Left handed F100 - Ken Rockwell's Pointless Deception

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't. I mentioned it in the seventh place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's very good. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I didn't. I mentioned it in the seventh place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's very good. :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Obviously, he knows that making such a claim is begging for naysayers so he welcomes readers to inspect a full resolution photo of him with the camera on his Contact page.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd rather go out to take some shots than wasting time looking at that.....</p>

<p>Oh he is an F100 man!</p>

<p>He's very entertaining. Can we talk about something else now?</p>

We all looked at KR's site once. Most of us moved on. Who cares, really, what or how many cameras he has/had.... Or if any of writings are truthful. Liked stuff about the anal probe, though....

<p>I have found some of the info he's posted very useful, such as the serial numbers matching date of manufacturer to Leica LTM lenses etc. The guy is as passionate about photography as any of us are. I think there are a lot of online "divas" when it comes to Nikon gear. I see his willingness to kid around as a plus.<br />The 70 year old Vulcanite on my Leica IIIc crumbled in the below zero cold over the past few months. I sent an email off to cameraleather.com to see if they have any leftover elephant phallus foreskin from which they could make a replacement covering for me. My only fear is it might be slippery when wet.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Is anyone here sending him money?</p>

<p>I'm sure that Ken appreciates the free publicity courtesy of Photo.net, but the more the site tries to ban his name, the more it pops up.</p>

<p>I enjoy reading Ken's site, and there is some useful information there. There is also a lot of bombast.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I knew KR was completely wrong about everything , when he suggested that lens hoods were un-necessary.</p>

<p align="left"><strong>The master's own words:<br /></strong></p>

<p align="left"><strong> </strong></p>

<p align="left"><strong>"" HOOD:</strong></p>

<p align="left">I've never unwrapped mine. Hoods are an obsolete throwback to simpler times."""</p>

<p>Look folks, KR is the man!<br>

Any doubt?</p>

<p>Look at the neckline of that golf shirt in the fabled left-hand Nikon shot.<br>

Buttons are on the left side of the shirt. That's a classic woman's 'blouse' button location.<br>

It takes a tough man to wear a girl's shirt, and carry it off with panache.</p>

<p>Does Mrs. KR know ? Very Freudian!</p>

<p>:o)</p>

If the owners of this or any other site wanted to ban mention of him, from a coding point of view it would be pretty simple.

 

These days he's just another fake hack with a website.

 

Essentially He's the photography world's equivalent of the Karcrashians or Ann Coulter: famous fo no good reason; a

loud mouth with nothing to back it up. I suspect the same sort of mindset applies to all three. Their fans like the

controversy and overly simplistic answers that are entertaining but lack substance.

<p>Ellis--<br>

You could easily add Ed Schultz and Keith Olberman to your list. I think Rockwell is OK although I don't regularly follow his blog. Unlike Olberman et al., KR doesn't seem to take himself too seriiously. I think the lefthanded F100 is hilarious! We need more humor.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Actually Kent, none of the others ever won, or will likely ever win, the Edward R. Murrow Award, given for "outstanding achievements in electronic journalism." which Olbermann did.</p>

<p>My taste is not for his high saturation photography. However, he's entertaining to read and a lot more common sensical than most photo bloggers. He's frugal, likes to laugh at others and himself. He's serious about his business but doesn't take himself too seriously. He's tough on manufacturers especially Canon and Nikon and will switch his favorites between the two based on what he considers important features when new models come out. He likes some other manufacturers as well based on results. He's not enamored with resolution and crap like that although he reports on all kinds of technical information because he knows that many people like that information. </p>

<p>He knows that good photography has little to do with equipment and says that. He hates menu driven cameras as too unintuitive and difficult to operate quickly and simply and takes away from getting good shots. He expounds that simple straight-forward operating cameras with good on-board controls are best. </p>

I find his opinions on cameras mostly worthless, since he prizes Jpg generation and camera LCD above all else in

choosing a camera. Not my way of shooting, but for some I'm sure it has merits. He obviously tries to be controversial to

drive site traffic. Again, not too appealing to me. I prefer facts and less bombast. But it must work since he makes a living

doing it. He was even able to move to NY state and seems to fly his family back to CA for every photo shot. Yes, I really

should remove his site from the RSS reader.

The point was publicity, and you contributed.

