Please, be careful refering to Ken Rockwell's site!

I didn't know where to post this so I just decided on this forum since a lot of

different people read it.

 

I know there's a love/hate relationship with Ken Rockwell's site but please,

keep in mind, his site is meant to be a joke. I emailed him about some mistakes

and he emailed back "They ARE a joke", refering to his own web pages.

 

"Read this site at your own risk. I offer no warrantees of any kind, except

that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish

and made-up things lurking."

 

"...A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by

overactive minds."

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

 

At the very least, read the web page you're linking to make sure there's none

of his deliberate, BS mistakes.

 

I love a good joke but personally I think he does a disservice to the photo

community and his own reputation when he down right makes things up, by his own

admission.

 

Any thoughts?

With Ken's site, I tend to find that you need a certain amount of knowledge to be able to separate the good stuff from the hyperbole. Having said that, the good stuff tends to be very good. I particularly like the point that 'your camera does not matter' - it's photographer vision that's important. Of course, he goes on to point out than better gear makes it easier to take what you want!

I think referring to any source whether Rockwell or Photo.net or any other resource, there needs to be certain amount of, does this make sense.

 

On Photo.net's page on recommended starter systems. They recommend 3 grand worth of gear for the average family. To me this doesn't make any sense.

This site is oriented towards the DSLR as the only thing that makes sense with the majority of it contributors, apart from the newbies seeking help. I would suggest a tenth of that amount plus $50 for the Panasonic FZ8 as a good up-to-date starting point for a family [wo]man who is unlikely to be bothered about where the camera falls down as they produce their 6x4 prints. If they eventually get the bug and go for a DSLR they have not spent much and I'd guess the FZ8 will be their favourite camera as they deprive themselves and their family as they try to find money to buy all the lens a DSLR needs to be versatile.

TOM,

 

By posting what you just said and posting a link to the site, you've just increased the trafic going to his site, in other words, You're helping him.

 

If you dont like his writtings and dont want other people to experience his bad writtings in your opinion , that is, why would you bother posting a link about it at all?

 

I'm skeptical (is that the right spelling?) about this thread. Sorry.

I emailed ken regarding an erroneous statement on hi site--something alluding to the fact

that a Canon AE-1 was the equivalent of 15 megapixels and the AE-1 Program 20

megapixels (I'm going by memory, so the figures might be slightly different). Obviously, an

absurd statement. He admitted it was incorrect, but unfortunately, I don't think he ever

corrected it. I'm still scratching my head wondering how someone with any experience in

photography could make such a statement, let alone leave it posted on his own site.

If it's a joke, I don't get it.

"Knappy-headed hoes." Now, that's a joke!

Sheryl Crow also said proposal of using one square of toilet paper per sitting was a joke. Draw your own conclusion, I suggest.

Mars,

 

You can be sceptical all you want (it shows free thinking), Rockwell gets enough hits to his website without me "helping" (that part was just dumb...there's opinion for you!).

 

If you'd read my post just a little more closely, you'll notice I'm stating fact (by Rockwell's own admission) that the man in essence lies on his web site.

 

Why post a link? Because I'm not going to call a man a liar unless I can back it up.

 

The ultimate motive for this posting is that Rockwell's site does a disservice to the photo community, particularily to newer photographers who may still be to naive to see through his deliberate gaffes. Is that my opinion? It sure is! I'd rather see people be helped than tricked or deceived.

 

Sam, the difference between referring someone to photo.net versus Rockwell's site is that when incorrect information is posted to photo.net, there's usually someone there to correct that information (but not always!) rather than having a site where somewone puts up incorrect information as a joke. Intent, if nothing else, makes a difference.

 

Simon, I agree, some of his stuff is good. I liked his 50mm comparisons, however, since the man admits to deception, how do we know which lens is actually used for what shots? Is it another joke he's playing?

It's <i>perfectly</i> obvious that Crow's comments were a joke, unless you're either:<br>

a) too lazy to read the <a href="http://www.sherylcrow.com/news.aspx?nid=7786">blog entry</a> you're commenting on,<br>

b) idealogically motivated or<br>

c) mentally retarded

<p>

In the same blog entry she also remarks that her brother proposes to wash out and reuse the one square. She also proposes clothing will specially made "dining sleeves" that you can use to wipe your face on to save napkins and says this will also work for those suffering from a cold.

