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...