ansel adams and hasselblad

[Wayne Fox]

Considering that he states the following his "about me" page:
Anyone who gets wound up or upset from reading his website needs to get a sense of perspective.  He outright admits that he's yanking the chain and yet every few months someone here falls for it.

Well, I have a problem with a "disclaimer" like that ... since you have no clue when he is weaving fact with fiction this would mean his entire site should be treated as a hoax, yet he doesn't present it that way and certainly most don't read his "disclaimer".  So it doesn't excuse anything he says, and on a site like his shouldn't apply, unless he puts disclaimers for each time he's playing a "hoax".

His site is full of contradictions, odd conclusions (and assumptions), strange opinions (often without any logical support) and intermingled with some accurate information and helpful pointers. Unfortunately the entire site is a disservice to those trying to learn, because the only ones who know it's inaccurate are not those who frequent his site.

[John R Smith]

His site is full of contradictions, odd conclusions (and assumptions), strange opinions (often without any logical support) and intermingled with some accurate information and helpful pointers. Unfortunately the entire site is a disservice to those trying to learn, because the only ones who know it's inaccurate are not those who frequent his site.

It's an Internet problem, really. There is no editorial control, and no peer review (and usually no citations, either). So it's rather like a slightly barmy local parish magazine, which contains some snippets of good stuff and a load of complete nonsense and half-baked opinion as well.

All you can say is Reader Beware.

John

[Anders_HK]

It's an Internet problem, really. There is no editorial control, and no peer review (and usually no citations, either). So it's rather like a slightly barmy local parish magazine, which contains some snippets of good stuff and a load of complete nonsense and half-baked opinion as well.

All you can say is Reader Beware.

John

Is that not true of pretty much all of internet, also when editorial control or peer review etc, it usually aims at telling us one thing: the new product is tad better, go out and buy it! Making us spend $$$$...

With that in mind, is it not encouraging when there are opinions that speak their mind off not in the direction of that stream???

I am mere asking...

[Gigi]

Its a new-era problem. "Facts" are established by the internet and not by research. KR isn't the only site with this problem.

Yes, KR's site is a bit "breezy" and when dealing with tech'l information, can be too loose. That said, something is to be said for portals to the next generation, which may not be to our liking or standards, but remain effective. Not all bad.

Seems unlikely we can have it both ways...although one still hopes.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take is that Ken Rockwell sometimes has good points. On the other hand, he has a lot of bad points. He recommends no use of tripod, 18-200 lens, shooting JPEG instead of raw. All that can make sense in a context, but that context is not mine. He even  found the scanner I have (the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro) as good as the Imacon. Nice to hear, but it is really good advise?

I don't really perceive the internet in general or forums like this uncritically technology oriented. Editorial article in periodicals are often much more technology oriented. Folks on this forums have different experience, knowledge and also different set of tools. Some of the posters actually develop raw processing applications, for instance.

Of course, there is a tendency that posters and publishers get overly excited over some new technology. One example the latest generation of MF backs which were assumed to match 8x10 for resolution. On the other hand it is quite obvious that knowledgeable users left 5x4" when the P45 backs arrived on the scene. It is a question of context. 40 MP digital was good enough to replace 4x5" for the purpose it was used. It may be shown that 4x5" has more to give if it scanned at 6000 or even 10000 PPI, but 2000 PPI was normally used and 40 MP digital was good enough to replace it.

Some like the look of scanned Velvia some others did not like at all. It's much a question of context. Ken's advice makes sense in one context, for instance he says that 6MP is enough for any print size. That may be correct, in a given context, but that context may not be mine.

My view is that the image cares little about the technology used. You can take an image 8x10" or a Pentax Spotmatic II. If the image is good it is not important how it was made. I care little if an Ansel Adams image was shot on 8x10" or Hasselblad as long as it is a fine image. Ansel Adams was very much aware of the capabilities of the systems he used on the other hand. In one of his book he discusses the choice of lens and developer for his "Aspens" images, where he strived for maximum acutance.

Best regards
Erik

Is that not true of pretty much all of internet, also when editorial control or peer review etc, it usually aims at telling us one thing: the new product is tad better, go out and buy it! Making us spend $$$$...

With that in mind, is it not encouraging when there are opinions that speak their mind off not in the direction of that stream???

I am mere asking...