Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: 7h3C47 on June 16, 2013, 11:45:51 am
-
Or rather his advice, not the man himself of course :) I'm relatively new to the hobby/enthusiast aspect of photography and am in the market for a new DSLR setup. While searching for lens reviews I found Ken Rockwell's website and read through his articles for about 2 hours.
I don't want to sound like I'm discrediting his advice--surely he knows better than I do about just about everything related to photography. I've only been shooting casually for around 3 years with no formal classes or instruction. I'm pretty much bottom of the barrel. I haven't used more than one set-up, nor have I experience with film nor micro 4/3 cameras. Nada.
In contrast with his (IMO) helpful lens reviews, I found his general advice a bit...hmm, head-strong? I know advice is technically a form of opinion but I mean to say that some of it came off as if he were suggesting what he was saying is a fact and not a subjective observation.
For instance that (and I'm paraphrasing of course): 1) ISO and megapixels are merely marketing ploys. 2) That all lenses are sharp, moreso than one could ever appreciate or need unless you're a lens manufacturer yourself. 3) That something like a D3100 body and 4) plastic 18-55mm lens is all you really need-- and when you buy a D7000 you're [some say needlessly] spending hundreds of extra dollars on more buttons that make it easier to shoot, but there's no increase in actual quality.
I don't have the experience to discredit any of those claims. For all I know the man is a prophet of photography and many of us are wasting hundreds or rarely thousands of dollars. Are we?
The only thing I can really comment on is lens sharpness since pretty much the only thing I've been doing with my Sigma SD14 and Sigma macro lenses for the past 3 years is macro photography. At this point I'm one of those crazy OCD lens sharpness people--but I just don't speak up very often due to being so new. I actually bought the Sigma body specifically because of the unique color&texture capture abilities of the sensor which the common mosaic style sensors tend to fall short on. I spent many many hours taking the same shots on numerous macro lenses and found that all lenses are most certainly not created equal sharpness wise--nor color nor bokeh nor AF nor chromatic aberration wise. Or rather not that they're equal, but that they're all sharp enough that the small differences don't practically matter. I just plain disagree.
Those of you who have been around the block, can you please comment? Or those who use really high end gear in professional work? Does your perspective on photography match Mr. Rockwell's entirely, in part, or not at all?
-
I think he's brilliant, and I hang on his every word. Now, where's that sofa I need to hide behind?
-
Hi,
As far as I know KR doesn't post on these forums, so I guess it is not really our concern.
Best regards
Erik
Or rather his advice, not the man himself of course :) I'm relatively new to the hobby/enthusiast aspect of photography and am in the market for a new DSLR setup. While searching for lens reviews I found Ken Rockwell's website and read through his articles for about 2 hours.
I don't want to sound like I'm discrediting his advice--surely he knows better than I do about just about everything related to photography. I've only been shooting casually for around 3 years with no formal classes or instruction. I'm pretty much bottom of the barrel. I haven't used more than one set-up, nor have I experience with film nor micro 4/3 cameras. Nada.
In contrast with his (IMO) helpful lens reviews, I found his general advice a bit...hmm, head-strong? I know advice is technically a form of opinion but I mean to say that some of it came off as if he were suggesting what he was saying is a fact and not a subjective observation.
For instance that (and I'm paraphrasing of course): 1) ISO and megapixels are merely marketing ploys. 2) That all lenses are sharp, moreso than one could ever appreciate or need unless you're a lens manufacturer yourself. 3) That something like a D3100 body and 4) plastic 18-55mm lens is all you really need-- and when you buy a D7000 you're [some say needlessly] spending hundreds of extra dollars on more buttons that make it easier to shoot, but there's no increase in actual quality.
I don't have the experience to discredit any of those claims. For all I know the man is a prophet of photography and many of us are wasting hundreds or rarely thousands of dollars. Are we?
The only thing I can really comment on is lens sharpness since pretty much the only thing I've been doing with my Sigma SD14 and Sigma macro lenses for the past 3 years is macro photography. At this point I'm one of those crazy OCD lens sharpness people--but I just don't speak up very often due to being so new. I actually bought the Sigma body specifically because of the unique color&texture capture abilities of the sensor which the common mosaic style sensors tend to fall short on. I spent many many hours taking the same shots on numerous macro lenses and found that all lenses are most certainly not created equal sharpness wise--nor color nor bokeh nor AF nor chromatic aberration wise. Or rather not that they're equal, but that they're all sharp enough that the small differences don't practically matter. I just plain disagree.
Those of you who have been around the block, can you please comment? Or those who use really high end gear in professional work? Does your perspective on photography match Mr. Rockwell's entirely, in part, or not at all?
-
Do we need to rehash this again?
Rockwell is the court jester of photographic websites. His technical remarks are considered those of a flat-earther.
Other than that, I have no opinion on the man.
Michael
-
Do we need to rehash this again?
Sorry if this is already a common sentiment. Being new I'm just trying to carry out my due diligence and not believe everything I read on the internet--even if it's the #2 link on a google search. Don't mean to annoy anyone.
-
Some of what Ken says is fine. Some of what Ken says is not. Now that's OK if you know what is fine & what is not. If you don't, well, you can work that out for yourself.
Take everything he says with a pinch or three of salt.
-
You'll find some fairly forthright opinions about KR here http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=25408.0 especially towards the end of the thread.
There are far, far more authoritative and objective sites for technical reviews.
From what you've written so far, you've probably realised a lot of what else he's written isn't worth the bandwidth.
For general advice, just ask in the beginners section here. You'll generally get great advice and/or pointed to other sites that are genuinely helpful.
-
Sorry if this is already a common sentiment. Being new I'm just trying to carry out my due diligence and not believe everything I read on the internet--even if it's the #2 link on a google search. Don't mean to annoy anyone.
Who's #1?
-
Whenever I'm not sure what to think of some photography guy I always check out his portfolio. And Ken Rockwell's pictures are whack. Sorry, but why is anybody listening to somebody who posts this shit into a gallery?
http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2013-04-slo/index.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2013-04-slo/index.htm)
-
Who's #1?
dpreview for most things, apparently.
Edit: bythom has also showed up in searches a decent amount
-
Well,
Flat earth theory served humanity well for thousands of years, than science invented itself and made everything approximate. So, now we have relativity and quantum mechanics instead of a simple flat earth ruled by more or less benign (mostly less) gods. I guess that is what we call progress ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Do we need to rehash this again?
Rockwell is the court jester of photographic websites. His technical remarks are considered those of a flat-earther.
Other than that, I have no opinion on the man.
Michael
-
... Rockwell is the court jester of photographic websites...
That's what I've been saying all along.
But careful, court jester was also the one daring to spell the truth to the king. ;)
-
how about photozone.
you consider that a reliable source?
-
That's what I've been saying all along.
But careful, court jester was also the one daring to spell the truth to the king. ;)
Most of Ken's stuff is trash. And then he hits the nail on the head.
I got a very nice guide to focusing the D3 series off his site, and it was limpid clear and helped me to set up the AF on my D3x, and taught me how the modes work, a notoriously difficult topic. So somewhere in this guy's brain there clearly is a spark.
I'd bought Thom's manual in the past, and he is respected for being knowledgable but what I bought from him was nowhere as useful as what I found on Ken's site.
Edmund
-
Do we need to rehash this again?
Rockwell is the court jester of photographic websites. His technical remarks are considered those of a flat-earther.
Other than that, I have no opinion on the man.
Michael
Glad to see that living upside down has your spirits high and the right way up!
