Grass NOT Greener

[ilya]

Was just reading a few posts over at DPReview. Holy crap, is that a cesspool of mediocrity and bad manners (generalization, everything is relative, and with many many exceptions). But in general, its so much nicer here. Its like going from a Motel 6 to a Ritz Carlton. Not the least of which is indeed the decor (pekka thanks).

Anyway, picked up some of Ken Rockwell's latest over there //link REMOVED//

Note - this is not intended to start another Jpeg/Raw discussion. If one breaks out, ok, but that's not my purpose here.

[robertwgross]

Was just reading a few posts over at DPReview. Holy crap, is that a cesspool of mediocrity

That's an interesting mixture of metaphors.

The grass is always greener, until you look at it on the histogram.

---Bob Gross---

[Pekka]

Just want to say I'm really thankful how intelligent, knowledgeable, calm and fun members we have here!
(knock knock) :P

[robertwgross]

We try to keep all of the troublemakers scared off to DPReview.

How are we doing?

---Bob Gross---

[Pekka]

We try to keep all of the troublemakers scared off to DPReview.

How are we doing?

---Bob Gross---

(no one answers)

:wink: :wink: :wink:

[timmyquest]

RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for.

It is at this point that i stopped reading...

[ilya]

(knock knock) :P

Who's there :?:

[evilenglishman]

--

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ilya,. :wink: Yep,. you did this on purpose and don't try to say otherwise! :P


Although the very breif first paragraph on jpeg was indeed to the point and spot on,. Your pal Ken lost me in the first sentence of the second paragrph "RAW" where he immediately isolates himself by referring to all of those who shoot raw as "people who intend to spend a lot of time twiddling"

I won't go on too much about this first statement... other than to say that for some of us twiddlers,. the very reason we use RAW to is shorten the amount of twiddling it takes to get the image correct. As RAW files are indeed easier for me to manipulat,. it takes me far less time to get a RAW file "right" than it does with a jpeg.

His second sentence is that "RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for"

So,. now he has not only alienated anyone who uses the very file type that the camera manufacturers recommend you to use,.. but then he goes on to belittle anyone who would have the audacity to use a digital camera for any subject other than those that are on the "KenRockwell.COM official approved subject list"

What is this guy the RIAA? Orin Hatch? John Ashcroft for goods sake?

But this is the crowning glory;

For these applications I use large format 4x5" film instead for much better quality, thus you see why I don't use RAW. RAW is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for. Unfortunately this is becoming popular among amateurs, but remember that for amateurs the fun is in making the photo, and for fun digital is king. Personally I focus on the final image, for which big film excels.

Essentially translated,.

my film plane is bigger than yours,. there fore I am much better than any digital photogrpher who is by inference an amateur"

:roll:

Fine,. keep shooting large format at $10.00 a shot for film and leave us digital amateurs alone. Why even delve delve further into the benifits of a digital file type if by doing so you have ranked yourself among us weekend shooters of toy digitals?

Anyway,. any one with such clear and obvious prejudice and anymosity towards anyone who does anything in any way other than "his" way... is in no postition to be considered an even handed judge of any subject what soever,. let alone a subject that his own passions have clearly blinded him to any kind of open minded understanding of the what he has perceived to be the wrong way of doing things.

An arogant blow hard with zero objectivity.

Lastly what is the point of the article?

He can't sway opinion with it,. as it is written specifically to anger anyone who does not agree with him 100%

So,. the article is written to coddle and preserve his own strong beliefs? Why?

I just don't get it.

As to RAW Vs. jpeg,. I think this article does nothing to help answer a question that really not only doesn't need to be argued,. but it doesn't even need to be asked.

The answer is far to simple to merit such violence.

They both serve different purposes and application. They are both valid for different people using there photography for different tasks.

And no one task has any more legitimacy than another. This guy is taking it to the level of religious ogma where only those that pray to my God get to go to heavan and eryone else is wrong and goes to hell. Bull!

[ilya]

Your pal Ken

No, not my pal.

But he does stir things up, doesn't he 8)

:twisted:

[CyberDyneSystems]

Your pal Ken

No, not my pal.

But he does stir things up, doesn't he 8)

:twisted:

I know:) :wink:

[robertwgross]

Ken has the right to post whatever kinds of stuff that he does or does not believe in. Similarly, you have the right to read or else ignore it all. That's what makes the world go around.

I wouldn't get too worked up about it. There are many things on the Internet that are far more distressing, and there isn't any future in distress. If we wanted more distress, we would fret about Canon announcements in Las Vegas.

---Bob Gross---

[Chris1le]

What is this guy the RIAA? Orin Hatch? John Ashcroft for goods sake?

Did you see his disclaimer under his gallery page. Looks like he and Mr. Ashcroft are very tight.

[CyberDyneSystems]

lol,. too funny,..

Bob I never said he couldn't post what he wants to?
That's in fact part of my point.. He doesn't even want us too use our cameras to take landscapes.. but I have no problem with him using his camera however he wants... :D or his website.

In fact I'm glad he posted that "article",.. because I love to get worked up over crap like this! :mrgreen:

I just love to hear myself type! :wink:

C'mon,. by now you all MUST realize that! :roll: :P

[ilya]

Ok.

I just realized something, and I apologize to the forum for posting the link to Rockwell's site.

I thought he was pretty funny after reading the 7 levels of Photographers, and his pictures were pretty good.

I thought his articles were mildly interesting, with a certain edge/arrogance.

After the Raw/Jpeg article, I thought less of him, and wondered what the deal was.

Then I saw the link to DP Review from his article (and their fervent reaction); I saw all the popups, I saw all the banner ads. I realized that he's all about page views / money. The nail in the coffin - look under his gallery front page, he's got a link to "to see my nudes click here" - takes you to internet porn.

I'm done with Rockwell. DO NOT click thru to his site. He's a dirtbag. :roll:

Now, back to my original topic, to quote Pekka, we're fun and intelligent. How true how true. :lol: :lol:

[Belmondo]

Now, back to my original topic, to quote Pekka, we're fun and intelligent. How true how true. :lol: :lol:

Speak for yourself. Some of us prefer to be bland. Certainly I do. :roll: :wink:

[robertwgross]

Bob I never said he couldn't post what he wants to?

Nor did anybody suggest that you did.

I just wouldn't get too worked up about it.

---Bob Gross---

[ilya]

Now, back to my original topic, to quote Pekka, we're fun and intelligent. How true how true. :lol: :lol:

Speak for yourself. Some of us prefer to be bland. Certainly I do. :roll: :wink:

Heh, I actually know a guy named Bland, and its somewhat fitting. But your name is Tom. That almost rhymes with fun. I don't know your middle name. I'm sure its something exotic.

[Webster]

As John Cleese said in Time Bandits, "What awful people!"

[TeraGram93013]

Did you see his disclaimer under his gallery page. Looks like he and Mr. Ashcroft are very tight.

That quote has me wanting to pore over every pic I've ever taken in Santa Barbara, which is a LOT as I've lived here for over twelve years. Indeed that door shot he has is remarkably similar to one I took of that same building just after it was repainted.

Where's my Rolodex? I think I need to call my attorney!

[Bubber Jones]

Did you see his disclaimer under his gallery page. Looks like he and Mr. Ashcroft are very tight.

That quote has me wanting to pore over every pic I've ever taken in Santa Barbara, which is a LOT as I've lived here for over twelve years. Indeed that door shot he has is remarkably similar to one I took of that same building just after it was repainted.

Where's my Rolodex? I think I need to call my attorney!

Um, be careful... He seems to be tight with the NSA and people in his employ print money....

Mmmk... :roll:

[rick barclay]

Sorry, but have to disagree with you, Ilya. I find no offense in whatever
I read over there. Pehaps, if you find offense in something someone
says, such as that misstep about digital being for amateurs, maybe you
should take issue with that person and correct them. There certainly
seems to be a goodly number of digital users over there contributing to
those forums, and what they have to say strikes me as interesting and informative. They post some really nice examples of their work over there, as well.

[TeraGram93013]

Um, be careful... He seems to be tight with the NSA and people in his employ print money....

Oh I know how to fix his wagon! Who has the number to the Secret Service?!