File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Seriously /p/, I don't get why people get so freaked out reading Ken. I think he's one of the fresh(ish)est review(ish)ers on the web. He's active, and it's a hard to find a Nikon gear he hasn't got an opinion. He also expresses opinons in ways that get his point across.

I don't agree on every opinion, but should i only read opinions i agree? I might not even agree on the things by which he forms his opinions, but in all his super-duper-killer-awesomeness he is quite fun to read. You just have to drop down each qualifying word to stops or so, (to get awesome to good, best to nice, or something.) you might near to the point.

Besides. Who wouldn't like to live on writing about the newest gear on your website, and occationally walk through a workshop, shoot some garbage and be paid for doing it? (that's how his life appears to me at least)

I, too, do find his manuals - mmm - say, awesome.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
I use his website frequently to check what he has to say about certain lenses and whatnot.

Although its only his opinion, when i'm paying £400+ for a lens - i'd like to see what photographers have to say about it. Even if I don't agree.

His lens comparisons are really useful aswell. Hes the only guy that I know of, who has compared all the wideangles to eachother, using the same shots. So you can actually see the difference between each. Instead of other sites which test them in different locations & environments.
>> Anonymous
Hmm. Ive never really hated Ken Rockwell. He writes average reviews. More like "real life" stuff rather than ISO charts in a fucking laser adjusted test lab like DPR and the-digital-picture.com do.

He also has subtle tips/hints in his reviews that you wouldnt get to know even by reading the manufacturers own manual. He really _uses_ the lenses. He doesnt only be a gearfag. :)
>> Anonymous
I don't get "freaked out"
I just recognize that he's a fraud. He claims that he's some kind of pro's pro but his shots suck, and he says that he works full time keep up his website. If that's true when does he shoot?
The final straw was when I saw that place on his site where he asks people to donate equipment to him!!!
He says that he wants it so he he can help other people out.
>> Anonymous
Well, as big of a nikon fag he is... He loves his 5d more than his d3. That makes he awesome.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>276550
I would've agreed before but he barely ever posts samples in his reviews anymore, which is pretty retarded. How am I supposed to trust his assertions about sharpness or vignetting or whatever if I can't even see any pictures taken with the lens? At least the so-called measurebators post samples with their mtf charts.
>> Anonymous
>>276674

He is telling you what it is like to use rather than giving you yet more mtf charts. If you want that you can google for it or look at the million other people doing the usual tests.
>> Anonymous
i used to think hes a cool guy, but c'mon, what the hell is this?!:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-afford-anything.htm
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>276676
I didn't say I wanted more MTF charts. What I want are practical examples of his work with the lens. When he says "yes it's sharp corner to corner but there's some light falloff wide open", I don't want to see that stupid series of grey boxes, I want to see how the vignetting shows in practical shots. Even DPReview does a better job illustrating their assertions than he does.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
you know, i was actually thinking about this exact subject today. kenrockwell's shit is nearly useless. 100% crops from the corner prove almost nothing.

basically, the most straightforward lens comparison i've ever seen was from AC. it was between his shitty consumer zoom and a 35mm prime. two photos of the same subject, resized down to 1000 pixels. the difference between the two lens was night and day, and you could tell from the photos.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>276788basically, the most straightforward lens comparison i've ever seen was from AC. it was between his shitty consumer zoom and a 35mm prime. two photos of the same subject, resized down to 1000 pixels. the difference between the two lens was night and day, and you could tell from the photos.

what
the
fuck
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>276790

i know. it's ridiculous. but it's true. there was also a time when ac wasn't a pariah, when he was a fairly respected, contributing member of /p/. this was back before the 16 year-olds took typing 1 and figured out how to type with the home row.
>> Anonymous
requesting proof of those night and day comparison between point-and-shoot and dslr that's not a high iso test, nao

unless of course he really did a night and day comparison
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
it was two lenses, not two cameras. a 70-300 3.5-5.6 zoom and a 35mm f2 prime. we'll see if he even reads this thread.
>> Anonymous
>>276796

oh, i misread

still, i don't think there would be a night and day difference between a stopped down zoom and a fixed lens

demand proof, nao
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>276796
It was actually between my 35mm and my 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 zoom. Which, sadly, I no longer have, so I can't recreate it.
>> Anonymous
oh

it was that wall where you took 10 hours to switch between lenses, that was a horrible test
>> Anonymous
ac's a pretty cool guy. that example was good to show the newbies the reason people use primes and the difference a good lens can make on the same camera. i liked it. more useful than wikipedia copypasta debates and and the gear rage arguments.
>> Anonymous
>>276810wikipedia copypasta

lol wut
>> Anonymous
>>276796
not even similar lenses

to get the same composition, you would have to change everything down to where the photographer is standing to take the shot.

