What do we make of Ken Rockwell?

[MattNQ]

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..."

[Rob C]

Ah, Rob, would that explain the British sense of superiority: that whatever is abroad (i.e., outside of UK) must be crazy?

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

[TMARK]

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

[kers]

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)

[Rob C]

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

[AlfSollund]

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 

[allegretto]

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^))

[thierrylegros396]

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 !

[Alan Klein]

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

[Steve Weldon]

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.

[LesPalenik]

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.


 

[Alan Klein]

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

[WaitingForAnR10]

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.

[allegretto]

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.

[Steve Weldon]

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..

[WaitingForAnR10]

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.

[digitaldog]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[Isaac]

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.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... 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.