;-)
Rob C
-
For instance that (and I'm paraphrasing of course): 1) ISO and megapixels are merely marketing ploys. 2) That all lenses are sharp, moreso than one could ever appreciate or need unless you're a lens manufacturer yourself. 3) That something like a D3100 body and 4) plastic 18-55mm lens is all you really need-- and when you buy a D7000 you're [some say needlessly] spending hundreds of extra dollars on more buttons that make it easier to shoot, but there's no increase in actual quality.
Rockwell writes for his sudience which are amateurs and prosumers. He also think that the manufacturer's hype their products so the average guy thinks he's going to become a better photographer by purchasing the latest stuff. His point is that if you shoot on an old camera and the photos are done well, all this other stuff won't matter. He's trying to get people away from thinking they'll be a better photographer with more pixels or sharper lens. His point is that the stuff that's been out for years is good enough . Maybe you missed it.
-
But careful, court jester was also the one daring to spell the truth to the king. ;)
"Comedy is the mask of wisdom"
I saw that on a church message board along the highway in Nevada.
-
Rockwell writes for his sudience which are amateurs and prosumers.
His point is that the stuff that's been out for years is good enough . Maybe you missed it.
I'm not an amateur or a prosumer, just a beginner :)
That must be why I missed his point.
Edmund
-
He's trying to tell you it's the photgrapher not the equipment.
-
Do we need to rehash this again?
Rockwell is the court jester of photographic websites. His technical remarks are considered those of a flat-earther.
Other than that, I have no opinion on the man.
Michael
No, really, how do you feel about Ken? Don't mince words...
-
Ken has the unique ability of writing reviews of equipment he has not even seen--see his review on the Pentax 645D. He is very accurate and thorough. In his review of the RX-1 he slams the camera because the shutter speed is "fixed" to 1/80 in P with Auto ISO. Actually, it is very simple to change the shutter speed in that condition. So, if you want lots of information about cameras, Ken is the guy. If you want accurate information, I would suggest somewhere else.
As far as his knowledge of photography, it is equal to his knowledge of cameras.
-
Rockwell writes for his sudience which are amateurs and prosumers.
Mostly people who are not good about rational thinking on their own and would accept what Ken writes as fact, when much of the time, it's complete nonsense. Those who don't know better get awful information mixed with apparently some good info, those who know better like to excuse this as entertainment.
He's trying to tell you it's the photgrapher not the equipment.
Then all he has to do is copy and paste that one sentence and leave out the BS. But he can't.
Michael summed it up best here and on the other huge post on Ken's silliness: He's a flat-earther. If that's your thing, he's your man.
-
A self publicist cretin.
-
Some competence + a great deal of showmanship and self-promotional skill = $$$
-
Flat earth theory served humanity well for thousands of years,
It certainly did. Sailors were very careful to keep away from the edge and, as far as history records, none of them fell over.
Being new I'm just trying to carry out my due diligence and not believe everything I read on the internet--even if it's the #2 link on a google search. Don't mean to annoy anyone.
Good strategy never to believe anything you read on the internet. I may have told this story before. A few years ago I was involved in a correspondence debate with some others in the pages of a UK national newspaper. To counter some dirty tricks by the other side, I invented a population/economics theory (which made good sense but would have taken years to research properly and prove to a credible academic standard) and placed it on Wikipedia to "prove" my point. I only left it there for a couple of weeks before taking it down but, in that short time, I discovered that a number of other people - some quite well known political names - had been quoting it in their own debates and writings.
I'll not offer any comment on Mr Rockwell other than to say that he obviously makes his money from affiliate programme commissions and those depend upon driving people to his website. A bit of controversy does no harm in seeking that objective.
-
Nothing.
Not everything in the world is relevant and useful. Accept it.
-
Most of his stuff is fairly pedestrian, but some of it is undeniably brilliant, especially the World War II stuff that was on the cover of the Saturday Evening...oh, wait. Did you say KEN Rockwell?
-
Mr R. is one of the early very savvy users of the www to market himself as an expert. I give him high marks for that.
What he actually has to offer to readers is up for debate. people who actually know more than the very basics or who are just getting interested in knowing more than the very basics very quickly catch on to his game.
As to his reviews. I know he was blackballed by by both Canon's and Nikon's PR people and agencies back in 2005 when he was caught egregiously breaking NDA's he had signed moments before. A lot of his "reviews" read like either regurgitated press releases or things I've seen elsewhere.
Mostly he's harmless if you make the effort to find what other people who have solid track records (these forums are good, so are http://www.imaging-resource.com http://www.slrgear.com/ and also the reviews at dpreview.com and photo.net
-
I am surprised that there are so many posters on LL who can spend the time to read Ken Rockwell's site in order to form an opinion that he is a cretin or a jester, or whatever. ;D
I very rarely visit his site myself, but I have defended in the past, on LL, some of his statements about photography, which can be at least thought-provoking.
Often when people have a strong reaction against a particular opinion on any matter, resulting in ad hominem attacks upon the person expressing the opinion, it's because there is an element of truth in that opinion that is too disturbing to think about.
I get the impression that Rockwell uses a technique of making statements of a general nature that may be true only in specific circumstances which he doesn't always mention, but leaves it up to the reader to work out what those circumstances may be.
To illustrate this point, let's consider some of the examples of Ken Rockwell's pronouncements that the OP has mentioned.
(1) ISO and megapixels are merely marketing ploys.
Such a statement is clearly wrong, as expressed and without qualification, and taken out of context. But the statement contains elements of truth which, if expressed with slightly different wording, could be accepted as being wholly true. However, the statement would then not be so controversial. For example, how about, "High ISO settings and a high pixel-count are a part of a camera company's marketing strategy." Would anyone disagree with that statement?
(2) All lenses are sharp, more so than one could ever appreciate or need unless you're a lens manufacturer yourself.
Again, if we modify the statement and flesh it out, we can see there are elements of truth here that may apply in certain circumstances. For example, how about, "For the photographic novice who never makes prints larger than A4, and who frequently produces blurry shots because the shutter speed was not sufficient to freeze camera or subject movement, and/or the focusing was not accurate, all lenses can be considered as equally sharp. The path to producing better photos is to improve one's technique, not to obsess about lens sharpness".
Everything requires interpretation. ;)
-
Some competence + a great deal of showmanship and self-promotional skill = $$$
Wait. I thought that was the definition of a photographer these days. Though 'some competence' is optional.
-
Sorry if this is already a common sentiment. Being new I'm just trying to carry out my due diligence and not believe everything I read on the internet--even if it's the #2 link on a google search. Don't mean to annoy anyone.
Due diligence = learning to use the board's search function first. :)
-
Due diligence = learning to use the board's search function first. :)
Ken entertains, gets his name around and makes a lot of money writing about cameras. Now why should we hold the quality of his work against him when it seems to be exactly what the audience demands?
Edmund
-
Ken entertains, gets his name around and makes a lot of money writing about cameras. Now why should we hold the quality of his work against him when it seems to be exactly what the audience demands?
Edmund
Quoting my post and following with that statement is an amazing non sequitur.
I was suggesting the OP's apologies could be avoided by searching the board before posting a question about a topic that's likely had some discussion.
-
I visit his website every now and then to know about his different perspectives of things. Usually it is refreshing, amusing and entertaining. Sometimes but extremely rarely he is so damn right is scary.
As far as I'm concern, he's cool for the web. It's up to every individual to visit or not visit. It's up to every individual to believe or not believe. I can visit a mosque and that doesn't turn me into a muslim. (probably a bad analogy but you get my point). But it may well make me more tolerant. ;)
Eduardo
-
... I get the impression that Rockwell uses a technique of making statements of a general nature that may be true only in specific circumstances which he doesn't always mention, but leaves it up to the reader to work out what those circumstances may be...
I agree, Ray. Good point.
-
(1) ISO and megapixels are merely marketing ploys.
Such a statement is clearly wrong, as expressed and without qualification, and taken out of context. But the statement contains elements of truth which, if expressed with slightly different wording, could be accepted as being wholly true. However, the statement would then not be so controversial. For example, how about, "High ISO settings and a high pixel-count are a part of a camera company's marketing strategy." Would anyone disagree with that statement?
That sort of thing is not actually what he says for the most part though, and thus I don't even think that is the point he's trying to make. If he were trying to do that, he would(?) Which is why I'm so skeptical, or enough to ask other people in the community if they believe what he writes. Being inexperienced as I am, I'm just curious if there's some consensus or cumulative experience that will ultimately help me from making mistakes regarding purchases or point of view as I continue to read more and further understand this hobby (<--- for me, profession for others of course).
Due diligence = learning to use the board's search function first. :)
I understand the sentiment behind what you're saying but your post isn't very helpful for me at this point :( If you don't want to communicate your view point (again) then feel free not to comment! Other people who have previously not contributed or still feel they have an opinion to add that contributes to my better understanding of the issue will do so. That's (one of) the point(s) of a forum, in my opinion--feel free to disagree :) . That being said, I am not new to online forums in general, and I did perform a search function before posting. It's kind of unsettling to me that you're inferring I didn't regardless of the fact that it's my prerogative to ask the community for help anyways. It's a forum...
Lastly I'm glad some people have made comments about his actual photos. I held back on mentioning this in my initial post because, as per laws of the internet, if you seem too negative or biased, the only people who will respond are those who seek to vindicate the opposite opinion of that which you're suggesting. I was hoping for some advice as to the pros and cons of this guy, and that's what I've received so far. Thanks
-
Or rather his advice, not the man himself of course :)
I get this question from my workshop students more often than I care to answer the question. I try my very best to not discuss others who give workshops, instead I ask them to form the question in another way that removes the man from the question.
With the man and photography separated I'll say this. If you are not a professional then you're probably in this for fun, discovery, you appreciate small machines and technical whoo ha, and even as a professional you should strive to have fun and enthusiasm for your craft. With this in mind I don't know anyone else, who through their writing/website alone, shows they're having more fun and showing more enthusiasm for photography than Ken Rockwell. I don't know the man, but this is impression his website and writings convey to me. Fun, enthusiasm, and the need to share his knowledge and experience with others. Isn't that what every photography website should be trying to do first and foremost? This imo explains his #2 position.
When it comes to his technical knowledge/opinions.. I take it the same way I think when I see someone's thread on a forum asking what lens they should get next. If you have to ask you probably haven't learned your old lens very well at all, and you're lost.. and don't know where to go. So you need someone to tell you. Otherwise you'd know exactly what lens to get. Same with Ken. Half of what he writes he writes in jest, some sarcasm, tongue in cheek, and some technically correct. IF you find yourself asking "does he know his photography", "should I take this opinion seriously", or "hey, I resemble that remark".. then you're still learning and he's making you pause and think and this is exactly what he wants you to do. Some people pick up information at a glance, but for most it needs to sink in somehow.. and what better way than through controversy.
I don't know if he's successful or not. I don't know if his coffers are overflowing with gold coins. But using his web rankings as proof I know more people are reading his site than others. I can only wish to be so fortunate. And this is why some of his more successful (and serious) competition get annoyed with him. He's doing by acting silly.. what the rest of us can't do on our best day.
-
Good post, Steve.
-
... ask other people in the community if they believe what he writes...
I do. However, I understand it in its proper context, as Ray already explained.
I do not understand how what i think and how this whole polling is going to help you. As this thread has shown, as well as another current one about the same topic (which you apparently failed to find in your "due diligence" search of this site), you will have the whole spectrum of opinion about KR, or just about anything else for that matter. So, asking others about their opinion about someone else's opinion is not going to help you. The only thing that is going to help you is learning enough yourself first, so that you can properly understand what others are saying, and then decide by yourself.
-
I can't remember having visited Ken's site, I'm usually here, or looking for David Bailey's site, which insofar as I can ascertain, doesn't exist. There are other David Baileys, but not the Shrimp one that I seek. (Should anyone have found the real deal, please forward!)
The thing is, so much seems to be written surrounding Ken on this site, that perhaps I should cancel or postpone my Bailey hunt and find the Rock man himself instead.
If he writes with humour (I don't know, as I have said), then that in itself can be no bad thing: we all need uplifting from time to time - like most of the day on some days. Yeah, I speak pour moi, I guess. Anyway, I'd rather a Rockwell loose on the Web than a porn merchant.
Rob C
-
But using his web rankings as proof I know more people are reading his site than others.
Google site ranking aren't an indication of popularity of visits.
Google publish some interesting documents on how to get good rankings and visitor numbers don't figure much. More significant are the number of links to and from the site and their relevance. So ironically every time someone says he's rubbish and provides a link to the offending page, his rankings go up.
It's an interesting site to look at to see how you can build a Google ranking without any quality content.
-
Lastly I'm glad some people have made comments about his actual photos.
He certainly doesn't lead by example.
-
I do not understand how what i think and how this whole polling is going to help you.
So, asking others about their opinion about someone else's opinion is not going to help you.
How could you possibly think this hasn't helped me? I went from: "Wow for a number 2 post on google? I really disagree with some stuff he says. Wonder if anyone else feels like me, or I'm just too inexperienced to know better" to "Yeah, mixed reviews, pinches of salt, not really applicable to me, kinda goofy photos, probably won't find myself back there again for a little while."
The only thing that is going to help you is learning enough yourself first, so that you can properly understand what others are saying, and then decide by yourself.
I did learn enough first? By asking you here, I now understand what you're saying? I did decide by myself based off others' input? You keep selling yourself short for some reason...I got the information I was looking for, I'm not sure why that comes as a surprise for you. The community seems very helpful in this regard, and especially willing to help newer people like myself.
-
Guys, give 7h3C47 a break and benefit of the doubt. He/she is a new poster here, doesn't deserve the not so warm welcome.
-
A modern day P.T. Barnum.
From Rockwell’s own “about” page:
“I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. ……………………….I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun…..”
“As mentioned above, if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof), remember that no one goes back in and edits old reviews as they get old. If I say I use something, I did when I wrote it, but years later, probably don't. “
He’s devised a clever statement to excuse his inaccurate proclamations.
-
Google site ranking aren't an indication of popularity of visits.
Google publish some interesting documents on how to get good rankings and visitor numbers don't figure much. More significant are the number of links to and from the site and their relevance. So ironically every time someone says he's rubbish and provides a link to the offending page, his rankings go up.
It's an interesting site to look at to see how you can build a Google ranking without any quality content.
1. Yes, we know what google is and how it works, but we also know googles formula for ranking is a closely guarded secret that changes with the landscape/times. We're not talking some flash in the pan site that's #1 today and gone tomorrow. We're talking about one of the first photography sites ever which has show a sustained popularity for over a decade as indicated by their google rankings. If there was nothing to this site, no quality content as you say, then this site wouldn't be where it is today. Or yesterday. Or the day before. You're welcome to think differently but in doing so I feel you're missing out on the value you personally could take from this site. And granted, I don't know you well enough to know what you personally could benefit from, I'm just going on the supposition that we all can find something useful from studying success.
2. It's more interesting people could think this possible.
-
If there was nothing to this site, no quality content as you say, then this site wouldn't be where it is today.
One of things Google raise it's ranking on is the amount of content, so it's not a question of there being 'nothing' to it, there's tons of it. Which why it rises to the top. Adding more all the time helps that and feeds the stay at the top status. To Google the new pages seem relevant (ie it's not a link farm which they disapprove of), but an intelligent knowledgeable eye might think that new reviews of long discontinued kit really aren't sufficiently relevant to justify the ranking success the bots give the site.
a sustained popularity
A sustained notoriety might be a better way of putting it.