sounds like a red herring
>> Anonymous
>>276811
meaning people who really know nothing but debate vigorously using copypasta from wikipedia and google. you'll see it all the time online. people link spamming and so on. they'd crumble in a face-to-face argument, but online they'll spend three days arguing over the most minor point with link spams and copypasta from other people, rarely (if ever) mentioning an original idea of their own.
>> Anonymous
>>276814
in the context it was purely to show cheap zoom vs decent glass quality and it was made clear what it was about. it worked for that purpose. using a 18-55 wouldn't have made that point any clearer.
>> Anonymous
ken rockwell is a fanatic about something, and then contradicts his fanaticism in the same breath.
it's good to hear SOMETHING, ANYTHING about a product before buying it, BUT: take very little away from reviews by ken rockwell or your equipment may not be what you expect. his site even has a disclaimer that he "just plain makes stuff up" for fun, and "the entertainment of myself, and my friends"

i have bought 4 lenses since having discovered ken rockwell's website. his site is his opinions and biases and retarded, subjective logic incarnate. do not take ken's words for face value
>> Anonymous
>>276815copypasta from wikipedia and google

so you mean ac
>> Anonymous
>>276840
i lol'd
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i am totally going to fucking take ken rockwell's picture next month. goddamn it's going to be so much win.

http://www.davewyman.net/NorthernNewMexico.html

>On Friday we'll enjoy breakfast in Old Town, where we will also begin to unleash our creative photographic powers on the beautiful San Felipe de Neri Church. We may visit one of the local museums and/or one of the shops in downtown Albuquerque specializing in Indian arts and crafts.
>> Mr._Laugh_Out_Loud !!rc0QDfC1oX3
holy shit, krockwell's coming to abq?

anybody want to meet up with me, and paparazzi him to the point that he gets aggressive and starts making threats?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
are you an abq fag too? how many of us are there? i know there's one guy who wanted to meet up, but i'm cripplingly shy. and i don't want to lose my /p/ tough guy image.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
     File :-(, x)
>>276858
>> Anonymous
>>276857

This is the most important mission you will ever have.
>> Anonymous
another abq fag reporting in
>> Anonymous
no one on /p/ has the balls to tell ken rockwell anything
>> Mr._Laugh_Out_Loud !!rc0QDfC1oX3
>>276870
i don't have anything to tell him. i think it would be interesting to see him lose his cool, since he projects the "master of his own senses" persona
unnecessarily high powered shoe mount flash does wonders to a person's calmness
>> Anonymous
>>276885
>persona
>unnecessarily

I assume there was supposed to be a period between these two words.
>> Anonymous
>>276885
obviously that is the case with normal people, but i have the feeling that ken rockwell has been around a few hotshoe flashes in his time
>> Anonymous
>>276892
no doubt. his wife, too.
that's not to say that it wouldn't ruin your day being followed by 2-3 people continuously taking shots of you with huge flash. imagine that while you're trying to have a family outing, or having a meal with your small children on the veranda of one of the many inside/outside restaurants downtown or in old town. what if one of his kids started crying? paparazzi is not conducive to calming babies down when they're having a fit
anybody would lose their cool after a good while of that
>> Anonymous
>>276903
Ken Rockwell lives in southern california.

I'm sure he and his family won't be anything more than entertained by the backwoods folk in new mexico trying to ask like paparazzi.

Remember to pack a flash bracket and a lightsphere.
>> Anonymous
>albuquerque
>backwoods
>how do i shot web
>> Anonymous
http://www.ihatetara.com?id=9i3e4fvflp3uyn7kg5vr8vxg4ikzy0
>> Anonymous
>>276914
>>http://www.davewyman.net/NorthernNewMexico.html
>>back roads that wind through deserts and pine-forested mountains
>> Anonymous
>>276908
i congratulate california on its title as the state that unarguably contains the greatest amount of talentless, scavenging photographers born of the 20th century. we'll call them paparazzi

you know, that's typical banter from a southern california resident. "NEW MEXICO? BACKWOODS LOL HERP DERP"

southern california sure is a sparkling metropolis of photographic superiority. so ahead of the times!
>> Anonymous
>>276925
>>southern california sure is a sparkling metropolis of photographic superiority. so ahead of the times!

This man speaks the truth.
>> Anonymous
"For the best possible camera for just about anything, fun or serious, I use my Nikon D40.

Sure, I own more expensive cameras, but whenever I grab a camera for my own personal vacations or family photos, it's almost always my remarkable and super lightweight Nikon D40. There isn't anything reasonable I can't do with Nikon's least expensive D40. There is no real reason to pay more for a Nikon D60 or D80. Save your money for more important things, like another lens or flash, or just pocket the difference and enjoy a vacation. "

/thread
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>276870
>no one on /p/ has the balls to tell ken rockwell anything
I actually emailed him once on the subject of RAW and why it's not the huge conspiracy perpetrated by Canon and Nikon and the memory card makers that he thinks it is.

I got no reply.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
>>276955
how manly, an email....
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>276956
...

Why would manliness enter into it?
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
     File :-(, x)
whoa... my troll attempt turned into a legitimate discussion!

Also, I found Ken's D80 manual immensely helpful. He has some clever opinions and some obviously flawed opinions... much like me and you.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot S5 ISMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaLens Size6.00 - 72.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware Version 1.01Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:11 16:48:05Exposure Time6 secF-Numberf/2.7ISO Speed Rating80Lens Aperturef/2.7Exposure Bias-1/3 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1067Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeTv-PriorityFocus TypeClose-Up (Macro Mode)Metering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeSingleDrive ModeTimedFlash ModeOffCompression SettingSuperfineSelf-Timer Length2 secMacro ModeMacroSubject Distance0.180 mWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation2Sensor ISO Speed149Image Number244-2370
>> Anonymous
>>276955
do you have this genius manuscript to share with /p/?
>> Anonymous
>>276960

Real men go outside stark raving naked to the waist and scream obscenities through high-powered megaphones.

Or they riot.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>276999
Oh god yes... you have just given me my mode of protest. thankyou anonymous

http://www.nocleanfee.com
Aussies, do your part or no more 4chan!
>> Anonymous
you guys take a picture of ken rockwell pissing in the woods and put a greenpeace stamp in it.
put it on youtube and we have the next rickroll..

rockroll, anyone?
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
>>277018
que?
>> Anonymous
I'm going to accidentally ken rockwell next time I see him
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>277101
hey /p/ I need your help

I accidentally ken rockwell of .raw files

what should I do...is this dangerous ?
>> Anonymous
>>277104

a WHOLE ken rockwell of .raw files?

life threatening.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
so, seriously. how many abqfags are there?
so ronery
>> Anonymous
>>277125

go on an online dating site or one of those horrible social networking sites
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
you mean 4chan?
>> Anonymous
>>277132

4chan is a social trolling site. there doesn't seem to be much networking going on.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>276992
>do you have this genius manuscript to share with /p/?
Turns out I do, in fact, have a copy of it sitting in my outbox still. It is long and ranty.
>> Anonymous
>>277219
plz2share
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2008-09-new.htm
>I finally figured out why otherwise reasonable people are mislead into shooting raw: because big corporations make money from it.

This, incidentally, is why people "get so excited by all this that they put up hate sites". Because you're basically implying with statements like these that people who shoot RAW are, if not idiots, at least easily led sheep. You start out with "Each format has no absolute goodness; it's all in how appropriate they are to your particular work at hand. Everyone's needs vary and I just happen to prefer JPG." and then spend pages and pages basically saying that anyone shooting RAW is a moron who cares more about camera specs than pictures.

Look at it this way: Pull up google and search your site for all references to white balance and picture styles. How to fix them in photoshop, how to set them properly before taking the picture, how annoyed you are with camera makers who don't make changing WB and picture styles as easy as changing aperture and shutter speed, complaints about poor auto-white-balance performance in trickier lighting situations etc. Think about all of the time and effort you spend setting custom white balances every time you change the dominant lighting temperature, or changing picture styles when you go from shooting ultrawide shots of interestingly neon-lit diners out in the desert to shooting normal pictures of your family.

