Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape  (Read 45069 times)
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2008, 04:24:55 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder what we could get in this comparison: Take a Leica M8 and M7 - shoot B&W - get the best landscape images you can side-by-side, lots of trees, rocks, etc.  Use a really fine-grain B&W film of ISO 25 or better on the M7 and shoot a stop or two over so you can soft-develop the negatives.  Think the M8 would win?  I dunno about that.  I could believe that a direct scan would beat film in any case.
Logged
Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2008, 06:13:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Funny you felt the need to add the disclaimer... just proves Ken's point.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205341\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I think that you need to read what I wrote one more time, the entire paragraph!  He made a blanket statement that "TV makes you stupid" isn't that blanket statement idiotic?  In other words, there are educational shows on TV, you can also watch DVDs, VHS, etc. on your TV. You can extract something out of almost anything and become a more learned person.  I don't watch much TV; that doesn't prove his point, quite the contrary.  Naturally everything should be done in moderation, if all you did is watched TV, you'd be obese, not social, etc.  If all you did was eat, you'd get fat, so shall we say, eating makes you fat?  If you exercised 24 hours per day you will probably die within a few days, so we can say "Exercise will kill you"?  Blanket statements are generally written by people who are intellectually deficient!
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 06:20:30 PM by Gemmtech » Logged
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2008, 07:02:27 PM »
ReplyReply

How's this: Watching TV puts you at risk of stupidity.  Racing motorcycles puts you at risk of grave injury.  Does that sound like a recommendation for either?  It's more accurate technically than Ken's statement, but is it that superior?  One thing our intellect gives us the ability to do is understand, even when the statement isn't technically accurate.
Logged
Steve Kerman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2008, 07:41:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I note that the "Digital Camera Image" is labeled " 2003."  It was therefore taken with a digital camera that is at least five years old, and possibly considerably older.  We are all aware that digital camera technology has come a long ways in the the last few years.

Also, I don't see where he identifies the camera in question.  For all we know it could be one of the early 3-Mpixel cameras.
Logged
Er1kksen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 154


« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2008, 09:34:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm quite aware that top-end digital cameras have surpassed film in most if not all areas, but I have to point out that the DR test on the Clark site is biased: It measures detail that can be brought back in the shadows. With slide film, it makes sense. But with print film, you can overexpose by several stops and stull retain full color and detail in print or with multiple scans, into a range where a digital camera or slide film would return clipped channels and irretrievable whites. It probably still has less DR than digital, but for some situations it has more useful dynamic range.

Aside from pointing that out, I have to admit that I go read Rockwell's opinions on new cameras and old lenses when they come out. When I was first getting into photography and was reading up on the internet, I found him a useful source of technical knowledge, knowledge which has now been heavily salted with the awareness that he is in many ways a hack. He had convinced me to spend $600 on a D40 with kit lens for my first DSLR. Not having the money yet to buy, I had plenty of time to mull this over. I ended up handling a D40 in a store and finding that it felt slightly more solid and less cheap than the rebel sitting beside it, and then I went and handled my friend's entry level Olympus... $400 later, I had a much better camera than the D40, a camera that Rockwell had dismissed as essentially pointless.

Beyond his somewhat misguided opinions, one of the things that really irritates me is his complete ignoring of other brands. He hasn't mentioned anything besides Canon, Nikon, and Fuji SLRs in years. There are old mentions of Olympus and Pentax and even Kodak, but from his site you'd get the impression that Sony doesn't even make cameras. Given the fact that other brands have come to surpass Canon and Nikon's offerings in their respective price ranges in many ways, you'd think they'd at least get a mention. Instead, he just tells everyone the best deal in digital is the Nikon D40. It's just unfortunate, because half the people reading don't know any better.
Logged
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7897



WWW
« Reply #25 on: July 03, 2008, 10:48:48 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]
I agree with the first part, but I must take issue with the last point. I browsed KR's site once and found a lot of simplistic and trite stuff, a lot of misinformation, and nothing very amusing.

I get better amusement by reading the reactions to KR on LL.  
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 04, 2008, 01:22:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
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!!!.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205209\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I want evidence that this site is bought off by camera companies to lie to people. That remark has its ass hanging out all over the place. It's an opinion as it stands.

