Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Tklimek on January 29, 2009, 12:15:57 am
-
LOL....
Chest Rockwell's latest rail on digital and particularly RAW.....including the very "latest" RAW format....
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm)
I'm guessing since I'm posting this in the "Digital Image Processing" section that no one would agree with him. Do any of his arguments make sense?
I'm not a Ken basher or cult-follower, but do check out his site frequently....his info must be taken with a grain of salt...and sometimes the whole shaker of salt!
Cheers....
Todd in Chicago
-
I just wanted to express my sincere [insert sarcasm here] thanks for posting this.
Something possessed me, I am not sure what it was, but akin to being unable to look away from a horrible car crash I 'clicked' the link and read Ken's latest banal prose. I now feel a little piece of innocence has been taken away from me... *shakes head in disbelief*. Ok... I have from time to time in the past clicked a link to read read his missives from a safe distance, but since he exists at the lunatic fringe I largely ignore his tirades and seemingly insatiable thirst for controversy.
Not only is Ken's writing full of appalling grammar that make it difficult to understand his intent...Ok.. Ken is a photographer *cough* [I use that word in the loosest possible sense] not a writer, but his writings read like a series of missinterpreted half concoted quotes and ideas grafted together from other spurious websites of the mediocre variety rather than a serious 'op-ed' piece that attempts to back up its claims with actual evidence - even of the anecdotal variety. Its a frankenstein experiment; most likely devised to draw attention and create publicity for Ken and his website - and to a certain degree it has succeeded in this regard.
I could say it was funny.. but it is really just quite sad.
To even make the effort to rebuff the gobbledegook and disinformation is to do his ilinformed misguided ideas a level of credence, which they simply dont deserve or warrant.
I am sure others will take his writings to task and expose them for what they really are - light entertainment.
-
Something possessed me, I am not sure what it was, but akin to being unable to look away from a horrible car crash I 'clicked' the link and read Ken's latest banal prose.
OMG, why did I look? I should know better.
-
Ahhhh.... Ken.....
The Rush Limbaugh of photography. If you shout loud enough, are opinionated to the extreme and are obnoxious - it must be a valid or true point of view.
I wonder when he's going to be on one of the cable networks?
Like Rush... he can be entertaining at times.
-
Ahhhh.... Ken.....
The Rush Limbaugh of photography.
I love it!
But, I must say that I'm pissed that I even spent 30 seconds looking at his drivil.
Michael
-
The Rush Limbaugh of photography.
So true. Its amazing the lengths some will go to, to make themselves seen and heard, even if what they are saying is obvious BS. Ken, Rush and the Gov of Illinois, birds of the same feather.
-
Having wasted my time reading Ken's famous "your camera doesn't matter" rant, I am proud to say that I resisted clicking the link this time. I think I have gotten all the potential value from this latest incident simply by reading the posts in this thread.
The "Rush Limbaugh" comment alone was worth the time I spent (here).
-
Disagree with Ken, fine.
Disagree with Rush, fine.
Obnoxious? Sure, to those who disagree with them, just as I might find Leni Riefenstahl and Al Franken obnoxious.
-
Apparently RAW files are like uncooked olives! I never knew that.
I also liked this comment -
"Film has a far broader capture range than afforded with current digital capture. Cameras might have, in their dreams, a 14-bit linear range, but film has no fixed endpoints. With film, there is always something there that can be pulled out later." Rabbits, Doves, small monkeys, peni....?!?
-
The man like to be controversal doesn't he. Wayne
-
thats... just.
awesome.
-
I have noticed the sign "Please help Ken Rockwell" and I start to understand why he needs some help...
There is something to calling Velvia an universal raw-format, I'm less sure about the 175 MPixel part.
Erik
thats... just.
awesome.
-
There is an "inkling" of something to what he says.
My question is: [blockquote]In 2029, where are you going to find a mid 90's mac and dongle to run the scanner[/blockquote]
SCSI in 2030, hah what's that
Scanners are going the way of the gramaphone.
Archiving anything is a challenge without a lot of intervention and work.
bob
-
Ahhhh.... Ken.....
The Rush Limbaugh of photography.
That's an insult to Rush Limbaugh...and no I haven't wasted the time clicking the link.
-
Ahhhh . . . . . Ken,
The Al Franken of photography.
-
wow. posting adorable baby pix to get people to contribute. why didn't i think of that.
"I support my growing family through this website."
shilling your baby to support your ravings: priceless.
[attachment=11274:Picture_7.png]
-
Something that struck me about the 'new RAW' files, is that Krockwell [TM!] has previously slated RAW files, particularly as you less shots on your memory card as a result. So I wonder how does he then reconcile shoots with a mere 36 or 10 shots per roll on 'Ultimate RAW' [BS!], or what ever he now calls film?
-
Something that struck me about the 'new RAW' files, is that Krockwell [TM!] has previously slated RAW files, particularly as you less shots on your memory card as a result. So I wonder how does he then reconcile shoots with a mere 36 or 10 shots per roll on 'Ultimate RAW' [BS!], or what ever he now calls film?
