Say what you want about Ken; he sure likes his Leica!

<p>100+ posts. What energy people put into Ken Rockwell! The only other Leica Forum celebrity who generates this kind of attention is Mr. Erwin Puts.</p>

<p>To anyone who has communicated with Ken personally, he is an extremely generous person. Same goes for Erwin. Erwin had joined photo.net some years ago, and participated in discussions; but the rabid element hounded him relentlessly and he eventually left, as any sane person would. In the end the forum's loss, for he is a font of Leica knowledge, and shared it with generosity. Mediocrity triumphs, rather than scholarship.</p>

<p>Based on what was written in this thread, did it occur to you that KR may have written some of the posts in order to generate more controversy? He may have even started the thread! If he did, he sure was successful once again. I link to this thread appeared on the Home Page of Photo.net. </p>

<p><em>"Like most serious shooters, I'm so done with digital."</em><br>

That's hilarious! Maybe serious hobby shooters who own rangefinders?<br>

I would imagine by now 98% or so of the world's pro shooters are digital. They are at least as "serious" as this clown.</p>

<p>Haha, great thread, if for no other reason it gets my hit.</p>

<p>I know he'll like the 16mm Hologon as soon as he buys one, then we'll get the updated blog.</p>

<p>I found his contact info, it was a PayPal site, very very clever that one!</p>

<p>At least he has brought some visibility to a great little kit, but I find it very curious he didn't mention noise, that the camera sounds like a pre-smog JT-8D?</p>

<p>Well, as I said many times, I enjoy reading Ken's website but at the same time I take the information written in it as I take anything on the internet, i.e. putting a big "Maybe" in front of every sentence. What I recognize to Ken is that he claims not having the absolute truth, he warns the internet surfer that everything he writes is biased by his opinion and experience. Sometimes my opinion is aligned with him's, sometimes not. Other times, when sharing the same piece of equipment, I wondered if he actually tested it before writing. That's life. Let me say that he is a nice buddy to meet at the local cafè and talk about cameras just like I would talk about fishing. Most of the troubles come out when his advice is taken as science or as the Bible.<br>

Coming back to Leica, well, I guess Ken moved to Leica because it is the only remaining company in the 35 mm arena that seems to keep some interest in film. All the others went 100% digital and are slowly cutting the ties between their old film and the new digital equipment. I don't know how long will Leica still support film, but this is another story.</p>

<p>... I've been shooting HP5+ with my M4-2 and missed these debates. Too much fuss going on here, I'm going back out to take pictures ...</p>

<p>To Ronal Moravec "I have leica bodies 50 years old that work as new. How can you call them expensive?<br>

Ronald I'm also a Leica man, however do not say that these are unexpensive, oK the gear lasts forver (jsut bought my daughter a summicron first serie that works just as new) but how extorsionate are the lenses 2700Euros (Not even USD) for a 50 f1.4.... ANyway i would not carry a nikon tank for mountaneering the M6 35mm is <1Kg!.</p>

 

<p>Ken Rockwell is a good read as long as you realize its just one random guy's entertainingly written camera blog. He makes an occasional common sense point strikingly. There is no particular reason to take his word as gospel truth on photography, any more than you would upon meeting an entertaining conversationalist at the local bar.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell is a space alien from the another planet. At first I wasn't so sure, but some of the photos in his portfolio made me suspsicous. I have been to Death Valley, myself and have not seen aything like the colours he gets. I've tried Velvia with, Canons, Nikons, and when I heard he switch to Leica I even tried Leica's too but I can't get his vivid colours. 81A, 85C filters it doesn't matter. His pictures can't be reproduced!<br>

He is secretly taking photos of his home planet, which must be just like earth only more saturated, and posting them on the web. What is more is his kids Ryan and the little girl Rockwell are space aliens too. Their cheeks are too rosy for human babies. Have you noticed how sometime his watch is on his left hand and sometimes his right. What is going on there?<br>

I have been reading his website once, twice often three time a day since 2002 to keep an eye on him. When I figure out what his plan is I'll report him to the intelligence agencies.</p>

<p>KR works hard spending the <strong>time</strong> to providing all of us, learning/teaching, through fun graphic testing information. I don't care if it's a <strong>film</strong>; Leica, Nikon, Canon, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, Alpa, Contax, Voigtlander, Pentax, Mamiya, Zeiss, Minolta or whatever... <strong>KR makes irrefutable arguments for film superiority in his following points:</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"Most digital shooters are wary of this, knowing that whatever they shoot today in digital may or may not be good enough to sell to tomorrow's market. Got raw files shot in 2002 on your then state-of-the-art $5,000 Nikon D1H? Enjoy going back to your 2.7 megapixel files! You may as well delete them now.</em><br /><em>You can't go back to a raw file and get more resolution. <strong>With film</strong>, you don't have to make a resolution decision until you scan it. </em><br /><em><strong>With film</strong>, you can scan at any resolution. <strong>With film</strong>, you can scan it again in 30 years with whatever technology we have then, because you still have your original raw image captured alive and well"</em></p>

<p align="left"><em>"With digital raw files, good luck finding software to read it in 10 years, much less 20 or 50 years.</em></p>

<p align="left"><em>With new film cameras, you can see your film an hour after you unwrap your new camera.</em></p>

<p align="left"><em>With new digital cameras, you may have to wait months until your favorite software package can open its raw files. </em></p>

<p align="left"><em>Worse, raw is actually a conspiracy to addict you to having to buy software the rest of your life. Adobe makes you have to buy the latest version of Photoshop so you can look at files from new cameras. They deliberately don't provide updates for older versions of their software so that you have to buy the upgrades."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p align="left">Selected quotes from Ken Rockwell's link: <a href="http://kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm">http://kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't get his vivid colours. 81A, 85C filters it doesn't matter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Easy - either crank up saturation and contrast in your digital camera - and choose "vivid" or whatever description is used for the most "enhanced" colors - for film, use Velvia - and when the image is in digital form, open in your preferred editing software - even the most basic one will suffice, then crank up saturation all the way and do the same with contrast - mid-tones are for sissies and not for "serious photographers".</p>

<p>What I don't get is Ken goes with film and chooses a dinky little amatuer format like 35mm. (paraphrasing) Ken even says a Yashicamat will blow the doors off of any 35mm camera including Leica. So why is it Ken is not shooting with one of those Pentax 645s and those great lenses he tested a while back? What happened to the the worlds best camera system the Mamiya 7? Ken is the Andy Kauffman of photography blogs. Always yanking someone's chain.</p>

<p>As others have, people are taking Ken Rockwell way too seriously. I'm a religious reader of his site, and why? Entertainment! Oh, he also announces some new gear and points out old gear of interest, plus issues provocative commentary on technique and other topics. It's a mishmash of all kinds of stuff and you never know what will turn up next. I'd really miss the fun if his site went away. </p>

<p>All in all, you can't just read his site and believe whatever he says, or disbelieve it either. You have to evaluate it and decide whether the BS component of any one sentence is 0%, 50%, or 100%. If you read enough you'll see plenty of examples of his contradicting himself, although some of this is legitimate changing of one's mind over several years. Also, I find it irritating when he goes overboard, as in claiming that your camera doesn't matter at all (it may not matter as much as many think, but try telling me this when I'm looking at my old Petri fixed-lens rangefinder slides full of lens flare, or at my digital point-and-shoot shots that didn't come out right due to shutter delay).</p>

<p>Nevertheless, he's a lot of fun to read as long as the reader adopts the right attitude of lots of salt on hand and tongue quite near the cheek. There's also some really good advice mixed in sometimes, if you look for it.</p>

<p>Bill D.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell. I think he rides a bodyboard. </p>