Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses  (Read 70127 times)
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785



« Reply #80 on: June 06, 2013, 04:30:31 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2013, 04:42:28 AM by fredjeang2 » Logged
Colorado David
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 492


« Reply #81 on: June 06, 2013, 07:23:18 AM »
ReplyReply

This is the Lazarus thread.  It has tried to die two or three times but comes back to life.  Now it's like driving by a car wreck.  I have to look.  Please die thread.  KR doesn't need the publicity.
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 586



WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 06, 2013, 04:59:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff:  Rockwell is selling his brand of photography; you're selling yours.  The ad hominen attacks ought to be avoided.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 07, 2013, 12:44:12 AM »
ReplyReply

Rockwell is selling his brand of photography; you're selling yours.

Actually, Ken is selling his brand of bullshyte...I don't actually sell bullshyte.
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 867


WWW
« Reply #84 on: June 07, 2013, 03:09:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, I agree with Schewe on this one.
It's not just that Rockwell has so much mis-information on his site, but also that it is evangelised by his followers.
I have seen several cases of entire photographic collections rendered useless by people following his advice. One was a chap transferring his film collection to digital for archiving purposes: at his age and as a novice in the digital world it was not his fault that he didn't have the experience to tell fraud from fact.
Logged

Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 586



WWW
« Reply #85 on: June 07, 2013, 03:21:10 AM »
ReplyReply

I've read Rockwell for a couple of years.  I've never read anything or got advice that would have done anything bad like what you suggested.  Can you provide a link to his blog and show me where he said such things?
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2391


« Reply #86 on: June 07, 2013, 04:09:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, you have heard of the adage about...when in a hole then stop digging. Do you honestly think you are correct when the overwhelming opinion is against you?
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #87 on: June 07, 2013, 04:27:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I've never read anything or got advice that would have done anything bad like what you suggested.
Only ever using sRGB is pretty poor advice by itself. The same goes for only shooting JPGs.

Much of KR's 'advice' might be useful for complete novices trying to make a start in photography, but there's precious little good advice for anyone with aspirations towards excellence.
Logged
David Sutton
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 867


WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 07, 2013, 05:20:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Only ever using sRGB is pretty poor advice by itself. The same goes for only shooting JPGs.

Much of KR's 'advice' might be useful for complete novices trying to make a start in photography, but there's precious little good advice for anyone with aspirations towards excellence.

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. If I continue this discussion further I will say what I really think of him and his apologists and end up banned from this forum.
David
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 07, 2013, 05:28:15 AM »
ReplyReply

If I continue this discussion further I will say what I really think of him and his apologists and end up banned from this forum.

No you won't! I'll stand up for you...(I seriously doubt Ken will be reporting you to the moderators–who are close, personal friends :~)
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 586



WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 07, 2013, 06:43:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, I agree with Schewe on this one.
It's not just that Rockwell has so much mis-information on his site, but also that it is evangelised by his followers.
I have seen several cases of entire photographic collections rendered useless by people following his advice. One was a chap transferring his film collection to digital for archiving purposes: at his age and as a novice in the digital world it was not his fault that he didn't have the experience to tell fraud from fact.

David:  I asked and I guess you felt it wasn't necessary to provide even a thread of proof that Rockwell did these things.  Not even a link to his web page to show us what he said.  You're repeating false rumors and gossip spread by other equally mis-informed people who want to besmirch his name.  That's not right.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 07, 2013, 06:54:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I've read Rockwell for a couple of years.

Hum, that begs the question, do you have anything else to do with your life?

I'm ok with accepting Ken at his own words...his intro says:

This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."

Ok...I dispute the "giving back to the community" since I don't honestly think the "community" wants his "work of fiction"...but hey, maybe that's just me?

In everything he says, he says don't listen to him. So, I don't...sorry but I don't think he's doing anybody a favor besides himself. If you think that's an "ad hominen attack", I suggest you research what that phrase actually means...yes, I'm attacking the person because, well the person is so full of crap. How do you suggest I phrase that?

Note, just after his "intro" comes the section "How many cameras do I have?"...he tells something when he says:

"I rarely, if ever, still own any gear about which I've written. Even if I owned it when I wrote about it, this site has been on-the-air for over eleven years. I've written-up hundreds of cameras and zillions of lenses and accessories since 1999, and I certainly don't have all that here today.

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."


Heck, at least Mike will fall in love and keep the stuff he falls in love with...Ken? Not so much...

