Ken Rockwell: Idiot?

[iBallz]

I like the site. Very interesting viewpoint that polarize some people. What is the fuss?

KR dislikes computer-based, extensive post-production photography.
Promotes JPEG over RAW.
Says pixels don't count.
Likes Nikon over Canon DSLRs.
Promotes Canon compacts.
Loves Leica over all others.
Recommends scanned slides as superior to digital.
Recommends the D40 for 90% of users.
Loves Apple, hates Windows.
Shoots bright, colorful and saturated, rather than dark and arty, street, etc. photos.
Promotes old used lenses over new expensive lenses.
Doesn't like to carry a DSLR anymore, says an S90 is better.

This stuff is very important to some people, it is a core part of their life. Think those stands might PO more than a few people!!!? And I am sure I forgot a few other points he makes!

Oh, and he changes his mind. Kind of a stream of consciousness kind of site.

I like it.

Hey well put!

I'm feel the same way, most times. I like Canons little cameras, Nikons big ones, and hate all that photoshopped crap out there.

Plus he also loves his 4x5". Not many weenies now will take the time or effort to ever use a large format and really 'take' a good photograph. Then if you must digitize it, you have the equivalent of a 100 MP image.

 

[Ryan1524]

I like the site. Very interesting viewpoint that polarize some people. What is the fuss?

KR dislikes computer-based, extensive post-production photography.
- True photography should be through the viewfinder. Not after hours of editing. I agree with him on this.

Promotes JPEG over RAW.
- See above. If your pics are brilliant off the camera, Jpegs are faster, smaller, easier to work with.

Says pixels don't count.
- True to the extent of your print size.

Likes Nikon over Canon DSLRs.
- Me too.

Promotes Canon compacts.
- Me too. Better controls, less dumbed down than Nikon compacts.

Loves Leica over all others.
- Can't comment. But I heard they're nice.

Recommends scanned slides as superior to digital.
- Can't comment.

Recommends the D40 for 90% of users.
- 90% of users don't even need SLRs.

Loves Apple, hates Windows.
- Subjective.

Shoots bright, colorful and saturated, rather than dark and arty, street, etc. photos.
- Great depending on audience. Very subjective.

Promotes old used lenses over new expensive lenses.
- If it works...

Doesn't like to carry a DSLR anymore, says an S90 is better.
- The best camera is the camera you USE.

This stuff is very important to some people, it is a core part of their life. Think those stands might PO more than a few people!!!? And I am sure I forgot a few other points he makes!

Oh, and he changes his mind. Kind of a stream of consciousness kind of site.

I like it.



Ken Rockwell is Not an idiot. I think of him as the Jeremy Clarkson of the photog world.

 

[PeteB]

The only fools are the people who think that Ken's in any way serious about what he writes.

From his "About Me" page:-

This is my personal website. I do it all by myself.

I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.

This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around. Don't take any of this as true; I like to make things up as much as any other kid.

I don't own the gear you see me talk about. Even if I did own it when I wrote about it, this site has been on-the-air for over ten years, and very little, if any of it, is still here today. Most of the items I write about I've borrowed from friends and have returned, or if I did own them, were given away to freinds, donated to charity, or in the old days, sold.

While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction that it is. it is the product of my own imagination.

This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own.

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No matter how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.

My bold.

 

[carlgo]

The only fools are the people who think that Ken's in any way serious about what he writes.

From his "About Me" page:-



My bold.

Also a good point. He is a one-man gang who adds lots of stuff to his site almost daily and is often guilty of being redundant. I do think his writing has gotten better, more humorous and clever.

His web site was criticized, but remember that he simply puts it out there and has no interest in web site design. He does have lots of links and you can search around pretty fast. Its an ok site for me.

He doesn't like post-production, but does work with a Mac Pro and and Apple 30" monitor, a pretty spendy combo!

 

[Knomad]

Idiot? I doubt it. More likely it's a conscious marketing strategy, and apparently it works. It sets him apart from many other (and better) reviewers who have a dry, bland, technical approach.

As for the validity of what Rockwell says, I'll sum it up with one Leica anecdote: He wrote a review of the M9 before ever having one in his hands, and he made some sweeping generalizations with a complete absence of data.

At the same time he was doing this, there were three reviews posted which did have hands-on experience: Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape, Sean Reid... and I can't recall who the third one was, at the moment.

But Rockwell was conspicuously absent from the short list of people invited by Leica to come to Solms and play with the new toys. What does that tell you?

As with any reviewer, there's useful information in at least some of Rockwell's reviews... if you know as much or more about the product than he does, and are thus able to make your own judgment calls, sort the good from the mediocre. The good news is that there are indeed many people who know as much or more than he does.

I can only speak about Leica, which is what I shoot. But if you're looking for solid and less biased info, go to Luminous Landscape, or Erwin Puts, or Sean Reid (his is a pay to subscribe site), or even DP review.

 

[El Cabong]

Wow, so many responses. Let me first say that I'm happy so many people cared to respond, this being my first thread started in this forum and all. It's garnered more attention than most others (except, of course, for those asking people to post their work and those asking "what camera/lens should I buy?").

Let me also say (more clearly this time) that I have a love/hate relationship with the site, sort of in the way my dad, back in the day, used to have a love/hate relationship with FOX News:

"Dad, why do you keep watching this crap if all you do is yell at the TV?"
"Because they're wrong!"
"What? How does watching it solve anything? You know they're just distorting the truth just to stir people up in order to get more viewers! Watching it just adds to their viewership!"
"Shut up and go to your room! I'm trying to watch TV!"

I do happen to agree with a few of Mr. Rockwell's opinions. I'm a Nikon guy when it comes to DSLRs, but don't have much love for their compacts. He happens to share the same opinion of the S90 as I and many others have (I don't own one, but I've tried one out, and it handles beautifully). I disagree with some of his other opinions, such as his complete hate for PCs (settle down, I'm still a Mac user), as well as his more hyperbolic claims, such as (a few months ago) calling the iPod Touch "the world's most advanced consumer electronics product," despite the existence of, say, the iPhone.

The problem that I have with his site is that, as much as he claims on his "About" page to be whimsically and inaccurately opinionated, his opinions are often taken seriously enough to drive purchases. Why else do you think he's able to make his website his primary source of income? He keeps showing up on Google searches for camera advice, and people keep referencing his site to those looking to buy (such as here, here, and here. Not hard to find). I'm sure that he's quite aware that people take him seriously. He doesn't end all of his reviews with a disclaimer that he's probably wrong and to be wary of all of his advice; he ends all of them with links to his sponsors, many of whom just happen to sell camera equipment.

Also, I'm not so stupid as to be unaware that discussing and providing links to his website in a public forum might generate a few more hits for him. With all that out of the way, let the nitpicking begin!

He doesn't claim to be an awesome photographer, he doesn't claim that his `reviews' are representative in some way, shape or form and he doesn't claim to be impartial.

In today's update, he says, "As I keep recommending, no one needs a D90 or D300; the D40 is all 99% of anyone needs. I keep showing great photos made with point-and-shoots; you don't even want to know what I could do with [sic] D40." That could be interpreted as trumpeting his own skill. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean he'd take really bad pictures with it, although I suppose it could have been sexual innuendo. He talks about his love for the D40 more than any other camera, so maybe he's planning on realizing that childhood taunt of loving it enough to marry it (in which case, I suppose the Leica M9, which he's dubbed "The World's Best Digital Camera", would be his mistress).

But don't call someone an idiot because you disagree with them. It works against you in the end.

I didn't call him an idiot (note the question mark in the title), I called him a jackass. It makes me that much more credible.

The only fools are the people who think that Ken's in any way serious about what he writes.

From his "About Me" page:-



My bold.

Do you find it ironic that, when making an argument to not trust a person's words, you quote that person's words? Just wondering.

And finally,

Idiot? I doubt it. More likely it's a conscious marketing strategy, and apparently it works. It sets him apart from many other (and better) reviewers who have a dry, bland, technical approach.

I agree. He has an article titled something to the effect of "Bad Reviews are Good," the content of which should be self-explanatory. However, I like my reviews to be like a Carr's Water Cracker. Bland and dry, but delicious with smoked salmon or goat cheese. Make it Special with Carr's®. They're available through Amazon, Wally's Wine and Spirits, Vitacost, and sometimes eBay. I use them and recommend them all personally.

Thanks for reading!

 

[nutmac]

Promotes JPEG over RAW.
- See above. If your pics are brilliant off the camera, Jpegs are faster, smaller, easier to work with.

True, but computers in general are much more powerful than camera's processor and RAW processing algorithm for computer have gotten better over time (e.g., Aperture RAW 1.0 -> 1.1 -> 2.0 have all resulted in improved image quality). If you shoot in RAW, all your photos will benefit from improved image quality over time.

And let's face it. Perhaps you are a great photographer and shoots perfect picture 100% of the time. But most of us could use some help during post processing, particularly for correcting exposure and white balance.

 

[OreoCookie]

Also, I'm not so stupid as to be unaware that discussing and providing links to his website in a public forum might generate a few more hits for him. With all that out of the way, let the nitpicking begin!

So you're unhappy that his website is (relatively) successful? Or that he makes a living off photography (at least in part)? If you want to nitpick, some of his pages are actually useful for novices. If you know what you're doing, more likely than not you won't need his page. Just like there's a need for tabloid news (and he's better, because he tells people upfront that it's just for the fun of it) and McDonalds as opposed to the New York Times and fine dining.

In today's update, he says, "As I keep recommending, no one needs a D90 or D300; the D40 is all 99% of anyone needs. I keep showing great photos made with point-and-shoots; you don't even want to know what I could do with [sic] D40." That could be interpreted as trumpeting his own skill. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean he'd take really bad pictures with it, although I suppose it could have been sexual innuendo. He talks about his love for the D40 more than any other camera, so maybe he's planning on realizing that childhood taunt of loving it enough to marry it (in which case, I suppose the Leica M9, which he's dubbed "The World's Best Digital Camera", would be his mistress).

Gee, you're making a tempest in a teacup here: you don't like him, fine with me. But he tells everyone in advance that everything is his own opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt. (And I don't think going the pseudo-philosophical route is particularly fruitful.)

Do you find it ironic that, when making an argument to not trust a person's words, you quote that person's words? Just wondering.

No. They're actually directed at people like you who apparently take him more seriously than he does himself.

True, but computers in general are much more powerful than camera's processor and RAW processing algorithm for computer have gotten better over time (e.g., Aperture RAW 1.0 -> 1.1 -> 2.0 have all resulted in improved image quality). If you shoot in RAW, all your photos will benefit from improved image quality over time.

Since the website is aimed at noobs, to most, it's not necessary to shoot RAW. Some shoot RAW + jpg `just because they want to be on the safe side,' but not because they know what they're doing.

 

[macuserx86]

Regardless of opinion, these are the Facts about Ken Rockwell

•Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.

•When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories

•Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you

•On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine

•For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.

•Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.

•Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.

 

[El Cabong]

He doesn't claim to be an awesome photographer, he doesn't claim that his `reviews' are representative in some way, shape or form and he doesn't claim to be impartial.

In today's update, he says, "As I keep recommending, no one needs a D90 or D300; the D40 is all 99% of anyone needs. I keep showing great photos made with point-and-shoots; you don't even want to know what I could do with [sic] D40." That could be interpreted as trumpeting his own skill. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean he'd take really bad pictures with it, although I suppose it could have been sexual innuendo. He talks about his love for the D40 more than any other camera, so maybe he's planning on realizing that childhood taunt of loving it enough to marry it (in which case, I suppose the Leica M9, which he's dubbed "The World's Best Digital Camera", would be his mistress).

Gee, you're making a tempest in a teacup here: you don't like him, fine with me. But he tells everyone in advance that everything is his own opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt. (And I don't think going the pseudo-philosophical route is particularly fruitful.)

