the middle way; stay out of trouble.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=202658\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, that's the answer then.  My wife wants to know why I spent half of my life savings on a gold Rolex, and I can see now that it was that ad with the portrait of the Rolls-Royce president wearing the thing.  Shot with a long lens from the visitor chair, of course.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Yogesh Sarkar on June 21, 2008, 06:03:52 AM
Quote
PLEASE!
I have read a few of mr. Rockwell's comments on various topics including equipment. The last straw for me was when I started doing research on a lens that I was considering. I stayed away from his site because of my doubts of his knowledge based on other times I visited his site and found his opinions for the most part to be not founded on fact.
On various other sites people were commenting favorably on the lens in question, when all of a sudden, there were comments on Rockwell's "report" on the lens. People on other sites were expressing doubts about the quality and reliability and whether to even bother getting the lens. Such a swing in opinion made me consider seeing what this "report" contained. I should have listened to my gut feeling and ignored going to his site, but I did. His "report" was based on a PREPRODUCTION MODEL that he briefly handled at a trade show-"I tried three samples at PMA 2006". People on other sites were falling all over themselves with doubt about the usability of the lens.  Why? Because his "report" would not recommend it due to it's inability to autofocus to his likening. He recommended that people pass on upgrading to this lens based, primarily, on his findings.
The lens in question?

The 105 f2.8 AF-S VR Micro Nikkor!

This site, LL, is indeed for smart people. mr. Rockwell's is for the gullible.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196399\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The way I see it, Ken simply posted about his personal experience with the lens (pre production or not) and I am guessing he made it clear in his article as well. If that is the case, I fail to see how any one can accuse him of anything, especially since he mentioned it clearly and if people fail to see it or fail to take it into consideration, it is their fault, not his!

Personally I enjoy reading his articles; I do try to implement some of the things he talks about. However at the end of the day I just what ever I feel is ok and try to capture photographs from my perspective.

So just read/listen to what every one has to say and at the end of the day, do what ever you feel is right.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: elkhornsun on June 30, 2008, 06:15:56 PM
Fifteen feet is not really helpful in any sense. Are you not going to take pictures of people indoors unless the room is large enough to get 15 feet away.

More relevant is to realize that lenses can distort perspective when they are longer or shorter than "normal". Too short and body parts closer to the camera are exaggerated in size. With longer lenses (and fashion photographers will make use of 400-600mm lenses outdoors with models) there is a flattening of perspective that is flattering.

Normal for a 35mm or FF camera is about 40-55mm while with a DX camera this is 30-35mm. Popular portrait focal lengths with 35mm film cameras have been 85mm and 105mm. They provided some foreshortening of perspective and also providing a more comfortable working distance between the subject and the photographer.

This comfort zone is purely cultural and varies widely. But if you subject is not comfortable having someone 3 feet away taking their picture it will show in the resulting images. On the other hand there are shy or timid souls who shoot from distances with which they are comfortable.

But both the actual perspective, the mental perspective, and the working distance are all factors affected by changes in lens focal length. In addition changing the focal length has a bearing on the DOF and this affects whether all of a person is in focus or even all of their head or both parts of a couple and the background.

To follow Rockwell blindly one should only use a 70-200mm lens for all of their photography and shoot only in large rooms or outdoors, ignoring the environment.
Take a look at the great work of any of the outstanding portrait photographers over the past 125 years and you will find none that follow Rockwell's guidelines - NONE.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: The View on July 04, 2008, 06:41:09 PM
Quote
It's his opinion the photographer should "want to be at least about 15 feet away when photographing people in order to achieve realistic proportions",
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If the photographer has bad breath.
Title: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: James Godman on July 05, 2008, 11:42:35 AM
Quote
So, to cut to the chase, what have you found to be the best method of maintaing pleasing features?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=196235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Light.

These types of rules are really silly.  Imagine if we all followed this 15' "rule."  Homogenized pictures would be the result.  And to quote Arnold Newman discussing people stating rules of photography and the way to do things, he said "run like hell."  Its a good point that we as photographers should understand perception, and to help us with that, there are two books that I am suggesting:  Perception and Imaging by Zakia and Ways of Seeing by Berger (more socially directed).  In addition, one might study Gestalt Theory and Neural Network Theory, both of which can help a photographer make better pictures.

Back to lenses though.  Just understand that generally as you get closer to a person with a lens, the person will distort a little more.  Also, distortion from zoom lenses tends to be different than from fixed focal length lenses.  

Good luck.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Jeff Myers on February 13, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Heres a funny thing about Ken Rockwell and you guys. Ken Rockwell doesn't care what we think. All these people on many many forums that continuously bash KR must feel threatened by him. His sight is not for gullible people as one person said, but it's for intelligent people who appreciate humor with a good review. The funny thing is you guys keep bringing him up in forums to bash him and make fun of him and discredit him but in reality everytime you do, you make him more money and more long time followers.

I would like to pick out a few members here and tell them they are total BS because they posted an opinion different than mine, but I understand that opinions are like belly buttons, we all have one. KR has a site for his, the rest of us post ours on forums. The rest of our opinions are just as much BS as KR's opinions. A review of a lens or body is the reviewers opinions. .

I think the real issue is there are alot of photographers who call themselves "professionals" to boost their egos when in reality they wish they could make as much money as KR by reviewing products and writing articles from their den like he does. All you do is write about KR giving him more money every time you do, and you do it for free. So im sure if he read this and hundreds of other posts like it. He would laugh and say "thank you" for all the money you are making me.

As I find humor in KR site every time I go on, I find humor in this site, esp this thread. A bunch of grown men and women who should be out shooting, instead logged into a forum to bitch about Ken Rockwell, and make him money.

Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on February 13, 2013, 10:14:18 AM
I don't understand why people read Ken Rockwell's site.

Ditto! Now he may be a super great photographer and he may know a lot of stuff outside of color management. But I've read what he has to say in respect to color management (sRGB) and the guy is totally flat earth, the planet was created 6000 years ago when man and dinosaurs commingled kind of mind set. IOW, he doesn't have a clue unless he's a color management comedian. Therefore, when I hear his name mentioned on another subject, here of all places, I have to wonder who the joke's on. IOW, ignore Ken Rockwell's site.

Quote
All these people on many many forums that continuously bash KR must feel threatened by him.

Misinformation (down right lies) are threatening to those who know better and see this directed at those that don't. The yet misinformed don't deserve Ken Rockwell.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Chairman Bill on February 13, 2013, 10:57:35 AM
Leaving aside the variables that arise from different focal lengths, some basic things worth considering are to do with what different people find acceptable in terms of personal space. Getting too close can be quite threatening for some, too far away maybe impersonal & impacts on any ability to interact (which might be an issue in getting the best from your subject). Pointing a camera at someone can be (as seen by the subject) even more intrusive, and so a certain distance in excess of what might be normal for a conversation, might be justified.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Jeff Myers on February 13, 2013, 11:09:58 AM


Misinformation (down right lies) are threatening to those who know better and see this directed at those that don't. The yet misinformed don't deserve Ken Rockwell.

What gets me is he says that this is all his opinion. and he shouldn't have to say that.. everything on the internet esp. equipment reviews should always be taken as opinion. To say one camera is the best in the world is opinion.

I take some of KR's stuff as good and some of it as BS. What I find funny is the masses go after him.. not any other reviewers on the web. Since there is a team of "internet Photography review police" out there, shouldn't they be patrolling other reviewers too. Or is it the fact that KR makes a ton of money off this stuff that bothers you.

When you guys are ready to get off Rockwell's back, there is a company in China producing fake handbags and watches. You'd better start a forum to expose them too before the 'misinformed' get taken by the fake products and lies.

I mean you are actually looking out for the misinformed right? and not just Ken R bashing?

I think he has just as much great info as he does humor (that some don't get) and BS. but it amuses me that it bothers so many (so called) professionals. I think that if one were truly a professional, it would not bother them. I also think that all those that go on the web and try to discredit him, actually read his site frequently and therefore make him more money.

It's crazy how every time I google his name along with a topic I'm looking up. Some photographer wannabe shows up wishing he was half the success story as Ken is.

Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on February 13, 2013, 11:56:34 AM
I mean you are actually looking out for the misinformed right? and not just Ken R bashing?

It's called peer review. It's used a bit in science, something some of us are more interested than a web site filled with part BS (your term) and presumably useful information.

Quote
Since there is a team of "internet Photography review police" out there, shouldn't they be patrolling other reviewers too

Yup.

Quote
Or is it the fact that KR makes a ton of money off this stuff that bothers you.

I have no idea (how could I) how much money he makes. How do you? FWIW, I could care less how much he makes. His ideas behind color management are absurd and wrong. That's my beef with Ken.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on February 13, 2013, 02:33:58 PM
The funny thing is you guys keep bringing him up in forums to bash him and make fun of him and discredit him but in reality everytime you do, you make him more money and more long time followers.

So, is there a reason you posted a new post to a thread that has been dormant since July of 2008?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Jeff Myers on February 13, 2013, 02:44:56 PM
So, is there a reason you posted a new post to a thread that has been dormant since July of 2008?

Yes, I tried to post an old post and make it go dormant but it wouldn't stay asleep.

Moron, how could i post anything but a 'new' post?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on February 13, 2013, 02:57:50 PM
Moron, how could i post anything but a 'new' post?

So, your third post here on LuLa and you're calling me a moron? Doesn't bode well for your long term presence here does it?

The point I was trying to make is that it's pretty stupid to take an almost 5 year old thread and make something of it. Here on LuLa that's kind of frowned on...which you'll learn if you spend any time getting acquainted here.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 13, 2013, 03:06:56 PM
Barbarians at the gate?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 13, 2013, 03:12:12 PM
Hi,

Ken has a different approach. It's pretty much like shooting slide film. You load Velvia and shoot Velvia, than you load Provia and shoot Provia.

The approach I prefer is to shoot raw, make the best image I can and decide on everything later. Both approaches are viable, but the second one is mine.

Best regards
Erik

It's called peer review. It's used a bit in science, something some of us are more interested than a web site filled with part BS (your term) and presumably useful information.

Yup.

I have no idea (how could I) how much money he makes. How do you? FWIW, I could care less how much he makes. His ideas behind color management are absurd and wrong. That's my beef with Ken.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on February 13, 2013, 03:14:40 PM
Ken has a different approach. It's pretty much like shooting slide film. You load Velvia and shoot Velvia, than you load Provia and shoot Provia.
The approach I prefer is to shoot raw, make the best image I can and decide on everything later. Both approaches are viable, but the second one is mine.

Again, in terms of what he writes about color management, the analogy should be You load Velvia and you get TechPan.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rand47 on February 13, 2013, 11:26:24 PM
Yes, I tried to post an old post and make it go dormant but it wouldn't stay asleep.

Moron, how could i post anything but a 'new' post?

Jeff Schewe is a moron?  It's about time someone exposed him for the no talent incompetent fake photographer that he is.  You should check out just what a moron he is.  Might start here (http://www.pixelgenius.com/bios/jeff_bio.html).  And here (http://www.amazon.com/The-Digital-Negative-Processing-Lightroom/dp/0321839579/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1360816268&sr=8-1&keywords=the+digital+negative).

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Thanks for the good chuckle and welcome to a really great place that you apparently know nothing about.  Go a little slower and more courteously, and you'll find this site a valuable and civil resource.  

Rand

Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on February 14, 2013, 04:28:27 AM
Barbarians at the gate?

 Ken B has "left" so we now need another one to take his place. I suspect that Ken R will be sipping a coffee, or a beer, and reading this. Having a quiet chuckle and then going for another layer of skin before posting another article to entertain all of us. ;D
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on February 14, 2013, 01:04:22 PM
Ken B has "left" so we now need another one to take his place.

Ken B didn't leave so much as he was kicked out...and you'll note that the recent resurrection of this thread was started the same day that Jeff Myers joined LuLa. His three posts in this thread are the sum total of his "contributions" to the community (if you want to call them contributions). As for KR, well, a standard distribution would indicate a bell shaped curve with KR way, way out in left field. The only sad thing about KR is that there are people out there that read what he says and actually think it's useful. There's a sucker born every minute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_a_sucker_born_every_minute) (which may or may not have come from PT Barnum). I guess Jeff M. may be a sucker :~)
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Fine_Art on February 14, 2013, 03:09:22 PM
That's a good question. I surmise that the distance of 15 ft might be a rough average of the many different distances at which we see people during our various activities, but I'm just guessing and I admit I have little experience in portraiture.

Doing a Google search to find the answer, I came across the following abstract of a scientific paper, which unfortunately one has to buy to read so I didn't get to read the full text, just the abstract below, which you might find interesting.

According to this study, if you want to make your subjects appear smart and strong, take Ken Rockwell's advice and photograph them from 15 ft. (400cm in the experiment is actually a bit less at 13 ft, but let's not quibble.)

If you want your subjects looking as attractive as possible, get closer, and if you want them to appear as friendly and good-natured as possible, get even closer. Makes sense?  

The link to the website is [a href=\"http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/]http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/[/url]

If there is research I would expect it to be used on the distance of passport photos, DLs, mugshots. Wouldn't they have the most pressing need for the person to be recognized from the shot? If I remember my last DL shot it was about 2m away. My last passport shot was about 3m. Of course these depend on the facility. I would still expect passport authorities to give guidelines to photographers on the issue if it is research backed.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: David Hufford on February 16, 2013, 12:04:12 AM
Yes, I tried to post an old post and make it go dormant but it wouldn't stay asleep.

Moron, how could i post anything but a 'new' post?

Wow. If Jeff is a moron, I hope to become a moron too.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: mgear on March 24, 2013, 05:32:10 PM
I'm not really a fan of Mr. Rockwell. He tends to stretch the truth way too much for my liking.


One thing that really annoys me of him is that he uses small JPG (I think) and then complains that the image is dull or has too much NR. JPG's vary by company with Olympus producing some awesome ones while Nikon files are a bit bland. I'm a RAW person of course.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2013, 03:32:21 PM
I enjoy reading Rockwell.  He likes to laugh at himself as well as others.  He doesn't  take himself too seriously.  He has a common sense and frugal  approach to photography.  His own photography is heavy on saturation, but that's what he likes or thinks that's what most others like as well so that's what he produces.  I suspect he thinks it sells better. 

While he'll get into details like pixels because that's what people like to read about, he really doesn't think they matter much.  Good photography is good photography.  Keep it simple, he says.  We shouldn't get caught up the sales hype from camera manufacturers that he also like to laugh at when they screw up. 


When reading Rockwell, you have to discern the nuggets of gold. 
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Richowens on June 01, 2013, 04:35:44 PM
quote; When reading Rockwell, you have to discern the nuggets of gold. unquote.

 That is if you can find any among or in all the piles of bullshit.

Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 01, 2013, 04:37:17 PM
He likes to laugh at himself as well as others
As others are laughing at him!

Quote
He doesn't  take himself too seriously.
Many here don't take him seriously too.

Quote
While he'll get into details like pixels because that's what people like to read about, he really doesn't think they matter much. 
Then he shouldn't write about pixels. His take on color management, (sRGB) which is directly related to pixels is pure nonsense.

Quote
When reading Rockwell, you have to discern the nuggets of gold. 
Scattered with Fools Gold.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2013, 09:33:58 PM
I think professionals in the photo industry who take cheap shots at Rockwell would be better off reading all of his blog posts since he started and continue to follow him.  Maybe they could learn something that might make them as successful.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Jason DiMichele on June 01, 2013, 11:13:13 PM
Alan,

If you are referring to Andrew (digitaldog), he's been plenty successful. It might be wise to follow other people in the industry other than just Ken and perhaps learn who's successful and who isn't. I suppose defining success is important. Just because everyone knows your name doesn't mean you've made it.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 01, 2013, 11:58:54 PM
It's the cheap shots that bothers me.  Professionals should respect other professionals.  There's a way to disagree with another professional without resorting to name calling. 
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 02, 2013, 05:16:24 AM
Alan are you referring to Ken as a professional in the context he is paid or in the context of professionalism ( ie some people believe the definition means knowledgeable ) that he is knowledgeable? He may well be knowledgeable but he disguises it with a lot of BS. If someone respects Ken then others will wonder about the credentials of the person respecting him?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 02, 2013, 06:17:08 AM
I think professionals in the photo industry who take cheap shots at Rockwell would be better off reading all of his blog posts since he started and continue to follow him.  Maybe they could learn something that might make them as successful.
Why do you think Ken Rockwell is successful ?
Have you looked at his galleries of photographs ?
If you think he's successful, can you explain why so many people hold him such low regard ?
eg
http://www.anthonyhereld.com/buyer-beware-ken-rockwell/
http://www.dpreview.com/directory/kenrockwell
http://www.redbubble.com/people/lighthouse/journal/7913090-take-ken-rockwell-with-a-massive-grain-of-salt

Just Google him and you'll find lots like this.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 02, 2013, 09:20:21 AM
Rockwell's controversial, admittedly.  But attack his viewpoints not him personnally.  I find it foolish for one professional trying to sell his photographic training stuff to knock Rockwell personally.  Doesn't he realize that when he does that he knocks Rockwell's readers.  Does he expect these readers to come flocking and buy his stuff?  Rather he should explain why he feels ROckwell is wrong in lighting or whatever.  The give his link to his training blog that explians it better.  Maybe he should suggest that he would even be willing to give the "tape" to the reader for free.  That would be smart business practice since he might wind up with a new customer buying all his other tapes.

Instead, he only alienates Rockwell's readers. 
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 02, 2013, 10:01:52 AM
I think professionals in the photo industry who take cheap shots at Rockwell would be better off reading all of his blog posts since he started and continue to follow him.  Maybe they could learn something that might make them as successful.

I have no intention or need to read all of Ken's blog posts, the one I did was filled with errors and misunderstandings of color, something I do know a bit about. The article is technically wrong in a number of areas! (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm). Those who read it and believe what Ken writes is even close to technically correct are getting piss-poor information if I can be so kind to call what we wrote informational. This isn't about an opinion of some photographic aesthetics. It's like someone claiming to know about photography and worse, giving the impression to the unsuspecting that he knows what he's talking about, saying a 50mm lens is wider than a 35mm lens.

Do you understand the need for peer review?

No cheap shots here, what Ken writes about sRGB in the above piece is filled with errors. I'd be happy to point them out but why? Just ignore him, at least when it comes to color (and based on that, probably a lot of concepts of digital imaging if he got this so wrong).
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Jason DiMichele on June 02, 2013, 10:22:11 AM
I have no intention or need to read all of Ken's blog posts, the one I did was filled with errors and misunderstandings of color, something I do know a bit about. The article is technically wrong in a number of areas! (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm). Those who read it and believe what Ken writes is even close to technically correct are getting piss-poor information if I can be so kind to call what we wrote informational.

LMFAO!! Just out of pure curiosity I decided to give this article a read. Well, a partial read. Good thing I stopped, otherwise I would have felt pretty stupid having wasted my time learning about colour management.  I would have immediately drove to the nearest pawn shop and sold my NEC monitors, Xrite i1Photo and Epson 11880 equipment because there's clearly no purpose or point in owning the stuff. Reading that article was like watching a train wreck. If that is the standard quality of information on his website then I'm afraid I have to agree with Andrew that there are unfortunately a lot of people becoming more and more photographically mislead each day. Sad really.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Michael West on June 02, 2013, 10:44:15 AM
It's the cheap shots that bothers me.  Professionals should respect other professionals.  There's a way to disagree with another professional without resorting to name calling. 

I think anyone woud have to be a FOOL  ..to disagree with you on this.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: RobertJ on June 02, 2013, 10:50:02 AM
If a "Professional" is a guy who judges a camera based on its ability to shoot highly saturated jpegs in-camera (because RAW is stupid and useless, and is a BIG NO NO), then you're right.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 02, 2013, 11:17:35 AM
... If someone respects Ken then others will wonder about the credentials of the person respecting him?

Is am among those who enjoy his writings and respect him for being willing to stand up to many peddled myths (like equipment or sharpness obsession). Some of his quirkier statements (like color management or RAW) I simply file under his personal preferences or understand it in the proper context.

Feel free to wonder about my credentials, however.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 03, 2013, 04:01:07 AM
Does the sum of his good points outweigh his bad ones? If you think the former is true he deserves respect. If the latter is true then - imo - no. Nobody gets it wrong all of the time but the perception is he gets it wrong most of the time. He makes it known he says he does it for the money and notoriety. If so I don't think he deserves respect. Slobodan you have been on here long enough for the regulars to have formed an opinion of you. ;)
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 03, 2013, 12:43:38 PM
Does the sum of his good points outweigh his bad ones?...

That would matter only if I would consider marrying him. ;)

Otherwise, I do not care. I cherry-pick. Enjoy the good points, disregard the weak ones. I said once his site is for smart people. Reading it is like an IQ test: you need to understand the context and the angle properly to be able to separate good points from weak ones, facts from hyperboles, kid-like excitement from grown-up enthusiasm, etc. He provides quite a different take on things photographic than other sites. He is like The Onion (http://www.theonion.com/) of the photographic world (which I say as a compliment, to both).

Then again, you have to understand where I am coming from: I consider Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to be the source of real, serious news, and Fox News as a comedy channel (other news channels serve mostly as sleeping pills).
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 03, 2013, 02:26:49 PM
It's the cheap shots that bothers me.  Professionals should respect other professionals.  There's a way to disagree with another professional without resorting to name calling. 

Just what cheap shots and name calling are you referring to? I've searched this posts from the beginning, I'm missing it.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 04, 2013, 03:44:51 AM
Quote Sloboban post #69.


Otherwise, I do not care. I cherry-pick. Enjoy the good points, disregard the weak ones

Unquote.

Slobodan you are an experienced photographer and poster on here. You know the good from the weak but less experienced photographers looking for information will struggle. Everybody is entitled to an opinion if it is an honest one not designed to deceive. That is the problem I see. :(
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 04, 2013, 11:05:50 PM
<<Slobodan you are an experienced photographer and poster on here. You know the good from the weak but less experienced photographers looking for information will struggle. Everybody is entitled to an opinion if it is an honest one not designed to deceive. That is the problem I see. >>

No one can be all things to all people. However, huge numbers of people find him funny, useful or just entertaining.  He also helps the inexperienced by reminding them that the number of pixels or replacing your camera every other year will not make you a better photographer.  That's good advice for the not so inexperienced as well who often get caught up in the technology hype by many photo sites that just mimic the manufacturer's marketing lines.  That's a lot better than what you find on most photo sites.  And the down-to-earth honesty comes through and shows why he is appreciated by many.  People stuck on pixel peeping don't get him.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Wolfman on June 05, 2013, 12:01:55 AM
Quote Sloboban post #69.


Otherwise, I do not care. I cherry-pick. Enjoy the good points, disregard the weak ones

Unquote.

