Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ken Rockwell's Fifteen Feet - Portrait Lenses  (Read 70047 times)
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8064



WWW
« Reply #120 on: June 08, 2013, 10:15:59 AM »
ReplyReply

If that's your idea of ' in-depth technical analysis' I can see why you think KR is such a help.

Agreed. Puff piece. Love these comments too:

Quote
No GPS
Thank goodness.
No Built-in Flash
Boo!

Gives me an idea of how Ken feels about lighting!

Quote
I'm thinking Ken Rockwell is a pseudonym

For Alan Klein perhaps <g>
Logged

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

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #121 on: June 08, 2013, 12:56:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Posted by: digitaldog

Quote

I'm thinking Ken Rockwell is a pseudonym


For Alan Klein perhaps <g>


Oh heck. You caught me.
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3669



« Reply #122 on: June 08, 2013, 01:24:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Do you honestly think you are correct when the overwhelming opinion is against you?

Now here, we encroach onto dangerous ground. Remember this?


A Hundred authors against Einstein

A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (A Hundred authors against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included, however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein is reported to have said with irony, that one author alone would have been sufficient to refute him:

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" —Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein


The quotation is from Wikipedia, but is accurate nevertheless.

Jeremy

PS: don't think for a moment that I'm comparing KR with Einstein, or that I accept as true any of the obvious rubbish on his site. I'm just making the point that consensus doesn't necessarily equate to truth. Man-made climate change, anyone?
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #123 on: June 08, 2013, 01:25:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm thinking Ken Rockwell is a pseudonym

For Alan Klein perhaps <g>
Unlikely. So far Alan hasn't put any begging messages for PayPal donations to feed his kids all over his postings.
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #124 on: June 08, 2013, 01:32:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Gives me an idea of how Ken feels about lighting!
I have to confess that I appreciate my built-in flash.

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

Posts: 1615


« Reply #125 on: June 08, 2013, 01:35:30 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
While I do agree that it is healthy to question "scientific truths" and even the scientific process, I can hardly see that KR it a site that should trigger such questions.

Do you agree (with KR) that people using stands for their camera are idiots?

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

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #126 on: June 08, 2013, 01:39:23 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm just making the point that consensus doesn't necessarily equate to truth.
Do you really think that KR has any unique and wonderful insights on photography that people will eventually value ?

The other side is that when most credible people think something is rubbish, it usually is.
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #127 on: June 08, 2013, 01:44:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Unlikely. So far Alan hasn't put any begging messages for PayPal donations to feed his kids all over his postings.

I ignore that part of his forum.   I have my limits of support, you know! 
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #128 on: June 08, 2013, 02:34:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I ignore that part of his forum. 
Forum ??
It's on every page of his web site. It's tacky, distasteful, desperate and not in anyway indicative of anyone 'successful'
Logged
Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #129 on: June 08, 2013, 02:43:43 PM »
ReplyReply

That's one thing I agree with you.  I find it tacky too and annoying.
Logged
Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #130 on: June 08, 2013, 02:46:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe there's hope yet you'll realise it's all rubbish.
Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785



« Reply #131 on: June 08, 2013, 03:08:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Maybe there's hope yet you'll realise it's all rubbish.

Paul, I think the problem goes way beyond the Rockwell style itself but on the web in general.
You were right I have to say, and all my apologies: I did a training at the national teevee, and yes...
the technical level is extremely high (really !), serious, and worth every minute.

And that's where I'd go. What I received, is just not available in internet. You worked at the BBC (or you're still working)
probably the best Teevee in Europe if not in the world. Those guys aren't doing public networking for the casual amateur.
Nor the high-end photographers I had the chance to work with in the past. They do not train anybody for free or give their craft
on air (generaly not for egoism but for lack of time. People who really know are generaly booked).

So, where is the real knowledge then ? There are of course people more serious than others on the web and good content,
but in the end, the ones who really work in the high-end aren't doing networking because they don't need to.

So when we talk about knowledge, maybe we should be aware of where are the limits the web can provide (publicaly I mean).
You won't find a Peter Lindberg doing a workshop explaining his set, or a Testino's retoucher doing a PS course,
or an Hollywood Alexa operator testing lenses for the wanabees, or a famous editor givin webinars...

