Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses  (Read 98620 times)
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5940


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 07, 2013, 11:06:42 AM »
ReplyReply

I can only conclude that some well-educated, intelligent experts here must have had a sense of humor surgically removed at birth? Or, if you are religious, it seems like God decided to balance the extra helping of intellect he gave them by taking away their sense of humor? Or, if you are a TV buff, you might have noticed that they eerily resemble Dr. Temperance Brannan ("Bones") ultra-rational thinking.

And, since they have no humor-detector, I must end this post with certain visual clues:  Wink Smiley Cheesy Grin
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1950


WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 07, 2013, 11:18:05 AM »
ReplyReply

must have had a sense of humor surgically removed at birth?
Loads of people who don't know any better take KR seriously and end up seriously mislead, is that funny to you ?
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 07, 2013, 11:35:33 AM »
ReplyReply

No I don't think that I got it wrong. A lot of people who get it wrong survive for years. Iraq and George Bush for instance. Slobodan I will give you and Alan the benefit of the doubt and say you have the big stick out. Otherwise if the two of you persist in your adoration of Ken then the two of you will be thought in the same vein as the vocal majority on this thread think of Ken. Clueless. Wink Smiley

First you attack Rockwell personally.  Then you insult people here who have a different opinion.  Pretty soon the vocal minority join the managers and take over and you're all preaching to the choir because who wants to stay and be abused.  Then the hits go down on LULA and KR gets richer.  Good move.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9162



WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 07, 2013, 11:45:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan. You either don't get the concept of peer review or you just want to ignore it. You either understand basic color management or you don't and thus believe KR. I'm not going to digress into other theories of Ken's, his sense of humor (or lack thereof) or the amount of money he makes or the number of hits his site gets compared to LuLa (and I suspect it's far lower). I've stuck with one article by Ken of which his opinions are not fact based. Ken (and you) are entitled to your opinions. You (and Ken) are not entitled to your own facts. I don't care if you or Ken believe the earth is 6000 years old, carbon dating states otherwise. It's pointless to get into religious arguments for so many reasons. It's not pointless to get into discussions and arguments over fact based science, something both Ken and apparently you wish to ignore.

« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 11:48:49 AM by digitaldog » Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5940


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #104 on: June 07, 2013, 11:58:13 AM »
ReplyReply

... end up seriously mislead, is that funny to you ?

Any proof of that? And yes, I would find it funny, if true.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



WWW
« Reply #105 on: June 07, 2013, 12:05:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Alan. You either don't get the concept of peer review or you just want to ignore it. .... It's not pointless to get into discussions and arguments over fact based science, something both Ken and apparently you wish to ignore.

Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   Huh
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9162



WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 07, 2013, 12:11:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   Huh

Is English your 2nd language or do you just have a reading retention issue? I told you what specific piece of dribble Ken wrote I have issues with. It's flat out bogus. I've offered to explain to you how and why since I'm under the impression color management is something you're not up to speed on considering I provided a link to his article.

You get on a peer review committee by having a basic understanding of the topic being discussed. So go read Ken's piece on sRGB and learn just a bit about color management, then tell us as as peer how his piece isn't technically wrong and I'll tell you where it is, we can go from there. Or you can just accept what he writes as fact, then you're not welcome to be considered a peer in terms of this one piece he wrote! If you spent as much time educating yourself on just this sRGB issue as you do defending Ken, you'd be in much better shape to discuss this single topic of which Ken is misinformed!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



WWW
« Reply #107 on: June 07, 2013, 12:29:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh gosh!  Give me a break.   sRGB?  I'd rather use crayons!
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1680


« Reply #108 on: June 07, 2013, 12:32:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   Huh
He claims that people using stands are idiots. I think that there are plenty of examples of how a camera stand improves IQ visibly.

-h
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9162



WWW
« Reply #109 on: June 07, 2013, 12:55:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Oh gosh!  Give me a break.   sRGB?  I'd rather use crayons!

What's that supposed to mean?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7487


WWW
« Reply #110 on: June 07, 2013, 02:34:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Science is not to bad...

Erik


Since when is selecting the kind of camera you like, or which photo is "best" or which photo processing method to follow  is "fact based science"?  By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?   Huh
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9162



WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 07, 2013, 03:31:16 PM »
ReplyReply

This pretty well nails it. If you scan a lifetime's work of slide film into 8 bit srgb jpegs you will of course wonder why the subtle reds and blues have completely blocked up, and perhaps blame it on the scanner, or the whole "digital" technology.
Look, I get really tired of helping repair the damage caused by "advice" on websites like KR's.

And yet Alan falls exactly into this trap of Ken's as illustrated here:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=78197.msg628027#msg628027

Quote
I think I'm going to scan documents into jpeg rather than pdf going forward.  Who knows about what Adobe will do there too?  Also, what about Bitmap .BMP.  I think that's the same pixel quantity as TIff and non-protected?  WOuldn't filing in bmp be the same as tiff?

Quote
I tried saving a jpeg image as a tiff and bmp.  Both resultant files had the same amount of pixels.  So what would the difference be by saving as bmp or  tiff?  You can always convert back to tiff from bmp without loss.  No?    This way you can saved all your files without worrying about having to pay fees for tiff in the future.  No?

He's asking the right questions there and getting the right answers. Hopefully we can undo some of the damage Ken's "teachings" has had on him!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5489


WWW
« Reply #112 on: June 07, 2013, 04:24:58 PM »
ReplyReply

By the way.  How do I get on the peer review committee?

If you have to ask the question...you wouldn't understand the answer, but I'll give it a shot.