Your claim is that shooting RAW forces you to take up too much time postprocessing later that you could use for shooting now. I would posit that *not* shooting RAW caused me to miss pictures that I otherwise would have gotten because I was working too hard at time of exposure on things that could be set more easily and quickly when going through the day's shots later.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>277315
(Ctd.)
I shot entirely in JPEG for years (first because I started out on a point & shoot, then later basically for the same "not worth the effort" arguments you give on your site). I decided to give it a serious try one day after having read in numerous places how much better it is. That night, I was able to take a shot that had looked like crap as a JPEG and fix it so it looked pretty good. A few more days of playing around with it and I was a convert for life. It's not because I'm a sheep, it's not because I've given in to Adobe's wily advertising (in fact, I use ufraw/GIMP, which is free, and which is also an effective counterargument to your "RAW files are proprietary and might not be readable in the future" argument), it's because RAW just lets me spend more time shooting and less time fiddling with camera settings while potential shots fly by.

Which, as I recall, is something you've always otherwise been strongly in favor of.

I never have to be constantly on the look out for something white I can use for a custom WB. I never have to spend time in GIMP's curves control panel trying to fix a picture that's nigh unfixable because most of the blue got thrown away by my Canon's DiGIC when it churned out the JPEG. Giving all of my shots the slightly warmer tone that I tend to prefer went from "tricky" to "trivial". And the fact that my 40D's 14-bit ADC lets me get a surprising amount of extra data out of the shadows and highlights when I need it is an extra bonus.
>> Anonymous
>>277315
no wonder he didn't respond

there is nothing to respond to...
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
     File :-(, x)
>Pros Use Mac
>ever since the 1970s, graphics pros and full-time career professional photographers have always used Apple
>Creating content is a very different story. I bang on my Mac 14 hours a day, with 13 professional programs open at the same time and all crunching away on a zillion different things. I can't afford the wasted time that stepping backwards into a clumsy, barely functional operating system like Windows would cost me.

>raw software will throw you back into Gen 1 quality, even when shooting a Gen 2 camera. It's not 2006 anymore. Most raw software does not do any of the clever things, like ADR, expanded color controls or totally automatic lens corrections, that are done in-camera with Gen 2 cameras.

I don't think he's trolling, I just think he's stupid.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D80Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern782Focal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:09:22 23:30:38Exposure Time1/160 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating160Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length80.00 mmCommentProject_DashColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width765Image Height1024RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>277328
oh, and attached pic. If it weren't for raw, I'd have lost this photo to jpeg artifacts and posterization. 5 stops underexposed because of slow flash recycling
>> Anonymous
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

>While everyone was in chat rooms yesterday I spent the day consulting on a shoot of a $7,000,000 home. We shot raw + JPG on a Canon 1Ds so my client would have both kinds of files from which to learn afterwards. It took a half hour to download the images from the 1 Gig flash card, and we never even used the raw files.

>half hour to download the images from the 1 Gig flash card
>half hour
>1 Gig

oh wow
>> Anonymous
>>277328
Lucky thing that you could save a once in a lifetime photo of 4 people giving you their 'meh' face.
>> Anonymous
wow!! Ive never seen colour correction that works on black and white pics before.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
     File :-(, x)
>>277328
JPG loses hard

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:10:18 08:43:25Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width754Image Height1020
>> Anonymous
ken rockwell is the ultimate troll

why anyone thinks they can baffle him with logic is beyond me. his site is just one large troll thread. to think that an email saying "you're wrong and this is why" is going to change the way ken does his shit is way the fuck out there.
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
semitrolled
>> Anonymous
"Think about it: a good piece of music takes you away. Close your eyes, and you're in a completely different place. A good piece of music takes you not just to another country, it physically takes you to another world, complete with sights all around you, smells, feelings, tastes, and everything as if you were there. Crappy music doesn't come close, but ask any music lover, and good music does all this and more. If it doesn't do it for you, it's time to listen more carefully.

Then I thought what a silly little medium it is with which we work. A photo, even a huge one, isn't reality. It's small, flat and we always can see beyond the frame. You may be looking at a photo, but you're still wherever you are. You may be in a gallery looking at a photo, but you're still in the gallery. You may be in a dark theater watching a film, but you're still in the theater. "

If you're listening to music, you're still wherever the FUCK you are when you are listening to it, you freakin tool.
>> Anonymous
>>277455
He's expressing it like the dumbass he is, but it's generally accepted music is the most directly emotional art medium. Not the best or worst or whatever, but the most directly emotional.

This is coming from a writer and photographer who can't play any musical instrument.