The most serious I found so far in internet are things like that for ex: http://vimeo.com/50790832
4 hours video. Nobody knows this.
It's good and serious, but you really have to need that and the level to follow.
There are more good stuff in internet, but I found for example some really high-end FX artists, they hardly have
followers. Very few catch-up at those levels. So yes KR can be canibalized for being too superficial but then many many more websites too.

In a panorama where every new magic gear is the holly grail, where people are constantly talking about DR, high-iso noise
and sensor sizes as a end in itself, the really serious stuff don't attract anybody. I know a french site of the editor's association. They give
detailed reports of real set issues, some extremely technical but extremely usefull. Almost impossible to google it. You have to know it
to fall on the content. Now google
any of the motion networkers (that aren't working in the industry)  about the next versus camera pointing
a garden's fence and you'll have gazillion of followers with the bravos, whaos and brilliant comentaries...
And a lot of those have became famous. If people wants to eat Mc Donald's burger, we have Mc Donald's food, Donuts
and coca cola.
KR is just the tip of the iceberg. He made his business, good for him.

In that context, in what KR is so different than the general panorama the web provide, a part from some exceptions?

 
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 04:41:06 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #132 on: June 08, 2013, 03:43:55 PM »
ReplyReply

<Off-topic rant>
A Hundred authors against Einstein
His theory was somehow hard to grasp (and still is), but Einstein was in agreement with his peers. Scientifically, I know only one (1) example of someone being right against the crowd, well ahead of its time - and he had luck (together with a rather astonishing intuition).
Scientific consensus does not really equate truth, but it is statistically well correlated with it.

Quote
"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" —Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein[/i]
Yes : logically, one fault is enough to ruin a whole theory.
</Off-topic rant>
Just as well, you can't really trust someone who dismisses color management. Grin  
Logged

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

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #133 on: June 08, 2013, 04:53:27 PM »
ReplyReply

the ones who really work in the high-end aren't doing networking because they don't need to.
You seem to have missed that many REAL experts do give their expertise freely on the web.

As an example;
Andrew Rodney (digitaldog on LuLa) is one of the most respected experts on colour management. It doesn't matter if you're a complete novice or a serious competitor, Andrew gives expert help, patiently and politely, to anyone here who asks a sensible question. He'll even help those that aren't yet able to ask sensible question so that they can ask proper questions too.
Look at his web site, full of credible and detailed information, freely available, that if you have any interest in his subject can greatly enhance your knowledge, no requests for PayPal donations for dog food or whatever. It's perfect example of what can be good about the internet.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 04:55:19 PM by Rhossydd » Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 785



« Reply #134 on: June 08, 2013, 05:16:04 PM »
ReplyReply

You seem to have missed that many REAL experts do give their expertise freely on the web.

As an example;
Andrew Rodney (digitaldog on LuLa) is one of the most respected experts on colour management. It doesn't matter if you're a complete novice or a serious competitor, Andrew gives expert help, patiently and politely, to anyone here who asks a sensible question. He'll even help those that aren't yet able to ask sensible question so that they can ask proper questions too.
Look at his web site, full of credible and detailed information, freely available, that if you have any interest in his subject can greatly enhance your knowledge, no requests for PayPal donations for dog food or whatever. It's perfect example of what can be good about the internet.
I didn't miss that. Agree 100%. That's why I wrote "a part from some exceptions". This site is one, Creative Cow another etc... And some users of this site are truly pearls.

My point was that we are inundated of datas. We are datas consummers, and the average or included the desinformations abunds much more than the real serious stuff.
KR is not an isolated weired exception. That was my point.
Most of the time, the effectism or fun factor, or simply strong personalities sell more than the more discrete good content and people end to confund apples with oranges. That's the way our culture work,
the light, superficial and controvertial is generally more popular. It's a form of consumism. The serious material requires a different attitude.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2013, 05:21:36 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1615


« Reply #135 on: June 08, 2013, 11:57:33 PM »
ReplyReply

My point was that we are inundated of datas. We are datas consummers, and the average or included the desinformations abunds much more than the real serious stuff.
KR is not an isolated weired exception. That was my point.
Most of the time, the effectism or fun factor, or simply strong personalities sell more than the more discrete good content and people end to confund apples with oranges. That's the way our culture work,
the light, superficial and controvertial is generally more popular. It's a form of consumism. The serious material requires a different attitude.
My education was (in my view) targeted at memorizing a large amount of facts.

I am hoping that my children will have an education that reflects that facts and "facts" are available at the press of a few buttons. What matters more than knowing the name of every US president is knowing how to be critical about your sources and how "facts" tend to be subjective (and significantly manipulated by a number of US presidents).

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

Posts: 2391


« Reply #136 on: June 09, 2013, 03:07:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Now here, we encroach onto dangerous ground. Remember this?


A Hundred authors against Einstein

A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein" (A Hundred authors against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included, however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an "accumulation of naive errors", and as "unintentionally funny". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein is reported to have said with irony, that one author alone would have been sufficient to refute him:

"If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" —Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein


The quotation is from Wikipedia, but is accurate nevertheless.

Jeremy

PS: don't think for a moment that I'm comparing KR with Einstein, or that I accept as true any of the obvious rubbish on his site. I'm just making the point that consensus doesn't necessarily equate to truth. Man-made climate change, anyone?


I have had a look again at all of the postings and I don't see Einstein as one of them. Therefore I conclude that this is taken out of context? Wink The biggest laugh is Alan describing him as a professional. He does get paid but if I was a professional photographer then I would be upset at being in the same category as him. It is good that at last Alan is conceding some ground with respect to his adoration of Ken. A sign of maturity?
Logged

Rhossydd
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #137 on: June 09, 2013, 03:37:42 AM »
ReplyReply

KR is not an isolated weired exception. That was my point.
I'm not so sure. Whilst I often come across sites that aren't exactly great, there are few others I've seen that are so poor.
KR seems to get a remarkable amount of attention considering the fluff and nonsense he publishes. I guess that those gullible enough to believe and trust his ramblings feel threatened and get defensive when confronted by more informed opinions, it's always difficult to admit you've been suckered.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5002



WWW
« Reply #138 on: June 09, 2013, 10:12:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not so sure. Whilst I often come across sites that aren't exactly great, there are few others I've seen that are so poor.
KR seems to get a remarkable amount of attention considering the fluff and nonsense he publishes. I guess that those gullible enough to believe and trust his ramblings feel threatened and get defensive when confronted by more informed opinions, it's always difficult to admit you've been suckered.

Again, after seven pages and several repeated requests for a proof of that "fluff and nonsense," none is given. Disagreeing with his opinion, style, or choices is not a proof. It seems to me that you guys equally feel "threatened and get defensive," responding with insults instead of proofs. There are a lot of people, here as well, who get "suckered" by experts' opinions they actually do not understand, but they believe if they align themselves with expert opinions, it will make them experts.
Logged

Slobodan

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

Posts: 1862


WWW
« Reply #139 on: June 09, 2013, 10:38:08 AM »
ReplyReply

repeated requests for a proof of that "fluff and nonsense," none is given.
Well Andrew's given enough already, but just sift through the http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/users-guide/index.htm
Here are some Ken quotes about the 5Dii

"No one needs 21MP. All it does is slow everything and clog your hard drive.
Try shooting your 5D Mark II at its M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are sharper pixel-by-pixel!
When I'm photographing family and friends, I shoot at SMALL JPG. Even SMALL is good enough for great 20x30" prints."

"AF Microadjustment
Don't touch this.
If you have to ask how to set it, then you'll probably make it worse if you fiddle with this.
If you insist on playing with it, know that only about one lens in twenty needs any adjustment, and the results are only visible at large apertures. "

"Exposure Compensation
My 5D Mark II usually gives the best results without any exposure compensation."

Then there's Ken the technician http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
"I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files."

"Image quality is the same in JPG and raw."

I really can't be bothered with going through any more.
If you're the sort of person that thinks pages titled "FART for Fantastic Photos" is either clever or witty it's not worth further discussion.


Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad