Sage teachings of Ken Rockwell

[Tee Why]

I did it for his Route 66, since I had fun quoting him for Ken Rockwell followers to read, I thought I'd do it again with his Death Valley "Teaching" Gallery.
Here is the link to the pages, so you can see I'm not making up the quotes.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/dv/2007/index.htm

1. "I'm using a full-frame digital camera (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1x.htm), so my 14mm lens is equivalent to 14mm."
So, no crop factor in a non cropped sensor camera. Got it.

2. "My 14mm ultra-ultra wide angle lens makes the sand look like you're right on top of it, because you are."
I thought Ken can float on air and walk on water?

3. "If I wasn't' so lazy I would have 'shopped down the brightness of the upper right corner. I may have turned up the contrast on my 5D to bring out the texture; I forget."
???

4. "I exposed deliberately for the orange-lit hill on the upper left. I had to use manual exposure mode because my 5D only allowed -2 stops of exposure compensation, which wasn't enough."
Apparently, Ken has not discovered the spot metering in the 5D

5. "Mushroom Rock has been cleansed from today's Death Valley maps. Apparently many stupider people didn't understand that its name refers to its shape, not its composition."
Yes, that's what he wrote.

6. "I'm an idiot: I used ISO 100 instead of ISO 50." "Canons don't have Auto ISO, so after I bumped up ISO for the previous shot in the shade, I forgot to pull the ISO back down to ISO 50."
Gasp, and his images turned out??? Such noise at ISO 100 compared to the 50. Maybe Ken has Alzheimers.

7. "These indoor and night shots are hand-held. Tripods are for the weak. I stack the odds in my favor by firing bursts of several shots in the Continuous shutter mode and sorting out the sharpest later..."
Nothing like a little spray and pray heh?

8. "The low magnification of an ultra-ultra wide 14mm lens allows longer speeds than a normal lens."
Since when does the magnification ratio determine exposure?

[Glenn NK]

I really like Nos. 7 and 8:

7. Tripods are for the weak - and Kenny is for the weak-minded. Jeez what an idiot - basically all the successful landscape photog's use and highly recommend a tripod, but Kenny boy is so good he doesn't need one.

8. What the H is a longer speed? 80 miles per hour? 90? This guy is a total winky.

But my favourite on his site is the PLUG where he begs for money. Good photographers can actually make a living - apparently he can't and has to rely on donations.:cool:

On the other hand, it it wasn't for K-Boy, photography wouldn't be funny.:lol:

I think what the poor booger doesn't know is that everyone that reads him is having a good laugh at his expense (he's too dumb to realize it).

[Tee Why]

You mean "stupider"?

[ghms421]

What does KR do for a living? He obviously doesn't support his family off his website, so either he has a job I don't know about, or money magically appears for him.

EDIT: I hate him even more, he got the new velvia already!

[saravrose]

Sometimes I think there's nothing more to say about him.. but the guy never shots up... and so we must all go on..personally.. this is the only thing that I completely agree with...

6. "I'm an idiot

[saravrose]

What does KR do for a living? He obviously doesn't support his family off his website, so either he has a job I don't know about, or money magically appears for him.

EDIT: I hate him even more, he got the new velvia already!

who the heck knows?.. I wouldn't be suprised to drive up and hear..

'My name is Ken may I take your order'...

[Moppie]

What does KR do for a living?


He writes crap and drival on his website so people can visit it to laugh at him.
He then uses the huge visitor numbers it generates to sell advertising. :rolleyes:

[Croasdail]

The odd thing is.... he is right on item 8. For my remote cameras I setup under the hoops for basketball games where I am using an ultrawide, I am able to use much slower shutter speeds then I do with longer lenses. I learned this by accident when using an f4 lens and was forced to use much long shutter speeds then I normally do, and found the shots came out just fine with little to no motion blur. Lens magnification impacts shutter speed needed to freeze action as does direction of travel.

This doesnt' take away anything from the fact that he is less then elloquent in what he says, but sometimes he is accidently right.

[Cubix Rube]

"The ultra-ultra wide angle lens also is responsible for the sucking effect that draws your eyes into the image from the bottom." - Another quote from Ken about his 14 mm lens.

I'm not sure how correct he is about what's causing the "sucking effect" in his pictures...Maybe it's his friggin' shadow intruding most of the way into the shot??

[deadpass]

The odd thing is.... he is right on item 8. For my remote cameras I setup under the hoops for basketball games where I am using an ultrawide, I am able to use much slower shutter speeds then I do with longer lenses. I learned this by accident when using an f4 lens and was forced to use much long shutter speeds then I normally do, and found the shots came out just fine with little to no motion blur. Lens magnification impacts shutter speed needed to freeze action as does direction of travel.

This doesnt' take away anything from the fact that he is less then elloquent in what he says, but sometimes he is accidently right.


I think what the OP is getting at is that magnification factor means nothing and has nothing to do with focal length. It's true, the shorter the lens is (focal length) the slower shutter speed you can use handheld, but the magification factor of the lens means nothing.

[DrPablo]

I think what the OP is getting at is that magnification factor means nothing and has nothing to do with focal length. It's true, the shorter the lens is (focal length) the slower shutter speed you can use handheld, but the magification factor of the lens means nothing.

Magnification factor does mean something. It's the same thing as reproduction ratio. The smaller your reproduction ratio, the less prone to motion blur you are. A 50mm lens at infinity is far less prone to motion blur than a 50mm lens at 1:1 macro. I'd hazard a guess that those of you who use mirror lockup use it much more commonly for macro shots than landscape shots.

He was being a little imprecise about any synonymity between focal length and reproduction ratio. After all, you can have a 1:1 macro picture using a 14mm lens -- ignoring a retrofocus design, a 14mm lens plus a 14mm extension tube will allow you 1:1 macro from 28mm away (using the 1/OD = 1/FL - 1/FD equation).

But in practical terms, you're normally operating with a very low reproduction ratio when shooting with a wide angle lens.


I don't have any particular grievance with anything else that was quoted above. He can be very tongue in cheek, and no there is no such word as "stupider" unless you're President of the United States.

[nicksan]

Although I found his quotes humorous, I think some of the pics he had up there were actually rather nice.

He may be a bumbling fool, but is it possible that he is actually pretty decent at what he does?

So a guy put up a few crappy photos...I've got a boat load of them on my PC.

[JeffreyG]

4,6 and 7 are wrongheaded, but the rest is either correct (if you stay out of sematic / precise language arguments) or it's just blather.

4 shows a surprising lack of knowledge in how to use an automatic metering camera. If he wanted to meter the hill why ddin't he just point his spot meter at it and lock?

6....well, I doubt too many folks can spot the difference between 50 and 100 on the 5D.

7. Bad advice. When you need a tripod use it.

[the_incubus]

"These indoor and night shots are hand-held. Tripods are for the weak. I stack the odds in my favor by firing bursts of several shots in the Continuous shutter mode and sorting out the sharpest later..."

hmm... ???

http://www.kenrockwell.com/Images/jpg/kr320.jpg

[Tee Why]

"These indoor and night shots are hand-held. Tripods are for the weak. I stack the odds in my favor by firing bursts of several shots in the Continuous shutter mode and sorting out the sharpest later..."

hmm... ???

http://www.kenrockwell.com/Images/jpg/kr320.jpg
No, that's a monopod, he only uses it on his left handed Nikon built just for him by Nikon. He wouldn't reverse the photo and not expect photogs to realize that he is shooing a left handed slr now, would he?

[3Turner]

No, that's a monopod, he only uses it on his left handed Nikon built just for him by Nikon. He wouldn't reverse the photo and not expect photogs to realize that he is shooing a left handed slr now, would he?
Getting in a little late on this and noticed this also. Now, tell me if I am wrong, but does his watch look a little funny to you? Seems to me he forgot to photoshop this one to look like it really is a left handed camera.:lol:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/Images/KenLens3k.jpg

EDIT: I just noticed his shirt also. Either that is a womans shirt or a special made left handed button shirt cause ALL my shirts have the lower button lapel on the right...not the left. Hmmmmmm.

[the_incubus]

haha

[Tee Why]

I don't think he knows how to read time anyway. I think he just wears it for fashion. Maybe he reads better upside down.

I wonder why he is carrying a monopod. I thought he just takes multiple shots and hopes one of them is sharp. Perhaps this is from his film days where he had to pay for film, so he didn't spray and pray as much.

[3Turner]

I don't think he knows how to read time anyway. I think he just wears it for fashion. Maybe he reads better upside down.

I wonder why he is carrying a monopod. I thought he just takes multiple shots and hopes one of them is sharp. Perhaps this is from his film days where he had to pay for film, so he didn't spray and pray as much.
Now there is an explination on why his 'reviews' do not make much sense.

[Seefutlung]

No, that's a monopod, he only uses it on his left handed Nikon built just for him by Nikon. He wouldn't reverse the photo and not expect photogs to realize that he is shooing a left handed slr now, would he?

Yep ... them Left-Handed Nikons are hard to come by. I have a Left-Handed pencil.

Gary

[freaking102]

I did it for his Route 66, since I had fun quoting him for Ken Rockwell followers to read, I thought I'd do it again with his Death Valley "Teaching" Gallery.
Here is the link to the pages, so you can see I'm not making up the quotes.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/dv/2007/index.htm

1. "I'm using a full-frame digital camera (http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1x.htm), so my 14mm lens is equivalent to 14mm."
So, no crop factor in a non cropped sensor camera. Got it.

2. "My 14mm ultra-ultra wide angle lens makes the sand look like you're right on top of it, because you are."
I thought Ken can float on air and walk on water?

3. "If I wasn't' so lazy I would have 'shopped down the brightness of the upper right corner. I may have turned up the contrast on my 5D to bring out the texture; I forget."
???

4. "I exposed deliberately for the orange-lit hill on the upper left. I had to use manual exposure mode because my 5D only allowed -2 stops of exposure compensation, which wasn't enough."
Apparently, Ken has not discovered the spot metering in the 5D

5. "Mushroom Rock has been cleansed from today's Death Valley maps. Apparently many stupider people didn't understand that its name refers to its shape, not its composition."
Yes, that's what he wrote.

6. "I'm an idiot: I used ISO 100 instead of ISO 50." "Canons don't have Auto ISO, so after I bumped up ISO for the previous shot in the shade, I forgot to pull the ISO back down to ISO 50."
Gasp, and his images turned out??? Such noise at ISO 100 compared to the 50. Maybe Ken has Alzheimers.

7. "These indoor and night shots are hand-held. Tripods are for the weak. I stack the odds in my favor by firing bursts of several shots in the Continuous shutter mode and sorting out the sharpest later..."
Nothing like a little spray and pray heh?

8. "The low magnification of an ultra-ultra wide 14mm lens allows longer speeds than a normal lens."
Since when does the magnification ratio determine exposure?

Nothing really wrong in the above 8 items. What's your point of taking individual sentences out of context? I have seen much worse advise on his board. By the way, re your question on #8, it makes sense to me in the right context; the longer the focal length, the faster the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed.

[Barb42]

I don't know Ken Rockwell personally, nor am I familiar with his work. But I have read this thread. And I find no wit, and certainly no wisdom in this electronic 'slam book'. Apparently the (un)manly art of hurting someone unnecessarily is alive and well among the jocks. This is shockingly out of character.

[Hermeto]

I don't know Ken Rockwell personally, nor am I familiar with his work. But I have read this thread. And I find no wit, and certainly no wisdom in this electronic 'slam book'. Apparently the (un)manly art of hurting someone unnecessarily is alive and well among the jocks. This is shockingly out of character.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3660186&postcount=20

[Glenn NK]

I don't know Ken Rockwell personally, nor am I familiar with his work. But I have read this thread. And I find no wit, and certainly no wisdom in this electronic 'slam book'. Apparently the (un)manly art of hurting someone unnecessarily is alive and well among the jocks. This is shockingly out of character.

First time I've ever been called a jock.:)

Almost sounds like name calling?:confused:

[cosworth]

I don't know Ken Rockwell personally, nor am I familiar with his work. But I have read this thread. And I find no wit, and certainly no wisdom in this electronic 'slam book'. Apparently the (un)manly art of hurting someone unnecessarily is alive and well among the jocks. This is shockingly out of character.


Gender is not an issue here. He's making a living off misinformation. I abhor that.

If you want to administer gender bashing here then go right ahead, it will not get you far.

[CannedHeat]

So who the heck is KR? I never heard of him until I saw this post. Even tho the editorial content of this thread disagrees with him, it is nonetheless a fact that apparently he gets a lot of visitors to his website and a lot of people talk about him and that he has become a source of teaching/education in the industry. I went to the death valley link in the op. Admitedly, I did not read the article but I scanned down and looked at his pictures. For me personally, I did not see anything there that was not basically average snapshots. I guess I just don't get it.

[B3SEO]

Yep ... them Left-Handed Nikons are hard to come by. I have a Left-Handed pencil.

Gary

Hey!!! I've been looking for Left-handed pencils!! Got a link?

[Moppie]

I did not see anything there that was not basically average snapshots. I guess I just don't get it.



That probably means you do get it :)
Had you read the article you would have been lead to beleive those snap shots where the best photos ever taken in death valley.

Ken took them holding his left handed Nikon in his right hand while he beat up Chuck Norris.

[CannedHeat]

Ken took them holding his left handed Nikon in his right hand while he beat up Chuck Norris.

Yea, but along with the snapshots that ain't saying much either. Chuck Norris is getting kinda' old nowadays, you know. ;)

[Moppie]

Yea, but along with the snapshots that ain't saying much either. Chuck Norris is getting kinda' old nowadays, you know. ;)

I guess even Ken has his bad days :lol::lol:


He use to have his own Wikipedia entry, until I made an addition to it.
I pointed out, in polite terms, how full of BS his website is, and provided a variety of links to forums and message boards as reference material. :cool:

[Citizensmith]

For me personally, I did not see anything there that was not basically average snapshots. I guess I just don't get it.

Yeah but we've all seen serious pros post images where they were going for something arty, ended up with something crap, and it still sold anyway. Hell, take a walk around any modern art gallery. If some of the junk in those can be considered art some crappy photos certainly can.

He was smart enough to figure out how to get his name established and make money from it so he has most of us beat there whether or not he actually has the skills when it comes to photography.

Funny, I only heard of him a week or so ago when I got complained to for agreeing with someone who quoted him. He certainly seems like the person to hate.

[CannedHeat]

Funny, I only heard of him a week or so ago when I got complained to for agreeing with someone who quoted him. He certainly seems like the person to hate.

Yep. Like I said in the other thread on the subject, he sure gets a lot of free exposure links in google... like this thread. (guess he ain't so dumb afterall, huh?) ;)

[BillMarks]

He certainly seems like the person to hate.

I'm not sure why people get so worked up over other people. If he has good things to say, listen. If not, don't. But spending time disrespecting the guy only makes you (all) look small.

[Moppie]

But spending time disrespecting the guy only makes you (all) look small.


Hey, I'm only 5ft 6 and resemble that statement!

If you have a problem with BS artists being pointed out and labeled correctly, then prehaps you should go and give mr Rockwell a donation, or see if he has a fan club you can join :)

[the_incubus]

I'm not sure why people get so worked up over other people. If he has good things to say, listen. If not, don't. But spending time disrespecting the guy only makes you (all) look small.

i dont think you understand. I know hes a dumbass, Moppie knows hes a dumbass but a person who is new to photography and is looking for information does not know hes a dumbass. So, this thread is not to belittle another person but, its to warn others of his tendency to give out false information (and be a dumbass :))

[Tee Why]

Actually, I'm a big fan of Ken. I read his site frequently. I actually agree with much of his philosophical points.

I find his educational galleries funny and wanted to share it with the members here. Ken knows he is called an idiot online and states he doesn't care. Only thing sad is that he actually teaches on workshops where people pay several hundreds of dollars to "learn" from him. I think we have the right to speak up on our minds/opinions about him as he opines about equipment, photography techniques, and other various topics of photography.

Lastly, some have stated that this statement is true:
"The low magnification of an ultra-ultra wide 14mm lens allows longer speeds than a normal lens."
I would say that this is incorrect. Ken's 14mm lens he refers to is a 14mm so following the shutter speed rule, it would allow for handholdable shutter speed of 1/14 sec.

The magnification ratio of that lens is 1:10, which is low but this relates to mainly the focal length and the minimum focus distance. If Canon was able to engineer a similar ultrawide lens with a higher magnification like a 1:4 or something like that, this would not affect the shutter speed needed for handholdability, as with a higher mag. ratio, you do not have to shoot at a closer distance. So shooting two different 14mm lenses at the same distance from the subject, differeing mag. ratio does not render one lens more handholdable than another. Differing focal lengths would though.

[BillMarks]

Hey, I'm only 5ft 6 and resemble that statement!