Really Alan, if you want to have a "bromance" with somebody, I don't think this is the guy for you...he'll drop you the moment he's done with you...and you'll end up hating yourself for being hoodwinked.

He's a snake oil salesman...can you honestly dispute that? In that regard, he's not "giving back to our community", he's raping it. With way too much glee for me to tolerate...
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 06:56:04 AM by Schewe » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8074



WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 07, 2013, 07:49:27 AM »
ReplyReply

I've read Rockwell for a couple of years.  I've never read anything or got advice that would have done anything bad like what you suggested.  Can you provide a link to his blog and show me where he said such things?

Already posted one below, you either ignored it, or don't understand it. Give it up, just the one piece on sRGB is pure rubbish. Do I have to explain it to you?
Logged

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

Posts: 1615


« Reply #93 on: June 07, 2013, 07:56:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that KR is about entertainment. Just like "top gear" is not really about which car to purchase, or how to drive a car, but about making an entertaining package with cars that you will never afford doing things that are illegal in many countries interspersed with witty comments.

If you want to know what car to buy you should probably rather read something like "consumer report" (guessing here, as I am not a US citizen).

If you want to learn how to drive a car fast (on the road or track), you probably want to spend a weekend with an instructor instead.

Does this mean that Jeremy Clarkson and friends are idiots, or that they do not know how to drive a car? Of course, not. But they do tend to claim that every car they review is either: a)the best in the world, or b)the worst (sensationalist). They tend to forget/ignore aspects of cars and driving that are important to many viewers. Is it environmentally friendly? Does it take a stroller? (subjective macho-man view). They seem highly anglo-centric (chauvinist). But good entertainment it is.

-h
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 08:02:07 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8074



WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 07, 2013, 08:01:29 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that KR is about entertainment. Just like "top gear" is not really about which car to purchase, or how to drive a car, but about making an entertaining package with cars that you will never afford doing things that are illegal in many countries interspersed with witty comments.

Great show. And as I recall, they never said nonsense like the VW bug they tested did 0-60mph in 2 seconds, in reverse. The gang there has opinions big time, but it's usually based on some degree of fact.

So we're to take Ken as entertainment, digital imaging and photography science fiction?
Logged

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

Posts: 1615


« Reply #95 on: June 07, 2013, 08:12:29 AM »
ReplyReply

So we're to take Ken as entertainment, digital imaging and photography science fiction?
I found him entertaining for a while, now I think he is most annoying. Even more annoying is that he has the ability to write in such a way that photographers tends to quote him.

Look, it is not like other photography gear reviewers (or science journalists) are not having to balance the "entertainment value" vs "scientific value" act. They do. They simplify. They exaggerate. They talk about stuff they don't (fully) understand. Many are perhaps unsuccessful photographers with no tech background. They need to generate ad clicks or sell glossy magazines (most of them, at least). Its only that they don't go as far as KR, or that they haven't refined the art as well as him.

-h
« Last Edit: June 07, 2013, 08:19:55 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5005



WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 07, 2013, 08:59:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Alan, you have heard of the adage about...when in a hole then stop digging. Do you honestly think you are correct when the overwhelming opinion is against you?

Could it be that you got it wrong? After all, without the overwhelming opinion in his favor, KR wouldn't be able to survive and thrive for so many years. As usual, what we have here, on this forum, is the vocal minority.
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 2391


« Reply #97 on: June 07, 2013, 09:58:43 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
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 07, 2013, 10:10:41 AM »
ReplyReply

After all, without the overwhelming opinion in his favor, KR wouldn't be able to survive and thrive for so many years.
You don't have to either popular or correct to 'survive' on the internet. All he has to do is pay his server fees and it's out there.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2717



« Reply #99 on: June 07, 2013, 10:30:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Actually, Ken is selling his brand of bullshyte...I don't actually sell bullshyte.

Ken's brand of bullshyte is nowhere more apparent than his review of the Nikon F2S where he concludes, "The Nikon F2S is for photographers and professional newsmen, not for sniveling IT weenies who swarm all over anything digital. The F2S is a man's camera. When things get dicey while covering a protest, a good whack to a protester's head with the F2S has usually solved the problem."

The problem with the F2S was with its sensor: film. Compared with the latest digital sensors, film sucks as pointed out by Diglloyd here for those who have not used film. A wise photographer selects the best tool for the job, not as a means of proving his manhood. It is interesting that on one of his introductory pages, Ken has himself pictured with a massive telephoto lens. The symbolism is amusing.

Bill
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad