Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Ken Rockwell  (Read 31338 times)

Scott O.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 315
    • Photography by Scott and Joyce
Ken Rockwell
« on: February 15, 2012, 04:53:41 pm »

I read Ken Rockwell daily and find his writing generally illuminating and even sometimes useful.  But his reputation was not enhanced today when he wrote on his daily blog (www.kenrockwell.com) "Michael Fatali, among the world's greatest photographic artists".  This is the same Michael Fatali who was banned from Arches National Park because he lit a small fire under Delicate Arch to get some interesting reflections.  I have been in his gallery in Springdale, UT (just outside Zion NP), met him, and enjoyed looking at his images.  But his fire stunt is inexcusable under any circumstances and immediately took him off my list of photographers who I admire...  Ken, there are many other photographers who deserve your praise and could be used to illustrate your point.

Scott O.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 315
    • Photography by Scott and Joyce
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2012, 07:06:16 pm »

Caravaggio was a murderer but I'm keeping him on my list.

Gosh, was he an environmental photographer?  I think you are comparing apples and grapefruit!  ???

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2012, 09:15:01 pm »

... immediately took him off my list of photographers who I admire..."

Stop the presses!!! The world is dying to know who you admire and who is on/off your list!

It has become extremely annoying not being able to speak about Fatali's work without some small-minded, "holier than the Pope" guy coming up with that absolutely idiotic comment about the Arch fire. He did it, it was an unfortunate accident, he paid the price (steep), it was years ago, so get over it, people. It is his photography we are talking about today (absolutely stunning, btw).

Scott O.

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 315
    • Photography by Scott and Joyce
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2012, 10:10:52 pm »

Stop the presses!!! The world is dying to know who you admire and who is on/off your list!

It has become extremely annoying not being able to speak about Fatali's work without some small-minded, "holier than the Pope" guy coming up with that absolutely idiotic comment about the Arch fire. He did it, it was an unfortunate accident, he paid the price (steep), it was years ago, so get over it, people. It is his photography we are talking about today (absolutely stunning, btw).


Boy Slobodan, you are certainly a sarcastic twit.  "The world is dying to know..."?  "small minded"?  "Holier than the Pope"?  "Idiotic comment"?  "Unfortunate accident"?  Been studying your thesaurus?  Taken lessons from Don Rickles?  If you presume to start a dialogue, kindly do so with a bit more civility.  And fyi, he set 4 fires, 2 in Canyonlands and 2 in Arches.  As I said, I have met him, admired work in his gallery, and as I haven't said, know someone very well who worked for him.  I can assure you that he is in no way the kind of photographer I would look up to.  I think KW could have easily come up with a better example.

tim wolcott

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 688
    • http://www.galleryoftheamericanlandscape.com
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #4 on: February 16, 2012, 12:53:29 am »

I have to agree, he did it not do it by accident.  He just thought he could do anything he wanted because he was fatali and that was Fatal. 

Holier than know come on.  When someone does this and I get confronted by a park ranger at Waldon's Pond who wants me to do extra crap, because, as he said I have a pro camera.  He even brought up fatali's name.  Remember the park world is  a small world.  To make a long story short, I quickly said I'm not him and since there was nothing posted at the entry.  He had no right to ask me to fill out a special permit.  He then proceeded to try to grab my equipment and force me to go with him after I had been there for 3.5 hours waiting for the light.  I quickly said if you touch my gear I was going to throw you in Wyman's meadow pond.  There 2 old guys there listening to it also told him to leave.  But later after I finished I went up and filed a complaint on the park ranger.  But we all are being faced with more regulations put on us every time someone does something stupid that makes the headlines. 

But I will always say to every park and park ranger the same laws must apply to all, not just photographers.  If photographers need to get special permits than so shall Writers, painters.  After all we all are making money when photographing a park.  I've always won the argument because discrimination cannot be tolerated.

WE all MUST STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHTS!!!
Logged

stamper

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5882
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2012, 04:19:04 am »

Wow. In the space of six posts Ken Rockwell, Fatali, - whoever he is - Caravaggio, apples and grapefruit, Slobodan, the Pope, Don Rickles, park rangers and environmental photographers have all got panned. Now that must be a record for Lula? :)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #6 on: February 16, 2012, 04:41:06 am »

Wow. In the space of six posts Ken Rockwell, Fatali, - whoever he is - Caravaggio, apples and grapefruit, Slobodan, the Pope, Don Rickles, park rangers and environmental photographers have all got panned. Now that must be a record for Lula? :)


Wot! No Maggie? Wonder what Malvinas Tk11 will provide historians - maybe a little fire under some friggin' rocks. Hmm... bbqs at Stonehenge come to mind.

Rob C

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2012, 01:19:58 pm »

Mentioning Ken Rockwell on a photography forum is the equivalent of mentioning gun control or abortion on any other forum. Fatali coming up in photography conversations is our version of Godwin's Law.