If you have a problem with BS artists being pointed out and labeled correctly, then prehaps you should go and give mr Rockwell a donation, or see if he has a fan club you can join :)

:rolleyes: typical black & white thinking...

Can you really see no middle ground? Prior to seeing this thread I have viewed Mr. Rockwell's posts. I have his web site bookmarked. Some of his comments are totally off-base. Some are dead on correct. And some, even if incorrect, provide food for thought.

No one with even half a brain would take anything anyone posted on the Internet as being true without verifying it first--or at least looking for independent corroberation.

So what's the point of picking on the guy?

It serves no useful purpose--and makes you look small...

[BillMarks]

i dont think you understand. I know hes a dumbass, Moppie knows hes a dumbass but a person who is new to photography and is looking for information does not know hes a dumbass. So, this thread is not to belittle another person but, its to warn others of his tendency to give out false information (and be a dumbass :))

Oh. And you have thoroughly analyzed the contents of his site and have determined he tends to give out false information? Gee, I'd like to see your systematic evaluation of the content of his site, and the sources you used to determine which content was true and which was false.

[Tee Why]

I've also heard that Ken loves this post as well.
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts

[the_incubus]

anyone that posts here whether to pick on ken or to pick on those that pick on ken are all in the same boat. By posting here Bill, you become no better than me. Those that truly see no purpose for picking on someone else looked at this thread and moved on. Plus, most here arent even ridiculing him, just pointing out the dangers of listening to him.

As tee why showed in other posts he does give out false information.

[Tee Why]

Guys, guys, let keep the personal attacks to just Ken now.
We're getting off topic.
:)

[the_incubus]

to bad hes not a member here, it would be interesting to talk to him.

[Tee Why]

He was a Nikon fanboy and just started reviewing Canons. I think he might be a Canon fanboy as well since I don't think he's had one negative review of a Canon as well.

incubus, be careful what you wish for....
Let's hope Ken doesn't know POTN exists for our sakes. Then again, I don't read the comics in the morning but I do go to his site everyday for a good chuckle or two.

[BillMarks]

anyone that posts here whether to pick on ken or to pick on those that pick on ken are all in the same boat. By posting here Bill, you become no better than me.

That is simply untrue. That's like saying that being intolerent of bigotry is no better than the bigot's intolerence toward other races. Your argument holds no water--it is false. So you just posted false information on the web. Should someone start a thread on that?

Those that truly see no purpose for picking on someone else looked at this thread and moved on. Plus, most here arent even ridiculing him, just pointing out the dangers of listening to him.
Seems unrealistic that 3 pages of comments were required for such warnings.

As tee why showed in other posts he does give out false information.

FYI: There is false information all over this board. You posted false information above. It's the nature of being human--we make mistakes. We have all done what you accuse Ken of doing.

When should I expect your post on the systematic analysis of Ken's site?

[Moppie]

:rolleyes: typical black & white thinking...

Can you really see no middle ground?


Black and white thinking?
I might enjoy my photography, but I do not think in colours.
I much prefer binary. :rolleyes:

Where is the middle ground here?

Ken makes money out of being a misleading opinionated prat. He puts himself and his ideas in the public domain and makes himself open to criticism.



No one with even half a brain would take anything anyone posted on the Internet as being true without verifying it first--or at least looking for independent corroberation.


That, sadly, is a very naive viewpoint.
I have been moderating internet forums for about 7 years not (not this one) and participating for over 8, I can tell you from personal experience that the average new forum user is usually quite ignorant of even basic knowledge regarding their chosen subject. This lack of knowledge makes it very hard to know who is right, and who is wrong.
If they are unfortunate enough to encounter Kens site on their first search, they are immediately meet with bad and often plain wrong advice and information.

To think the average human being is educated enough to question everything they are told, is well, lets just say it goes beyond naive.

[BillMarks]

Ken makes money out of being a misleading opinionated prat. He puts himself and his ideas in the public domain and makes himself open to criticism.

Ahhh. Now it becomes clear. you are jealous of Ken making money... And you seem to equate having the right to do something and doing that thing--i.e., you seem to think that having the right to criticize means you should criticize.

I've never questioned anyone's right to criticize Ken. I merely asked to what end it is done and whether it servers anyones' interests to continue. I haven't gotten a direct answer to either issue.