Everyone knows you can scan a negative with higher resolution than any digital camera. You can even scan 80 year old negatives from 80 year old cameras with 80 year old film and get more resolution. The comparison is then how good scanners are at scanning negatives and reproducing them with high resolution, not how a MF film camera compares to a 1DS3 using traditional processing and enlarging techniques. And yes this analogy is a bit off the mark. What Rockwell is saying is that a MF negative has in it more detail possible, and that detail can be extracted using a negative scanner.

That being the case, it is something to think about. If you can use a 700US MF camera or even a 35mm and get three times the resolution using a high end scanner, that is truly something people should think about. Why not go back to film for landscape and use a scanner if detail DR and is so important?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 02:10:11 AM by dwdallam » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2008, 01:25:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ken references the web site of Roger Clark. 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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It will until you take the 35mm negative and scan it using a 2, 000US negative  scanner. Then you get a 80mb file instead of a 21 MB file.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 02:10:38 AM by dwdallam » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 04, 2008, 01:29:24 AM »
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]

Well Michael, can you validly refute his positions? It's a fair thing to ask.

Of course there is no way to "prove" his comment about you being in the pocket of camera makers because he has no evidence. His was just an assertion that can be dismissed for the same reasons yours above can: no evidence, no argument. Forget about that comment unless he can shoulder up the evidence. The burden of evidence is always on the person asserting "x". So that's a non issue.

I'm taking about his position of the MF vs digital using a scanner.  Show us how beyond the pale he is. I would like to see a step by step refutation of his points on this issue. I could care less about Ken Rockwell's personality, but we should all try to use valid counter arguments, right?

If he is beyond the pale and worth stating that he is "beyond the pale" then I would think (maybe I'm wrong) that you would offer a valid counter argument to his?

The only motivation I have for the above is that I want to learn about this. That's it.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 02:12:09 AM by dwdallam » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 04, 2008, 01:38:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please tell me you can level a libel suit? That would make my week
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205253\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can't level a libel suit off an opinion. He gave no evidence or misleading evidence. He just said it off the cuff, which is equal to an opinion. I think it's crap for anyone to do that sort of thing unless he or she can back it up with evidence, which Rockwell did not.

The best defense of this sort of thing is a valid, well reasoned, evidence containing argument. Anything else make it look like he's on to something.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 02:12:32 AM by dwdallam » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #30 on: July 04, 2008, 01:56:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I wonder what we could get in this comparison: Take a Leica M8 and M7 - shoot B&W - get the best landscape images you can side-by-side, lots of trees, rocks, etc. Use a really fine-grain B&W film of ISO 25 or better on the M7 and shoot a stop or two over so you can soft-develop the negatives. Think the M8 would win? I dunno about that. I could believe that a direct scan would beat film in any case.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205344\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think we're in the minority here, but I think this too. Rockwell did post his evidence for his position about scanned negatives being superior to any digital on the market.

His other comments are not of much interest to me, but the film scanned vs digital is from what I can see and from what I've read, a valid point. Who can inform us that Rockwell's position on this point is wrong?

Before anyone says that I'm trying to troll for Rockwell, please let me say this: I use to read Rockwell's site years ago when I was first starting out. I found him amusing and he had some reasonable points. The reason I visited his site recently was that I was reading some essay where the author was talking about a MF he use to use. I wanted to see the camera he was talking about so I Googled it to see what it was, and Rockwell's site was the first to come up. So I just read the essay.  So again, please those of you and especially Michael, don't think I'm trying to stir anything up.

However, I am interested in Rockwell's point about MF scanned vs the best digital in resolution. He does have 100% crops of each camera, and the crops are telling, if true and accurate. Of course he is really comparing digital to digital, but his point is that using a scanner and a MF negative, you will get vastly better images than any digital consumer camera. Is he right?
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 02:14:55 AM by dwdallam » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 04, 2008, 02:02:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think that you need to read what I wrote one more time, the entire paragraph!  He made a blanket statement that "TV makes you stupid" isn't that blanket statement idiotic?  In other words, there are educational shows on TV, you can also watch DVDs, VHS, etc. on your TV. You can extract something out of almost anything and become a more learned person.  I don't watch much TV; that doesn't prove his point, quite the contrary.  Naturally everything should be done in moderation, if all you did is watched TV, you'd be obese, not social, etc.  If all you did was eat, you'd get fat, so shall we say, eating makes you fat?  If you exercised 24 hours per day you will probably die within a few days, so we can say "Exercise will kill you"?  Blanket statements are generally written by people who are intellectually deficient!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205371\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Or just trying to be funny. Rockwell is obviously not stupid. One might say that those who offer false dichotomies are intellectually deficient, but that would be a blanket statement in itself, because "generally" is a blanket word.