Sorry, Slobodan, you lost :P

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2012, 04:28:45 pm »

Well, Harri, pardon me for not being totally versed in the vigilante justice of the www (Wild West World), i.e., Godwin's Law, so enlighten me please: is the first one to bring the frown-upon subject to lose or is it the one who responds to it? ;)

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2012, 04:45:29 pm »

Well, Harri, pardon me for not being totally versed in the vigilante justice of the www (Wild West World), i.e., Godwin's Law, so enlighten me please: is the first one to bring the frown-upon subject to lose or is it the one who responds to it? ;)

The answer from the dictionary:

Quote
When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Godwin's Law has effectively forfieted [sic] the argument.

and encycloepaeidiae:

Quote
...the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the [one-that-shalt-not-be-named] has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress

I'm just the messenger.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 04:48:06 pm by feppe »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2012, 05:01:03 pm »

In which case it would be OP who mentioned it first, thus losing even before the debate started? ;) In that case no thread should ever start containing words "Fatali" and "Rockwell"?

P.S. You might have noticed that I treat the said law as rather silly, but I am just playing along.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2012, 05:12:06 pm »

Mentioning Ken Rockwell on a photography forum is the equivalent of mentioning gun control or abortion on any other forum. Fatali coming up in photography conversations is our version of Godwin's Law.

Sorry, Slobodan, you lost :P




I didn't know that; any other things one should avoid?

Just asking... no desire to be an outlaw - too fatigued.

Rob C

 

feppe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2906
  • Oh this shows up in here!
    • Harri Jahkola Photography
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2012, 05:12:35 pm »

In which case it would be OP who mentioned it first, thus losing even before the debate started? ;) In that case no thread should ever start containing words "Fatali" and "Rockwell"?

I think it's more of a case that this thread does not exist, and that we are just in some alternate universe.

Quote
P.S. You might have noticed that I treat the said law as rather silly, but I am just playing along.

How dare you mock the internets? Internet is serious business!

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2012, 06:24:11 pm »

Mentioning Ken Rockwell on a photography forum is the equivalent of mentioning gun control or abortion on any other forum.

Agreed! And Ken would have it no other way. That’s why it is often best to ignore him despite some useful tidbits within the rant.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #14 on: February 16, 2012, 07:39:03 pm »

As for the daft Godwin's Law.

Observation 3 should be noted from above link

Godwin's Law - Thanks to the Neocons, Godwin's law is now obsolete.

Or for those in the UK  - Thanks to the BNP, Godwin's law is now obsolete.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

daws

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 282
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #15 on: February 16, 2012, 07:39:22 pm »

Ken Rockwell is to photography forums what avian influenza is to birds. Whatever he spreads, other forums are bound to catch.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2012, 08:38:49 pm by daws »
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2012, 08:29:13 pm »

I read Ken Rockwell daily and find his writing generally illuminating and even sometimes useful.
:o

Ken Rockwell talking about tripods
Tripods - With a digital camera with Image Stabilization or VR, there's no need for a tripod.

Ken Rockwell giving camera buying advice
No one, not even me who uses his cameras all day long, needs anything better than a Nikon D3100 $640 with zoom lens.
The LEICA M9-P ($7,995) with 50mm f/1.4 SUMMILUX-M ASPH ($3,700)is a rangefinder camera that is my choice for nature and landscape shots.

ISO and megapixels have nothing more to do with a camera's quality than the number of spot-welds used to assemble your car.
6 Megapixels is all anyone needs for anything, and every camera here has two or three times that today.
The LEICA M9-P is half the weight of a DSLR and it's image quality is twice as high due to its overwhelmingly superior lenses.

No compact camera, at any price, is fast enough for photos of people, pets, news and sports.
[funny as I've used them for exactly those things including photographing a sporting event]


Ken Rockwell talking general rubbish
Digital is fun, but photographers shoot film, also known as the real raw format.
When doing film vs. digital comparisons, I prefer to compare like to like, and compare larger formats of film, as shot by most pros, to the DSLRs used by most pros. 35mm film is an amateur format, so I've never bothered to compare.
[it's a obscure fact that no professional photographer has ever, ever used 35mm film, so obscure that not even the professionals shooting on 35mm film knew this]
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #17 on: February 16, 2012, 08:50:39 pm »

And don’t get me started with Ken’s take on color management and sRGB. As silly as the stuff you posted about photography.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

jalcocer

  • Guest
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #18 on: February 16, 2012, 08:51:49 pm »

I just love how sometimes he contradicts him self. I've read him from now and then and every time there is something he says that opposes to past comments he made. You forgot the comment where he always shoots jpg's and needs no raw because he always get it right from the camera.
Logged

jjj

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4728
    • http://www.futtfuttfuttphotography.com
Re: Ken Rockwell
« Reply #19 on: February 16, 2012, 09:09:13 pm »

And don’t get me started with Ken’s take on color management and sRGB. As silly as the stuff you posted about photography.
It's hard to find anything that isn't silly on that site.
Logged
Tradition is the Backbone of the Spinele
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up