[the_incubus]

That is simply untrue. That's like saying that being intolerent of bigotry is no better than the bigot's intolerence toward other races. Your argument holds no water--it is false. So you just posted false information on the web. Should someone start a thread on that?

no that is my opinion i am not stating a fact. Ken does and sometimes his "facts" are false.


Seems unrealistic that 3 pages of comments were required for such warnings.

Half the comments are ones saying that we shouldnt beliitle ken.


FYI: There is false information all over this board. You posted false information above. It's the nature of being human--we make mistakes. We have all done what you accuse Ken of doing.

When should I expect your post on the systematic analysis of Ken's site?

Yes of course there is false information all over this forum. Many of us are not proffrcianals and are not learned in the subject. Ken Rockwell, unlike us, is portrayed as a professional photographer who is qualified to be giving information. When some information is false from a supposed reliable source, people need to be warned not to follow everything he says.

:rolleyes:

[BillMarks]

no that is my opinion i am not stating a fact. Ken does and sometimes his "facts" are false.

Really? How is one to distinguish your comment of "anyone that posts here whether to pick on ken or to pick on those that pick on ken are all in the same boat. By posting here Bill, you become no better than me," to be an opinion as opposed to a statement of fact? And how do you determine when Ken makes a false statement that he isn't expressing an opinion?


Yes of course there is false information all over this forum. Many of us are not professionals and are not learned in the subject. Ken Rockwell, unlike us, is portrayed as a professional photographer who is qualified to be giving information. When some information is false from a supposed reliable source, people need to be warned not to follow everything he says.

Is Ken a professional photographer? If not, who portrays him as such? Do you really think anyone follows everything he says? Mopie's perception aside, it seems clear to me that most people on the planet realize that everyone makes mistakes and won't believe everything anyone says.

[Moppie]

I merely asked to what end it is done and whether it servers anyones' interests to continue. I haven't gotten a direct answer to either issue.


Well, heres a pretty good answer, which I'm going to quote simply to save repeating it in different words:


Ken Rockwell, unlike us, is portrayed as a professional photographer who is qualified to be giving information. When some information is false from a supposed reliable source, people need to be warned not to follow everything he says.

:rolleyes:

[Moppie]

Mopie's perception aside, it seems clear to me that most people on the planet realize that everyone makes mistakes and won't believe everything anyone says.


Two P's please, and prehaps you need to get out more, or at least prehaps trust people less :)


I also think this is going no where, and you are simply looking for an argument for the sake of it.
While I happen to enjoy playing along, I have a feeling the mods will feel otherwise :)

Lets just agree that your wrong and the rest of us are right, we can call it a democratic victory.

[BillMarks]

Well, heres a pretty good answer, which I'm going to quote simply to save repeating it in different words:

And the people who need to ne told that are not likely to be able to navigate to this site to see the warning...

But I think you get my point and I accept your apology.

[the_incubus]

Two P's please, and prehaps you need to get out more, or at least prehaps trust people less :)


I also think this is going no where, and you are simply looking for an argument for the sake of it.
While I happen to enjoy playing along, I have a feeling the mods will feel otherwise :)

Lets just agree that your wrong and the rest of us are right, we can call it a democratic victory.

:lol: I agree. Bill, your argument is quite ridiculous, you are just taking everything and making us elaborate, it could go on forever. This argument really should stop now and the thread should go back to good, clean bashing Ken rockwell :) Im going to sleep, its 3 am

[saint2137]

I know this is a forum where people are free so say anything they like, but to be honest I did not expect to see some people with stubborn attitude on their arguments, mainly when they talk about someone else. You are all free to talk as they are all free to do anything they like to do. In this regard, Ken Rockwell will keep doing what he did no matter what you all say in this forum. I expect reading more quality threads from this forum than this; after all this forum is about photography. I am wasting my time reading and writing on this thread, but at least I've learnt something about people attitude.

[Hermeto]

In other words, if you want to learn about people’s attitude, go to Ken Rocwell’s site and discuss it.
If you want to learn about photography, go somewhere else.

Yep, that’s about right.. ;)

[nicksan]

So who the heck is KR? I never heard of him until I saw this post. Even tho the editorial content of this thread disagrees with him, it is nonetheless a fact that apparently he gets a lot of visitors to his website and a lot of people talk about him and that he has become a source of teaching/education in the industry. I went to the death valley link in the op. Admitedly, I did not read the article but I scanned down and looked at his pictures. For me personally, I did not see anything there that was not basically average snapshots. I guess I just don't get it.

