Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape  (Read 44481 times)
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« on: July 03, 2008, 03:30:37 AM »
ReplyReply

I thought this was amusing:

FILM:

IMAGE QUALITY

RESOLUTION: A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII. Film always wins here when used by a skilled photographer. One source of confusion is here, which uses bad science using prints too small (13 x 19") to show the difference. Also note that you're not even seeing the actual prints, but screen resolution images (about 72 - 100DPI) at that site. He throws away most of the resolution of the film. (It doesn't matter that his film was scanned at 3,200 DPI and it's completely irrelevant that the printer was set to 2880 DPI, since all that resolution was down-converted for your screen.) As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do.

From Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

and this one is better:

OK, I've had it with this idiocy. back to top of article Here are the examples I've been too busy shooting to waste my time scanning and posting. We all know the other websites showing a big name digital SLR looking as good as film resolution. Baloney. You may not realize that those sites are actually sponsored by those camera companies and the guy running them doesn't really know how to get good results on film. He then only compares them at such low resolution that you can't see what film's resolution is all about. It takes skill to get optimum resolution on film.

From Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

I do have to admit the guy has a funny and entertaining style of writing.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 03:33:38 AM by dwdallam » Logged

drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 03, 2008, 03:49:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I thought this was amusing:

FILM:

IMAGE QUALITY

RESOLUTION: A glass plate from 1880 still has more resolution than a Canon 1Ds-MkII. Film always wins here when used by a skilled photographer. One source of confusion is here, which uses bad science using prints too small (13 x 19") to show the difference. Also note that you're not even seeing the actual prints, but screen resolution images (about 72 - 100DPI) at that site. He throws away most of the resolution of the film. (It doesn't matter that his film was scanned at 3,200 DPI and it's completely irrelevant that the printer was set to 2880 DPI, since all that resolution was down-converted for your screen.) As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds. If you want to feel the texture of every grain of sand on a 40 x 60" print, stick with 4 x 5" as photographers do.

From Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

and this one is better:

OK, I've had it with this idiocy. back to top of article Here are the examples I've been too busy shooting to waste my time scanning and posting. We all know the other websites showing a big name digital SLR looking as good as film resolution. Baloney. You may not realize that those sites are actually sponsored by those camera companies and the guy running them doesn't really know how to get good results on film. He then only compares them at such low resolution that you can't see what film's resolution is all about. It takes skill to get optimum resolution on film.

From Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

I do have to admit the guy has a funny and entertaining style of writing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205194\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is really very simple. The guy is a fruitcake with a massive ego. Not surprisingly, he is a bit amusing.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 03:51:35 AM by drew » Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2008, 04:04:54 AM »
ReplyReply

It would be interesting if he could come up with some evidence for the sponsor comment though.
Logged

drew
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477



WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2008, 06:40:06 AM »
ReplyReply

He citicises this site for 'bad-science' and then goes onto post a comparison between a film image and a digital image and this is what he has to say about the digital camera used in the comparison 'The digital camera image is the same crop from a brand-new multi-megapixel digital camera made by the same company that keeps paying some bad-science photography websites to pimp it as being better than film' and you want evidence!!!.....
Logged

Andrew Richards My Webpage
JeffKohn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1671



WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2008, 08:01:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I've come to believe the Ken Rockwell is the cleverest troll in the history of the internet.  He says just enough 'common sense' stuff to get some people to take him seriously, but in fact the joke's on them because taken as a whole his website is a farce.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 8621



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2008, 08:38:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've come to believe the Ken Rockwell is the cleverest troll in the history of the internet.  He says just enough 'common sense' stuff to get some people to take him seriously, but in fact the joke's on them because taken as a whole his website is a farce.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only based on his ideas about color management, I'd have to agree. Add him to the list along with Mr sRGB (Will Crocket).
Logged

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

Posts: 2756



« Reply #6 on: July 03, 2008, 09:26:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I've come to believe the Ken Rockwell is the cleverest troll in the history of the internet.  He says just enough 'common sense' stuff to get some people to take him seriously, but in fact the joke's on them because taken as a whole his website is a farce.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ken references the web site of [a href=\"http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/index.html]Roger Clark[/url]. On checking Roger's web site, I was rather surprised to learn that Roger agrees with most of Ken's statements except on the issue of dynamic range and highlight clipping. Roger is a true expert in digital imaging and I would give a lot of weight to his opinion. Ken's analysis seems a bit dated, since he talks about the Nikon D100 and D1h. Extrapolating from Roger's data, it would seem that the Canon 1DsMIII would beat any 35 mm film camera hands down.

Bill
Logged
situgrrl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 342


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2008, 09:38:58 AM »
ReplyReply

For those that haven't seen

http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article...._Rockwell_Facts
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #8 on: July 03, 2008, 10:41:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Do we really need to waste space on this? Rockwell really is beyond the pale.

Michael
Logged
Sunesha
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 103


WWW
« Reply #9 on: July 03, 2008, 11:18:29 AM »
ReplyReply

It is part off the learning experience in digital photography to read on Ken Rockwell site. Lucky enough I soon found other sources. Sometimes he actually does nice tests. But his opinion is often not mine. But he is just another source.

One thing I learnt fast. Mention Ken Rockwell and people go ballistic. He is funny.

He likes no other than himself. He also often proves to himself that he is right. But take his site as blog. Blogs are funny to read but rarely you learn much new. It is just one guys opinions.

Just a tip from me to you. You will stay more healthy by not taking stuff on internet seriously.
Logged

Daniel Sunebring, Malmoe, Sweden
Homepage: Sunesha.se
Non-native english speaker and dyslexian, so excuse my mistake in grammar and spelling."
mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 564


WWW
« Reply #10 on: July 03, 2008, 11:39:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Please tell me you can level a libel suit? That would make my week
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 03, 2008, 12:05:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Do we really need to waste space on this? Rockwell really is beyond the pale.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No such thing as bad publicity  

Kevin.
Logged

Kevin.
timescapes
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60



« Reply #12 on: July 03, 2008, 12:14:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Lol.  A lot of diehard film guys are just delusional in their claims.  

This is also beginning to happen now in the motion picture realm, where cameras like Red and Genesis are starting to take a bite out of chemical film's stranglehold on the industry.
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2225



WWW
« Reply #13 on: July 03, 2008, 02:49:04 PM »
ReplyReply

In MY day, we made our photomographs in blood, and we LIKED IT!
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 02:49:18 PM by kaelaria » Logged

jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558



WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 03, 2008, 03:36:12 PM »
ReplyReply

If you read Ken Rockwell's "About Me" page, you find this disclaimer:

" I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion."
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #15 on: July 03, 2008, 03:49:40 PM »
ReplyReply

I read Ken Rockwells site once and that's all it took for me to realize what a complete incompetent, ignorant, moron he was!!  I call him "The Blanket" as in he makes blanket statements about everything, like buying this lens with this camera makes no sense, or "TV Makes You Stupid" (disclaimer, I don't watch much TV) or a litany of other incoherent statements.  The internet is a cesspool of misinformation and Ken Rockwell is certainly one of the leading contributors.  Why even post his name here?  

This KR statement certainly is very ironic considering the source,

"The Internet can make you stupid or smart, depending on what you do there."
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 03:50:35 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #16 on: July 03, 2008, 03:49:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is really very simple. The guy is a fruitcake with a massive ego. Not surprisingly, he is a bit amusing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 

Ken talks garbage.

Apparently the D700 is an amateur camera, Michael Reichmann is obsessed by technology and not a real photographer, and the extra features of the Nikon SB600 and SB800 flashes absent from the SB400 are nothing but fluff. Oh and all lenses are sharp.

Ken even had the gall to state that he is a much better photographer than Art Morris, who according to Ken is another gear obsessive. Art Morris is one of the world's most respected bird photographers.

Someone who can make such statements is a fool.

He used to be an engineer, and he must have been a very bad one given his poor reasoning skills.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2008, 03:53:21 PM »
ReplyReply

The digital versus film argument is long dead as far as most of us are concerned. This site is yet another statement of what we all know, using a laboratory microscope to squeeze everything from the film:

http://www.janrik.net/MiscSubj/2007/FilmVs...SLR_Images.html
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2008, 04:05:19 PM »
ReplyReply

At best Rockwell and Clark are exploiting the misuse of "extinction resolution", at well under 10% MTF. This is of technical interest in astronomy and such, where all you need to do is distinguish black from white ("star or no star") but rather irrelevant to artistic photographic image quality ("revealing the shadings of the star's complexion"), where measures like 50% MTF are far more relevant.


P. S. It is Rockwell who pimps his sponsors, suggesting where to buy your gear, so his business is generating web-site hits.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5530



WWW
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2008, 04:14:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
... "TV Makes You Stupid" (disclaimer, I don't watch much TV)...
Funny you felt the need to add the disclaimer... just proves Ken's point.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad