Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses  (Read 123957 times)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5928
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #40 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?
Logged

Jeff Myers

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #41 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?
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5928
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #42 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.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8808
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2013, 03:06:56 PM »

Barbarians at the gate?

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9764
    • Echophoto
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #44 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.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11539
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #45 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.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Rand47

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 772
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #46 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.  And here.

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

« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 11:31:59 PM by Rand47 »
Logged
Rand Scott Adams

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5928
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #48 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 (which may or may not have come from PT Barnum). I guess Jeff M. may be a sucker :~)
Logged

Fine_Art

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1173
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #49 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.
Logged

David Hufford

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 114
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #50 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.
Logged
*Never fall in love with anything that can't love you back*

mgear

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #51 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.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1089
    • Flicker photos
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #52 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. 
Logged

Richowens

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 887
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #53 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.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11539
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #54 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.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1089
    • Flicker photos
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #55 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.
Logged

Jason DiMichele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
    • Jason DiMichele - Fine Art Photographer and Printer
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #56 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!
Logged
Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer and Printer
www.jasondimichele.com

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1089
    • Flicker photos
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #57 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. 
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4396
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #58 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?

Rhossydd

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2349
    • http://www.paulholman.com
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #59 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10   Go Up