I didn't anticipate that someone would suggest that the idea that a man would want to screw a camera would be the "pseudo-philosophical route," or that I meant it as some "fruitful" line of discourse ("He does want to marry the camera! Here's my nine-point thesis!"), but I appreciate your attention to detail and your sense of humor.

However, in case you're being serious, you missed my point that, rather than what you said in that quote of yours, he does actually claim to be a good (or at least half-decent) photographer (at least sometimes), although not in so many words, hence the joke.

You weren't being serious, right? Otherwise, I'd have to see your tempest in a teacup and raise you another kitchenware analogy involving a pot and a kettle.

 

[wheezy]

Gee, you seem to take it really personally that he prefers the handling of Nikon cameras to Canons. (What camera brand do you own? ) He doesn't bash Canon, he just prefers Nikon. If anything, he basically ignores anything but Canon and Nikon when it comes to dslrs.

And when someone starts ranting about somebody else's wardrobe, you just know they've run out of substantial arguments.

I did run out of substantial arguments I was giving my 10 minute overview of the site, in a negative manner, to agree with the OP. Just because.

BUT, he went on about the Canon scroll wheel by the shutter release for several sentences, complaining about how it hurt is poor fingers because he had to turn it with the inside of his index finger. So, I picked up my camera to see how my finger worked that: Not at all like he complained about. So, my point was, I don't care how it fits is his hands, trying to offer a legitimate review and then citing negatives that will differ on each pair of hands that pick it up is stupid. The scroll wheel doesn't hurt my finger, nor do I have to use the inside of my index finger to scroll with it.

 

[nutmac]

Since the website is aimed at noobs, to most, it's not necessary to shoot RAW. Some shoot RAW + jpg `just because they want to be on the safe side,' but not because they know what they're doing.

While some people buy SLR, only to be used with the kit lens, JPEG, and automatic setting, I doubt that is the intended audience Ken Rockwell and other "noobs" SLR photography websites target.

What I mean to say is, RAW isn't this complicated monster that Ken makes it out to be. For those uninitiated, photo apps designed for "noobs", such as iPhoto and Picassa, hide much of the complexities away (well, as well as much of the benefits). They can upgrade to Aperture, Lightroom, etc., when and if they are willing to tap into additional power the RAW format brings.

And frankly, in this days of 16-32 GB memory card, larger file size is no longer that relevant. And common RAW post processing chores like fixing exposure doesn't require a degree in Photoshop.

I am not saying Ken is an idiot. Some of the information on his website are useful, but a lot of what he preaches is one sided and assumes everyone is as perfect as he is.

 

[Acsom]

First, I have to say that I got something of real subtantive value from Ken Rockwell's site. I bought a power winder/battery grip for my film Canon F1-N, and it came without instructions; I found the instructions on his site. I emailed him thanking him for posting them, and received back a nice "you're welcome", with some nice commentary.

Second, I think very few people pay attention to KR for very long; the more you learn, the more obvious it is that everyone has their own way of working, and that anyone who prescribes "one size fits all" solutions must be disregarded. Those who are not deep into photography don't visit KR regularly, because they are not interested in photography; those who are deep into photography don't visit KR regularly because they are interested in photography.

So, KR is almost everyone's quick early stop on their photographical exploration due to his high placing on Google; but he retains few as acolytes.

 

[macuserx86]

First, I have to say that I got something of real subtantive value from Ken Rockwell's site. I bought a power winder/battery grip for my film Canon F1-N, and it came without instructions; I found the instructions on his site. I emailed him thanking him for posting them, and received back a nice "you're welcome", with some nice commentary.

Second, I think very few people pay attention to KR for very long; the more you learn, the more obvious it is that everyone has their own way of working, and that anyone who prescribes "one size fits all" solutions must be disregarded. Those who are not deep into photography don't visit KR regularly, because they are not interested in photography; those who are deep into photography don't visit KR regularly because they are interested in photography.

So, KR is almost everyone's quick early stop on their photographical exploration due to his high placing on Google; but he retains few as acolytes.

When I was just getting into photography, I was an avid Rockwell fan actually. I read his site all the time and took his advice very seriously. I bought an 18-200mm VR based on his recommendation. As I matured photographically and learned from other sites and personal experience, I quickly realized that he was talking rubbish 95% of the time.

 

[OreoCookie]

While some people buy SLR, only to be used with the kit lens, JPEG, and automatic setting, I doubt that is the intended audience Ken Rockwell and other "noobs" SLR photography websites target.

What I mean to say is, RAW isn't this complicated monster that Ken makes it out to be. For those uninitiated, photo apps designed for "noobs", such as iPhoto and Picassa, hide much of the complexities away (well, as well as much of the benefits).

It's exactly those people who should wait to shoot RAW: as you point out, there is little benefit using RAW unless you have the software to go with it (Aperture or Lightroom, for instance). In my opinion, these people should start by learning the basics of photography rather than add complexity to their workflow at this point. I think to many casual users RAW is way overkill.

And frankly, in this days of 16-32 GB memory card, larger file size is no longer that relevant. And common RAW post processing chores like fixing exposure doesn't require a degree in Photoshop.

File size is very relevant: my ProBook is struggling with my RAW files (I only have 2 GB RAM, 3 is the theoretical max on my particular machine). Plus, even more importantly, you cannot copy images from memory cards to other people's computers (this is important to some).

Besides, I now use RAW exclusively after testing out what it can and cannot do.

 

[notjustjay]

I bought an 18-200mm VR based on his recommendation. As I matured photographically and learned from other sites and personal experience, I quickly realized that he was talking rubbish 95% of the time.

I am one of those "on again, off again" readers that was alluded to a few posts up. I took his site fairly seriously too, not realizing the huge disclaimers were there until I saw the links in this thread. As someone who was about to buy an 18-200mm VR, I would appreciate your opinion on how you liked using it, or what you might suggest as better alternatives. I have a D70s that I bought used, and am currently borrowing my brother's 18-70 kit lens until I buy something of my own.

 

[imlucid]

As someone who was about to buy an 18-200mm VR, I would appreciate your opinion on how you liked using it, or what you might suggest as better alternatives.

I bought that lens for my D200 body I bought used from a friend. I've been very happy with it in general as it is lightweight and flexible and takes pretty good pictures.

I've recently been borrowing 80-200mm and 70-200mm VR lenses for shooting my kids soccer practice (there is definitely a difference in sharpness in the action with those fast lenses) but they are pretty bulky and heavy (especially the 70-200).

I plan on using the 70-200mm for my daughter's play this week as it is supposed to excel in lowlight theater conditions.

I'm most likely going to buy the 80-200mm used for outdoor sporting events but definitely like the 18-200mm as my carrying around lens.

Hope that helps!

PS Here are some shots I took with each:

18-200mm

80-200mm

70-200mm

 

[nutmac]

It's exactly those people who should wait to shoot RAW: as you point out, there is little benefit using RAW unless you have the software to go with it (Aperture or Lightroom, for instance). In my opinion, these people should start by learning the basics of photography rather than add complexity to their workflow at this point. I think to many casual users RAW is way overkill.

As I said in earlier comment, computer-based RAW algorithm is getting better each year. Your RAW photos shot several years ago will look better simply by upgrading to newer version of the RAW processor (Aperture, Lightroom, etc.). Your JPEG photos, on the other hand, remain the same.

Is RAW an overkill? If you use basic photo management apps like Picassa or iPhoto, all the RAW files are automatically converted to JPEG during import. Sure, the files will occupy more disk space but not additional memory since they are all JPEG. And when and if you are ready to exploit the RAW format, you can upgrade to more powerful apps.

 

[Ryan1524]

True, but computers in general are much more powerful than camera's processor and RAW processing algorithm for computer have gotten better over time (e.g., Aperture RAW 1.0 -> 1.1 -> 2.0 have all resulted in improved image quality). If you shoot in RAW, all your photos will benefit from improved image quality over time.

And let's face it. Perhaps you are a great photographer and shoots perfect picture 100% of the time. But most of us could use some help during post processing, particularly for correcting exposure and white balance.

I shoot all my stuff in RAW and spend hours playing with them. To me, that's a fun part of the process. So yeah, I agree with Rockwell, but don't use JPEGs anymore. Most people would NEVER do anything worthwhile with their RAWs, all it does is fill up HDDs and waste energy and materials. Most people I've talked to don't even know what RAW is.

 

[stagi]

As I said in earlier comment, computer-based RAW algorithm is getting better each year. Your RAW photos shot several years ago will look better simply by upgrading to newer version of the RAW processor (Aperture, Lightroom, etc.). Your JPEG photos, on the other hand, remain the same.
.

So true, main reason to shoot in RAW in my opinion.

 

[macuserx86]

*snip*

It depends how serious you are really. As a travel lens, the 18-200mm is really nice, since you get a wide focal range. However, it is the sharpest lens and has a lot of complicated distortion. Plus the variable aperture means it's not very useful for anything moving in dark conditions.
That said, I took almost all of my favorite pictures with that lens, but I went FX (D700 and D3 now) so it no longer is useful.

I'm actually selling mine, PM me if you're interested

This is one of (imo) my best shots, and it was taken with the 18-200mm (the VR made this shot possible as I had no tripod) I had to correct a lot for distortion in PS though.

 

[TuffLuffJimmy]

He started the website as a joke. Why is everyone in such a hissy fit over this guy?

 

[pdxflint]

Is RAW an overkill? If you use basic photo management apps like Picassa or iPhoto, all the RAW files are automatically converted to JPEG during import. Sure, the files will occupy more disk space but not additional memory since they are all JPEG. And when and if you are ready to exploit the RAW format, you can upgrade to more powerful apps.

Actually, not true. I use Picasa to import my shots into my computer from my CF or SD cards, and to organize my files in folders on import. If I shoot RAW files, they come in untouched. I can even 'edit' them somewhat in Picassa, non-destructively BTW, if I want to do a quick web-upload to Picasa web albums or Facebook, etc, and only then are they converted to .jpg files. Or if I export them to a folder. Of course, if I want to do serious photo post processing I simply open NX2 up and browse my folders for the photos I want to edit, and convert to .jpg using NX2's superior RAW file handling and conversions, and then "save as" and select .jpg as file type and route the edited .jpg file to a folder for my edited files. Nice thing is, back in Picasa that folder of NX2 edits can be 'watched' and the files appear in Picasa if I want to use those .jpgs for uploading to web galleries, etc. It's really pretty easy to use Picasa for the basic organizing, browsing and uploading purposes, and NX2 or other photo editing software for the heavy lifting and far superior editing abilities.

 

[RobLS]

Yeah, no need to make a huge deal over KR. He promotes his views, just like any other photographer would that is passionate about what they do. The thing about photography, is that its an ART!! Expression is the majority of it. People get hung up on the "rules" of photography all too often nowadays since good quality cameras are more easily accessible than in the past with instant results being displayed on that screen on them. He does legitimate comparisons like many other sources you are able to go to instead. But just like many other sources, he promotes his beliefs and his character.

Learn to take more in instead of keeping your mind closed for you haters out there. I'm not a huge fan of canon, but I work with a lot of canon buddies with dif. photography styles and we take in what each other offers to explore our own photography abilities even more.

And the thread argument continues

 

[Phrasikleia]

Yeah, no need to make a huge deal over KR. He promotes his views, just like any other photographer would that is passionate about what they do. The thing about photography, is that its an ART!! Expression is the majority of it. People get hung up on the "rules" of photography all too often nowadays since good quality cameras are more easily accessible than in the past with instant results being displayed on that screen on them. He does legitimate comparisons like many other sources you are able to go to instead. But just like many other sources, he promotes his beliefs and his character.

Learn to take more in instead of keeping your mind closed for you haters out there. I'm not a huge fan of canon, but I work with a lot of canon buddies with dif. photography styles and we take in what each other offers to explore our own photography abilities even more.

And the thread argument continues

You're conflating two really different subjects. Photography as an art and its "rules" has little to do with Ken Rockwell and his equipment reviews. He's a gear guy, and as far as I know, he doesn't spend a lot of time dispensing opinions on artistic matters.