It doesn't take much research to gather enough evidence that shows many really smart people use blanket statements for many reasons, not simply because they are intellectually deficient. I'm not trying to start anything here, but in the spirit of intellectual hygiene, I thought it important to respond.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 04, 2008, 02:04:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I note that the "Digital Camera Image" is labeled " 2003."  It was therefore taken with a digital camera that is at least five years old, and possibly considerably older.  We are all aware that digital camera technology has come a long ways in the the last few years.

Also, I don't see where he identifies the camera in question.  For all we know it could be one of the early 3-Mpixel cameras.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205386\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It doesn't really matter for his point. He's saying if you take  MF negative and scan it in you can get a 180MB file by using the scanner resolution. Compare that to say the 1DS3's 21MB digital capture and you get the point. I'm not saying he is right, but that is his position.
Logged

Slough
Guest
« Reply #33 on: July 04, 2008, 02:34:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It will until you take the 35mm negative and scan it using a 2, 000US negative  scanner. Then you get a 80mb file instead of a 21 MB file.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205428\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The file size is irrelevent. What matters is the underlying detail. In other words, the amount of information (not the pixel count). Anyway this is long since dead, and it is widely accepted that a ~12MP DSLR beats colour film, at least in terms of resolution if not dynamic range.
Logged
Slough
Guest
« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2008, 02:37:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You can't level a libel suit off an opinion.

In the UK you can. If I said on my web site "MR is paid by Canon to push their product" then I would be open to legal action as that statement is libellous, since it is untrue (or at least I have absolutely no reason to suppose that it is true).

I think Ken needs to be careful what he says. Now that would be a first.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2008, 03:36:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It doesn't really matter for his point. He's saying if you take  MF negative and scan it in you can get a 180MB file by using the scanner resolution. Compare that to say the 1DS3's 21MB digital capture and you get the point. I'm not saying he is right, but that is his position.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that there is a lot to be said for scanning film and Im not even sure that you need to go to b/w film to find out! Kodachrome-as-was scans very well in the CanoScanFS4000US and as I am using Nikon lenses in both film camera and digital, I am fairly accustomed to the expectations of what I might get from either.

There are down sides to film insofar as the costs involved, the doubts about processing standards, the inevitable spotting that has to take place. There are also, I suppose, scanning technique problems, but when you put all that aside and look at the end product on paper, then film, to me, produces the more traditional look, which is what I like.

Digital colour seems to look very impressive, but as most of what Im interested in doing ends up as b/w print, I wont argue in that area.

Anyway, getting hung up on comparing different sites isnt going to be very productive: we find ourselves here because we like it; others are free to differ, so why should anyone complain? To each his own.

Rob C
Logged

Gemmtech
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 526


« Reply #36 on: July 04, 2008, 04:00:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Or just trying to be funny. Rockwell is obviously not stupid. One might say that those who offer false dichotomies are intellectually deficient, but that would be a blanket statement in itself, because "generally" is a blanket word.

It doesn't take much research to gather enough evidence that shows many really smart people use blanket statements for many reasons, not simply because they are intellectually deficient. I'm not trying to start anything here, but in the spirit of intellectual hygiene, I thought it important to respond.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205436\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Seriously pale, that has to be the stupidest thing that I've ever read!  Not to start anything!  If you have the ability to read then you would have to know that the word "generally" is NOT a blanket statement especially not in the context of this discussion!  A blanket statement covers everything, whereas generally covers a high percentage, I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.

Why is it obvious to you that KR isn't stupid?  

It would be fine to use a blanket statement if it were true, but I have noticed KR makes them constantly and gave just 2 examples.  All new Ferraris are expensive, a blanket statement right?  Is it accurate?  It could be, it just depends on the person writing it and his/her perspective.  TV makes you stupid is a stupid statement!  Lens A is worthless if used on camera A, is the same, blanket statements that simply aren't true or accurate.  My point (obviously you missed it) was that KR doesn't state generally speaking, most of the time, a high percentage of the time, etc. he makes blanket statements regarding everything from camera gear to tv watching.

I don't need to research intellectually deficient people, there's enough of them everywhere.  It's ok to respond, but why not respond with something which makes sense?
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 04, 2008, 04:33:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In the UK you can. If I said on my web site "MR is paid by Canon to push their product" then I would be open to legal action as that statement is libellous, since it is untrue (or at least I have absolutely no reason to suppose that it is true).

I think Ken needs to be careful what he says. Now that would be a first.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

He gave you his reasons and evidence that from which he derived his conclusion. It's purely circumstantial, for sure. You would need to first prove definitively that his argument is knowingly untrue.

On the other hand, we can parse his position by putting it in the best argument form we can given the information, and then test it for validity and soundness:

His argument goes something like this, which is invalid:

(1) LL  image quality test comparing digital to scanned negatives is wrong.
(2) It's easy to see that MF scanned negatives are much better in quality than the best digital file.
(3) Since it's easy to see this difference for anyone who understands photographic and digital principles that this is true, LL must be giving out bad information knowingly.
(4) One very good reason bad information like this would be given out by people who know better is that companies pay people to do it.
(5) Conclusion: LL is being paid by camera companies.

What I would do to refute this argument would be to attack the premises first. Is the information KR gives accurate and accepted? If not, then the entire argument fails and you need go no further with it. If so, then we need to look at the argument's form to make sure that even though the premises are true, the argument's conclusions follow a valid form, that is, don't make leaps.

So second, I would test the validity of the argument's form, since an argument can be valid and unsound, meaning the premise(s) are false, but the logic is sound. (e.g., Socrates was a man. All men are deers. Ergo, Socrates was a deer. False premise, with valid argument form. Everything follows with no leaps. In this case, the first premise's "predicate" is 'distributed" in the second and the second in the third (predicate logic). You can see the validity by exchanging "deer" with "mortal" or "All As, are B's. All Bs are Cs. Therefore, all As are Cs.)

We see here that KR's argument is unsound because his premises do not lead directly to his conclusion--that LL is paid off by camera companies does not follow directly from his premises (If LL is giving out bad information, there may be other reasons for giving bad information rather than being paid off).

So in summary, even if his information is correct, the argument does not follow to it's conclusion. But if his information is correct, it does call to question many things.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 05:19:30 AM by dwdallam » Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 04, 2008, 05:06:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Seriously pale, that has to be the stupidest thing that I've ever read! Not to start anything! If you have the ability to read then you would have to know that the word "generally" is NOT a blanket statement especially not in the context of this discussion! A blanket statement covers everything, whereas generally covers a high percentage, I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.

Why is it obvious to you that KR isn't stupid?

It would be fine to use a blanket statement if it were true, but I have noticed KR makes them constantly and gave just 2 examples. All new Ferraris are expensive, a blanket statement right? Is it accurate? It could be, it just depends on the person writing it and his/her perspective. TV makes you stupid is a stupid statement! Lens A is worthless if used on camera A, is the same, blanket statements that simply aren't true or accurate. My point (obviously you missed it) was that KR doesn't state generally speaking, most of the time, a high percentage of the time, etc. he makes blanket statements regarding everything from camera gear to tv watching.

I don't need to research intellectually deficient people, there's enough of them everywhere. It's ok to respond, but why not respond with something which makes sense?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205451\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"It's ok to respond, but why not respond with something which makes sense?"

See my post on KR argument and how to refute it.

---------

I never took any of his statements to mean "ALL." If you take his statements to mean ALL, then he is simply wrong, but that does not make him intellectually deficient, or anyone else for that matter.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2008, 05:07:14 AM by dwdallam » Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2008, 06:59:36 AM »
ReplyReply

When I suggested scanning was superior I was referring to a direct scan, i.e. "scanning back", no film involved.  My suggestion for a film -vs- digital comparison would be two similar (and similar sized) cameras, B&W, and "soft developing" the negative on the film side.  This is critical in reducing the grain.  It also is important to have the best possible optics so as to minimize that influence in the results.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad