Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses  (Read 124474 times)

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1090
    • Flicker photos
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #60 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. 
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11663
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #61 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).
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Jason DiMichele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 165
    • Jason DiMichele - Fine Art Photographer and Printer
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #62 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!
Logged
Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer and Printer
www.jasondimichele.com

Michael West

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 516
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #63 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.
Logged

RobertJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 656
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #64 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.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8907
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #65 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.

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4489
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #66 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. ;)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 8907
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #67 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 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).

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11663
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #68 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.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4489
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #69 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. :(

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1090
    • Flicker photos
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #70 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.
Logged

Wolfman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 191
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #71 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
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4489
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #72 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?

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11663
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #73 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.
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9829
    • Echophoto
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #74 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.

NikoJorj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1057
    • http://nikojorj.free.fr/
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #75 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.
Logged
Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1090
    • Flicker photos
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #76 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.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 11663
    • http://digitaldog.net/
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #77 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!
Logged
Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5965
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #78 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 (who has way more than half a friggin' clue) or Bruce Lindbloom 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?
Logged

fredjeang2

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1061
    • on YouTube
Re: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses
« Reply #79 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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 05:42:28 AM by fredjeang2 »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10   Go Up