-
Consider him as one of a great many sources of information about (fill in the blank). Also consider that whatever someone else says, the camera and lens you buy has to fit your needs, not someone else's priorities. For example, I go to the Polish site Lenstips for some specialized information that is rarely mentioned in other reviews, coma. Now, most people don't give a rat's ass about coma, but astrophotography shooters care about the degree of this particular lens aberration, which if bad enough can stretch off-axis stars to be oblong. Some good lenses have lots of coma, other good lenses have very little coma.
-
He is a bombastic blowhard.
That being said, once you edit that out, his info on Leica lenses is pretty good, at times.
I do like how he begs for money (help my growing family) through links to buy things, then has tehse pages devoted to his twin turbo Porsche Cayane.
-
He is a bombastic blowhard.
That being said, once you edit that out, his info on Leica lenses is pretty good, at times.
I do like how he begs for money (help my growing family) through links to buy things, then has tehse pages devoted to his twin turbo Porsche Cayane.
He's growing in my estimation by the minute! I don't have even a white Porsche 911, but might accept an older, red or black 911 PicNic-Tray one as a gift... But an SUV of any sort would be pushing my faith hard.
Rob C
-
He's growing in my estimation by the minute! I don't have even a white Porsche 911, but might accept an older, red or black 911 PicNic-Tray one as a gift... But an SUV of any sort would be pushing my faith hard.
Rob C
Ha!
-
Google site ranking aren't an indication of popularity of visits.
Google publish some interesting documents on how to get good rankings and visitor numbers don't figure much. More significant are the number of links to and from the site and their relevance. So ironically every time someone says he's rubbish and provides a link to the offending page, his rankings go up.
It's an interesting site to look at to see how you can build a Google ranking without any quality content.
There are sites which generate bad publicity on purpose (by bad customer service), because they have found out it improves their "Google rating" which in turn generates more business by making them more visible, and customers do not care to investigate why they are on the top of the list.
-
One of things Google raise it's ranking on is the amount of content, so it's not a question of there being 'nothing' to it, there's tons of it. Which why it rises to the top. Adding more all the time helps that and feeds the stay at the top status. To Google the new pages seem relevant (ie it's not a link farm which they disapprove of), but an intelligent knowledgeable eye might think that new reviews of long discontinued kit really aren't sufficiently relevant to justify the ranking success the bots give the site.A sustained notoriety might be a better way of putting it.
1. Volume of content is only one of the many variables Google uses in it's formula and no one knows how much it's weighted, and Google ain't talkin.. What Google does tell us is it's not just one area of a site that brings it to the top. With tens of thousands of photography sites across the web to think that someone could just post volume and get on top? Nah.. What he is doing is hitting enough of the variables across the board to earn his ranking. This can't be denied.
2. The only way possible for Google to determine relevance across a broad swath of topics is by measuring it's popularity as evidenced by site visits.
3. You're speaking from your own needs only. But there are many needs out there. Look on Ebay about how much old kit is being scarfed up daily. You don't think Ken saw the rapid growth and popularity of Ebay and that people were buying tons of old kit and there were no current (internet) reviews out there? The only reviews on that stuff might be found in copies of old magazines on microfiche somewhere. OR.. when the Micro 4/3's exploded and he started reviewing old lenses enthusiasts were using (and wanting to buy on ebay) to get better performance.. do you think this is an accident? The guy is anything but stupid, he's seeing things others aren't and serving a segment of photography IN ADDITION to modern gear.. and reaping the rewards. Not to mention people in poorer countries can't afford the latest and greatest, but they still want to enjoy photography, so he reviews old gear and gives an opinion.. often the only opinion.
4. Perhaps.. but Google apparently doesn't yet know the difference. :D
-
... 3) That something like a D3100 body and 4) plastic 18-55mm lens is all you really need...
What a fool!
Everybody knows you can't produce even a half-decent photography with those el cheapos. Just take a look at this disaster:
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photo-contests/the-american-landscape-2013/winners.html
-
What a fool!
Everybody knows you can't produce even a half-decent photography with those el cheapos. Just take a look at this disaster:
http://www.outdoorphotographer.com/photo-contests/the-american-landscape-2013/winners.html
+1
-
Well, my walkabout camera is a D5100, which is only a hundred dollars more than D3100, and it was one of my best investments in photography and computer universe. My only regret is that I didn't have it twenty years ago.
Anyway, I just looked up Ken's review on this camera which is spot on. I agree completely with him that it produces fantastic pictures and is one of the best bargains of 2013. His photo samples in that review are a little bit too red and vivid for a Canadian taste, but if I lived in California, who knows, I might also dial in the wild and vivid camera settings.
-
Well, my walkabout camera is a D5100, which is only a hundred dollars more than D3100, and it was one of my best investments in photography and computer universe. My only regret is that I didn't have it twenty years ago.
Anyway, I just looked up Ken's review on this camera which is spot on. I agree completely with him that it produces fantastic pictures and is one of the best bargains of 2013. His photo samples in that review are a little bit too red and vivid for a Canadian taste, but if I lived in California, who knows, I might also dial in the wild and vivid camera settings.
We're with you on this side of the border as well. I've long wondered about Ken's propensity towards over saturated images. Is it possible he hasn't yet discovered how to profile his monitor, or maybe his actual eyes see certain colours less saturated than others (a fairly common occurrence) thereby requiring a boost in levels similar to the way someone hard of hearing pumps up the volume making listening levels uncomfortable to others? Or maybe he's just making an over the top statement as he tends to do elsewhere.. dunno.
-
maybe his actual eyes see certain colours less saturated than others (a fairly common occurrence) thereby requiring a boost in levels
If somebody sees a certain color less saturated than others, then a normally calibrated monitor would also look natural to him. How would he know his vision is not true but a(n over)corrected one is more real? We can not even know if we see colors the same way at all, but still a good and true monitor always looks the most equal to real life for all of us.
-
If somebody sees a certain color less saturated than others, then a normally calibrated monitor would also look natural to him. How would he know his vision is not true but a(n over)corrected one is more real? We can not even know if we see colors the same way at all, but still a good and true monitor always looks the most equal to real life for all of us.
Good point.. I'm just grasping at straws trying to figure out why he over saturates most of his work. Maybe it's more of a color blind issue. if you can't see the colors you can't know when they're adjusted right. It's perplexing..
-
We're with you on this side of the border as well. I've long wondered about Ken's propensity towards over saturated images. Is it possible he hasn't yet discovered how to profile his monitor, or maybe his actual eyes see certain colours less saturated than others (a fairly common occurrence) thereby requiring a boost in levels similar to the way someone hard of hearing pumps up the volume making listening levels uncomfortable to others? Or maybe he's just making an over the top statement as he tends to do elsewhere.. dunno.
You are assuming that the purpose of photography is to capture the world as it is perceived by most people. I think his "over the top" color is his choice. A "Fine Art " choice. Some would say that accurate color is boring color. Unless of course, it is necessary for a client and their needs. That is a very different ball of wax.
Peter
-
It's perplexing..
or simply bad taste.
-
You are assuming that the purpose of photography is to capture the world as it is perceived by most people. I think his "over the top" color is his choice. A "Fine Art " choice. Some would say that accurate color is boring color. Unless of course, it is necessary for a client and their needs. That is a very different ball of wax.
Peter
I considered this. But when he extended it from his landscapes to his family members and they all started having bright red faces I discounted the thought. You may still be right.. but I think it's something else.
-
or simply bad taste.
Or a different taste for sure. But I'm saving that one for last.
