who died and made him allah

[david_distefano1]

<p>i only read it for the pictures. he who shall remain nameless (k.r.) does have good reviews on nikon lens and i do look at the whats new section once in a while. that happened yesterday. but as my subject line states "who made him allah." to state point blank that anybody who shoots with 35mm size cameras are only amatures. this man, and i use the word loosely, would never have been worthy to hold the camera strap of galen rowell. dan burkholder uses everything from view cameras to iphones to produce great images. the d800 i just purchased is my first 35mm. i have used view cameras up to 8x20 and still shoot film on my 4x5 and hasselblad. the camera is just a tool. nobody has a right to denigrate the tools a person uses. i wonder if painters argue over their tools as much as photographers do? photographers need to quit worrying about the next latest and greatest equipment, take what you have and go out and shoot and enjoy the world we live in. record the magic. it takes practice to become a very good photographer. galen rowell put in the effort. that is why his 35mm work sings. ansel adams put in the practice. that is why his large format work sings. it was not their equipment that put them at the top in their chosen format, it was their effort. as for he who shall remain nameless, me thinks he is compensating for short comings in some other area.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Neither Galen Rowell nor Ansel Adams are deities either. Come on, don't take K.R. seriously. He's at best an agent provocateur whose main purpose is to get you thinking for yourself. He actually promotes 35mm film on one part of his website (see "The REAL RAW").</p>

<p>Like many free thinkers, K.R. changes his opinion more often than his underwear. So chillax! And BTW some capitalisation wouldn't come amiss.</p>

[evannorth]

<p>i take it all with a pinch of salt. the guy is only trying to make a living!</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>KR is a frequent source of amusement. Then you say to yourself "W-T-F?". Then you ignore.</p>

[john_n._wall]

<p>KR says he gives his opinions for the money, and you know about people who do it for the money.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Allow me to pontificate about pontificating about someone pontificating...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i wonder if painters argue over their tools as much as photographers do? photographers need to quit worrying about the next latest and greatest equipment, take what you have and go out and shoot and enjoy the world we live in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder if photographers argue over the website commentary as much as painters do? Photographers need to quit worrying about websites discussing the next latest and greatest equipment, take what you have and go out and shoot and enjoy the world we live in.</p>

 

[jim_momary]

<p>Is it not true that the 35mm SLR became the amateur's dream box from the mid-60's until maybe well into the 90's? I know I grew up lusting after one which I only could afford in college in 1969. Sure, it started out as a journalist's tool to get shots at press conferences ... but it grew into the "public sector". I'll bet loads more FEs and FAs and FM2ns were sold than the F-single digit of that same time period.</p>

<p>And of course Ken bugs folks, but it is one site. Read other perhaps less opinionated sites and form your own ideas. And, he does state in that same rant ...<br />" <em><strong>Yes, junk formats are junk formats, but that doesn't mean they ought not be used. Junk formats are fun, and fun is good! There's nothing wrong with junk formats.</strong></em> " Different paint brushes for different canvases. (And he did get you to read it, think about it and respond here. Thought WAS stimulated. )</p>

<p>I sure don't chase after my grand kids with my 4x5 old Calumet. And I do get odd looks on vacation taking photos with that and endure the typical "I'd buy a digital if I were you. ... Isn't that too heavy for an old guy like you? ... Where's the cassette for the film? ... What's black & white? ... etc."</p>

<p>One man's junk is another man's treasure.</p>

<p>Jim</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>amature: common misspelling of amateur: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amature<br>

amateur: can have both positive and negative meaning: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amateur</p>

<p>KR - nothing new to see here - move on.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>In many cases, I think amacher better describes amateurs. </p>

[mark_medin]

<p>Same old Ken. How a guy who buys all those expensive cameras can still beg for donations is beyond me.</p>

[frank_scheitrowsky1]

KR is like WWE. Entertainment value, not true sport.

[ellis_vener_photography]

KR is a huckster and a hustler . He does both things very well. As to why he begs for donations, why do multi-billionaire

political candidates solicit for OPM (other people's money)? Partly it is for the psychology of it: it makes contributors feel

like they have quite literally bought into the message and the messenger.

[ty_mickan]

"Neither Galen Rowell nor Ansel Adams are deities either. Come on, don't take K.R. seriously. He's at best an agent

provocateur whose main purpose is to get you thinking for yourself. He actually promotes 35mm film on one part of his

website (see "The REAL RAW").

 

Like many free thinkers, K.R. changes his opinion more often than his underwear. So chillax! And BTW some

capitalisation wouldn't come amiss."

 

 

Well said.....I agree with a lot of what he says, and I disagree with a lot of what he says.

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>who died and made him allah</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I believe you did, since you thought him worthy of discussion.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>BTW, did you realize that your "caps" key is apparently not functioning?</p>

<p>Either that or you have confused this archived site with Twitter. </p>

<p>To think that, when the spelling and writing reforms that I wanted for so long came, I wouldn't like them. :(</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>he says from time to time that his site is for entertainment only.</p>

<p>take it for what it is.</p>

[rossb]

<p> Well KR can have his opinion. I just don't care really. I did not see a link so I could not read what he actually said. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Photographers need to quit worrying about websites discussing the next latest and greatest equipment, take what you have and go out and shoot and enjoy the world we live in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Good point!</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>As soon as I saw "KR" after seeing the title I quit reading.</p>

[stp]

<blockquote>

<p>Photographers need to quit worrying about websites discussing the next latest and greatest equipment, take what you have and go out and shoot and enjoy the world we live in.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 (or + another along with Jeff)</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I like Ken. He's the WWF of photography. Please don't take him seriously though! You DO understand that the more controversial his statements are, the more hits he gets on his site, and the more income it generates. He's stupid like a fox.</p>

[william_kazak]

<p>I like reading his opinions. Makes you think if he is right or wrong and how it might apply.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I wonder when amatures is going to find a place in dictionaries as an alternative spelling to amateur ... or has it already :-) At least Photo.net spell checker questions it.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>The only time I read KR he seemed to make a lot of good down to earth sense in questioning established mores.</p>

[dan_south]

Capital letters are cool! Really! Try them sometime.

 

BTW, what's an amature?

 

;-)

 

(Smilies are cool, too!)