I disagree. He's got some pretty nice ones up there. (Yes, along with some not-so-nice ones...don't we all?)

Let's see your gallery...

[CannedHeat]

I expect reading more quality threads from this forum than this

Actually, I disagree. I think it's a great thread. It's one of the funniest I have read in these forums.

The thread is basically a bunch of people criticizing the editorial contributions of a photographer, and possibly his work, basically saying why he should be disregarded while at the same time promoting the same photographer, increasing the google ranking of the same photographer, and improving and increasing the name recognition of the same photographer. It's great stuff!

[CannedHeat]

I disagree. He's got some pretty nice ones up there. (Yes, along with some not-so-nice ones...don't we all?)

Let's see your gallery...

You need to read the post more carefully. I was not criticizing Ken's work. I was talking solely about the pictures within the context of that specific article. No problem. The gallery (http://pbase.com/jumbo_photography) is outdated and has not been added to in a while and will not be in the future. But as long as you're going to bait me here, be open and tell me what you think here.

[nicksan]

You need to read the post more carefully. I was not criticizing Ken's work. I was talking solely about the pictures within the context of that specific article. No problem. The gallery (http://pbase.com/jumbo_photography) is outdated and has not been added to in a while and will not be in the future. But as long as you're going to bait me here, be open and tell me what you think here.


I see. My bad. So you do agree that KR's got some nice captures up on his website as well right?

I agree that he's somewhat dorky and self promoting. Seems to have worked for him. According to him, he only does seminars when he is invited. So if that is the truth, then technically he's not "pushing" his knowledge...it's more like a "pull" from those who are interested.

Anyways...I find this thread both humorous and disturbing...and I guess that's consistent with KR's website in some ways!:lol:

BTW, love your gallery. Very, very impressive! (Kinda like what I would LIKE TO be shooting...except I never get to go to places like those...:-()
Thanks for the link!!!

[pagnamenta]

Quick question, if you look at Ken's website, he has a left handed camera. What is up with that? Some mirror trick or is he so great Nikon custom manufactured him a left handed camera?

[Hermeto]

Quick question, if you look at Ken's website, he has a left handed camera. What is up with that? Some mirror trick or is he so great Nikon custom manufactured him a left handed camera?

About the left-handed camera on the home page back to top (http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#top)
The left handed Nikon F100 (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/f100.htm) you see on my home page was loaned to me for beta testing in 1998 when Nikon was considering producing a left handed version of the F100. Yes, I also wear my watch on my right arm and if you think I'm kidding just click the image on my Contact (http://www.kenrockwell.com/contact.htm) page for the original hi-rez film scan where you can see for yourself it's not just a flipped negative. Nikon decided against producing the camera, but let me keep the beta on indefinite loan as thanks for all my input. It of course remains property of Nikon Japan. I may not sell it, although it would fetch a pretty penny in the collector's market. I have to return it to Nikon eventually, and of course when it breaks it won't be repaired. I even had a veterinarian friend in Africa who specializes in elephant care send me some phallus hide from the Loxodonta Africana (http://www.rennerimages.com/wa2/tusks.htm) (known for its flexibility and grip when wet) which I then had a local taxidermist apply to my camera in place of the original rubber. It took a lot of paperwork with the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Game but at least it doesn't peel off on my D1H (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d1x.htm) as the rubber does.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#intro

[BillMarks]

Bill, your argument is quite ridiculous, you are just taking everything and making us elaborate, it could go on forever.

Suggesting that there is no merit to your bashing Ken is not the least bit rediculous. I doubt it will keep people from his site. On the contrary, it will probably drive people to his site to read the content you wish them to avoid.

I ask you to elaborate certain points to show how little you actually know about what you are talking about.

I get it that you do not like Ken. But continuing to bash him, as I pointed out in my first post on this thread, makes you look small. But as with Mopie, I think you get my point so I accept your apology.

Peace.

[Mark_Cohran]

I get it that you do not like Ken. But continuing to bash him, as I pointed out in my first post on this thread, makes you look small. But as with Mopie, I think you get my point so I accept your apology.

Peace.