Real peer review committees are made up of leading experts in a given field who know enough about a subject to be able to grasp the meaning of somebody's research and question the validity of the theories and methods employed. I know enough about photography and digital imaging to be in a position to pass judgement over Ken's writing. He is clearly a crackpot who tries to benefit by being controversial–but not in a good way of challenging current knowledge but by intentionally going down the road of being provocative without actually advancing the art and science. He's like a photo industry version of Tony Robbins or Dr. Phil. Yes, there's an entertainment value (if you like that sort of stuff–I don't) but is it worth it in the end? Ken COULD be using his talents to help the industry but he chooses to help himself instead.
Logged
FranciscoDisilvestro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 543


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 07, 2013, 08:08:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang2
KR is a very studdied character. His style is not casual
But marketed.
He has the Background for it and built a politicaly incorrect
Character that became a case in itself.
His website smells redneck, with pics of the family
Framed old fashion. This look is deliberate. It's the
Roots middle class las vegas good citizen bad taste
That he ironize with the use and abuse of short
Journalistic claims. he built his own coffee corner.
This is very very studdied,
And as Jeff said, I think that mainly for himself. His
Self-image built May have became out of control but
He knows something: no matter if people talk to you
In a good Or a bad way. What matters for some is that
People talk about them. (politicians are others)
There is a style, more than infos, irreverent,
And that's what a lot of readers find funny.
Most think he doesn't take him seriously, I think
He takes himself very seriously, just that he choosed
A role with this self-ironic component. From the esthetic
Of his site, more redneck impossible, to the content.
As we say in France: if he didn't exist we'd have to
Invent it. he's part of the web landscape on photography,
Being a case apart.

Fred, I think you nailed it!


Quote
"I'm a big returner. I'll get all excited, buy something, write it up, and if it came from a store with a good return policy, usually I'll realize a week later while the return period is still valid, that I'm never going to use it again. Back it goes, with their permission, of course. Four cameras is more than enough for anyone."

Hey, maybe there is a business opportunity here, those stores could sell those equipments at a premium with the "Returned by KR" sticker  Cheesy
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5940


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #114 on: June 07, 2013, 08:29:45 PM »
ReplyReply

... Ken COULD be using his talents to help the industry but he chooses to help himself instead.

Ha! Thats a novel argument against KR. So, he is guilty for not being Mother Theresa? In a country with the merciless competition, law of the jungle, winner-takes-it-all, eat-or-be-eaten, he chose to help himself!?
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 597



« Reply #115 on: June 07, 2013, 09:22:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I've never been interested enough to look into it, but if you wrote that stuff would you go by your real name?  I'm thinking Ken Rockwell is a pseudonym.


See there?  I drove around the block to look at the car wreck once more.
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 08, 2013, 06:42:19 AM »
ReplyReply

I can only conclude that some well-educated, intelligent experts here must have had a sense of humor surgically removed at birth?
Maybe they just have not exactly the same sense of humor...
The demonstration of a 24x36 velvia scan being flat equivalent to 192MP (or so) was rather quite high an odd-degree humor, to say the least. As it used the MTF graph without even blinking at that MTF was not even plotted at the frequency used (and he extrapolated it to 20%), it's some kind of humor that I find only mean, really laughing of people that just did not learn what a MTF is and how to use it (Norman Koren is may be not as much entertaining for the masses, but he did explain that already long ago for anyone willing to read).
That, or he uses these satire alerts to excuse for incompetence - you choose.

Ditto for the sRGB part - tossing color management over board is not going to help many people.


Humor is a good reason to write funny things (in which I personally hesitate to file the F2 bit), but a bad excuse to write BS.


He became famous being the-simple-roots-american-middle-class-citizen
That fight the established values and deliberatly provocative.
Well, I'd think it takes arguments to fight established values...
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 751



WWW
« Reply #117 on: June 08, 2013, 07:35:51 AM »
ReplyReply


If you want to advance yourself, try reading some from Norman Koren (who has way more than half a friggin' clue) or Bruce Lindbloom who does the CM industry enormous good or even LuLa where Mike bends over backwards to provide useful and factual info.

Jeff: Koren has a wonderful sight and I think his photos are way better than anything Rockwell produces.  However, most people except pixel peeprs are not interested in how Koren explains photography to people.  Mathematical integrals? http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF2.html

Rockwell's audience for the most part does not want to read about formulas although he does get into the weeds as well and provides in-depth technical analysys of cameras for example. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-iii.htm   For the most part, Rockwell wants to teach people how to be better photographers.    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/synthesis.htm  Or check any one of his other writings that would help people to become better.  http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

These things don't make either Koren or Rockwell right or wrong, just different in their approaches.   Different strokes for different people.

Rockwell also acknowledges the help and skill of others.  He's gracious enough to list dozens of other photographers as well as companies that you can use as a resourse to help in your photography.  He's willing to acknowledge the technical skill and artistry of others. He doesn't critically attack people as people here personally attack him. People like him because he's warm and personable.  He's a mench.  him http://www.kenrockwell.com/links.htm#art
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #118 on: June 08, 2013, 09:51:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, there is not only crap in his site, but the good parts are only basic common sense (yes, you have to pay attention to what you're photographing, yes), and are interleaved with some pretty silly things as soon as he dips into something technical (which he doesn't do too often, fortunately).
It's up to anyone to assess the usefulness of the whole. I don't rate it high, as far as I am concerned. But please, don't call that technically correct.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1950


WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 08, 2013, 10:10:47 AM »
ReplyReply

he does... provides in-depth technical analysys of cameras for example. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-iii.htm
If that's your idea of ' in-depth technical analysis' I can see why you think KR is such a help.



Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad