Does Ken Rockwell Actually Have Any Photos?

Hey all,

 

People often link to Ken Rockwell for his reviews. I don't really see why...he

doesn't have any photos other than those of his kids, yet often says he was in

Hollywood, built cameras, worked on image processors, coined terms, and has his

own "favorite modes" on cameras, etc.

 

He seems pretty experienced, and even has a page making fun of people who spend

more time reading reviews than actually taking photos. He has a nice house, two

nice cars...so he's obviously made quite a living for himself through

photography [and probably not just from ads]. The thing is, I haven't ever seen

any of his photos that aren't snapshots illustrating technical details. Each

page has a photo of the lens wide open, a crop from the corner, a photo of his

kids...but where is the actual "art"? Does he actually walk around on the street

with his cameras, or go for hikes and travel?

 

He's mentioned a lot of photo clubs that he's in. Does anyone have any links?

 

Charles

Charles, you must be new to photography for not knowing his website. http://www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htm

Ken Rockwell is just like everybody, he might be interesting, give good advice, and may sometimes say something untrue or uninteresting whatever. Take what is interesting, and leave what is not, just the way you do with your friends or coworkers.

His equipment advice is pretty darn accurate. I dislike the oversaturated color pictures in is

gallery.

I just read a little more of his site.. I admire the guy for being so controversial, well known, and profitable with just a website.

 

Long story short: His wife makes good money, and still works, he sold his condo in 2005 for a likely profit of $300K or more (guessing) and has a patent through tektronix, a manufacturer of electronic test equipment. He didnt quit his day job until recent years, works 10-14 hours a day at his website (according to him) and...

 

...most likely never made any significant money actually selling photographs at all.

___<div></div>

You have to give the guy credit for doing things, but his Website reminds of the thought

someone had about Issac Asimov. Late in Issac's life a colleague became concerned about

all the knowledge that would be lost when Issac dies. Another colleague said, "Don't

worry, he has written everything he knows, whether or not we wanted to know it or not." In

short, some people like to express themselves, and just what was said, somethings are

good and some not so good, and it's the reader's responsibility to sort it out for

themselves. And it's hard to argue if you have the time and opportunity not to go for it.

 

My only comment is that his Website needs an overhaul for a whole integrated Web design.

If anything his Website is a good example of one managed as a series of add-ons without

an overall design. But it's his and he has that right.

Think of Ken's site like a blog rather than a traditional site. A mixture of random ravings, reviews, and photos. He's got some useful info and a lot of questionable comments. He's always been quite clear that he's not a pro photographer or a pro reviewer.

If KR and Thom Hogan competed in a game of Jeopardy with nothing but photography related categories -- KR would always be the first to hit the buzzer and by the end of the game he would be deep in the hole.

 

I think this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krusty_the_Clown is KR's day job.

Let me guess, that photo of Krusty was shot with Velvia, right?

Hi James.

 

I think it was shot using KR's favorite settings.

Say what you want about Ken or Thom. But they are master at self promotion and marketing. They probably get mentioned on these forums more than any other single invidual save Ansel Adams.

 

And boy do they bring out the green eyed monster in a lot of folks.

I don't think people are envious of Rockwell. Envy means you wish you have what he has. Be

it talent, admiration or some other "quality". And envious feelings are sometimes irrational in

nature.

 

I think most people are just making an observation.

Ken has many photos on his website. Usually his commentaries are very good, often controversial in approach, but nevertheless entertaining. He tells you straight from the hip what works for him. And,is quick to tell you what it is he dislikes .. I appreciate his candor and humor, don't agree with everything, but who does ... he claims to take thousands of pictures with every new camera he gets his hands on .. he only posts a few images for fun and at the rate he shoots .. there is no way his photos are going to be better than your's or mine ... when we carefully compose a scene. I think Ken tends to just take a lot of pictures to get a feel the way a particular camera works .. and he's usually pretty quick at pointing out to all of us and Nikon .. and Canon what works or does not work.

 

As many pictures as he posts to prove a point .. I doubt as he has much time for anything else. I believe he is a very competent photographer when he wants to be.

"No longer does anyone need to worry about ISOs, apertures or shutter speeds; most cameras do this automatically. All you need to know is when to apply a little bit of correction to the camera's decisions, and you do this by looking at your LCD."

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/modern-exposure.htm

 

Lets see, nobody needs to waste their time learning about what difference changing aperture will make to your image, and the best way to determine proper exposure is to look at your camera's LCD screen (no matter what the ambient light is). Histograms, we don't need no stinking histograms.

 

Don't forget to support him, so he can "help" all of us become better photographers.

Ken Rockwell speaks the truth without actually being factual.

It's like reading a Bible. KR's bible.

Anthony, as usual Ken is using hyperbole to make a point but goes overboard and makes experienced photographers miss his basic underlying point. He doesn't say you should never worry about it, he says that you need to know when to correct the camera's decision.

 

I dislike program mode and always shoot in aperture priority but it was Ken's comments about Auto ISO that made me actually try it a year ago. For indoor no flash shots in changing light conditions I always use Auto ISO. His comments about the future of auto ISO using the focal length is exactly what I want.

He's no wackier than Roger Hicks. Just different.

Any one who would put something like this on his website must have a screw loose:

 

"The Canon AE-1 is about the same as a 20 megapixel camera. The AE-1 Program is about

the same as a 25 megapixel camera, presuming you are using Canon brand lenses."

 

I even emailed him a couple of years ago telling him this was an absurd statement. I don't

know why anyone with self-respect would leave this statement on his site.

KR runs his mouth alot. If you want to listen do so. If you do not want to listen then don't. Some things I find helpful and some things I find gratuitous at best. But aside from that I find his photos pretty dang good. Sure, they are not entirely what I would want (the heavy saturation and so on) but he takes good photographs. Take a look at his gallery that can be accessed from his website.

I think KR's gear reviews are brilliant even if he is a motormouth. But when it comes to taking photographs he's just not in the league. If you want to learn how to take pix from a guy who has really made a living from the job - go see Philip Dunn. He's the new kid on the blog.

 

http://philipdunn.blogspot.com

I stopped looking at Ken's website years ago. I figured I'd rather spend my time taking pictures. If you want to see some quality outdoor photography go look at Mark Muench, Frans Lanting, Thomas Mangelsen or Jack Dykinga's work (and many others). These folks actually spend more time creating pictures than talking about their equipment. Ken's website is about his addiction to camera equipment.

 

--Luis

<p>Ken Rockwell is the Rush Limbaugh of photography gear.</p>

<p>well he is opinionated</p>

<p>his opus leicaman is very funny imo</p>

<p>he is totally wrong about leica m5 - it is brilliant.<br>

totally wrong about nikon fa - pile of taiwanese junk, on mine 2 controls fell off ontheir own<br>

volition.<br>

canon and nikon always get a good press on kr site.<br>

for a professional photographer, the photos he chose to use are average to abysmal viewed on web.</p>

Ken is not paid by any camera company, and he has a lot of knowledge about cameras and lenses, that is why I read his reviews. I like his humor and I have learned a lot from him. There are tons of valuable material there. How to use the cameras, Lens compatibility charts, there are even reviews on old lenses and cameras there. He recommends a camera if he thinks it is good, and he doesn't recommend it if he doesn't think it is good. He explains what he has tested. And I like most of his photos, I think he is a great photographer too.