-
You may still be right.. but I think it's something else.
You may be right as well. That's the point.
Peter
-
You may be right as well. That's the point.
Peter
Well sure, an obvious one. It's why we use terms like "in my opinion" or "I'd guess" etc.. it's implied and unspoken. Or in my case when I use question marks after an opinion and say " I dunno" it's being implied I don't know, could be anything.
-
or simply bad taste.
+10.
-
Ken's blog is one of many options for us all to sample and consider. If he's not serving someone's needs with his content, they can (as "they" say) change the channel. All the good blogs are reflections of the writers' biases and experience. We like them because they bring their personality to the commentary that goes beyond what the manufacturers put in their press releases and ad copy. Ken certainly has his own perspective and shares it. We all know it's best to get our news from multiple outlets unless we've found the TRUE source that we're comfortable relying on. There are a handful of excellent resources for serious photographers: when you find one, share it with more people and enlighten even more of us. As for Ken, it seems the remarks here have been "piling on" for a few days. So, apparently, he's probably better suited for beginners and hobbyists, in most cases. I've gotten some useful info from his blog and have enjoyed some of his side remarks. Since, for a lot of readers, none of of his stuff is going to be a "life or death" issue, I'll leave it to them to determine its value. Meanwhile, tell someone about LuLa in the next 24 hours. They'll thank you.
-
my .02...
i had been shooting olympus digital since the d-500l
had been using the e-1 for many many years...
into to my local pro shop last winter ( feb 2012 )... to finally get the e-5...
my ooh so pro salesman advised me, of the upcoming d800's....
i ordered the d800e on the spot....
the salesman knew me, and some of my long term photo goals....
decision was simple simon
.....
got to doing some 'googling' for the first time in my life for camera related items some time later, after ordering d800e... (i made it years with no photo forums - thought never came to me to look...)
i landed on the aforementioned... persons site... and thought to myself after a very short while... who in the world is this bafflegab belching blatherskite.... and moved on in rapid fashion
-
You are assuming that the purpose of photography is to capture the world as it is perceived by most people. I think his "over the top" color is his choice. A "Fine Art " choice. Some would say that accurate color is boring color. Unless of course, it is necessary for a client and their needs. That is a very different ball of wax.
Peter
I would agree that it is purely his choice and style. I have a friend who is a very experienced and capable photographer and he routinely oversharpens and oversaturates photos for his clients. Drastically so, more than Ken! He knows his processing is way over the top, but he keeps telling me that the clients like the bombastic looks. He may be wrong but he may be right, it's a very different population segment, unlike the Lula readers.
-
When someone repeatedly declares that his main source of income (90%, if I recall correctly) comes from the links to camera shops in his website, I think we must no longer consider that person a photographer, but a professional blogger; and I think that is a very important point to realize that KR is quite successful in his business, and to understand the reasons behind his articles and photographs.
-
When someone repeatedly declares that his main source of income (90%, if I recall correctly) comes from the links to camera shops in his website, I think we must no longer consider that person a photographer, but a professional blogger; and I think that is a very important point to realize that KR is quite successful in his business, and to understand the reasons behind his articles and photographs.
Good point!
In terms of his over saturation, as I said in the other post on Ken, he hasn't a clue about color management! So I suspect that's part of the issue. I've only read two pieces Ken wrote, both on color management and both were filled with nonsense (we've gone there in the other post about him). Easy to tear him a new one just on the ideas he has about color: this isn't an opinion of his, it's misinformation and that's why I think he's a kook. I'm fine if he has an opinion about aesthetics, that can be up to debate. I'm not fine when he posts what is technically nonsense as he's done with this two 'articles' on color. Hence the flat earth label which is accurate in terms of describing him, at least in terms of two articles he's written.
-
People seem to like to knock KR, but, in terms of complex technical knowledge, I've been impressed. I take it his two USA patents -- one for a 'Wide dynamic range vector data raster display' H2,184 March 6, 2007 and another for 'Alternate triggering in digital oscilloscopes' 6,473,701 Oct 29, 2002 -- aren't a joke?
The question is whether technical knowledge on its own makes much difference. KR thinks its doesn't (he calls people who do think it does 'measurebators'). I quite like people who have a _lot_ of technical knowledge, and don't suggest that (alone) is why you should listen to them.
-
People seem to like to knock KR, but, in terms of complex technical knowledge, I've been impressed. I take it his two USA patents -- one for a 'Wide dynamic range vector data raster display' H2,184 March 6, 2007 and another for 'Alternate triggering in digital oscilloscopes' 6,473,701 Oct 29, 2002 -- aren't a joke?
That's indeed a fact based on his blog, or there's some other verifiable way to know that's a fact?
-
You can check it here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html
-
You can check it here:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/index.html
So specifically, you found Ken's patients and it's the same guy?
-
I'm not certain (as I said in my first post above) -- but it fits in with his bio (working in broadcasting), and sits well with his some of his comments on types of measurement (optical and audio). He might have selected 2 patents from the 57 or so that exist from a Rockwell in CA. Would be happy to have it confirmed or disproved.
-
So specifically, you found Ken's patients and it's the same guy?
Andrew, are you trying to suggest that Ken's followers are... ahmm... loonies? ;D
-
Andrew, are you trying to suggest that Ken's followers are... ahmm... loonies? ;D
Never! However, trust but verify.
-
Good point!
In terms of his over saturation, as I said in the other post on Ken, he hasn't a clue about color management! So I suspect that's part of the issue. I've only read two pieces Ken wrote, both on color management and both were filled with nonsense (we've gone there in the other post about him). Easy to tear him a new one just on the ideas he has about color: this isn't an opinion of his, it's misinformation and that's why I think he's a kook. I'm fine if he has an opinion about aesthetics, that can be up to debate. I'm not fine when he posts what is technically nonsense as he's done with this two 'articles' on color. Hence the flat earth label which is accurate in terms of describing him, at least in terms of two articles he's written.
I remember scratching my head over several comments he's made about color management. I suspect, as with several areas I've noticed with him, he just hasn't got into that area yet. He didn't think them important enough until he was shown they were. RAW processing vs. Jpegs being one such area.
-
People seem to like to knock KR, but, in terms of complex technical knowledge, I've been impressed. I take it his two USA patents -- one for a 'Wide dynamic range vector data raster display' H2,184 March 6, 2007 and another for 'Alternate triggering in digital oscilloscopes' 6,473,701 Oct 29, 2002 -- aren't a joke?
The question is whether technical knowledge on its own makes much difference. KR thinks its doesn't (he calls people who do think it does 'measurebators'). I quite like people who have a _lot_ of technical knowledge, and don't suggest that (alone) is why you should listen to them.
Well.. he could very well have such technical experience and my vote (from what I've read and seen) is he does. But it doesn't necessarily translate to photography. My own background is very heavy into electronics, cryptology, and radio wave propagation.. enough in each one to earn an EE.. but precious little of it translates to photography. So his background certainly shows he has the capacity, but perhaps not the knowledge.
-
... I suspect, as with several areas I've noticed with him, he just hasn't got into that area yet. He didn't think them important enough until he was shown they were. RAW processing vs. Jpegs being one such area.
I would say, Steve, that it is rather a conscious choice than lack of knowledge. As a choice, it is perfectly understandable, acceptable and valid, in both areas you mentioned.
-
There are far, far more authoritative and objective sites for technical reviews.
From what you've written so far, you've probably realised a lot of what else he's written isn't worth the bandwidth.
For general advice, just ask in the beginners section here. You'll generally get great advice and/or pointed to other sites that are genuinely helpful.
Despite all the criticism, Ken is a man who can step up to the challenge and handle the tasks that even the more authoritative and objective sites have problems with.
I remember an instance about a year ago, when I was expecting here eagerly a review of Nikon D3200, but unfortunately due to battery problems the review never materialized.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=68904.0 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=68904.0)
I don't know, how Ken resolved the battery problem (maybe he just took out the battery from another of his cameras), but he delivered his own review and came through with blazing colors. And I mean, really blazing colors. Not that the review was that useful, but it shows that Ken can help out when's needed.
-
I don't know, how Ken resolved the battery problem (maybe he just took out the battery from another of his cameras), but he delivered his own review and came through with blazing colors. And I mean, really blazing colors. Not that the review was that useful, but it shows that Ken can help out when's needed.
Might he have simply taken the bad battery out, looked at the camera, and written a review stating what he thought such a camera should do?
Full disclosure: I haven't read the review nor do I intend to.
-
Might he have simply taken the bad battery out, looked at the camera, and written a review stating what he thought such a camera should do?
Full disclosure: I haven't read the review nor do I intend to.
I am sure you are fully aware of the irony, Eric ;)
-
I would say, Steve, that it is rather a conscious choice than lack of knowledge. As a choice, it is perfectly understandable, acceptable and valid, in both areas you mentioned.
Absolutely. If you hear from hundreds if not thousands of sources that RAW files offer advantages and yet you choose to tell everyone jpegs are their equal and we're wasting our time with RAW editing/software.. FOR YEARS.. then you just don't have the knowledge about RAW files. I won't go near the alternative. The only thing that can match that one is if he starts supporting PC's over Mac's.. :)
Or maybe in the area of color.. he's letting the guy at Fotomat making his prints do his color profiling for him and he has no interest in having his Mac and workflow profiled?
-
Might he have simply taken the bad battery out, looked at the camera, and written a review stating what he thought such a camera should do?
Full disclosure: I haven't read the review nor do I intend to.
It's good to see that this thread is evolving into a serious discussion. Ken must be pleased with that.
BTW, Eric, sometimes you don't even have to read Ken's reviews, just look up the quoted Lula links.
-
When someone repeatedly declares that his main source of income (90%, if I recall correctly) comes from the links to camera shops in his website, I think we must no longer consider that person a photographer, but a professional blogger; and I think that is a very important point to realize that KR is quite successful in his business, and to understand the reasons behind his articles and photographs.
I didn't realize LuLa was a charitable organization and the owners selling products here are saints rather than photographers.
-
I have to admit, reading Ken's site is always amusing. Like looking for the toy in the cereal box, you never know what classic ridiculous statement will pop out & make you laugh ;D
He is a master of publicity (good, or bad...it is all the same to him) Statements like "The Nikon D600, D800 and D4 are the same camera inside!" definitely grab one's attention & are designed to generate controversy.
As mentioned somewhere below, his site can be handy source of info on old lenses when trawling through evilbay for bargains, but I always compare his conclusions to other sources as a sanity check.
-
I didn't realize LuLa was a charitable organization and the owners selling products here are saints rather than photographers.
So, how much are you paying to visit LuLa? If you aren't happy here, maybe you should ask for your money back...oh, wait, you don't pay anything to visit LuLa...never mind.
-
I have to admit, reading Ken's site is always amusing. Like looking for the toy in the cereal box, you never know what classic ridiculous statement will pop out & make you laugh ;D
He is a master of publicity (good, or bad...it is all the same to him) Statements like "The Nikon D600, D800 and D4 are the same camera inside!" definitely grab one's attention & are designed to generate controversy.
As mentioned somewhere below, his site can be handy source of info on old lenses when trawling through evilbay for bargains, but I always compare his conclusions to other sources as a sanity check.
IF you read the stats KR produced in that article, you'll see there is very little difference in that Nikon line as he compared to the Canon line of similar cameras. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d600-d800-d4-are-the-same-camera.htm
More importantly is what he said in the last paragraph of that review:
"Far more important than having a nice camera is having vision. Too many people spend all their time researching and buying cameras, instead of spending their lives learning how to take great pictures. Cameras don't take pictures, people do."
If you really want to understand KR and what he's about, and why people read him, here's his take on What is Photgraphy and follow some of his other links. http://kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-photography.htm
-
So, how much are you paying to visit LuLa? If you aren't happy here, maybe you should ask for your money back...oh, wait, you don't pay anything to visit LuLa...never mind.
Jeff: I don't pay Google either. And yet every hit they or you get brings in more money from their and your advertisers and sells your other products. If everyone who didn't pay a fee left LuLa, your income would drop considerably. This is the business model you settled on. If you wanted you could charge everyone who visited your site. But you make more money by not doing that. Frankly, I can't believe you knock your customers with a post like that. Have a nice day.
-
If everyone who didn't pay a fee left LuLa, your income would drop considerably. This is the business model you settled on. If you wanted you could charge everyone who visited your site. But you make more money by not doing that. Frankly, I can't believe you knock your customers with a post like that. Have a nice day.
Hum...you apparently think I have something to do with the running of LuLa? Nope...LuLa is Mike's baby...as for my "costumers" who do you think that might be? Have you bought anything of mine? Maybe you should ask for your money back...
-
I am sure you are fully aware of the irony, Eric ;)
Of course. I'm just trying to think in something of a KR mode.
I have to admit, reading Ken's site is always amusing.
Based on the admittedly small sampling of Ken's blog posts that I have read, I have found the amusing bits few and far between, which is why I count on LuLa to provide me with all the truly amusing bits.
I agree with EduPerez that Ken should be referred to as a professional blogger and not as a professional photographer.
Cheers,
Eric M.
-
More importantly is what he said in the last paragraph of that review:
"Far more important than having a nice camera is having vision. Too many people spend all their time researching and buying cameras, instead of spending their lives learning how to take great pictures. Cameras don't take pictures, people do."
I'm not debating that part of his message at all.
But you have to admit anything of substance he does come up with gets lost lost when he comes out with pointless comments like this...
"You can buy a pair and a spare of D600s for the same price as the D4, giving you 72 MP (24 MP x 3) instead of 16 and 16.5 FPS (5.5 FPS x 3) instead of 10. "
-
I'm not debating that part of his message at all.
But you have to admit anything of substance he does come up with gets lost lost when he comes out with pointless comments like this...
"You can buy a pair and a spare of D600s for the same price as the D4, giving you 72 MP (24 MP x 3) instead of 16 and 16.5 FPS (5.5 FPS x 3) instead of 10. "
Actually, it is quite refreshing to see someone to come up with a different take on established standards. About as profound, as figuring out that "P" on the Mode selection means Professional.
I'm sure, that for many readers this makes a perfect sense.
-
I'm not debating that part of his message at all.
But you have to admit anything of substance he does come up with gets lost lost when he comes out with pointless comments like this...
"You can buy a pair and a spare of D600s for the same price as the D4, giving you 72 MP (24 MP x 3) instead of 16 and 16.5 FPS (5.5 FPS x 3) instead of 10. "
I don't read the site, but taking this quotation, I think the man's playing funny word-games, which assumes a higher intelligence in his readership than is being credited for in the comments here about him and his site. Absurdity demands an intelligent audience in order that it be appreciated as such.
If you watched any UK tv humor classics (the Monty Python stuff, for example), there is that element of craziness abroad, and most of it came from Oxbridge graduates who created their still-thriving niche in the industry. There is mad and there is mad, as in crazy like a fox.
Hey, you csn vote with your feet - or you can, in this case, let your fingers do the walking.
Rob C
-
I don't read the site, but taking this quotation, I think the man's playing funny word-games, which assumes a higher intelligence in his readership than is being credited for in the comments here about him and his site. Absurdity demands an intelligent audience in order that it be appreciated as such.
