File :-(, x, )
Ken Rockwell Anonymous
http://www.kenrockwell.com/workshop.htm
Holy shit. KR charges $3,000 a day, or $500 per hour.

My fucking head just assplodd.
>> Anonymous
What you don't know is that he lays golden eggs and you get to keep whatever he lays during the time.
>> Anonymous
each egg hatches another +10 saturation
>> Anonymous
But he's A GOD OF PHOTOS, don't you want to be taught by a GOD OF PHOTOS? He also drives a PORSCHE CAYENNE TURBO S. That's PORSCHE CAYENNE TURBO S. It's a pretty neat car, the PORSCHE CAYENNE TURBO S. It's PORSCHE CAYENNE with a TURBO and it's the S MODEL.

Just see http://www.kenrockwell.com/porsche/cayenne-turbo-s/index.htm
>> Anonymous
Shit sucks, Ken Rockwell rapes sheep, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>234054
No, that isn't his Porsche. Evidently, his wife left the kitchen to buy it for an XBAWKS HUEG DISCOUNT!

And it turns over dimes and stuff. How totally awesome!
>> Anonymous
>The 2008 V-10 Dodge Viper finally manages to wheeze out 600 hp and 560 ft-pounds or torque, but it's pretty sad that all the Viper can do with almost double the displacement (8.4l) and two more cylinders is manage an extra 79 hp and 29 ft-lbs over the Porsche.

oh ken, you so silly.
>> Anonymous
I just realized this bucket of fuck lives in San Diego.

Also, is Ken cognizant of the fact that he is despised and mocked by all?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Nowhere better to put this on here, just thought /p/ might be interested.

I found online a different version of the famous HCB shot.

Hey, more useful than bitching about Ken Rockwell, right?
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>234054
I just did CTRL+F on that page and he mentions PORSCHE ...... (this is not a lie) ........... SEVENTY FIVE TIMES
75 TIMES

ken rockwell, oh you
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>234068
Well, no shit. If I was reviewing, say, The Great Gatsby, the word "Gatsby" would find itself in quite a few times.

Seriously, Ken Rockwell doesn't know what he's talking about most of the time, but who cares? Just go do your own thing, warn off anyone getting confused by him, and let JPEG shooting dogs lie.

And it turns out he doesn't suck at shooting people, though he doesn't realize it: he called the lighting in this one this "crummy mixed avalable light." (sic)
>> Anonymous
the interior pictures are awesome! the colors are nuts. im not trolling either. if i didnt know how gay that car was id want one.

he knows nothing of cars
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>234071
that's actually alright
>> Anonymous
>>234071
>>234087

even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>234066
Yeah he is, actually.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
Third paragraph, last sentence.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
and to think that you guys are giving away all your pithy wisdom for free. the mind reels.
>> Anonymous
I even had a veterinarian friend in Africa who specializes in elephant care send me some phallus hide from the Loxodonta Africana (known for its flexibility and grip when wet) which I then had a local taxidermist apply to my camera in place of the original rubber. It took a lot of paperwork with the U.S. Dept. of Fish and Game but at least it doesn't peel off on my D1H as the rubber does.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#lefty

oh fuckin lawd!
he covered his camera in elephant foreskin :O
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallus
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>234144
oh and this too.

IMAGONNAEATYOURBABEHZ!!!!1!1!!!!!!
>> Anonymous
Sorry to be a n00b but who is this guy and why do we hate him?
>> Anonymous
>>234144
I really, really doubt any of that is true.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Hay guise, gimme babehs

>>234053

So damned fucking true.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:06:15 00:26:53Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width516Image Height551
>> Anonymous
it would be worth every fucking cent.

i would love to pay that much to spend some time with a "photographer". Look at his website, he doesnt even really need to post pictures hes takes...shit he just reviews the shit he buys and tell you how awesome it is...I mean shit....$500 per hour. CHEAP...LUCKY
>> Mr. Higgzbuffonton !!Xsltv1VWxZT
     File :-(, x)
because I had to, as a reply this time.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:13 05:47:33Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width460Image Height438
>> Anonymous
i dont see the problem, i charge 300 an hour for onsite shoots.
>> Anonymous
>>234192
Yes, but chances are you don't suck half as bad as Cockwell.
>> Anonymous
>>234197
his work is technically very good. mine isnt.
>> Anonymous
I don't know why people hate Ken Rockwell so much. Yeah, he looks like a fag, and from what I've seen, he's a mediocre photographer, but he knows about cheap gear(especially cheap Nikon gear). I'd rather see someone discussing how to make the most of affordable hardware, than what's so great about the latest, greatest.
>> Anonymous
>>234225
>his work is technically very good.
I lol'd.
>> Anonymous
>>234227
Because his information is generally shit. Misleading shit.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>234227
Uh, no? If there's one thing he doesn't know about, it's cheap gear. This is a guy who until recently refused to believe that any third-party lenses were worth buying.
>> Anonymous
>>234243Because his information is generally shit. Misleading shit.