Does that always work for you? Accepting apologies where none were offered? :)

[BillMarks]

Does that always work for you? Accepting apologies where none were offered? :)

Ever watch the Colbert Report, Mark. It's a joke... :rolleyes:

[Mark_Cohran]

Ah, now I get the reference. :) :)

[saint2137]

Actually, I disagree. I think it's a great thread. It's one of the funniest I have read in these forums.

The thread is basically a bunch of people criticizing the editorial contributions of a photographer, and possibly his work, basically saying why he should be disregarded while at the same time promoting the same photographer, increasing the google ranking of the same photographer, and improving and increasing the name recognition of the same photographer. It's great stuff!

I do not disagree that Ken's work should be carefully balanced/counteracted/whatever it is, if the mission is to give people - mostly beginners in photography - the "correct" knowledge. But I disagree with the way people talk about someone else's weaknesses, errors, mistakes, etc. I felt some excessive childishness here in the way people criticise him. You all can criticise him the way you like - and I am not gonna defend him in anyway - but I believe we can use a better attitude in doing that. If we want to teach people, we should do it in a good way. Different manner may result in different outcome.

[saint2137]

In other words, if you want to learn about people’s attitude, go to Ken Rocwell’s site and discuss it.
;)

Not necessary. Even here in this forum I've read many posts showing that many people have lack of attitude. It's easy to find them. Some people are just feeling/thinking that they are the smartest people on earth.

[CannedHeat]

Actually, I disagree. I think it's a great thread. It's one of the funniest I have read in these forums.

The thread is basically a bunch of people criticizing the editorial contributions of a photographer, and possibly his work, basically saying why he should be disregarded while at the same time promoting the same photographer, increasing the google ranking of the same photographer, and improving and increasing the name recognition of the same photographer. It's great stuff!

I do not disagree that Ken's work should be carefully balanced/counteracted/whatever it is, if the mission is to give people - mostly beginners in photography - the "correct" knowledge. But I disagree with the way people talk about someone else's weaknesses, errors, mistakes, etc. I felt some excessive childishness here in the way people criticise him. You all can criticise him the way you like - and I am not gonna defend him in anyway - but I believe we can use a better attitude in doing that. If we want to teach people, we should do it in a good way. Different manner may result in different outcome.

Huh ? ? ? The above post did not contain a single criticism of ken or his work. It was solely about this thread about his work. Did you read it carefully?

[BillsBayou]

I thought the following Rockwellism was interesting:

"Rectification means stretching the original curvy fisheye image back into something useful."

BACK into something useful? Why use "rectification"? Why not say "I corrected for barrel distortion"? Fisheye photos are very useful in and of themselves. How about "I corrected for barrel distortion because I wanted straighter lines in the final print."

[Woolburr]

:lol: I agree. Bill, your argument is quite ridiculous, you are just taking everything and making us elaborate, it could go on forever. This argument really should stop now and the thread should go back to good, clean bashing Ken rockwell :) Im going to sleep, its 3 am

Someone asked a while back if Ken was reading here or even a member...if he isn't reading and replying to this thread personally...certainly one of his trained troll minions is.:lol:

The number of out and out absurd statements that can be directly attributed to Ken is scary. Newbies have no idea that they are reading the advice of a total imbecile. It is the responsibility of any person with a sense of decency and compassion to explain to the uninitiated that Ken spews nothing more than raw sewage and listening to his tripe is not going to do your photographic skills any good.:p

[saint2137]

Huh ? ? ? The above post did not contain a single criticism of ken or his work. It was solely about this thread about his work. Did you read it carefully?

Understood. I'm sorry, my reply did not criticise your post. What I wanted to say was: I will agree that this post is great/interesting/useful if people criticise Ken's work/website in a better way, leaving all childishness behind.

[BillsBayou]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image.

He must have meant something else.

[CannedHeat]

Understood. I'm sorry, my reply did not criticise your post. What I wanted to say was: I will agree that this post is great/interesting/useful if people criticise Ken's work/website in a better way, leaving all childishness behind.

Accepted and also understood. I agree. It's ironic. Some of the posts in this thread are, in their own right, as ridiculous as the so-called "ramblings" of ken they criticize.

[Woolburr]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm



He must have meant something else.

You must remember...Ken shot the Mona Lisa with a Holga and it is his original print that hangs in the Louvre...he just allows the myth to be perpetuated that it was painted by a master.;)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Thread closed at Original Posters request.