Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses

[Jeff Myers]

Misinformation (down right lies) are threatening to those who know better and see this directed at those that don't. The yet misinformed don't deserve Ken Rockwell.

What gets me is he says that this is all his opinion. and he shouldn't have to say that.. everything on the internet esp. equipment reviews should always be taken as opinion. To say one camera is the best in the world is opinion.

I take some of KR's stuff as good and some of it as BS. What I find funny is the masses go after him.. not any other reviewers on the web. Since there is a team of "internet Photography review police" out there, shouldn't they be patrolling other reviewers too. Or is it the fact that KR makes a ton of money off this stuff that bothers you.

When you guys are ready to get off Rockwell's back, there is a company in China producing fake handbags and watches. You'd better start a forum to expose them too before the 'misinformed' get taken by the fake products and lies.

I mean you are actually looking out for the misinformed right? and not just Ken R bashing?

I think he has just as much great info as he does humor (that some don't get) and BS. but it amuses me that it bothers so many (so called) professionals. I think that if one were truly a professional, it would not bother them. I also think that all those that go on the web and try to discredit him, actually read his site frequently and therefore make him more money.

It's crazy how every time I google his name along with a topic I'm looking up. Some photographer wannabe shows up wishing he was half the success story as Ken is.

[digitaldog]

I mean you are actually looking out for the misinformed right? and not just Ken R bashing?

It's called peer review. It's used a bit in science, something some of us are more interested than a web site filled with part BS (your term) and presumably useful information.

Since there is a team of "internet Photography review police" out there, shouldn't they be patrolling other reviewers too

Yup.

Or is it the fact that KR makes a ton of money off this stuff that bothers you.

I have no idea (how could I) how much money he makes. How do you? FWIW, I could care less how much he makes. His ideas behind color management are absurd and wrong. That's my beef with Ken.

[Schewe]

The funny thing is you guys keep bringing him up in forums to bash him and make fun of him and discredit him but in reality everytime you do, you make him more money and more long time followers.

So, is there a reason you posted a new post to a thread that has been dormant since July of 2008?

[Jeff Myers]

So, is there a reason you posted a new post to a thread that has been dormant since July of 2008?

Yes, I tried to post an old post and make it go dormant but it wouldn't stay asleep.

Moron, how could i post anything but a 'new' post?

[Schewe]

Moron, how could i post anything but a 'new' post?

So, your third post here on LuLa and you're calling me a moron? Doesn't bode well for your long term presence here does it?

The point I was trying to make is that it's pretty stupid to take an almost 5 year old thread and make something of it. Here on LuLa that's kind of frowned on...which you'll learn if you spend any time getting acquainted here.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Barbarians at the gate?

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Ken has a different approach. It's pretty much like shooting slide film. You load Velvia and shoot Velvia, than you load Provia and shoot Provia.

The approach I prefer is to shoot raw, make the best image I can and decide on everything later. Both approaches are viable, but the second one is mine.

Best regards
Erik

It's called peer review. It's used a bit in science, something some of us are more interested than a web site filled with part BS (your term) and presumably useful information.

Yup.

I have no idea (how could I) how much money he makes. How do you? FWIW, I could care less how much he makes. His ideas behind color management are absurd and wrong. That's my beef with Ken.

[digitaldog]

Ken has a different approach. It's pretty much like shooting slide film. You load Velvia and shoot Velvia, than you load Provia and shoot Provia.
The approach I prefer is to shoot raw, make the best image I can and decide on everything later. Both approaches are viable, but the second one is mine.

Again, in terms of what he writes about color management, the analogy should be You load Velvia and you get TechPan.

[Rand47]

Yes, I tried to post an old post and make it go dormant but it wouldn't stay asleep.

Moron, how could i post anything but a 'new' post?

Jeff Schewe is a moron?  It's about time someone exposed him for the no talent incompetent fake photographer that he is.  You should check out just what a moron he is.  Might start here.  And here.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Thanks for the good chuckle and welcome to a really great place that you apparently know nothing about.  Go a little slower and more courteously, and you'll find this site a valuable and civil resource.  

Rand

[stamper]

Barbarians at the gate?

 Ken B has "left" so we now need another one to take his place. I suspect that Ken R will be sipping a coffee, or a beer, and reading this. Having a quiet chuckle and then going for another layer of skin before posting another article to entertain all of us.

[Schewe]

Ken B has "left" so we now need another one to take his place.

Ken B didn't leave so much as he was kicked out...and you'll note that the recent resurrection of this thread was started the same day that Jeff Myers joined LuLa. His three posts in this thread are the sum total of his "contributions" to the community (if you want to call them contributions). As for KR, well, a standard distribution would indicate a bell shaped curve with KR way, way out in left field. The only sad thing about KR is that there are people out there that read what he says and actually think it's useful. There's a sucker born every minute (which may or may not have come from PT Barnum). I guess Jeff M. may be a sucker :~)

[Fine_Art]

That's a good question. I surmise that the distance of 15 ft might be a rough average of the many different distances at which we see people during our various activities, but I'm just guessing and I admit I have little experience in portraiture.

Doing a Google search to find the answer, I came across the following abstract of a scientific paper, which unfortunately one has to buy to read so I didn't get to read the full text, just the abstract below, which you might find interesting.

According to this study, if you want to make your subjects appear smart and strong, take Ken Rockwell's advice and photograph them from 15 ft. (400cm in the experiment is actually a bit less at 13 ft, but let's not quibble.)

If you want your subjects looking as attractive as possible, get closer, and if you want them to appear as friendly and good-natured as possible, get even closer. Makes sense?  

The link to the website is [a href=\"http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/]http://www.journalofvision.org/7/9/992/[/url]

If there is research I would expect it to be used on the distance of passport photos, DLs, mugshots. Wouldn't they have the most pressing need for the person to be recognized from the shot? If I remember my last DL shot it was about 2m away. My last passport shot was about 3m. Of course these depend on the facility. I would still expect passport authorities to give guidelines to photographers on the issue if it is research backed.

[David Hufford]

Yes, I tried to post an old post and make it go dormant but it wouldn't stay asleep.

Moron, how could i post anything but a 'new' post?

Wow. If Jeff is a moron, I hope to become a moron too.

[mgear]

I'm not really a fan of Mr. Rockwell. He tends to stretch the truth way too much for my liking.


One thing that really annoys me of him is that he uses small JPG (I think) and then complains that the image is dull or has too much NR. JPG's vary by company with Olympus producing some awesome ones while Nikon files are a bit bland. I'm a RAW person of course.