Hey guys film is the new "memory card" Film.TM Wayne Clarke
-
I'm guessing since I'm posting this in the "Digital Image Processing" section that no one would agree with him. Do any of his arguments make sense?
In a nutshell, Ken Rockwell likes to shoot classic film as well as digital JPG.
That’s probably not entirely stupid, although his tech reasoning in detail is flawed.
I’d start with the pics, respectively:
1.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/index.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/index.htm)
2.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/tech.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/tech.htm)
3.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm)
1.) http://kenrockwell.com/canon/images/g10/gallery.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/canon/images/g10/gallery.htm)
2.) http://kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm)
The film look: color appearance, organic grain and in particular the differrent mechanics of highlight clipping can be seen as a challange on it’s own with digital capture. Again, his early ETTL approach bears some food for thoughts:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixing-dynamic-range.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixing-dynamic-range.htm)
Peter
--
-
"I only update things as I discover errors. I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion.
Most people up through the 1990s, and even today, are only accustomed to large corporations with larger advertising budgets having large voices. The size of the voice depended on the size of the budget. Today, with the wonder of the Internet, any idiot with something to share has a voice as large as those who want to listen. I admire Shepard Fairey's brilliant work which explores the same idea, but much better than I do. (He's not an idiot, he's a great artist. I'm the idiot.)
I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke.
If you don't know me personally, then you can't possibly have any idea of what I mean when you read my text. Meaning is far more subtle than my kludgy writing, and no one is double-checking what I write before it goes up. I'm not a poet. I can't put what I'm thinking into words so clear that everyone will understand their intent.
I love to kid around, but no joke goes over well throughout every world culture served by the Internet. I get email from researchers at both north and south poles, as well as everywhere else from the frozen north of Norway, Igloolik, tiny tropical islands in the warm Pacific, every world continent and even ships on the ocean. I'm read in the chateaux of Switzerland and Beverly Hills to ox-powered PCs in the shantytowns of countries too poor to have telephones for computer support call centers. I'm read by everyone from the corporate rulers of the world to students who one day will build the world.
So read, enjoy, have fun, and take everything in the spirit in which it's shared. "
"While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction. This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own."
brilliant! he's my new hero!
-
In a nutshell, Ken Rockwell likes to shoot classic film as well as digital JPG.
That’s probably not entirely stupid, although his tech reasoning in detail is flawed.
I’d start with the pics, respectively:
1.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/index.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/index.htm)
2.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/tech.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-01-dv/tech.htm)
3.) http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm)
1.) http://kenrockwell.com/canon/images/g10/gallery.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/canon/images/g10/gallery.htm)
2.) http://kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm (http://kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm)
The film look: color appearance, organic grain and in particular the differrent mechanics of highlight clipping can be seen as a challange on it’s own with digital capture. Again, his early ETTL approach bears some food for thoughts:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixing-dynamic-range.htm (http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixing-dynamic-range.htm)
Peter
--
I love the organic grain bit, I can see that on the small laptop I'm using at the moment, remember this is Velvia 50, I shouldn't be able to see organic grain on a big image, never mind an 8x6 I'm looking at now. Looks more Velvia 800 to me. Wayne
-
Saying stupid things, then adding that you're possibly just kidding, is a license to say even more stupid things and continue to get away with it.
Who's kidding whom?
Enough said.
Michael
-
I'm curious why you all love ken rockwell so much. You sure all go on about him.
I mean the Joker in the Batman movie is a bad guy...but we LIKE him.
Despite his nuttery, he's basically an advocate of film, and despite all the technical arguments and mumbo jumbo I agree with whats at the heart of his claim.
Film justs LOOKS better than digital.
So why did we throw the baby out with the bathwater with all this new technology?
Same thing happened in music tech.Moogs being replaced by DX7's and their ilk. Tube mics to solid state...yada yada.
You can argue it's a matter of subjective value....but your ears and eyes are tin and rosy (in my opinion) if you can't discern that simple, undeniable FACT.
I use digital for workflow , it's flexibility and many other factors....but I know my Kodachromes just LOOK better straight out of the box, and with digital I usually rely on digital muckery to EMULATE a filmic quality.
-
I'm curious why you all love ken rockwell so much. You sure all go on about him.
I mean the Joker in the Batman movie is a bad guy...but we LIKE him.
True - I get a laugh out of his stuff so maybe that's not a bad thing.
"Why so serious?"
-
Saying stupid things, then adding that you're possibly just kidding, is a license to say even more stupid things and continue to get away with it.
Who's kidding whom?
Enough said.
Michael
saying stupid things and getting away with it... isn't that "Comedy"?
-
Sorry no, there's a definite difference between stupidity and comedy. Stupid can also be funny, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.
Michael
-
saying stupid things and getting away with it... isn't that "Comedy"?
Like "Mission Accomplished"? Some comedy.
Or to qoute Forrest Gump: Stupid is as Stupid does.