Slobodan you are an experienced photographer and poster on here. You know the good from the weak but less experienced photographers looking for information will struggle. Everybody is entitled to an opinion if it is an honest one not designed to deceive. That is the problem I see. :(


+1
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 05, 2013, 03:49:13 AM
Quote Alan post#72

No one can be all things to all people. However, huge numbers of people find him funny, useful or just entertaining.  He also helps the inexperienced by reminding them that the number of pixels or replacing your camera every other year will not make you a better photographer.

Unquote

They find him funny but not in a humorous way. Alan I think you are in a minority if you think that. As to the advice about pixels and replacement that is pretty basic stuff. He has been ridiculed for years and rightly so. However I think his bank balance must be quite healthy and it is probably so because of his possibly misleading statements?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 05, 2013, 10:12:07 AM
People stuck on pixel peeping don't get him.

IOW, smart(ER) better informed people who understand pixels, how they are created, how they affect image quality don't get Ken. People who are uneducated on such topics get him. That what he writes is often technically ridiculous doesn't matter.

Less informed people need less of Ken because they are unable to separate fact from folly. But that's OK with you because it doesn't matter what the 'teacher' is saying, you should accept it as fact even when someone points out the fallacy, (they are just stuck up on peeping at pixels despite the factuality of their information). Is that really your stance? You never did seem to reply to my question to you about peer preview.

So ignorance is bliss, or stupid is as stupid does. I pity the poor uninformed masses that follow Ken and don't get his 'humor'.

No wonder the web is filled with people who argue with intensity that all displays output 72ppi, anything other than sRGB is a mistake or it's the standard of all color spaces, all pro's only shoot with prime lens, all images for output should be at 300ppi etc.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 05, 2013, 11:10:44 AM
Hi,

I think there are different views on solutions, techniques and issues. I guess that many of us are concerned by the best workflow for the best results, but Ken R has the standpoint that good enough is good enough, and I think frequently this is the case.

Best regards
Erik

IOW, smart(ER) better informed people who understand pixels, how they are created, how they affect image quality don't get Ken. People who are uneducated on such topics get him. That what he writes is often technically ridiculous doesn't matter.

Less informed people need less of Ken because they are unable to separate fact from folly. But that's OK with you because it doesn't matter what the 'teacher' is saying, you should accept it as fact even when someone points out the fallacy, (they are just stuck up on peeping at pixels despite the factuality of their information). Is that really your stance? You never did seem to reply to my question to you about peer preview.

So ignorance is bliss, or stupid is as stupid does. I pity the poor uninformed masses that follow Ken and don't get his 'humor'.

No wonder the web is filled with people who argue with intensity that all displays output 72ppi, anything other than sRGB is a mistake or it's the standard of all color spaces, all pro's only shoot with prime lens, all images for output should be at 300ppi etc.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: NikoJorj on June 05, 2013, 03:13:55 PM
Ken R has the standpoint that good enough is good enough, and I think frequently this is the case.
OTOH, was an entire photo website really needed to convey this kind of truism?
I like the internet because of the huge quantity of information one can find ; but in the case of this website, I really agree that melting some bits of good (if often mundane) common sense with some downright foolishness is not the best way to convey that information.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 05, 2013, 05:49:49 PM
Quote: So ignorance is bliss, or stupid is as stupid does. I pity the poor uninformed masses that follow Ken and don't get his 'humor'.  unquote.

Yup. You really don't want me to buy your stuff.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 05, 2013, 07:38:56 PM
Yup. You really don't want me to buy your stuff.

I have absolutely nothing to sell you, agreed!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on June 06, 2013, 03:52:09 AM
Yup. You really don't want me to buy your stuff.

I guess you don't really understand Andrew if you think he's trying to sell you something. Fact is, Andrew is a stay at home mom (to a gaggle of doggies-mainly whippets at thing point). What andrew has a hard time with are idiots and assholes (I'm afflicted with that same weakness).

If you want to advance yourself, try reading some from Norman Koren (http://www.normankoren.com/) (who has way more than half a friggin' clue) or Bruce Lindbloom (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/) who does the CM industry enormous good or even LuLa where Mike bends over backwards to provide useful and factual info.

Then compare that to the butthead, Ken Rockwell's "site". You tell me he has any redeeming qualities...and I'll label you clueless. Ken does what he does for personal self-aggrandizement purposes...he does zero to help try to advance the industry and in-fact contributes to a regression because he gives clueless people some hope that all this shyte is easy if only you follow in Ken's footsteps.

He's a blight on the industry...he's all that's wrong with the photo industry and nothing of what's right about it–people doing the right thing for the right reasons. There are lot's of people who try to help, Ken tries to obfuscate and confuse while waving his hands claiming he has the holy grail. He wouldn't know the holy grail if it came up and sat on his face (although he might like that, I don't know).

Come on doode, do you really think he has 1/2 a clue? Even 1.4 of a clue? Maybe 1.8 or 1/16th? I think that's stretching reality. I think Ken is a 10% guy...10% has some validity but 90% is bullshyte. If you don't know or can't figure out the 10/90% difference, shame on you not him.

But Andrew's point of view is noble and trying to advance the industry. Ken? Not so much. He's pretty much a putz. Care to proove me wrong?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: fredjeang2 on June 06, 2013, 05:30:31 AM
KR is a very studdied character. His style is not casual
But marketed.
He has the Background for it and built a politicaly incorrect
Character that became a case in itself.
His website smells redneck, with pics of the family
Framed old fashion. This look is deliberate. It's the
Roots middle class las vegas good citizen bad taste
That he ironize with the use and abuse of short
Journalistic claims. he built his own coffee corner.
This is very very studdied,
And as Jeff said, I think that mainly for himself. His
Self-image built May have became out of control but
He knows something: no matter if people talk to you
In a good Or a bad way. What matters for some is that
People talk about them. (politicians are others)
There is a style, more than infos, irreverent,
And that's what a lot of readers find funny.
Most think he doesn't take him seriously, I think
He takes himself very seriously, just that he choosed
A role with this self-ironic component. From the esthetic
Of his site, more redneck impossible, to the content.
As we say in France: if he didn't exist we'd have to
Invent it. he's part of the web landscape on photography,
Being a case apart.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Colorado David on June 06, 2013, 08:23:18 AM
This is the Lazarus thread.  It has tried to die two or three times but comes back to life.  Now it's like driving by a car wreck.  I have to look.  Please die thread.  KR doesn't need the publicity.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 06, 2013, 05:59:25 PM
Jeff:  Rockwell is selling his brand of photography; you're selling yours.  The ad hominen attacks ought to be avoided.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on June 07, 2013, 01:44:12 AM
Rockwell is selling his brand of photography; you're selling yours.

Actually, Ken is selling his brand of bullshyte...I don't actually sell bullshyte.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: David Sutton on June 07, 2013, 04:09:49 AM
Alan, I agree with Schewe on this one.
It's not just that Rockwell has so much mis-information on his site, but also that it is evangelised by his followers.
I have seen several cases of entire photographic collections rendered useless by people following his advice. One was a chap transferring his film collection to digital for archiving purposes: at his age and as a novice in the digital world it was not his fault that he didn't have the experience to tell fraud from fact.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 07, 2013, 04:21:10 AM
I've read Rockwell for a couple of years.  I've never read anything or got advice that would have done anything bad like what you suggested.  Can you provide a link to his blog and show me where he said such things?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 07, 2013, 05:09:55 AM
Alan, you have heard of the adage about...when in a hole then stop digging. Do you honestly think you are correct when the overwhelming opinion is against you?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 07, 2013, 05:27:47 AM
I've never read anything or got advice that would have done anything bad like what you suggested.
Only ever using sRGB is pretty poor advice by itself. The same goes for only shooting JPGs.

Much of KR's 'advice' might be useful for complete novices trying to make a start in photography, but there's precious little good advice for anyone with aspirations towards excellence.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: David Sutton on June 07, 2013, 06:20:35 AM
Only ever using sRGB is pretty poor advice by itself. The same goes for only shooting JPGs.

Much of KR's 'advice' might be useful for complete novices trying to make a start in photography, but there's precious little good advice for anyone with aspirations towards excellence.

This pretty well nails it. If you scan a lifetime's work of slide film into 8 bit srgb jpegs you will of course wonder why the subtle reds and blues have completely blocked up, and perhaps blame it on the scanner, or the whole "digital" technology.
Look, I get really tired of helping repair the damage caused by "advice" on websites like KR's. If I continue this discussion further I will say what I really think of him and his apologists and end up banned from this forum.
David
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on June 07, 2013, 06:28:15 AM
If I continue this discussion further I will say what I really think of him and his apologists and end up banned from this forum.

No you won't! I'll stand up for you...(I seriously doubt Ken will be reporting you to the moderators–who are close, personal friends :~)
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 07, 2013, 07:43:26 AM
Alan, I agree with Schewe on this one.
It's not just that Rockwell has so much mis-information on his site, but also that it is evangelised by his followers.
I have seen several cases of entire photographic collections rendered useless by people following his advice. One was a chap transferring his film collection to digital for archiving purposes: at his age and as a novice in the digital world it was not his fault that he didn't have the experience to tell fraud from fact.

David:  I asked and I guess you felt it wasn't necessary to provide even a thread of proof that Rockwell did these things.  Not even a link to his web page to show us what he said.  You're repeating false rumors and gossip spread by other equally mis-informed people who want to besmirch his name.  That's not right.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on June 07, 2013, 07:54:11 AM
I've read Rockwell for a couple of years.

Hum, that begs the question, do you have anything else to do with your life?

I'm ok with accepting Ken at his own words...his intro says:

This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."

Ok...I dispute the "giving back to the community" since I don't honestly think the "community" wants his "work of fiction"...but hey, maybe that's just me?

In everything he says, he says don't listen to him. So, I don't...sorry but I don't think he's doing anybody a favor besides himself. If you think that's an "ad hominen attack", I suggest you research what that phrase actually means...yes, I'm attacking the person because, well the person is so full of crap. How do you suggest I phrase that?

Note, just after his "intro" comes the section "How many cameras do I have?"...he tells something when he says:

"I rarely, if ever, still own any gear about which I've written. Even if I owned it when I wrote about it, this site has been on-the-air for over eleven years. I've written-up hundreds of cameras and zillions of lenses and accessories since 1999, and I certainly don't have all that here today.

I'm a big returner. I'll get all excited, buy something, write it up, and if it came from a store with a good return policy, usually I'll realize a week later while the return period is still valid, that I'm never going to use it again. Back it goes, with their permission, of course. Four cameras is more than enough for anyone."


Heck, at least Mike will fall in love and keep the stuff he falls in love with...Ken? Not so much...

Really Alan, if you want to have a "bromance" with somebody, I don't think this is the guy for you...he'll drop you the moment he's done with you...and you'll end up hating yourself for being hoodwinked.

He's a snake oil salesman...can you honestly dispute that? In that regard, he's not "giving back to our community", he's raping it. With way too much glee for me to tolerate...
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 07, 2013, 08:49:27 AM
I've read Rockwell for a couple of years.  I've never read anything or got advice that would have done anything bad like what you suggested.  Can you provide a link to his blog and show me where he said such things?

Already posted one below, you either ignored it, or don't understand it. Give it up, just the one piece on sRGB is pure rubbish. Do I have to explain it to you?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: hjulenissen on June 07, 2013, 08:56:02 AM
I think that KR is about entertainment. Just like "top gear" is not really about which car to purchase, or how to drive a car, but about making an entertaining package with cars that you will never afford doing things that are illegal in many countries interspersed with witty comments.

If you want to know what car to buy you should probably rather read something like "consumer report" (guessing here, as I am not a US citizen).

If you want to learn how to drive a car fast (on the road or track), you probably want to spend a weekend with an instructor instead.

Does this mean that Jeremy Clarkson and friends are idiots, or that they do not know how to drive a car? Of course, not. But they do tend to claim that every car they review is either: a)the best in the world, or b)the worst (sensationalist). They tend to forget/ignore aspects of cars and driving that are important to many viewers. Is it environmentally friendly? Does it take a stroller? (subjective macho-man view). They seem highly anglo-centric (chauvinist). But good entertainment it is.

-h
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 07, 2013, 09:01:29 AM
I think that KR is about entertainment. Just like "top gear" is not really about which car to purchase, or how to drive a car, but about making an entertaining package with cars that you will never afford doing things that are illegal in many countries interspersed with witty comments.

Great show. And as I recall, they never said nonsense like the VW bug they tested did 0-60mph in 2 seconds, in reverse. The gang there has opinions big time, but it's usually based on some degree of fact.

So we're to take Ken as entertainment, digital imaging and photography science fiction?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: hjulenissen on June 07, 2013, 09:12:29 AM
So we're to take Ken as entertainment, digital imaging and photography science fiction?
I found him entertaining for a while, now I think he is most annoying. Even more annoying is that he has the ability to write in such a way that photographers tends to quote him.

Look, it is not like other photography gear reviewers (or science journalists) are not having to balance the "entertainment value" vs "scientific value" act. They do. They simplify. They exaggerate. They talk about stuff they don't (fully) understand. Many are perhaps unsuccessful photographers with no tech background. They need to generate ad clicks or sell glossy magazines (most of them, at least). Its only that they don't go as far as KR, or that they haven't refined the art as well as him.

-h
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 07, 2013, 09:59:25 AM
Alan, you have heard of the adage about...when in a hole then stop digging. Do you honestly think you are correct when the overwhelming opinion is against you?

Could it be that you got it wrong? After all, without the overwhelming opinion in his favor, KR wouldn't be able to survive and thrive for so many years. As usual, what we have here, on this forum, is the vocal minority.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 07, 2013, 10:58:43 AM
No I don't think that I got it wrong. A lot of people who get it wrong survive for years. Iraq and George Bush for instance. Slobodan I will give you and Alan the benefit of the doubt and say you have the big stick out. Otherwise if the two of you persist in your adoration of Ken then the two of you will be thought in the same vein as the vocal majority on this thread think of Ken. Clueless. ;) :)
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 07, 2013, 11:10:41 AM
After all, without the overwhelming opinion in his favor, KR wouldn't be able to survive and thrive for so many years.
You don't have to either popular or correct to 'survive' on the internet. All he has to do is pay his server fees and it's out there.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: bjanes on June 07, 2013, 11:30:30 AM
Actually, Ken is selling his brand of bullshyte...I don't actually sell bullshyte.

Ken's brand of bullshyte is nowhere more apparent than his review of the Nikon F2S where he concludes, "The Nikon F2S is for photographers and professional newsmen, not for sniveling IT weenies who swarm all over anything digital. The F2S is a man's camera. When things get dicey while covering a protest, a good whack to a protester's head with the F2S has usually solved the problem."

The problem with the F2S was with its sensor: film. Compared with the latest digital sensors, film sucks as pointed out by Diglloyd here (http://diglloyd.com/articles/GrabBag/photographic-film-was-not-much-of-a-performer.html) for those who have not used film. A wise photographer selects the best tool for the job, not as a means of proving his manhood. It is interesting that on one of his introductory pages, Ken has himself pictured with a massive telephoto lens. The symbolism is amusing.

Bill
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 07, 2013, 12:06:42 PM
I can only conclude that some well-educated, intelligent experts here must have had a sense of humor surgically removed at birth? Or, if you are religious, it seems like God decided to balance the extra helping of intellect he gave them by taking away their sense of humor? Or, if you are a TV buff, you might have noticed that they eerily resemble Dr. Temperance Brannan ("Bones") ultra-rational thinking.

And, since they have no humor-detector, I must end this post with certain visual clues:  ;) :) :D ;D
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 07, 2013, 12:18:05 PM
must have had a sense of humor surgically removed at birth?
Loads of people who don't know any better take KR seriously and end up seriously mislead, is that funny to you ?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 07, 2013, 12:35:33 PM
No I don't think that I got it wrong. A lot of people who get it wrong survive for years. Iraq and George Bush for instance. Slobodan I will give you and Alan the benefit of the doubt and say you have the big stick out. Otherwise if the two of you persist in your adoration of Ken then the two of you will be thought in the same vein as the vocal majority on this thread think of Ken. Clueless. ;) :)

First you attack Rockwell personally.  Then you insult people here who have a different opinion.  Pretty soon the vocal minority join the managers and take over and you're all preaching to the choir because who wants to stay and be abused.  Then the hits go down on LULA and KR gets richer.  Good move.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 07, 2013, 12:45:23 PM
Alan. You either don't get the concept of peer review or you just want to ignore it. You either understand basic color management or you don't and thus believe KR. I'm not going to digress into other theories of Ken's, his sense of humor (or lack thereof) or the amount of money he makes or the number of hits his site gets compared to LuLa (and I suspect it's far lower). I've stuck with one article by Ken of which his opinions are not fact based. Ken (and you) are entitled to your opinions. You (and Ken) are not entitled to your own facts. I don't care if you or Ken believe the earth is 6000 years old, carbon dating states otherwise. It's pointless to get into religious arguments for so many reasons. It's not pointless to get into discussions and arguments over fact based science, something both Ken and apparently you wish to ignore.

Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 07, 2013, 12:58:13 PM
... end up seriously mislead, is that funny to you ?

Any proof of that? And yes, I would find it funny, if true.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 07, 2013, 01:05:24 PM
Alan. You either don't get the concept of peer review or you just want to ignore it. .... It's not pointless to get into discussions and arguments over fact based science, something both Ken and apparently you wish to ignore.

Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   ???
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 07, 2013, 01:11:44 PM
Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   ???

Is English your 2nd language or do you just have a reading retention issue? I told you what specific piece of dribble Ken wrote I have issues with. It's flat out bogus. I've offered to explain to you how and why since I'm under the impression color management is something you're not up to speed on considering I provided a link to his article.

You get on a peer review committee by having a basic understanding of the topic being discussed. So go read Ken's piece on sRGB and learn just a bit about color management, then tell us as as peer how his piece isn't technically wrong and I'll tell you where it is, we can go from there. Or you can just accept what he writes as fact, then you're not welcome to be considered a peer in terms of this one piece he wrote! If you spent as much time educating yourself on just this sRGB issue as you do defending Ken, you'd be in much better shape to discuss this single topic of which Ken is misinformed!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 07, 2013, 01:29:37 PM
Oh gosh!  Give me a break.   sRGB?  I'd rather use crayons!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: hjulenissen on June 07, 2013, 01:32:19 PM
Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   ???
He claims that people using stands are idiots. I think that there are plenty of examples of how a camera stand improves IQ visibly.

-h
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 07, 2013, 01:55:00 PM
Oh gosh!  Give me a break.   sRGB?  I'd rather use crayons!

What's that supposed to mean?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: ErikKaffehr on June 07, 2013, 03:34:45 PM
Hi,

Science is not to bad...

Erik


Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   ???
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 07, 2013, 04:31:16 PM
This pretty well nails it. If you scan a lifetime's work of slide film into 8 bit srgb jpegs you will of course wonder why the subtle reds and blues have completely blocked up, and perhaps blame it on the scanner, or the whole "digital" technology.
Look, I get really tired of helping repair the damage caused by "advice" on websites like KR's.

And yet Alan falls exactly into this trap of Ken's as illustrated here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78197.msg628027#msg628027

Quote
I think I'm going to scan documents into jpeg rather than pdf going forward.  Who knows about what Adobe will do there too?  Also, what about Bitmap .BMP.  I think that's the same pixel quantity as TIff and non-protected?  WOuldn't filing in bmp be the same as tiff?

Quote
I tried saving a jpeg image as a tiff and bmp.  Both resultant files had the same amount of pixels.  So what would the difference be by saving as bmp or  tiff?  You can always convert back to tiff from bmp without loss.  No?    This way you can saved all your files without worrying about having to pay fees for tiff in the future.  No?

He's asking the right questions there and getting the right answers. Hopefully we can undo some of the damage Ken's "teachings" has had on him!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on June 07, 2013, 05:24:58 PM
By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?

If you have to ask the question...you wouldn't understand the answer, but I'll give it a shot.

Real peer review committees are made up of leading experts in a given field who know enough about a subject to be able to grasp the meaning of somebody's research and question the validity of the theories and methods employed. I know enough about photography and digital imaging to be in a position to pass judgement over Ken's writing. He is clearly a crackpot who tries to benefit by being controversial–but not in a good way of challenging current knowledge but by intentionally going down the road of being provocative without actually advancing the art and science. He's like a photo industry version of Tony Robbins or Dr. Phil. Yes, there's an entertainment value (if you like that sort of stuff–I don't) but is it worth it in the end? Ken COULD be using his talents to help the industry but he chooses to help himself instead.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: FranciscoDisilvestro on June 07, 2013, 09:08:27 PM
Quote from: fredjeang2
KR is a very studdied character. His style is not casual
But marketed.
He has the Background for it and built a politicaly incorrect
Character that became a case in itself.
His website smells redneck, with pics of the family
Framed old fashion. This look is deliberate. It's the
Roots middle class las vegas good citizen bad taste
That he ironize with the use and abuse of short
Journalistic claims. he built his own coffee corner.
This is very very studdied,
And as Jeff said, I think that mainly for himself. His
Self-image built May have became out of control but
He knows something: no matter if people talk to you
In a good Or a bad way. What matters for some is that
People talk about them. (politicians are others)
There is a style, more than infos, irreverent,
And that's what a lot of readers find funny.
Most think he doesn't take him seriously, I think
He takes himself very seriously, just that he choosed
A role with this self-ironic component. From the esthetic
Of his site, more redneck impossible, to the content.
As we say in France: if he didn't exist we'd have to
Invent it. he's part of the web landscape on photography,
Being a case apart.

Fred, I think you nailed it!


Quote
"I'm a big returner. I'll get all excited, buy something, write it up, and if it came from a store with a good return policy, usually I'll realize a week later while the return period is still valid, that I'm never going to use it again. Back it goes, with their permission, of course. Four cameras is more than enough for anyone."

Hey, maybe there is a business opportunity here, those stores could sell those equipments at a premium with the "Returned by KR" sticker  :D
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 07, 2013, 09:29:45 PM
... Ken COULD be using his talents to help the industry but he chooses to help himself instead.

Ha! Thats a novel argument against KR. So, he is guilty for not being Mother Theresa? In a country with the merciless competition, law of the jungle, winner-takes-it-all, eat-or-be-eaten, he chose to help himself!?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Colorado David on June 07, 2013, 10:22:49 PM
I've never been interested enough to look into it, but if you wrote that stuff would you go by your real name?  I'm thinking Ken Rockwell is a pseudonym.


See there?  I drove around the block to look at the car wreck once more.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: NikoJorj on June 08, 2013, 07:42:19 AM
I can only conclude that some well-educated, intelligent experts here must have had a sense of humor surgically removed at birth?
Maybe they just have not exactly the same sense of humor...
The demonstration of a 24x36 velvia scan being flat equivalent to 192MP (or so) was rather quite high an odd-degree humor, to say the least. As it used the MTF graph without even blinking at that MTF was not even plotted at the frequency used (and he extrapolated it to 20%), it's some kind of humor that I find only mean, really laughing of people that just did not learn what a MTF is and how to use it (Norman Koren is may be not as much entertaining for the masses, but he did explain that already long ago for anyone willing to read).
That, or he uses these satire alerts to excuse for incompetence - you choose.

Ditto for the sRGB part - tossing color management over board is not going to help many people.


Humor is a good reason to write funny things (in which I personally hesitate to file the F2 bit), but a bad excuse to write BS.


He became famous being the-simple-roots-american-middle-class-citizen
That fight the established values and deliberatly provocative.
Well, I'd think it takes arguments to fight established values...
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 08, 2013, 08:35:51 AM

If you want to advance yourself, try reading some from Norman Koren (http://www.normankoren.com/) (who has way more than half a friggin' clue) or Bruce Lindbloom (http://www.brucelindbloom.com/) who does the CM industry enormous good or even LuLa where Mike bends over backwards to provide useful and factual info.

Jeff: Koren has a wonderful sight and I think his photos are way better than anything Rockwell produces.  However, most people except pixel peeprs are not interested in how Koren explains photography to people.  Mathematical integrals? http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html

Rockwell's audience for the most part does not want to read about formulas although he does get into the weeds as well and provides in-depth technical analysys of cameras for example. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-iii.htm   For the most part, Rockwell wants to teach people how to be better photographers.    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/synthesis.htm  Or check any one of his other writings that would help people to become better.  http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

These things don't make either Koren or Rockwell right or wrong, just different in their approaches.   Different strokes for different people.

Rockwell also acknowledges the help and skill of others.  He's gracious enough to list dozens of other photographers as well as companies that you can use as a resourse to help in your photography.  He's willing to acknowledge the technical skill and artistry of others. He doesn't critically attack people as people here personally attack him. People like him because he's warm and personable.  He's a mench.  him http://www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#art
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: NikoJorj on June 08, 2013, 10:51:46 AM
Yes, there is not only crap in his site, but the good parts are only basic common sense (yes, you have to pay attention to what you're photographing, yes), and are interleaved with some pretty silly things as soon as he dips into something technical (which he doesn't do too often, fortunately).
It's up to anyone to assess the usefulness of the whole. I don't rate it high, as far as I am concerned. But please, don't call that technically correct.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 08, 2013, 11:10:47 AM
he does... provides in-depth technical analysys of cameras for example. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-iii.htm
If that's your idea of ' in-depth technical analysis' I can see why you think KR is such a help.



Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 08, 2013, 11:15:59 AM
If that's your idea of ' in-depth technical analysis' I can see why you think KR is such a help.

Agreed. Puff piece. Love these comments too:

Quote
No GPS
Thank goodness.
No Built-in Flash
Boo!

Gives me an idea of how Ken feels about lighting!

Quote
I'm thinking Ken Rockwell is a pseudonym

For Alan Klein perhaps <g>
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 08, 2013, 01:56:36 PM
Quote
Posted by: digitaldog

Quote

I'm thinking Ken Rockwell is a pseudonym


For Alan Klein perhaps <g>


Oh heck. You caught me.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: kikashi on June 08, 2013, 02:24:41 PM
Do you honestly think you are correct when the overwhelming opinion is against you?

Now here, we encroach onto dangerous ground. Remember this?


A Hundred authors against Einstein

A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (A Hundred authors against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included, however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein is reported to have said with irony, that one author alone would have been sufficient to refute him:

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" —Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein


The quotation is from Wikipedia, but is accurate nevertheless.

Jeremy

PS: don't think for a moment that I'm comparing KR with Einstein, or that I accept as true any of the obvious rubbish on his site. I'm just making the point that consensus doesn't necessarily equate to truth. Man-made climate change, anyone?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 08, 2013, 02:25:30 PM
I'm thinking Ken Rockwell is a pseudonym

For Alan Klein perhaps <g>
Unlikely. So far Alan hasn't put any begging messages for PayPal donations to feed his kids all over his postings.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: hjulenissen on June 08, 2013, 02:32:38 PM
Gives me an idea of how Ken feels about lighting!
I have to confess that I appreciate my built-in flash.

-h
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: hjulenissen on June 08, 2013, 02:35:30 PM
Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   ???
While I do agree that it is healthy to question "scientific truths" and even the scientific process, I can hardly see that KR it a site that should trigger such questions.

Do you agree (with KR) that people using stands for their camera are idiots?

-h
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 08, 2013, 02:39:23 PM
I'm just making the point that consensus doesn't necessarily equate to truth.
Do you really think that KR has any unique and wonderful insights on photography that people will eventually value ?

The other side is that when most credible people think something is rubbish, it usually is.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 08, 2013, 02:44:03 PM
Unlikely. So far Alan hasn't put any begging messages for PayPal donations to feed his kids all over his postings.

I ignore that part of his forum.   I have my limits of support, you know! 
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 08, 2013, 03:34:53 PM
I ignore that part of his forum. 
Forum ??
It's on every page of his web site. It's tacky, distasteful, desperate and not in anyway indicative of anyone 'successful'
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 08, 2013, 03:43:43 PM
That's one thing I agree with you.  I find it tacky too and annoying.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 08, 2013, 03:46:17 PM
Maybe there's hope yet you'll realise it's all rubbish.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: fredjeang2 on June 08, 2013, 04:08:00 PM
Maybe there's hope yet you'll realise it's all rubbish.

Paul, I think the problem goes way beyond the Rockwell style itself but on the web in general.
You were right I have to say, and all my apologies: I did a training at the national teevee, and yes...
the technical level is extremely high (really !), serious, and worth every minute.

And that's where I'd go. What I received, is just not available in internet. You worked at the BBC (or you're still working)
probably the best Teevee in Europe if not in the world. Those guys aren't doing public networking for the casual amateur.
Nor the high-end photographers I had the chance to work with in the past. They do not train anybody for free or give their craft
on air (generaly not for egoism but for lack of time. People who really know are generaly booked).

So, where is the real knowledge then ? There are of course people more serious than others on the web and good content,
but in the end, the ones who really work in the high-end aren't doing networking because they don't need to.

So when we talk about knowledge, maybe we should be aware of where are the limits the web can provide (publicaly I mean).
You won't find a Peter Lindberg doing a workshop explaining his set, or a Testino's retoucher doing a PS course,
or an Hollywood Alexa operator testing lenses for the wanabees, or a famous editor givin webinars...

The most serious I found so far in internet are things like that for ex: http://vimeo.com/50790832
4 hours video. Nobody knows this.
It's good and serious, but you really have to need that and the level to follow.
There are more good stuff in internet, but I found for example some really high-end FX artists, they hardly have
followers. Very few catch-up at those levels. So yes KR can be canibalized for being too superficial but then many many more websites too.

In a panorama where every new magic gear is the holly grail, where people are constantly talking about DR, high-iso noise
and sensor sizes as a end in itself, the really serious stuff don't attract anybody. I know a french site of the editor's association. They give
detailed reports of real set issues, some extremely technical but extremely usefull. Almost impossible to google it. You have to know it
to fall on the content. Now google
any of the motion networkers (that aren't working in the industry)  about the next versus camera pointing
a garden's fence and you'll have gazillion of followers with the bravos, whaos and brilliant comentaries...
And a lot of those have became famous. If people wants to eat Mc Donald's burger, we have Mc Donald's food, Donuts
and coca cola.
KR is just the tip of the iceberg. He made his business, good for him.

In that context, in what KR is so different than the general panorama the web provide, a part from some exceptions?

 
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: NikoJorj on June 08, 2013, 04:43:55 PM
<Off-topic rant>
A Hundred authors against Einstein
His theory was somehow hard to grasp (and still is), but Einstein was in agreement with his peers. Scientifically, I know only one (1) example of someone being right against the crowd, well ahead of its time - and he had luck (together with a rather astonishing intuition).
Scientific consensus does not really equate truth, but it is statistically well correlated (http://xkcd.com/552/) with it.

Quote
"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" —Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein[/i]
Yes : logically, one fault is enough to ruin a whole theory.
</Off-topic rant>
Just as well, you can't really trust someone who dismisses color management. ;D  
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 08, 2013, 05:53:27 PM
the ones who really work in the high-end aren't doing networking because they don't need to.
You seem to have missed that many REAL experts do give their expertise freely on the web.

As an example;
Andrew Rodney (digitaldog on LuLa) is one of the most respected experts on colour management. It doesn't matter if you're a complete novice or a serious competitor, Andrew gives expert help, patiently and politely, to anyone here who asks a sensible question. He'll even help those that aren't yet able to ask sensible question so that they can ask proper questions too.
Look at his web site, full of credible and detailed information, freely available, that if you have any interest in his subject can greatly enhance your knowledge, no requests for PayPal donations for dog food or whatever. It's perfect example of what can be good about the internet.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: fredjeang2 on June 08, 2013, 06:16:04 PM
You seem to have missed that many REAL experts do give their expertise freely on the web.

As an example;
Andrew Rodney (digitaldog on LuLa) is one of the most respected experts on colour management. It doesn't matter if you're a complete novice or a serious competitor, Andrew gives expert help, patiently and politely, to anyone here who asks a sensible question. He'll even help those that aren't yet able to ask sensible question so that they can ask proper questions too.
Look at his web site, full of credible and detailed information, freely available, that if you have any interest in his subject can greatly enhance your knowledge, no requests for PayPal donations for dog food or whatever. It's perfect example of what can be good about the internet.
I didn't miss that. Agree 100%. That's why I wrote "a part from some exceptions". This site is one, Creative Cow another etc... And some users of this site are truly pearls.

My point was that we are inundated of datas. We are datas consummers, and the average or included the desinformations abunds much more than the real serious stuff.
KR is not an isolated weired exception. That was my point.
Most of the time, the effectism or fun factor, or simply strong personalities sell more than the more discrete good content and people end to confund apples with oranges. That's the way our culture work,
the light, superficial and controvertial is generally more popular. It's a form of consumism. The serious material requires a different attitude.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: hjulenissen on June 09, 2013, 12:57:33 AM
My point was that we are inundated of datas. We are datas consummers, and the average or included the desinformations abunds much more than the real serious stuff.
KR is not an isolated weired exception. That was my point.
Most of the time, the effectism or fun factor, or simply strong personalities sell more than the more discrete good content and people end to confund apples with oranges. That's the way our culture work,
the light, superficial and controvertial is generally more popular. It's a form of consumism. The serious material requires a different attitude.
My education was (in my view) targeted at memorizing a large amount of facts.

I am hoping that my children will have an education that reflects that facts and "facts" are available at the press of a few buttons. What matters more than knowing the name of every US president is knowing how to be critical about your sources and how "facts" tend to be subjective (and significantly manipulated by a number of US presidents).

-h
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 09, 2013, 04:07:17 AM
Now here, we encroach onto dangerous ground. Remember this?


A Hundred authors against Einstein

A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (A Hundred authors against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included, however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein is reported to have said with irony, that one author alone would have been sufficient to refute him:

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" —Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein


The quotation is from Wikipedia, but is accurate nevertheless.

Jeremy

PS: don't think for a moment that I'm comparing KR with Einstein, or that I accept as true any of the obvious rubbish on his site. I'm just making the point that consensus doesn't necessarily equate to truth. Man-made climate change, anyone?


I have had a look again at all of the postings and I don't see Einstein as one of them. Therefore I conclude that this is taken out of context? ;) The biggest laugh is Alan describing him as a professional. He does get paid but if I was a professional photographer then I would be upset at being in the same category as him. It is good that at last Alan is conceding some ground with respect to his adoration of Ken. A sign of maturity?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 09, 2013, 04:37:42 AM
KR is not an isolated weired exception. That was my point.
I'm not so sure. Whilst I often come across sites that aren't exactly great, there are few others I've seen that are so poor.
KR seems to get a remarkable amount of attention considering the fluff and nonsense he publishes. I guess that those gullible enough to believe and trust his ramblings feel threatened and get defensive when confronted by more informed opinions, it's always difficult to admit you've been suckered.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2013, 11:12:44 AM
I'm not so sure. Whilst I often come across sites that aren't exactly great, there are few others I've seen that are so poor.
KR seems to get a remarkable amount of attention considering the fluff and nonsense he publishes. I guess that those gullible enough to believe and trust his ramblings feel threatened and get defensive when confronted by more informed opinions, it's always difficult to admit you've been suckered.

Again, after seven pages and several repeated requests for a proof of that "fluff and nonsense," none is given. Disagreeing with his opinion, style, or choices is not a proof. It seems to me that you guys equally feel "threatened and get defensive," responding with insults instead of proofs. There are a lot of people, here as well, who get "suckered" by experts' opinions they actually do not understand, but they believe if they align themselves with expert opinions, it will make them experts.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 09, 2013, 11:38:08 AM
repeated requests for a proof of that "fluff and nonsense," none is given.
Well Andrew's given enough already, but just sift through the http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/users-guide/index.htm
Here are some Ken quotes about the 5Dii

"No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.
Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are sharper pixel-by-pixel!
When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints."

"AF Microadjustment
Don't touch this.
If you have to ask how to set it, then you'll probably make it worse if you fiddle with this.
If you insist on playing with it, know that only about one lens in twenty needs any adjustment, and the results are only visible at large apertures. "

"Exposure Compensation
My 5D Mark II usually gives the best results without any exposure compensation."

Then there's Ken the technician http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
"I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files."

"Image quality is the same in JPG and raw."

I really can't be bothered with going through any more.
If you're the sort of person that thinks pages titled "FART for Fantastic Photos" is either clever or witty it's not worth further discussion.


Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 12:59:10 PM
Again, after seven pages and several repeated requests for a proof of that "fluff and nonsense," none is given.

That's ridiculous, come on. You can do better than that. Rhossydd and I and hjulenissen provided numerous examples of which apparently you and Alan wish to ignore.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2013, 01:56:09 PM
That's ridiculous, come on. You can do better than that...

Ok, then, let me try.

IF I wanted to dive deep into the intricacies of color management (CM), I would certainly choose to listen to Andrew Rodney (a.k.a digitaldog), Norman Koren, Jeff Schewe and the likes. Heck, I would even consider paying $400/h for such advice (not sure if the above mentioned guys charge that, but I've seen some CM experts do). I would also consider buying the latest and greatest of multi $K hardware and software, monitors, colorimeters, profiling devices, order custom-made profiles, make paper mills happy by using tons of expensive printing paper in the process of learning, go bold by tearing my hair every time my $K printer clogs, a new printer driver does not work any more with my setup, or my new computer's OS does not play well with my old drivers, etc. etc, etc. And just when I thought I learned enough for practical purposes, there would be a new version of something, and here we go again... At some point you realize you sold your soul to the CM devil, boarded a ship that only sails forward, there is no disembarking and no end of journey in sight.

Or,

I could have listened to KR, in which case I would have no CM issues at all. I could move on with my life, and concentrate on what I like the most, taking photographs, as opposed to measurbating in front of a computer all day long. I would set my camera to sRGB and jpeg, process my files minimally, if at all, upload them to the web which displays them as sRGB anyway, send them to labs that in mostly insist on sRGB. Good enough is good enough for me.  See? No woman (CM), no cry. :)


P.S. Unfortunately (or fortunately), I am already on that ship.

P.P.S. I use "you" and "I" in a rhetorical sense
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 02:01:12 PM
I could have listened to KR, in which case I would have no CM issues at all.

Wrong again. Unless you really do believe that ignorance is bliss. You'd also would believe the factually incorrect writings about color management Ken has stated.

He didn't say "Ignore all color management and just use sRGB", there's plenty of text in his piece that's flat out incorrect. No matter how you try to distill it, that's still the case. Only someone who understands the concepts of color management can skim the truth from the fiction but someone that doesn't know lumps everything he said as being correct. Much of what he wrote isn't correct.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2013, 02:14:46 PM
... He didn't say "Ignore all color management and just use sRGB"...

Here is what he said (emphasis mine):

Quote
sRGB is the world's default color space. Use it and everything looks great everywhere, all the time.

Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself. If you really know what you're doing and working in publishing, go right ahead and use it. If you have to ask, don't even try it.

If you're one of the few a full-time career professional photographers left standing and shoot for print, by all means shoot Adobe RGB, but if you're a very serious amateur, beware.

Sound pretty reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 02:28:54 PM
Here is what he said (emphasis mine):
Sound pretty reasonable to me.
Then you need to study color management a tad more.

It isn't the worlds default color space. I don't know there is such a thing. And it can look awful in many situations. Adobe RGB can be used without issue in many of the same situations (send me a tagged document in AdobeRGB, I'll have no issues printing it). The person handing to me doesn't have to know squat to do so. If you have to ask, you should get a good answer, not some dumbed down dribble. If you are a serious amateur, you're serious and not some moron who can't understand the proper use of Adobe RGB (1998). You're probably way, way too serious to be reading Ken's site. The sentence should read" if you're a very stupid amateur who has no desire to use your brain to understand about color and want to ignore how to produce a better quality image, keep reading this article".

But you cherry picked then missed even more of the egregious nonsense he wrote about color spaces which seems typical of KR's defenders.

Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2013, 02:37:07 PM
... send me a tagged document in AdobeRGB, I'll have no issues printing it...

Andrew, I am sure YOU would not have issues.

However, here is my experience: Canon at some point ran a campaign in which you send them a file and they send you back an 8x10 print on the printer they were promoting. They even made a point that you can send them either Adobe RGB or sRGB. Well, guess what? I took them at their word and sent them Adobe RGB. What I got back was undersaturated print. Had I sent them sRGB, no problem.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 02:57:03 PM
Look, the article is filled with complete nonsense and if you wish to go through them piece by piece, let's do so. I've 'cherry picked' a few sentences which anyone who has a clue about color management (and I figured you did), could point out is factually wrong including:

Quote
Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography
What is real photography?

Quote
Using Adobe RGB is one of the leading causes of colors not matching between monitor and print.
Nonsense. Leading cause? Let's not even go into display calibration, in Ken's mind, sRGB doesn't require it.

Quote
Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself.
So again, handing off Adobe RGB to someone else doesn’t count, silly.

Quote
Adobe RGB requires special software and painstaking workflow not to screw it up. Make one mistake anyplace and you get dull colors, or worse. You cannot use Adobe RGB on the internet or for email or conventional photo lab printing. If you do, the colors are duller.
Sure, blame Adobe RGB and not the non color managed app. You do realize that sRGB outside an ICC aware app has no guarantee of being seen correctly?

Quote
sRGB is the world standard for digital images, printing and the Internet.
Pure nonsense. Certainly for print (and I'm counting ALL possible print work).

Quote
Use sRGB and you'll get great, accurate colors everywhere all the time.
Again not true. No further comment necessary it's such a silly statement painted with such a wide brush.

Quote
sRGB uses ITU BT Rec. 709 primaries and a gamma of 2.2, same as most kinds of HDTV.
For the guy who 'invented some color invention' I couldn't find reference to, he's off a bit (Rec 709 doesn't use the same "gamma" encoding).

Quote
Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file.
Squeezes color thus they are duller? Come on.

Quote
If you have the right software to re-expand the colors…
Re-expand the colors?

Quote
Web browsers don't have, and print labs rarely have, the right software to read Adobe RGB
My web browser does, my labs do. Everything exported from Aperture is Adobe RGB (1998) as one example.

Quote
Adobe RGB may be able to represent a slightly larger range of colors, but no screen or print material I've used can show this broader range…
Slightly larger range of colors? According to ColorThink, Adobe RGB has a gamut volume of 1,207,502 while sRGB has a gamut volume of 832,478. No screen or print can show it? You are actually buying that?

Quote
Worse, if you're the sort of vacuum-operating geek who wants to shoot Adobe RGB because you read about it in a magazine article, did you realize that because the colors are compressed into a smaller range that there is more chroma quantization noise when the file is opened again?
Not even worth a comment!

Quote
Keeping people lost and confused sells more magazines and more new equipment, which supports magazine advertising. That's why you see so many articles on Adobe RGB elsewhere.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black (confuse then ask for money). Is this guy serious? No, some just don't get his sense of humor. If you believe that, I have ocean front properly to sell you in New Mexico.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2013, 03:37:59 PM
... if you wish to go through them piece by piece, let's do so...

Ha! But that's exactly what my fictitious character (the one I play devil's advocate for) is not interested in doing. I do not want to be sucked into CM minutia, parse every sentence and debate Rec. 709. I'd leave that to experts and geeks. All I need to know is that if I stick to sRGB I can forget about all that.

As for dumbing down, even our government feels it is necessary "for our own good" - remember the justification for Irag war and subsequent admission it was dumbed down, twisted, etc., but "the intention was noble."

That's why I agree with Ken: if you do not know what you are doing, stick with sRGB. If you want to learn so that you know what you are doing (and not everyone feels the need to do so), by all means follow Andrew Rodney at al.

When my friends ask me what camera to buy, I do not tell them get Cambo RC400 series, Schneider glass and IQ280 back. I tell them: "Stick to your iPhone." I am sure that you can prove me wrong, piece by piece, as to how the Cambo is so much better than iPhone, though. :)
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 03:59:07 PM
Ha! But that's exactly what my fictitious character (the one I play devil's advocate for) is not interested in doing. I do not want to be sucked into CM minutia, parse every sentence and debate Rec. 709. I'd leave that to experts and geeks. All I need to know is that if I stick to sRGB I can forget about all that.
Which would be wrong. You can ignore the facts. You can ignore the incorrect statements he's made. You can ignore that sticking with sRGB is all you need to know. You can subscribe to ignorance is bliss. I thought you were a bit smarter than that but I guess I was wrong.

Ken has made statements that are incorrect and if you want to accept that Rec 709 and sRGB are the same, or ignore it because it's over your head, that doesn't change the facts a lick.

What you really should write is this: I do not want to be sucked into CM minutia, parse every sentence and debate Rec. 709. because I don't want to be told I'm wrong.

Quote
As for dumbing down, even our government feels it is necessary "for our own good" - remember the justification for Irag war and subsequent admission it was dumbed down, twisted, etc., but "the intention was noble."
And now you subscribe to two wrongs do make a right. You can post sites that equally have incorrect info about color management till the cows come home, that doesn’t make what they or Ken writes correct (because they are not). You can believe the earth is 6000 years old and we used to romp around with dinosaurs. You can believe the earth is flat. All you've done then is convince me and other's you're a thinking processes are moronic.

Quote
When my friends ask me what camera to buy, I do not tell them get Cambo RC400 series, Schneider glass and IQ280 back. I tell them: "Stick to your iPhone." I am sure that you can prove me wrong, piece by piece, as to how the Cambo is so much better than iPhone, though. :)
You again missed the point which I have to assume is on purpose. IF the argument is, the Cambo and iPhone both create an image, fine. If you want to tell your friends the iPhone and Cambo produce the same image size, quality and do the same functionality, you're an idiot and I pity any friend that would take you seriously. As I said, you're welcome to your own opinions as is Ken. Neither of you are welcome to your own facts, especially when the facts prove you are flat out wrong and can be proven to be wrong. How can any intelligent person dismiss facts? How can lazy, dumb people ignore them? They can't help themselves. BIG difference!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 09, 2013, 04:06:49 PM
That's why I agree with Ken: if you do not know what you are doing, stick with sRGB. If you want to learn so that you know what you are doing (and not everyone feels the need to do so), by all means follow Andrew Rodney at al.
But that's not what he says. It's dumb unqualified instruction.
Relying on sRGB JPG acquisition throws away a lot of valuable data that one day the photographer may come to regret.
If you want to aim for mediocrity KR will help you get there.

Quote
When my friends ask me what camera to buy, I do not tell them get Cambo RC400 series, Schneider glass and IQ280 back. I tell them: "Stick to your iPhone." I am sure that you can prove me wrong, piece by piece, as to how the Cambo is so much better than iPhone, though. :)
If someone asks what camera to buy, telling them to buy a phone is pretty poor advice. If they're aspirational enough to want a camera it doesn't have to be a professional bitsa, just a sensible P&S would be far better starting point.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Colorado David on June 09, 2013, 04:09:31 PM
http://xkcd.com/386/
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 04:09:44 PM
In case the puff piece on sRGB  isn't enough, here's more:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/color-management/is-for-wimps.htm

Quote
Color profiles and color spaces are for dweebs. You don't need them.

No photographer needs to do color management manually any more. Color management is already built into everything by designers who know what they're doing.

Mess with profiles and color spaces and you'll probably get bad results. Leave it all alone, and you'll get great results.

Ditto for people still wasting their time with inkjet printers, which went obsolete back in 2004.

I keep telling everyone to forget profiles, AdobeRGB and inkjets and just use defaults and any discount store for prints.

Yes, my monitor is calibrated, but my monitor has nothing to do with this.

Prints and files have no right to match this well.

Shoot at defaults: Use JPG. Most printers, like the Agfa and Fuji, convert any other file formats to JPGs as they are ingested for moving around and queuing for print. These machines print hundreds of files at a time, so they can't let themselves get clogged up by boneheads who use huge TIFF and BMP files.

Don't waste any time calibrating anything; today's printers, cameras and scanners are calibrated well enough out-of-the-box.

It keeps going with more nonsense but I barfed on my keyboard at this point and could not go on. Got to love the stuff about Ink Jet prints and Huge TIFF's and BMP files. IF my intent were to write something about color management and imaging that was 180 degree's from fact, I couldn’t come up with anything more nonsensical than the above. RK is the Steven King of imaging science fiction and as scary!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2013, 04:16:26 PM
... What you really should write is this: I do not want to be sucked into CM minutia, parse every sentence and debate Rec. 709. because I don't want to be told I'm wrong.

So, if I say "I do not want to be sucked into rocket science minutia..." the only explanation you could come up with is that "I don't want to be told I'm wrong"? There is no possibility that I am simply not interested in rocket science? That I could not care less if I am right or wrong, because I could not care less about rocket science?

Quote
... IF the argument is, the Cambo and iPhone both create an image, fine. If you want to tell your friends the iPhone and Cambo produce the same image size, quality and do the same functionality, you're an idiot and I pity any friend that would take you seriously...

I never said that. I said, that given I know my friends, what they shoot, and how much they know (and CARE) about photography, where 99.9% their photographs end up (Facebook), that their phone is good enough for them. That going for any more serious camera, even p&s, let alone Cambo at al, would be a serious overkill and create much more trouble for them than it is worth.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2013, 04:22:31 PM
... Relying on sRGB JPG acquisition throws away a lot of valuable data that one day the photographer may come to regret.

Once again, you are making an assumption that every photographer's wet dream is to become a measurbator.

Quote
... If someone asks what camera to buy, telling them to buy a phone is pretty poor advice. If they're aspirational enough to want a camera it doesn't have to be a professional bitsa, just a sensible P&S would be far better starting point.

Couple of years ago, I would have agreed. And at that time, I WAS recommending p&s to my friends. But just check the world-wide statistics: p&s sales are nose diving. Care to guess why? Because for most normal people, and most of their needs, today's iPhones are GOOD ENOUGH. Heck, they are even good enough for news organizations, as of lately.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 09, 2013, 04:25:41 PM
So, if I say "I do not want to be sucked into rocket science minutia..."
The important thing to realise  here is that CM, or shooting with RAW, isn't a case of 'ignore it' or 'get a degree in rocket science'.
Like most things there's a middle way where making the right settings can make a significant difference to the quality of results without having to get over involved in the science by just knowing enough to make informed decisions.
Ken just shouts "Don't care, give me cash"
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 09, 2013, 04:41:28 PM
The important thing to realise  here is that CM, or shooting with RAW, isn't a case of 'ignore it' or 'get a degree in rocket science'.
Like most things there's a middle way where making the right settings can make a significant difference to the quality of results without having to get over involved in the science by just knowing enough to make informed decisions...

And this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I am sorry, but in my view, there is no middle way. You can't just choose "the right settings" that will, by itself result in better quality. If you choose RAW setting on your camera, you are initially going to end up with a WORSE initial result than with jpeg. Only when you embark on processing that RAW you might end up with something better (which, again, presupposes that you care about that difference and that you know what you are doing). However, to do so, you really, really need to know what you are doing. And for that, you need to dive deep into the intricacies of Lightroom, Camera RAW, Photoshop, CM, attend seminars, read books (where I certainly highly recommend Andrew Rodney, Jeff Schewe at al), attend workshops, and perhaps years later you might say you are beginning to get an idea that one day you might know what you are doing. If you do not believe me, just look at some post-processing monstrosities newbies post in our Critique forum.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 05:05:54 PM
So, if I say "I do not want to be sucked into rocket science minutia..." the only explanation you could come up with is that "I don't want to be told I'm wrong"?
Exactly! The so called minutia is still fact based. You can ignore the facts, doesn't change them. What Ken writes is factually wrong. Saying it's minutia doesn't make it right. This topic is not about whether what he writes is minutia or super important to a photographer. The topic is about his writings which very often are flat out wrong.

You can say the Holocaust is in your opinion minutia. You can say the Holocaust didn't happen. Not caring about history or considering it minutia is one thing. Saying the history didn't happen is flat out wrong. See the difference? Facts don't stop being facts because you or Ken's readers feel it's not worth grasping. There's no excuse for dismissing the Holocaust because you find it inconsequential and worse, defending someone who would write it didn't happen! 

Quote
I said, that given I know my friends, what they shoot, and how much they know (and CARE) about photography, where 99.9% their photographs end up (Facebook), that their phone is good enough for them.
I have no issue with that! That's your opinion. I have an issue if you tell your friends the iPhone and the Cambo are the same, they are not. You simply don't seem to be able to separate the differences in opinions that don't need any facts versus telling your friends things that are just incorrect. If Ken wants to write that the Canon is better than the Nikon and not provide any reasons, I'll take that as an opinion and based on who wrote it, file it where it belongs. If Ken writes that a Canon is better than a Nikon because of the location of the assembly plant, or that those people who build them are closer to god, or that only it's a better system based on sorting camera makers names alphabetically, I'm going to call him out on that. It's nonsense.

Quote
Once again, you are making an assumption that every photographer's wet dream is to become a measurbator.
What a completely silly sentence to write! There's no assumption here about what any or all photographers dream about! It's about telling photographers something that's true or lying to them. Suggesting that someone who is interested in facts about a technology is a measurebator is ridiculous and you're making yourself look foolish with such language. If you continue on this quest, I and I suspect others will have to ignore you as a troll. Why should anyone accept a flat out lie or misunderstanding as acceptable because it would make them a measurebator whatever that means.

If Ken writes that the distance from California to New York is 3 light years, we are to accept that as fact and if we instead use actual facts to get to the true distance, we're just stupid measurebator's? Come on, get a grip man.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 05:16:48 PM
If you choose RAW setting on your camera, you are initially going to end up with a WORSE initial result than with jpeg.

Bullcrap! Maybe you end up with raw's that are initially worse but I know how to use my raw converter and load presets and profiles so that's not the case.

Tell you what, you select Raw+JPEG, set the camera for Daylight and shoot under tungsten. Take both into a converter. Like that JPEG? Try 'fixing' it too.

Maybe you had to much to drink and/or smoke last night, you're making yourself look silly here.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: opgr on June 09, 2013, 05:22:57 PM
You can say the Holocaust is in your opinion minutia. You can say the Holocaust didn't happen. Not caring about history or considering it minutia is one thing. Saying the history didn't happen is flat out wrong. See the difference? Facts don't stop being facts because you or Ken's readers feel it's not worth grasping. There's no excuse for dismissing the Holocaust because you find it inconsequential and worse, defending someone who would write it didn't happen! 

You're overstepping a line here, and I strongly urge you to retract your analogy, take a deep breath and come back to this discussion when you have come to your senses. 

Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Rhossydd on June 09, 2013, 05:23:18 PM
And this is where we fundamentally disagree.
I am sorry, but in my view, there is no middle way.
That you fail to accept that there is anything between the extremes of levels of knowledge says everything.

Anyone new to this thread needs to understand that photography has a range of levels of competence and understanding. It's quite possible to progress from complete novice to expert in a gradual process, it's not just one huge unattainable step to "rocket science" only
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 09, 2013, 05:35:35 PM
You're overstepping a line here, and I strongly urge you to retract your analogy, take a deep breath and come back to this discussion when you have come to your senses. 

Nope, not going to happen (a retraction), as there are some seriously stupid, closed minded people who actually believe what I wrote is true and can't grasp a fact based reality.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: michael on June 09, 2013, 06:03:26 PM
Why are people wasting any time discussing Ken Rockewell's nonsense? Much of his writings are a blight on the photographic community and are just plain factually incorrect. Not just misguided opinion, but plain wrong. When cornered he bleats..."Just kidding".

You might as well be debating with a Flat Earther. Let's move on from giving his useless blather even one more moment of exposure here.

Michael
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Tony Jay on June 09, 2013, 11:59:44 PM
Why are people wasting any time discussing Ken Rockewell's nonsense? Much of his writings are a blight on the photographic community and are just plain factually incorrect. Not just misguided opinion, but plain wrong. When cornered he bleats..."Just kidding".

You might as well be debating with a Flat Earther. Let's move on from giving his useless blather even one more moment of exposure here.

Michael
Amen!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Bryan Conner on June 10, 2013, 12:39:39 AM
Why are people wasting any time discussing Ken Rockewell's nonsense? Much of his writings are a blight on the photographic community and are just plain factually incorrect. Not just misguided opinion, but plain wrong. When cornered he bleats..."Just kidding".

You might as well be debating with a Flat Earther. Let's move on from giving his useless blather even one more moment of exposure here.

Michael

I agree 100%.  Plus, your post made me laugh out loud.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: hjulenissen on June 10, 2013, 06:23:53 AM
Once again, you are making an assumption that every photographer's wet dream is to become a measurbator.
I think that this is a derogatory term that tends to cause derailing of discussions.

