Interesting read.

What a lot of whining about Ken. I didn't see a gun being put to anyone's head in

order to force them to read Ken's remarks. The we have to listen to someone tell us

that his pics aren't up to snuff. More BS. Maybe if anyone bothered to understand

what he said, which was that he shoots what HE wants, and isn't gonna jump off a

bridge is some don't like it. I would be quite pleased if my pic caused me to win a

paid trip to just about anyplace, let alone Hawaii. I hate snobs.

Super pro Ken is accessing my email account and subscribing me to porno sites.

 

 

*loser*

 

Surely your "God" has provided answer for handing truths no?<div></div>

I got here through Ken's site.

 

He's a great guy. Just like someone else said, he makes photos that HE likes. If you think his photos stink it doesn't matter. He has great points. You can be a great photographer and know nothing about these things. You may also not be, but you can definitely be aware of these things. Believe me, if you run a web site which has many visitors, you will experience alot of different people.

 

I don't consider myself to belong to a specific group either. You should never just accept belonging to one group and think that it's good enough. That's not what making photographs is about. Making photographs is about trying to create that something.

 

I don't strive to make the same type of photographs that Ken does. We don't share the same taste. Still I think his photos are great. I'm not talking about technically great here. He has a good eye.

 

Anyways my point is that Ken Rockwell has important things to say. End of story.

 

Saying that someone has to be the best on earth at doing what this person is doing in order to have an opinion is a really stupid thing to say. When it comes to art, that statement only mean one thing: the person saying it does not understand art.

 

Maybe Ken is the best on earth at doing what he does. Only he himself knows.

 

I use a Nikon F3. People who know what an F3 is may call me a measurbator (FYI, I chose it so I could take it with me during my military service on northern Sweden -- daily three feet drops etc). None of my measurbator friends understand my choice of camera however. It's a manual focus camera. In their eyes, you're f***ed when you have an MF camera. It's not even exotic. It's something left over from the stone age. They spend loads of money on the latest consumer compact digital camera and they keep the shutter release depressed while aiming at the pavement and looking in a different direction. They ask me how many pixels do my crappy stone-age analog film hold? I say huh? I usually say my Rolleiflex 120 film camera hold a few hundred. Thay stare at me like "I was asking a serious question and you just make jokes".

 

Maybe I should mention that I disagree with Ken on some technical points. Just in case someone was getting any ideas.

From Ken's "About" page :<br>

<br>

<i>I also like to kid around now and then, so if you believe everything you read then that's your problem. Sorry. I have a huge sense of humor. I fool around, make stuff up and create hoaxes, too, when I feel like it. If you believe everything you read on the internet and see on TV have I got a bridge for you!</i><br>

<br>

Further down the page, about the lefty F100 :<br>

<br>

<i>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 (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.</i><br>

<br>

:oD<br>

Hey thanks for pointing that out. I've been a bit harsh on Ken and it's not justified on my end......Photographers ego I suppose. Truth of the matter is, Ken's site has been a great help....saved me tons of time with my D1H (and many other topics) thanks to Ken's research and input.

 

Ken my apologies for my unprofessional comments attacking you here....good luck with your work and the site and I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.

I'm an engineer, but not a measurebator.

I don't earn a dime from my work.

I'm afraid to tell people I own Nikon SLR's and Digis.

I fear showing my work to anyone but my dog.

I won a Nikon photo contest, and refused to respond to them.

I hang prints in my house and put obscure names on them from

cemetaries.

Perhaps I'm a level 9, Dante Photographer. Afraid of my work, afraid of other people knowing I work and afraid of being discovered as

a closet photographer.

Cripes, I'm outed.

 

(my son bought me a Holga 120, I keep it in my Yugo)

Ken,

 

We now know you to actually be Michael Jackson, in some sort of disguise. Your

comments will receive the accolades that they richly deserve.

My error, the previous post was directed at Neal, not Ken.

Ain't got the foggiest idea what level I'm on. I still need to eat, prefer shooting film in rangefinder Leica M's because I can do that without really thinking about it, most of the time would rather be fishing, and discovered that most clients are perfectly willing to use digital via scanned negatives if I tell them that's how I plan on shooting.

Well, after reading the wonderfully enlightening posts, I jumped into my XK-120 with my Retina III filled with TRI-X, snapped some pikies and will see if I can rise to Level 0 after I get out of my darkroom this AM. Think "Dark Star".