<p>I just wish that he would not make ridiculous and outrageous claims at times--for no reason that I can fathom.</p>

<p>"He obviously tries to be controversial to drive site traffic."--L.G.</p>

<p>That has got to be it.</p>

<p>I will say that the way he links lenses to lenses has at least made me aware of more lens choices than I could ever imagine--but I have to go elsewhere to get reliable information about them. </p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He knows that <em>good photography</em> has little to do with equipment and says that. He hates menu driven cameras as too unintuitive and difficult to operate quickly and simply and takes away from getting good shots. He expounds that simple straight-forward operating cameras with good on-board controls are best.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good photography means different things to different people, I suppose. When I reviewed his galleries years ago, nothing jumped out at me as being particularly interesting, memorable, or technically adept. Perhaps I should give the fellow another chance.</p>

<p>I can't speak for the other brands, but the menu options on cameras by Nikon and Canon offer a great deal of customization. Spend some time in advance setting the options for what you intend to shoot, and your camera will act very intuitively. Or at least it will act in accordance with your understanding of the camera and the shooting circumstances.</p>

<p>Lots of people use menu-driven Nikon and Canon bodies effectively without becoming overly confused. I question the usefulness of gear reviews from someone who struggles to understand how to use the gear that they are reviewing. It's like surgeons taking scalpel advice from lumberjacks. I prefer to take photography advice from people with a track record of taking effective and inspiring photographs. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>When I reviewed his galleries years ago, nothing jumped out at me as being particularly interesting, memorable, or technically adept</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frankly I find this the case for virtually all equipment based websites. People who spend their whole time reviewing gear never have much time to take shots that are actually interesting. I like KR, he makes me smile.</p>

<p>I've been on a few photo tours with Ken and he does shoot. He actually co-leads a bunch of tours every year. His style is quite different than mine and he likes overly saturated images but that doesn't mean his images are inherently bad, just different. His comments will keep you continuously thinking about and questioning your own photography, and that's a good thing. My experience with Ken is that he adds a lot to your own leaning experience even though I may disagree with a lot of his comments. </p>

<p>Michael - quite. I'm reasonably sure that Ken is an appreciably better photographer than me (also true of most people...), despite apparently dismissing half the capabilities of his cameras. There's some good stuff there, or at least opinions worth reading, the only problem comes when taking his statements of fact as definitive. Since there's some technical content too, I've even sponsored him in the past. More recently, the xenophobia (e.g. "quality: made in China"; worryingly, I've not picked up on so much misogyny, which makes me concerned that I'm more sexist than I tend to believe) has started to intrude on my ability to blot out the sweeping generalisations and schizophrenia, so I've mostly given up on him. It's possible to learn from the least-informed idiot, and Ken is far from that, so I'll defend his site as having some value. He clearly has time to produce content, so I can't disapprove.<br />

<br />

Even if the left-handed camera thing is gibberish. (I'm far more annoyed that he claims the 150-500 Sigma and 135 f/2 DC are perfectly sharp wide open...)</p>

<p>The first time I visited KR's site I noted his comments about the need for his site to help support he and his growing brood. That was also the last time I visited his site. Anyone that irresponsibly procreates and begs the public to help him support his family, doesn't get my support. Perhaps he could consider getting a real job.</p>

<p>Hey, moderators... probably a good time to shut this one down...</p>

<p>Considering that Ken Rockwell is reproducing himself at an alarming--perhaps even Malthusian--rate (ref. his "growing family" that he wants us to help support) the least he can do is to grow up. The left-handed Nikon F100 is a practical joke. What is universally true about practical jokes when taken too far is that they are not funny.</p>

<p>It is possible to do almost anything with Photoshop these days and creating a left-handed Nikon F100 is not difficult. It is quite possible that people who specialize in photographic history would take KR seriously and thereby waste a lot of valuable time in doing so. There have been worse deceptions than this to be sure. But this does not make this deception less creepy.</p>

<p>I do not read KR any more because his equipment reviews seem based more on whimsey than anything resembling science. I realized the man was off when I read his review of the Nokton 50/1.1. He obviously had it for a short time, did not focus it correctly and panned it. Not just panned it but said it was absolutely horrible. My learning curve with the lens happened to be short. I have gotten very good results with the lens. One could debate how sharp is sharp but it was nowhere near being atrocious.<br /> I have read KR off and on but I simply cannot trust is reviews. This practical joke makes me trust the man even less.<br /> KR is a good writer in a breezy sort of way. But as a reviewer and commentator he is mediocre.</p>