-h
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 10, 2013, 07:08:44 AM
Unfortunately this thread hasn't been the poster's "finest hour" and possibly he will think again about his contribution?  :(
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 10, 2013, 11:02:22 AM
I think that this is a derogatory term that tends to cause derailing of discussions.

-h

Guess who invented the term ;)


P.S. Btw, I consider myself a card-carrying member of the measurbators club
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 10, 2013, 11:16:40 AM
Unfortunately this thread hasn't been the poster's "finest hour" and possibly he will think again about his contribution?  :(

Not sure if you are referring to me, but if you are, I will gladly admit I've been "rethinking" my participation (not contribution) even before I jumped into the fray. I knew perfectly well that walking into a church and telling people there is no God, is, as a minimum, futile. And yet, against my better judgment, I did it, hoping, (in vain, as it turns out) that we can at least tolerate, if not respect, people with different opinions and approaches than our own. The amount of venom and name calling I got in return speaks more about the "strength" of your arguments than the arguments themselves.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: NancyP on June 10, 2013, 05:06:16 PM
Who gives a sh*t about autofocus on macro lenses? They aren't designed for fast AF - due to the long focus throw. "Some" AF is handy if you are using the lens as a short-telephoto general purpose lens, and in most conditions the typical s-l-o-w AF is fine, particularly if you help the lens by using the focus limiter.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 10, 2013, 05:24:32 PM
Not sure if you are referring to me, but if you are, I will gladly admit I've been "rethinking" my participation (not contribution) even before I jumped into the fray. I knew perfectly well that walking into a church and telling people there is no God, is, as a minimum, futile. And yet, against my better judgment, I did it, hoping, (in vain, as it turns out) that we can at least tolerate, if not respect, people with different opinions and approaches than our own. The amount of venom and name calling I got in return speaks more about the "strength" of your arguments than the arguments themselves.

I'm glad you jumped into the fray Slobodan so I wouldn't have been alone.  Thanks.  Alan
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: stamper on June 11, 2013, 03:47:12 AM
Thinking of getting married? ;) ;D  Smiley's added to convey a humorous intent. :)
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: jjj on June 11, 2013, 04:13:11 AM
Why are people wasting any time discussing Ken Rockewell's nonsense? Much of his writings are a blight on the photographic community and are just plain factually incorrect. Not just misguided opinion, but plain wrong. When cornered he bleats..."Just kidding".
He's Mister Cop-Out with that line.

Quote
You might as well be debating with a Flat Earther. Let's move on from giving his useless blather even one more moment of exposure here.
He's like the photography equivalent of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper with their disregard for facts, hypocrisy and controversial nonsense - but it's the newspaper website with the highest no. of page views in world now apparently.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: fredjeang2 on June 11, 2013, 06:16:17 AM
He's Mister Cop-Out with that line.
He's like the photography equivalent of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper with their disregard for facts, hypocrisy and controversial nonsense - but it's the newspaper website with the highest no. of page views in world now apparently.

You know what's the most viewed
Teevee chanel here?
Tv5
You know who owns tv5?
Berlusconi...
Have you ever seen the content they
Provide?
Check it out...
It's worth
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: NikoJorj on June 11, 2013, 06:37:05 AM
Still lurking in case a few more wagons happen to ride into the crash site and dismantel...

You know who owns tv5?
Berlusconi...
You sure? Wiki says something else (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV5_Monde#Capital), and Berlusconi did own LaCinq a while ago, which was ohyeahgodawwwwful, exactly the kind of please-do-not-use-your-brain content at the core of the topic (TV channels are usual suspects for that), but pushed to the extreme...
I don't watch any teevee since two decades and so won't comment on TV5.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: fredjeang2 on June 11, 2013, 11:54:04 AM
Still lurking in case a few more wagons happen to ride into the crash site and dismantel...
You sure? Wiki says something else (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV5_Monde#Capital), and Berlusconi did own LaCinq a while ago, which was ohyeahgodawwwwful, exactly the kind of please-do-not-use-your-brain content at the core of the topic (TV channels are usual suspects for that), but pushed to the extreme...
I don't watch any teevee since two decades and so won't comment on TV5.
Niko, not the french tv5, the spanish one.
I'm french but currently live in Madrid.

Spanish tv5 belongs to mediaset that belongs
To fininvest that belongs to Berlusconi.

You have no idea about the level of crapperies
Non-sense, polemic, low profile programs, I
Mean you have to see it to beleive it.
Verdict: high audience.


Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on June 11, 2013, 12:09:59 PM
Thinking of getting married? ;) ;D

Well, since Ken is already married, I had to move on... ;D
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: kencameron on June 11, 2013, 05:54:11 PM
Nope, not going to happen (a retraction), as there are some seriously stupid, closed minded people who actually believe what I wrote is true and can't grasp a fact based reality.
It's not about whether or not the analogy is accurate. There is a view that using the holocaust analogy in (relatively) trivial circumstances trivializes the holocaust. That was certainly my reaction when I read your post. I am sure it wasn't your intention.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on June 11, 2013, 06:03:03 PM
It's not about whether or not the analogy is accurate. There is a view that using the holocaust analogy in (relatively) trivial circumstances trivializes the holocaust. That was certainly my reaction when I read your post. I am sure it wasn't your intention.

There's nothing trivial about the holocaust or people who don't believe it, or people who can't fathom the idea of fact based reality which some here subscribe. And I'll further point out that I have distant relatives who lost their lives in holocaust! Maybe you do, maybe you don't but don't read into my analogy I believe this is trivial.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: kencameron on June 11, 2013, 06:30:49 PM
There's nothing trivial about the holocaust or people who don't believe it, or people who can't fathom the idea of fact based reality which some here subscribe. And I'll further point out that I have distant relatives who lost their lives in holocaust! Maybe you do, maybe you don't but don't read into my analogy I believe this is trivial.
I wasn't reading any such thing into your analogy, as an attentive reading of my post will make clear. The view I am alluding to that proper respect for the exceptional gravity of the holocaust makes it unseemly to refer to it simply to make an argument about Ken Rockwell, or any other matter as relatively unimportant as that. It is a fact that some people will react in that way, as I did. Doing so doesn't imply anything about your views on the holocaust. What is at issue is your choice of analogy. For me, it came across as "over the top" and hence as detracting from the force of your argument (with which I otherwise agree).
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: fredjeang2 on June 11, 2013, 07:08:31 PM
I think we should pattent this thread and
Sell the all content to a Berlusconi tv.
They would buy it.
With the benefits we all share,
We all go to a still workshop
Given by KR.

Michael included who needs to pulish
His skills in jpeg capture
And sRGB printings.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: NikoJorj on June 11, 2013, 10:25:41 PM
Nice conclusion!
And sorry for my mistake - yes I've seen Berlusconi in action with LaCinq. F***godawful.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Alan Klein on June 11, 2013, 10:42:08 PM
Wow.  We're up to ten pages!  We'll be sending his kids to college.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: smthopr on July 20, 2013, 03:21:24 PM
I've just browsed through this thread purely for entertainment.

I also read KRs blog for the same reason. He's a professional blogger, not a pro photographer. He occasionally creates a nice image and sometimes slips in some profound thoughts about photography.

He's a photography enthusiast writing for his peers. Not for the serious photographers here on LL.

His reviews are hardly scientific, but if enjoys some piece of equipment, maybe there's something to it?

Anyways guys, thanks for helping me while a way half an hour today!!!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: TimG on July 25, 2013, 09:41:10 PM
This entire thread can be summed up in one word: MONEY.

Jeff, Andrew, Ken are all...wait for it...greedy assholes.

They each have something to gain from the success of their respective websites/products/services etc. They want you to drink their Kool Aid and have spent the better part of their careers getting people to listen to them and buy their stuff. be it books, workshops, or whatever.

This is nothing more than a pissing match with Andrew and Jeff (who are business partners) against Ken.  Ken says stuff that makes people question whether or not they should buy into what Andrew or Jeff are selling.

MODERATOR's NOTE: and you are...wait for it...banned from further posts
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Bryan Conner on July 26, 2013, 12:25:24 AM
This entire thread can be summed up in one word: MONEY.

Jeff, Andrew, Ken are all...wait for it...greedy assholes.

They each have something to gain from the success of their respective websites/products/services etc. They want you to drink their Kool Aid and have spent the better part of their careers getting people to listen to them and buy their stuff. be it books, workshops, or whatever.

This is nothing more than a pissing match with Andrew and Jeff (who are business partners) against Ken.  Ken says stuff that makes people question whether or not they should buy into what Andrew or Jeff are selling.



Hmmmm.....how do you explain the fact that Andrew and Jeff both share their knowledge and advice here on this FREE forum?  They both answer questions very frequently.  I think you are out of line for calling anyone "greedy a**holes".  If you ever have worked and gotten paid money for your work, then you are absolutely no different than Andrew, or Jeff.  And, by the way, I do not think that this is a pissing match.  Jeff and Andrew have simply stated that Ken Rockwell puts out a lot of questionable (at the least) information.  Ken Rockwell himself states on his own webpage (in the About section) that some of the information on his website is a hoax and to not believe everything that he says.  Jeff and Andrew are only agreeing with Ken.  I think that Ken is absolutely correct on this topic.  I trust him in that respect.
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: ErikKaffehr on July 26, 2013, 01:00:43 AM
Hi,

Look here, this is a personal attack and does not belong on a site like this.

Neither Andrew nor Jeff use this forums for selling their books but for sharing their knowledge.

Best regards
Erik


This entire thread can be summed up in one word: MONEY.

Jeff, Andrew, Ken are all...wait for it...greedy assholes.

They each have something to gain from the success of their respective websites/products/services etc. They want you to drink their Kool Aid and have spent the better part of their careers getting people to listen to them and buy their stuff. be it books, workshops, or whatever.

This is nothing more than a pissing match with Andrew and Jeff (who are business partners) against Ken.  Ken says stuff that makes people question whether or not they should buy into what Andrew or Jeff are selling.


Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: Schewe on July 26, 2013, 01:03:23 AM
Ken says stuff that makes people question whether or not they should buy into what Andrew or Jeff are selling.

Got any proof that Ken is right and Andrew and I are wrong? Anything? Something?
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: SunnyUK on July 26, 2013, 04:16:35 AM
This entire thread can be summed up in one word: MONEY.

Jeff, Andrew, Ken are all...wait for it...greedy assholes.

They each have something to gain from the success of their respective websites/products/services etc. They want you to drink their Kool Aid and have spent the better part of their careers getting people to listen to them and buy their stuff. be it books, workshops, or whatever.


I guess you think the same about our host Michael who promotes his $15k trip to Antarctica on this website?

In fact... you could say it about any professional endeavour. People do stuff in order to get money so they can buy food and put a roof over their families' heads. It's not greedy. It's survival. IMHO the fact that someone has been able to make an income year after year doing something makes me trust that he or she might actually know something about it. I'm far more weary of fly-by-night websites, training courses, etc, which pops up, pretends to be the bees' knees, and then disappears after 12 months when the hobbyist running them decides to spend more time on his or her real job.

It's not being a greedy *****, it's being a realist!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: digitaldog on July 26, 2013, 09:27:03 AM
Jeff, Andrew, Ken are all...wait for it...greedy assholes.

Brought to us by yet another anonymous poster (no wonder), who has nothing to add and apparently doesn't make any money (trust fund hippie?).

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Title: Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
Post by: michael on September 05, 2013, 09:13:40 AM
This thread has been closed and TimG has been banned.