someond find those parts where he is contradicting himself or is just plain wrong

i post on another forum and people there swear by him

threads usually go: what camera should i buy

then the replies will be Nikon D60 and then a link to the Ken Rockwell website

help me prove them wrong /p/
>> Anonymous
>>234552
He very rarely actually contradicts himself, and usually gets actual facts right. His judgment and interpretation is what's almost always rather dubious.
>> Anonymous
>>234704

examples?

or are people just raging about him because he said JPG and 18-200 VR is fine for most people, which is kind of accurate for like 80% of buyers
>> Anonymous
bunch of jealous fags
>> Anonymous
>>234708
My main problem with him is that he reviews things he's never actually used. He always notes it in the review with something like "I've never used this, but I'm sure it's blah blah blah..."

Anybody that reviews a product without actually using it calls into question his credibility in all reviews.
>> Anonymous
I fucking hate in his lens reviews how he says there's no fringing, yet he reviews them attached to a D3, which corrects fringes automatically
>> Anonymous
>>234708
Buyers != photographers. It's a photography website, not a gadget or consumer advice website. Ken Rockwell lacks judgment, but that's fine. Let him do his thing, just warn people off him.

Also, fuck the whole they're-not-serious-so-just-tell-them-whatever-is-easiest attitude. Mrs. Mom can learn to take three minutes to shove a few sliders in LR and pull the best three or four pics of her kid's soccer game and print those and have the best quality possible, instead of having two hundred indistinguishable from a Powershot except in the depth of field and the other differences in how the different size formats draw the picture. I understand and support the idea of people who aren't serious into photography using it for purposes of socializing, memory, and the like. That's great. But those worthwhile goals are improved just as much by doing it right as the artwork or commercial work of us lolserious photographers.
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>234844
He generally notes that in his "reviews" and uses a D200 as well, last I checked. In a "there's a little bit of fringing on my D200 but if you're awesome like me and own a D3 then you're home free" kinda way.
>> Anonymous
>A Black skimmer ejecting accidentally snagged eel grass. A photographic first.

>A photographic first.
what a faggot....
>> Anonymous
>>234853

fucking hell that's poorly written
could you try to summarize what you're saying?
>> Serenar !m827jEgWi.
>>234898
tl;dr: People who don't want to be serious about photography should still make an effort to learn. It's not even that hard - even a soccer mom can learn to poke sliders about in LR and get better results than the other soccer moms.
>> Anonymous
>>234910
Have you ever even worked with soccer moms before? Most can't even fucking figure out how where the fuck they've even SAVED their pictures on their PC, and you expect them to fucking shoot RAW and do real editing?

They're NOT using DSLRs to fiddle with pictures in their computer. They're using them because of the quick response and continuous shooting for their kids, and cause all their friends have D40s and they need to keep up.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>234919

I disagree.
Sure, some people are morons, but there are very minor PP techniques that virtually anyone can be taught that dramatically improve basic AUTO MODE shots.

The problem is that the majority of the photography community understands that the edits they make are (for the most part) pretty simple, and any asshole could do it. So in order to make it seem like they're doing something ZOMG FAKKIN AWSUM D00D they refuse to share information and try to make things as confusing as possible for others to understand.

Are there tutorials for most of this on the web? Sure. But most of them are written by fucking retards who don't actually know what they're doing, and when you ask simple questions in communities like this the people who know what they're doing stay mum, and the people who actually try to help are either trolls or beginners.
>> Anonymous
>>234942
proves
>>234919
his point. You've never tried to show Jane/John Q. Public anything.
Photo finishers make more on CDs now than they ever have. Why? It's a digital camera, just copy the files.
People, not just women, don't care. At worst, they're afraid. Even with shit like iphoto and picasa.
>> Anonymous
Ken Rockwell is a tard.
>> Anonymous
>>235448

people keep saying that

actually /p/ keeps saying but have no real proof other than LOL D40 + 18-200 = WIN
>> Anonymous
>>235146
>People, not just women, don't care. At worst, they're afraid. Even with shit like iphoto and picasa.

Which is bullshit, so you teach them.
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
>>235146
>You've never tried to show Jane/John Q. Public anything.

LOL OK I guess I must have imagined those classes I taught about Bookbinding and Adobe Illustrator.

As long as it's presented right (dumbed the fuck down and taught in as few steps as possible) and they think they can get something out of it people are willing to learn almost anything.
>> Anonymous
>>235451
>Honestly, I usually shoot all of my higher-resolution cameras turned back down to 6MP!

He's right about six megapixels being enough, but this is pointless. It's like shooting 56x56 with the intent to crop to 36x24.

>There is no real reason to pay more for [D40 over] a... D80

He doesn't care about ergonomics besides weight.

>If I bought another compact camera for myself today as a serious photographer, it would be a $255 Canon SD870 IS

Thinks serious photographers don't need manual, Av, etc. Later on the page, he suggests one of these as "high performance" and an A-series as just "the cheapest." And he bitches about the *plus* that they take AAs.

>For normal people, the Canon SD750 is the way to go for its incredible mechanical and picture quality, big screen and low price.

>Big screen

Enough said. Don't throw out that's what they want, *educate* them instead of pandering to bad taste. One of the worst things about society today is that people are expected to just get what they want/what's easiest/etc. instead of *what's best.* This is the same impulse, by the way, behind the excessive pixel counts versus sensor size he and we complain about.

>The ultimate quality of any photo does not depend on the camera. A $150 camera can make the same quality photo as a $5,000 camera.

Michael Reichmann (or someone on LL) wrote a big send-up of this that had nothing to do with technical image quality, which I 100% agree has little to do with the real quality of a photo.

And that's just part of one page.
>> Anonymous
>>235484

look, i don't like Ken and would fucking LOVE to prove those faggots wrong (the ones from the other forums)

but none of those really make him sound like an idiot
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>235489
"As of 2008, resolution is nothing more than a sales pitch to get you to pay more. I've make great-looking 12x18" prints from a three megapixel camera, so 6 MP is more than enough for me, or anyone. Honestly, I usually shoot all of my higher-resolution cameras turned back down to 6MP!

Even the very cheapest $135 camera here today has over 8MP, so I won't be discussing pixels anymore. Every camera here has more pixels than most people will ever need or want. Hallelujah! "
>> Anonymous
>>235498

i feel really bad for asking this from you guys because i've tried myself to look for stupid quotes from him but failed

the forum i'm posting on, i won't name it, is the most nitpicky sorry sons of bitches you can find and that won't do at all :|

they'll bite me on the

>> Every camera here has more pixels than most people will ever need or want.

part and Ken is kind of right in a way, anything more than 6 is fluff for most uses
>> Anonymous
Ken says on his site somewhere that shooting in JPEG is the same as shooting in RAW... someone go find it.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>235505
f you walk into a a situation where let us say that cameras auto thing drops you down to 400 iso which camera is going to give you better a photo: the 'higher resolution camera' turned to down to 6mp or the 8mp camera that costs 135$? The problem with the quote is he's being misleading with megapixels. A 135$ camera is going to have terrible noise at 400iso.

also 12x18 prints at 3mp would look like garbage
>> Anonymous
>also 12x18 prints at 3mp would look like garbage

Right because the D2H (4mp) makes shitty pictures.
>> Anonymous
>>235513
He's not wrong because of lolnoise. He's wrong because cameras are tools, and some are better than others.

The six megapixel thing? Throw out my shooting 120 (56mm on the long side) and intentionally cropping it to the size of 135 (36mm on the long side) for no fucking reason. That's what he's doing when he's shooting it at six megapixels when it does more. Six megapixels is enough, but he's being fucking stupid when he does that.
>> Anonymous
>>235536

it makes fine pictures but

4 MP is not enough resolution for a spread in the National Geographic or any magazine for that matter

do you know what a spread is?
>> Anonymous
>>235550
/trolled
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
>>235536
bwahahahahahahahahahahaaaaargbl

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:08:14 22:07:14Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width725Image Height713
>> Anonymous
oh lawd

just found this little gem

>> The Nikon lens is the best and most expensive. None of the third party lenses can outperform it. Drat; I was hoping to find a bargain. This all goes to prove that Nikon, who has been making optics continuously for almost 100 years, still knows a trick or two. Nikon also makes $10,000 pairs of astronomical binoculars and the extremely expensive (about $1,000,000) lenses used in manufacturing the chips inside your computer. They don't squander their resources making copy machines or printers.
>> They don't squander their resources making copy machines or printers.

nice knock on canon there ken

of course canon has oh, about 10 times the capital nikon has