<p>

She may not be Seinfeld in the comedy department, but anyone who thinks she was serious has got real issues.

Oh Dear! Some folks could never make the reverse migration back to the mother country, England (aka Mounty Python Land), where they dearly love a good put on. Mr. Rockwell elicits the same kind of reaction for the same reasons as John Dvorak in the PC world.

 

Most of the "hoaxes" seem to be on the "About" page, where Mr. Rockwell is as liberal in adding to his family tree as he is severe in whacking some notable Rockwells off the lineage :-)

 

What's not in question is his photographic skill -- nor his sense of humor. What I can't abide is his smug certainty that Lo Jolla is the best place to be -- however, its endemic to all the La Jollaians I've ever known, and they have better than an even chance of being right -- which it absolutely the worst sort of smugness :-)

"You can be sceptical all you want (it shows free thinking), Rockwell gets enough hits to his website without me "helping" (that part was just dumb...there's opinion for you!). "

 

Yeah , But leaving after finding some boring stuff when they hit the whats new link.

 

Does the counter on a website , counts how many minutes a surfer stays on that site, or does it only count the hits, if it's the latter, then its a dumb counter, obviously His counter could count how many seconds a surfer stays on his site. And now need a cure for his need for attention fever.

 

And I'm not naive enough to believe that mr. rockwell is not viewing this thread or not a member under different name on this site, I'm not saying its you. Cause I can tell by your portfolio that you have different style in photography than his. He tends to like UWA (predictably) , btw.

 

I admit though, that when I was new to this hobby that I always read his articles with enthiusiasm, But later got bored of his writtings, cause they lack depth, and Too personal like saying " I always set all my cameras to vivid mode , I like vivid mode, everytime I have a new camera, the first thing I do is set it to vivid mode yada yada yada..." , things like that, are misleading, And I discovered it myself to be so, that is why when he start talking about his misguided personal opinion, I just click the box with the "x" in the center on the upper right of my windows xp window.

 

 

"Please, be careful refering to Ken Rockwell's site!"

 

The wisest thing to do is not to refer at all, refering to him , is giving life to his (as you implied) disservice to the Photographic comumnity.

 

Because, As they say , Bad publicity is good publicity.

 

It would be much better If mr. ken rockwell be a member to this site under the same name, like some people that I truly respect and look up to, here, who have their own website and log on with the same name or with differnet name but lets us know who he or she is.

And BTW, Calling me "Dumb", just because I simply disagreed or was just skeptical, is simply immature. You must be a name caller in real life arent you? Just like those bullies during my school years. The meek shall inherit the earth my friend.

Type into google...

 

-Ken Rockwell interview-

 

I can't really tell if he's serious or not. I've read some of his stuff

on his website and found much of it already known info, but

didn't catch any jokes peppered about.

You guys ain't seen nothing until you've visited Erwin Puts' site. NOW that's what I call a joke!

Mars,

 

I didn't call you dumb, I called the act of saying that I was helping Ken Rockwell dumb.

 

But, no the less, it was an unwarranted insult and I offer my apologies to you.

 

I do disagree that bad publicity is good publicity (and who's they?) unless perhaps one is a c-list celebrity (I wouldn't want Mel Gibson recent publicity!), and I do highly disagree with your notion of not referring at all. If I see something I perceive as wrong I will step in. Silence is betrayal.

Apologies accepted.

 

Sigh, I feel much better now.

 

As for your disagreement to my statements, It's ok, cause everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions, and I believe I made my point across already and dont have the need to add further comments.

The words of wisdom you received from Ken are something you can cherish and live by. None of these sites are gospel. Gospel is not even gospel, for that matter. Visit Luminous-landscape for more of the same. I do.

Thanks Mars!

 

I felt really bad for making you feel bad.

Well I was surprised to read that disclaimer. "A hoax ... by overactive minds".... ?...

Kind of strange though - waste so much of his time to make a lame joke ...

What is not a joke is that he is asking for donations from visitors, and very seriously so. Here are excerpts from his sales pitch:

 

"With your generous support I've been able to work on it full time since 2004"

 

"Helping you and your long term best interests are my first and only priority"

 

"Your generosity helps me cover my expenses and justify all the time I spend sharing everything I know for free. I do this because I love to share"

 

And last:

"My new wife thinks I'm crazy spending so many hours a day at this, and she's probably right"

 

If Ken is doing it to make a joke she is definitely right.

-D

<p>I notice the last post to this thread was 4-29-07, just before I found KR's site.<br>

Anyway, for the most part I have found he advocates what be believes to be the truth as to what is needed to make great pictures. For the most part I agree with him. I am a sales manager for a major camera retailer in the US and I will tell you there isn't more BS about equipment than what comes from Japan or Germany.<br>

Case in point, have you seen the in store poster from Nikon promoting "Vibration Reduction"? It shows a picture of a boy with a diagonal through it. One side is sharp as a tack (of course more than likely on a tripod and lit by a pro), and the other side (the "blurry side") with about 20 PX's of good ol' Guasian Blur added from Photoshop! The lie: buy the Nikon VR stuff and your pictures will look like this (the sharp side).<br>

Now that's a REAL LIE folks, yet, I don't hear many of you complaining about that.<br>

As far as his film vs. digital debate and the approximate linear resolution of film translating to mega pixels in digital, well I have read from many sources who I trust that if a comparion can be made, your every day ISO 200 color film has the equivalent resolution of around 11 MP, Fuji Velvia 50, Kodak Tri-X and some others have the equivilant of around 22-25 MP's.<br>

Of course, this could be debatable, but the larger point Ken makes and I tend to back up with my results, are that film is just as good as digital at sometimes a fraction of the price. Some think is looks better and has a more consistent, faster work flow than digital but that varies person to person. Of, course, any one can make either medium work well for them.<br>

There is a slight trend to use and incorporate film in some shooters bags. Kodak just released Ektar 100 for 120 - Kodak must feel that even though 120 is more niche than 35 MM film, the cost justification is there, even in 120, today, to tool up and distribute a new emulsion.<br>

The only thing I don't like about the "digital revolution" is that many kids today are literally afraid of film and need everything auto, 24/7. It's more about their computers (digital cams) than it is about making pictures. After spending the past 5 years in digital, I am getting back into film. I will always use digital for it's convenience, not necessarily for it's quality.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To add to Rob's response:<br>

As a workflow, capture to film, process, scan to optical disk, copy to PC/Mac has a lot to recommend it. Not least the fact that you have in your hand an archivally stable original as well as a digital backup.<br>

Of course you can't view the image instantly and you can't upload it to your PC/Mac as soon as you get home - for some this will be the deal breaker.<br>

I have personal experience of making film archives available online - one archive we are involved with has movie film from 1897 and another from around 1905 - still usable on today's equipment.<br>

I also have personal experience with a digital archive - the BBC's Domesday project in the 80's - no longer usable in its original form except on museum equipment.<br>

To go back to the OP's point - Ken Rockwell seems to be promoting a return to film capture, I'd have to say that sounds very sensible to me. When he spouts BS, I (like most other adults) am capable of disagreeing with it without rancour.<br>

- Paul.</p>

 

<p>I just think it is both very funny and very sad how so many people here at photo.net get all worked up in a lather about the alleged transgressions of Ken Rockwell.</p>

<p>To hear the way some people put it here you could think that Ken's website is the only one that contains inaccuracies, and by implication everything at other sites, and especially everything here at photo.net is pure, correct, undefiled, and untainted by put-ons, jokes, exaggerations, misleading or inaccurate information (whether deliberate or otherwise), self-promotion, or hidden agendas.</p>

<p>Lighten up guys! I find Ken's website to be quite a lot of fun, and to be honest, most of the technical information I have read there is pretty much correct. On the other hand, most of the opinion at Ken's wesite is, well, opinion, and you need to take it as such.</p>