If you watched any UK tv humor classics (the Monty Python stuff, for example), there is that element of craziness abroad, and most of it came from Oxbridge graduates who created their still-thriving niche in the industry. There is mad and there is mad, as in crazy like a fox.
Hey, you csn vote with your feet - or you can, in this case, let your fingers do the walking.
Rob C
Yes, without question. Often, and it appears to be targeted, he makes a statement that can be interpreted several ways. You can dismiss it as nonsense (which shows you didn't get it), or you do get the underlying message which usually requires a higher understanding of the subject matter. Or perhaps the ability to put several pieces of information together on your own for the bigger picture. Or whatever else he dreams up. You have to think a bit to understand what the message. To me it's a lot more fun and interesting than just another blog.. They say most of what we read, text books, newspapers, novels, etc.. are written on a 6th grade level. KR's site is not.
-
... If you watched any UK tv humor classics (the Monty Python stuff, for example), there is that element of craziness abroad...
Ah, Rob, would that explain the British sense of superiority: that whatever is abroad (i.e., outside of UK) must be crazy? ;D
-
... Absurdity demands an intelligent audience in order that it be appreciated as such...
Or, as a minimum, with a sense of humor that ventures beyond the "why did the chicken cross the road..." or "your momma is..." type of humor?
-
Ah, Rob, would that explain the British sense of superiority: that whatever is abroad (i.e., outside of UK) must be crazy? ;D
Speaking about superiority,
alexa.com shows for last two days a superior increase in Estimated percentage (30% jump) of global internet users who visit kenrockwell.com
His overall rank of 9,133 compares favorably with 22,996 for OttawaCitizen.com or 31,614 for Sfweekly.com
-
If you watched any UK tv humor classics (the Monty Python stuff, for example), there is that element of craziness abroad, and most of it came from Oxbridge graduates who created their still-thriving niche in the industry. There is mad and there is mad, as in crazy like a fox.
Rob C
So it seems I may have hastily drawn conclusions about Ken Rockwell and he is actually super intelligent (and slightly mad perhaps) and he is actually just taking the p!ss out of us all, making a comfortable living as his site traffic increases every time a photography forum debates his latest statement or indeed his sanity?
Aaah I love Monty Python. Who else could create a song about the drinking habits of great philosphers
"...And Rene' Descartes was a drunken fart
I drink, therefore I am..."
-
Ah, Rob, would that explain the British sense of superiority: that whatever is abroad (i.e., outside of UK) must be crazy? ;D
Well, the complete sentence would show that the implication of 'craziness' was, in the quoted sense, within the Oxbridge milieu. However, don't place too much faith in Oxbridge: you may remember that last year (or possibly the one before?) my granddaughter and her fellow debater knocked the socks off those desirable English places at the Moot, and on English Law, regardless of the fact that granddaughter and friend were reading Scottish Law in Glasgow. They won the competion, by the way, collecting top prize and award from Buck. Palace.
;-)
Rob C
-
Well, the complete sentence would show that the implication of 'craziness' was, in the quoted sense, within the Oxbridge milieu. However, don't place too much faith in Oxbridge: you may remember that last year (or possibly the one before?) my granddaughter and her fellow debater knocked the socks off those desirable English places at the Moot, and on English Law, regardless of the fact that granddaughter and friend were reading Scottish Law in Glasgow. They won the competion, by the way, collecting top prize and award from Buck. Palace.
;-)
Rob C
Crangratulations to your grand daughter! Quite an hono(u)r.
T
-
well... i like his site- think he is doing well...
not with everything , but then who can be right all he time?
( do not like the mass against one btw)
(this thread is not the nicest example for LuLa it think)
(so let's put an and to it)
( as i try to do now)
-
Crangratulations to your grand daughter! Quite an hono(u)r.
T
Thanks, T, and she has just graduated as follows: "....... ....., Law with French Language, LLB with Honours of the First Class awarded with Distinction in Spoken French."
also awarded
"Dr John MacCormick prize for the most distinguished Law graduate of 2013."
Apart from reading Law in Glasgw, she spent a very expensive period in Paris studying at a French institute there (law, and in French), and it sure paid off. But then, she has a close sibling offering challenges in Medicine, and if anything, they are both blessed with parents who have done as much as humanly possible, within their means, for both kids to study and get on in life.
I realised that she has something special back when she was a young teenager and would come stay with us a while in summer; she would always argue and hold her own, defeating me most of the time by never arguing in a straight line but going mentally sideways, like a crab. It got me every time. I guess it's the natural superiority of (some) women!
Reflected glory is very enjoyable!
;-)
Rob C
-
If you take the content in Kens site (or any other blog) dead serious you are in trouble. I believe many of the nay-sayers of Ken is in this category? I find his blog very entertaining and at some times useful.
Btw: I only write this to support Ken, since I don't for a moment think I will convince any nay-Ken people to be convinced :D
-
Well,
Flat earth theory served humanity well for thousands of years, than science invented itself and made everything approximate. So, now we have relativity and quantum mechanics instead of a simple flat earth ruled by more or less benign (mostly less) gods. I guess that is what we call progress ;-)
Best regards
Erik
Now that's funny... (8^))
-
Absolutely. If you hear from hundreds if not thousands of sources that RAW files offer advantages and yet you choose to tell everyone jpegs are their equal and we're wasting our time with RAW editing/software.. FOR YEARS.. then you just don't have the knowledge about RAW files.
You point out the main problem !
It remembers when I told (in 2004) to my Canon dealer I was using RAW, he laughed and I told me I was loosing time.
But a few years later, when his daughter begun to use RAW, he completely "flip-flop" and praise RAW files !
-
Absolutely. If you hear from hundreds if not thousands of sources that RAW files offer advantages and yet you choose to tell everyone jpegs are their equal and we're wasting our time with RAW editing/software.. FOR YEARS.. then you just don't have the knowledge about RAW files. I won't go near the alternative. The only thing that can match that one is if he starts supporting PC's over Mac's.. :)
...
His point about RAW is that most people don't need it. But if you feel it works for you, he supports it. Read his whole take on this. He explains who should use it and who shouldn't. Why there are problems with it, etc. I think the problem is many people who knock Rockwell is because other people knock him. They never really read him to draw their own conclusions.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
-
His point about RAW is that most people don't need it. But if you feel it works for you, he supports it. Read his whole take on this. He explains who should use it and who shouldn't. Why there are problems with it, etc. I think the problem is many people who knock Rockwell is because other people knock him. They never really read him to draw their own conclusions.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
I'm sure you've read this thread, and by doing so know I support Ken when it's warranted, but there are areas where imo he's earned review. One such area is his LONG HISTORY of opposing RAW before his turn around and subsequently the article you've linked.
I've been reading Ken's site, because I enjoy it, almost since it began.
-
His point about RAW is that most people don't need it.
Very true! Perhaps not in this community, but when it comes to general population, relatively few people even know what's RAW.
Even more people are quite happy using their camera as the primary storage and viewing device. Some of them even own two memory cards. I seriously doubt, they could see on their little camera screen the difference between JPG or RAW. And don't even mention straight horizons.
-
I'm sure you've read this thread, and by doing so know I support Ken when it's warranted, but there are areas where imo he's earned review. One such area is his LONG HISTORY of opposing RAW before his turn around and subsequently the article you've linked.
I've been reading Ken's site, because I enjoy it, almost since it began.
I'm glad you enjoy his site as I do. I don't know what his earlier reviews were on RAW. But even the one I linked too was published 4 years ago in 2009. Not only does technology change, but people change their minds about things as well. He still thinks JPG's are good enough for most people, most of the time
-
He still thinks JPG's are good enough for most people, most of the time
The sad thing is that he may be right on this point. Hell, a hell of a lot of people think photos from their smart phone are fine.