Hello, I found this discussion from Ken Rockwell's page. :-)

 

I've been reading with interest, however, the earlier comment re. the "left-handed" camera, and subsequent comments prompted me to take a closer look. Well, looking on the "Contact" there is an image, again, with the watch on the right hand. However, the photo is a clickable link, which opens a rather large image. I guess I'm interested, because I, personally, am left handed. :-)

 

In any case, looking at the photo on the contact page, I got a little more curious... The watch didn't look quite right.

 

I clicked on the image, and seeing it blown up, I knew what it was. I had to dig my watch off my desk to double check, but I am correct. A watch on a right-handed person has the crown on the outside, making it easy to wind while wearing. When worn on the right hand for a leftie, the crown is on the inside, forcing one to take off his watch to wind it. I grew up with this frustration, so am a bit sensitive to this. :-)

 

If you will notice on the watch on this image: <http://www.kenrockwell.com/Images/KenLens3k.jpg> the crown is on the _outside_ of the wrist! It is clearly being worn on the left arm! However... It gets weirder...

 

If you look at the blow-up, the watch appears to be on _upside down_!

 

So, has he merely taken a photo, flipped it in Photoshop, and reversed the two elements that would make it obvious? and taken a shortcut re: the watch dial, not expecting anyone to look that closely? or is he playing games with us? I tend to suspect the latter, including the existence of the "left-handed" camera.

 

Hey. I'm left-handed. I could certainly use such a camera. I'll "beta test" it for an indefinite amount of time. ;-)

 

Interesting thread. Interesting topic, interesting individual...

Furthermore, you'll notice the part in his hair is opposite of his other photos. And in one of his family photos, he has a rather distinct tan line on his left wrist.

 

However, the fact that any of us have looked this close to disprove an idiotic statement in the first place, I'm sure gives him the last laugh.

 

:)

Where does the TEACHER/TRAINER fit into Ken's Seven Levels OR this web-site, for that matter? One aspect we all SHARE in common is our desire to better ourselves--our skills in our kraft--isn't that so?

 

Isn't that why we loved (or hated!) Ken's Seven Levels? Isn't that why we post/observe/read/evaluate each other's work, here, on this web-site?

 

One of the first things I learned when I got into TEACHING was that there would be NO END to the LEARNING! That I would forever be BOTH the student AND the teacher! That I must learn from those who know/understand MORE than I do, and teach those who don't.

 

I welcome learning from my "betters" --even if it is just a tid-bit, here and there! One small, new secret that my expensive education and vast experience has overlooked or missed!

 

Occasionally, I have something helpful to show someone else, too! THAT pleases me almost as much as a capturing a great image, to be sure!

 

THANKS KEN, you've taught me a LOT!

 

Bob Slater

Sorry my answer is 2.4 years too late, but here it is. So Ken's pix are boring because they've been done a billion times before. If there was one tree in the world, people would travel from around the world to lay in its shade or wonder great thoughts or marvel or worship. Since there are trees by the billions, civilizations lose their reverence & cut trees down by the billions. Both forests & civilizations are lessened & destroyed. John, don't lose your reverence because answers come to you by the billions. It's just God loving you enough to give you answers by the billions. Just take one answer at a time. From an amateur astronomer who marvels daily(sometimes even worships) that there are 2 million million billion stars in a universe 90 million million billion miles across who takes one star at a time...litesong

I am looking to buy a digital camera I hope I get a good copy.

man I should print this and hang it on my wall :)

I got here through Ken's site. I read it almost every day. Now I will be reading photo.net every day also.

I love Ken's site. I don't think he writes satire. I think he is a dry wit, somewhat egotistical and given to fits ofpouring out whatever comes to his mind that day. If you read him religiously there are a large number of contradictions in his opinions. He obviously doesn't re-read his journal very often. But that's like almost everyone else.

I have no idea where I fit in his categorization of people who put images on paper. I am older (59), I have a Nikon D200 and four lenses, and I just love to carry it around, snap pictures and maybe print one or two out of a hundred or more and hang them unframed on my wall.

I also greatly enjoyed Alex's lengthy review. All true and all critical but well done and not terribly self-serving.

I realize this is an old thread but I hope to be contributing more as time goes on on this site.