Interesting read.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

 

 

 

The Seven Levels of Photographers

its nice to know i'm not alone at the bottom of the list....!

Travis:

 

This is beyond interesting, it should be required. My wife and I like the style of humor. Thanks for the link.

This is a great site that I have had bookmarked for a while. BTW, he thinks the best camera in the world is an M6 - but not the one with the little red dot on it...and I think he might be right!

Charles, who told you I was down there too? The whole ideas are (basically) true, but that note about certain guys sometimes dressing funny and tending to stay up late somehow pertains to me, too!

Everyone,

 

I'll assume you have read Ken Rockwell's satire before reading this.

 

I thought Ken Rockwell's satire was very well written. I also felt that all that had been said before--though not any better. Ken Rockwell is a good writer. He is not just funny. He has wit. I'm thinking of "wit" as the ability to cut someone's head off and still leave it resting on the body. (Dryden said that first, I believe--not I.)

 

After reading Mr. Rockwell's satire, that certainly made my ears burn (while, fortunately, leaving my head firmly attached to my neck) I went to his photographs.

 

And here is the problem.

 

Ken Rockwell is certainly a good photographer. He is disciplined and he is serious. He has shots from everywhere--California, France, Guatamala; you name it. Technically everything he does is exactly right. But it is too right. His photographs are predictable and safe, and, therefore, only mildly interesting at best. The photographs lack "soul"--the thing he values most highly. Somehow he misses the essences of the places he photographs. There are no epiphanies in his technically excellent photographs.

 

If only this artist could take the chances and leaps of imagination that he displays so brilliantly in his wonderful satire! He would be an absolutely wonderful photographer.

 

I cannot emphasize enough just how good a writer Ken Rockwell is. I think of myself as a fairly accomplished writer (the O.Henry Award people gave me an honorable mention in 1997) but I know I could never get away with a satire like the one under discussion. Writing good satire is hard. That this is an exceptionally good satire written by someone who is primarily a photographer says a lot about the genius of Ken Rockwell.

 

The irony is that the ultimate success of Ken Rockwell in completely pulling off his critique of "whores" and "measurebators" (brilliant word play that) depends not simply on his deft use of words but on his photographs. If you are a preacher who every Sunday delivers flaming sermons that send sinners to everlasting perdition you had better be leading a crystal pure life. One glance at a plunging neckline and your credibility plunges. Likewise, any photographer who flilets other photographers had better have either a body of work that is awesome or include a fair amount of self-deprication in the satire.

 

Satire is like sticking your tongue out at someone--it renders the creator ugly. That being so, the creator puts him/herself in a dangerous position. You need to be well armored to withstand the counter attacks. Ken Rockwell has one big hole in his armor--his not brilliant photography.

 

All this said, I think the best thing about Ken Rockwell's satire is that it is basically good natured as well as being insightful. It should offend few if any people. His lowest level is populated by "measurebators." The measurebator is rendered as being so idiotic that no one--not even a genuine measurebator--would think of him or herself as one. The worst thing is that it invites ready rebuts--really nasty ones of the sort that regularly put self-righeous preachers in their place.

 

The truism about glass houses and throwing stones applys in this case.

 

Cheers,

 

Alex

A Footnote:

 

Having read my missive above I have a feeling that I may well be flamed by the object of my critique. I got that feeling because of two things. I really stuck the needle in deeper than I had really wanted to regarding this fellow's photography (I'm not backing down, however). Also I sense that the writer of the truly sharp satire we've been discussing is lacking in self-humor. You see that when he is touching on his own website.

 

Since preemptive strikes have recently acheived a certain legislative legitimacy, I'll offer these. One: The clown wears a funny face and costume for a good reason: It is the persona that protects the real artist within. The satirist, especially a photographer-satirist, really needs a sense of self-humor somewhere in his/her toolbox. Two: Painful as my judgement of the satirist's photographs might be I meant to be primarily constructive rather than simply destructive. The genius (a word I do not use lightly) is there. It only needs to chill out.

 

Preemptively,

 

Alex

As a simple man who makes no claim to being either an "artiste" or "pholosopher", I found Ken Rockwell's web site great. Funny. Nice pics. Informative. And, lacking in pretension.

 

Thanks for steering us there, Travis.

 

Dennis

Sorry, I'm not a "PHILOSOPHER" either. (Query: Is proofreading a female thing?)

 

Good shouting,

 

Dennis

I wish we could put smilies in our posts, 'cause I'd put the puking

one right here [ ].

 

Now let me get back to my detailed analysis regarding off-axis

MTF performance of various Leica 28mm lenses, I'v e got a

critical decision to make someday.

Rats... I wanted to be the first to admit being at the bottom -- well, maybe somewhere between Level 1 and Level 2 -- of Rockwell's list. Interesting read. About his photography, I like how vivid the colors are.

You guys are too sweet. I wrote that article one morning when I had a crazy

whim. I'm really tickled silly that so many people get a kick out of it, and I can't

stop laughing when people form Russia and China have translated it.

 

Personally I don't classify myself and think that anyone who bothers to is silly.

 

I also realize photography is all in the eye of the beholder. Some people like

my stuff (I won a huge trip to Hawaii I'm taking next week and Microtek is

using my work to showcase their scanners soon) and others hate it.

 

I keep the really nutty stuff that some encourage me to do off the site and try to

stick with what the general audience seems to like. Like these shots of me at

http://kenrockwell.com/bizarre.htm ?

 

Thanks again for your kindness.

 

KR<div></div>

Ken, nice to hear from you on this forum. Congratulations on your witty essay and, also, on the very moving sequence of pictures in your link. There are easier ways of getting a hair-cut!

Hi from Malaysia

 

Now there are 7 levels and a square got only 6 sides. Maybe to make it

easy for myself I put all the sides as Level 7.

Regards/wong kh

Hi again,

 

Square = dice

I thought it was all about the equipment... I swear I would take better photographs if I only had a Summilux 35/1.4 ASPH. I swear. I'm sure. Gotta have one...

Is really a good satire. I am on levels 1,5,6 all the time.

 

As I am fully digital, at level 1 my standard argument is:

 

"If I get the Canikon 1Dxs with 11.2345 MP we can get more detail and print larger". True, but does it really matter. Even knowing that I am down to level 1 might not prevent getting the Canikon 1Dxs. It's warm in Hell. Actually the real hell is only my bank account.

 

http://www.colors-by-nature.com/

 

Uwe<div></div>

To Alex S.: Yeah!

 

To Ken R.: Great satire, almost a clinical analysis. Love your site (I *will* contribute), also like some of your pictures although I tend to agree with Alex on his critique --prizes and publishings notwhithstanding.

 

As a Mexican, I would like to point you to a great amateur's site that has managed to capture Mexico with a soul filled vision: http://www.cabophoto.com.

 

Cheers!

 

--Jorge.

 

http://www.jorgemtrevino.com<div></div>

Everything Ken Rockwell tells, makes lot of sense.<br>

some points that I noted are:<br>

1. Digital Camera- use the standard limited color spaces for which most are designed<br>

2. The $100,000 three-CCD studio high-definition television cameras around which I work today still have problems with this, and so our cheap $5,000 single-striped CCD digital SLRs will, too.

I respect what Ken says. Problem is it sounds like his ego fighting his practical side arguing with his professional side etc....

 

His photography is inspiring and beautiful but narrow minded.....Ken clearly has worked hard at learning how to capture one type of image very well.....problem is....2 second exposures on a seascape has been done a billion times (whether you're shooting 35mm, 120, 4by5 etc.) The long exposures with Velvia are nice but again....*been done* He give awesome advice and I tip my hat to his knowledge on equipment and the "process" he's very helpful in that respect "thanks Ken" :-)

 

But there are cracks with his philosophy. I personally do work professionally but I try to impress the layman not the photographer. Ken is the 1st to tell you to buy the D100 & the F80 but he's self centered enough to also have a picture of himself using a 400mm 2.8 lens on the front page of his site. Ken? dragonflies & frogs man?

 

Ironically Ken speaks of "soul" & "spirit" but calls "Christianity" *Mythology* lol

 

Surfs up dude

 

lol

Ken like Nikon only, he will be glad to talk to any ameature. but when you tell him you have a F100 he shy away. why?

I find a lot of similarities in the writing styles of Ken and Phil.

Both use good natured humor<br> and have an open honest way of expressing

things, but Phil is more narcissistic of the two!

<br>

-Tim

I came to Ken's website because of his equipment reviews, and then I accidentally bumped on his satire, which strangely links to this forum! His photographs are great, the type I like!

 

I bounce between level 1 and 4 most of the time(but never 2 or 3), only occasionally I wonder up to level 5 and I do think that I might have wondered up to level 7 at least once in my close to 40 years of living.

 

Cheers from Singapore,

Daniel

Hey ken? If you didn't want folks to read the info on your site (yellow background) then why is there so much info cut & pasted on it? You tell everyone they don't need everything you your self are using lol ie; 400mm lenses Nikon D1H's lol. Here's the best part - you say on your site in the "about me" page that someone gave you a left handed Nikon F100 to beta test? Did it ever occur to you to remove the watch that clearly appears on your left hand when one clicks on the "contact" link because the home page that depicts you with the "Left handed Nikon F100/400mm Lens" shows the watch on the right hand...geee you didn't reverse the image by any chance?

 

lmao....

 

q;-)<div></div>

Level 0 is for jaded people who run websites and ruthlessly

whine about where other people are in there spiritual

development.