-
The sad thing is that he may be right on this point. Hell, a hell of a lot of people think photos from their smart phone are fine.
don't get me started... we do have "Artists" doing exhibitions with their iPhone, don't we?
personally I don't think that everything an artists spits or does is art.
-
I'm glad you enjoy his site as I do. I don't know what his earlier reviews were on RAW. But even the one I linked too was published 4 years ago in 2009. Not only does technology change, but people change their minds about things as well. He still thinks JPG's are good enough for most people, most of the time
1. He felt about RAW as he does now about PC's. More when I emailed and asked specifically if he'd ever used RAW with a quality tool like Capture I got back "I tried it once with OEM software.." or something along those lines. When he finally switched gears there was no explanation to account for his years of bashing. It was just all o f a sudden RAW file conversions were included for once and his writings reflected the differences. To be pointed his lack of explanation for his transition after being so anti-RAW for so long.. is what gave me pause.
2. I'm asked almost daily which gear and workflow is "good for me.." And I always answer such questions with a question. The point being only the individual knows what's good enough for them. There are a zillion reasons, most unique to that person, that help answer that question. The best I can do is help them understand the advantages and disadvantages so THEY can decide that which fits them. Better, the sooner an amateur learns to look at different systems and concepts and make their own decisions, the sooner they leave their amateur status behind..
-
don't get me started... we do have "Artists" doing exhibitions with their iPhone, don't we?
personally I don't think that everything an artists spits or does is art.
I was actually thinking about the usual photos people take, but I wouldn't disagree with your point.
I was in Rocky Mountain NP recently, and watched with great sadness people lined up to take snaps of wonderful scenery with smartphones. It was almost as good as seeing people line up at the rim of the Grand Canyon and take pictures with their point-and-shoot cameras, of course with the flash turned on. Yeah, that will help.
-
I was in Rocky Mountain NP recently, and watched with great sadness people lined up to take snaps of wonderful scenery with smartphones.
An smartphone photo is vastly better than no photo. Don't be sad.
-
An smartphone photo is vastly better than no photo. Don't be sad.
I woudn't knock them too roughly either: I've had some rather pleasing (to me) shots with mine that I wouldn't have made with a dslr, proving your first point.
And they can be fun, where cameras can be a pain in the ass. In fact, I think I have grown to think of cameras as a necessary evil in the process of making an image.
Rob C
-
I was in Rocky Mountain NP recently, and watched with great sadness people lined up to take snaps of wonderful scenery with smartphones.
Why begrudge them their fun.
-
... I was in Rocky Mountain NP recently, and watched with great sadness people lined up to take snaps of wonderful scenery with smartphones...
I can assure you that they had way more fun doing so, and will have for years to come looking at it, than you'll ever have with whatever "serious" equipment you have. Unless, of course, you define fun as owning the latest and greatest gear.
-
... I think I have grown to think of cameras as a necessary evil in the process of making an image.
Rob C
I want a copy of that on my darkroom wall.
-
I can assure you that they had way more fun doing so, and will have for years to come looking at it, than you'll ever have with whatever "serious" equipment you have. Unless, of course, you define fun as owning the latest and greatest gear.
Not the latest and greatest at all. Just good equipment, that I enjoy using. It's about taking pictures, not competing in an equipment race. And I'm perfectly happy taking along my M4/3 camera where the DSLR is just too awkward to use.
Perhaps you should refrain from making a comment unless you actually understand the situation.
-
... Perhaps you should refrain from making a comment unless you actually understand the situation.
You mean the situation in which you displayed your patronizing disdain for people with cameras "inferior" to yours? Oh, no worries, I understood that situation right away.
-
Quote Alan Klein Reply #108
His point about RAW is that most people don't need it. But if you feel it works for you, he supports it. Read his whole take on this. He explains who should use it and who shouldn't. Why there are problems with it, etc. I think the problem is many people who knock Rockwell is because other people knock him. They never really read him to draw their own conclusions.
Quote Alan Klein Reply #111
I'm glad you enjoy his site as I do. I don't know what his earlier reviews were on RAW.
Unquote
Alan are we supposed to take you seriously in your support for Ken? ???
-
Alan are we supposed to take you seriously in your support for Ken? ???
Yes.
-
Just to expand on the RAW usage in the real world, I happen to know a photographer who's been processing his RAW images for almost ten years by using Nikon and Adobe software. He likes his images vibrant (even more than Ken), and applies rather aggressive sharpening, saturation, and other treatments. He also owns a good collection of cameras and even more plugins.
As long as he used the images just on his personal website and printing, he and everybody else were quite happy. However, when he tried to submit some of his processed images to a publication house, they rejected all of them due to artifacts, halos, color fringing, and some other faults. Fortunately, they were able to use some of his in-camera JPG images which were much cleaner than the JPG's that passed through his RAW workflow.
So sometimes (or with some people), it's a good idea to keep their RAW tools away and locked up.
-
So sometimes (or with some people), it's a good idea to keep their RAW tools away and locked up.
or maybe to keep their cameras away and locked up.
-
So sometimes (or with some people), it's a good idea to keep their RAW tools away and locked up.
No, what you are pointing out is that it's important to learn how to use their raw tools...it's not the fault of the raw files that the guy screwed them up.
-
which were much cleaner than the JPG's that passed through his RAW workflow.
That doesn't make sense. Are you saying he's run JPGs through a RAW workflow ? <understatement>That's not a great way to work.</understatement>
The point about RAW workflow is you always have the original file to go back to. Anyone competent should then be capable of delivering a better file than an OOC JPG.
The smart advice for anyone unsure about using RAW is to shoot with RAW+JPG, then you can retain your future options for increasing quality.
-
No, what you are pointing out is that it's important to learn how to use their raw tools...it's not the fault of the raw files that the guy screwed them up.
Exactly! The fault is with the user of the tool, not the RAW format.
Actually, I like processing my images in Lightroom and Camera Raw. Last year, I got a copy of your Digital Negative book which I enjoyed a lot and learned a few tricks from reading it. It sits on my reference shelf right beside the Martin Evening's books.
That doesn't make sense. Are you saying he's run JPGs through a RAW workflow ? <understatement>That's not a great way to work.</understatement>
The point about RAW workflow is you always have the original file to go back to. Anyone competent should then be capable of delivering a better file than an OOC JPG.
The smart advice for anyone unsure about using RAW is to shoot with RAW+JPG, then you can retain your future options for increasing quality.
I apologize for not being clear. He actually shoots RAW+JPG, and all the processing is applied to the RAW file, then exported as JPG. He has great looking histograms, but cranks up the clarity, saturation, and sharpening to the tilt. Some people think that his JPGs are worse than the OOC JPGs. But he likes them. By being aware of the full power of the RAW processing tools, actually, I am not surprised at all, that an overly ambitious person can ruin some images. In Canada, we have strict gun restrictions, but any idiot can buy Lightroom (or even worse, a CC PS7).
Following the CC thing and trying to improve our lives, it might be a responsible idea for Adobe to request and inspect from each LR owner his ten most processed images before allowing him to buy the next LR upgrade.
I keep all my original RAW files, and on occasions (such as after reading the aforementioned books), I have re-processed some old files and made a better image. Nevertheless, I still think that there are situations where using the from-camera JPG can be quite adequate and most practical. For some people for sure.
-
By being aware of the full power of the RAW processing tools, actually,
Your story has nothing to do with RAW format, just taste. You can do just as outrageous manipulations on a JPG with any image editor.
The only difference is that if you've kept a RAW file and you come to your senses and stop following silly fashion, you make make something decent out of the original.