Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses  (Read 93687 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #40 on: February 13, 2013, 10:56:34 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

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

Yup.

Quote
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.
Logged

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

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2013, 01:33:58 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged
Jeff Myers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2013, 01:44:56 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2013, 01:57:50 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2013, 02:06:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Barbarians at the gate?
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 7333


WWW
« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2013, 02:12:12 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #46 on: February 13, 2013, 02:14:40 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Rand47
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 555


« Reply #47 on: February 13, 2013, 10:26:24 PM »
ReplyReply

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

« Last Edit: February 13, 2013, 10:31:59 PM by Rand47 » Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2654


« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2013, 03:28:27 AM »
ReplyReply

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. Grin
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5469


WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2013, 12:04:22 PM »
ReplyReply

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 :~)
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1087


« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2013, 02:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
David Hufford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #51 on: February 15, 2013, 11:04:12 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged

*Never fall in love with anything that can't love you back*
mgear
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2013, 04:32:10 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 693



WWW
« Reply #53 on: June 01, 2013, 02:32:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I enjoy reading Rockwell.  He likes to laugh at himself as well as others.  He doesn't  take himself too seriously.  He has a common sense and frugal  approach to photography.  His own photography is heavy on saturation, but that's what he likes or thinks that's what most others like as well so that's what he produces.  I suspect he thinks it sells better. 

While he'll get into details like pixels because that's what people like to read about, he really doesn't think they matter much.  Good photography is good photography.  Keep it simple, he says.  We shouldn't get caught up the sales hype from camera manufacturers that he also like to laugh at when they screw up. 


When reading Rockwell, you have to discern the nuggets of gold. 
Logged
Richowens
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 840



« Reply #54 on: June 01, 2013, 03:35:44 PM »
ReplyReply

quote; When reading Rockwell, you have to discern the nuggets of gold. unquote.

 That is if you can find any among or in all the piles of bullshit.

Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9011



WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 01, 2013, 03:37:17 PM »
ReplyReply

He likes to laugh at himself as well as others
As others are laughing at him!

Quote
He doesn't  take himself too seriously.
Many here don't take him seriously too.

Quote
While he'll get into details like pixels because that's what people like to read about, he really doesn't think they matter much. 
Then he shouldn't write about pixels. His take on color management, (sRGB) which is directly related to pixels is pure nonsense.

Quote
When reading Rockwell, you have to discern the nuggets of gold. 
Scattered with Fools Gold.
Logged

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

Posts: 693



WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 01, 2013, 08:33:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I think professionals in the photo industry who take cheap shots at Rockwell would be better off reading all of his blog posts since he started and continue to follow him.  Maybe they could learn something that might make them as successful.
Logged
Jason DiMichele
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160



WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 01, 2013, 10:13:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Alan,

If you are referring to Andrew (digitaldog), he's been plenty successful. It might be wise to follow other people in the industry other than just Ken and perhaps learn who's successful and who isn't. I suppose defining success is important. Just because everyone knows your name doesn't mean you've made it.

Cheers!
Logged

Jason DiMichele
Fine Art Photographer and Printer
www.jasondimichele.com
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 693



WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 01, 2013, 10:58:54 PM »
ReplyReply

It's the cheap shots that bothers me.  Professionals should respect other professionals.  There's a way to disagree with another professional without resorting to name calling. 
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2654


« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2013, 04:16:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan are you referring to Ken as a professional in the context he is paid or in the context of professionalism ( ie some people believe the definition means knowledgeable ) that he is knowledgeable? He may well be knowledgeable but he disguises it with a lot of BS. If someone respects Ken then others will wonder about the credentials of the person respecting him?
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad