Ken Rockwell

[localghost]

A tad unfair IMHO. He is opinionated and may say things that I don't agree with but he is interesting and entertaining...

not at all - he gets the clicks = money
there might be valid content, but since you never know if it's bogus or not ... for _me_ it's not worth the time ...

 

[Keebler]

in seeing his site a few months back, i can guarantee, he'd be laughing at the fact this long thread is about his site and views

Not a shot against the OP b/c it's a legitimate question, but judging how Rockwell's site rolls, I can see him laughing.

For myself, I liked the wide range of topics, but the constant 'hey, click here to pay me' was too much and made me think that maybe some of his views were slanted in a way to get ppl to his site.

I haven't returned since.

I give the guy credit though - if he's truly selling BS with a little bit of truth and folks are clicking those links, all the more power to him.

cheers,
keebler

 

[leighonigar]

Does he have some sort of agreement with the camera companies? Where's the evidence of this?

What I said about him making money from people buying cameras? All over his site. Every page has adverts, when you click one and buy something he gets some money. Clearly.

 

[pdxflint]

I wish I could figure out how to make money the way he does... instead of spending money online instead..

 

[ajpl]

He probably made that statement about # of Raw images on a memory card when the 8gig/16gig cards were still bloody expensive.

You are missing the point entirely. It had nothing to do with price, it was simply you can get more JPEGs on a card than you can RAW shots. Then he 'recomends 'ultimte' RAW or film, which has even fewer shots per roll than you get on a card.

 

[Photo Pro]

Ken Rockwell's reviews Rock!!

Ken Rockwell is easily one of THE BEST PHOTO REVIEWERS out there!! I have been a photo pro for years and his advice is I believe wonderfully accurate and maybe more should take his views a lot more seriously! The photographer is the determinant of how good the photo, being at the right place, at the right time, with a good enough camera. I have owned one of the USA's biggest fleets of cameras and lenses.

In retrospect I do NOT recommend anyone buying a single camera that they haven't researched and know what you are doing. At some point, mega-pixels and RAW images and larger format make fpr just a big empty picture. One of the leading USES of photos today is Apple iPhoto on HDTV. Don't bother with NEF or RAW formats here. I have shot a lot of huge format photos. If I were to take one camera to buy today???? A Nikon D90 or Nikon D300. I would also shoot most of the time in JPEG fine large. After getting that one shot in a year.....convert it to TIFF for a file. Saving JPEGs repeatedly keep making the file size smaller and smaller.

Bottom line? Ken Rockwell's advice may be abrasive to some, but it is extremely easy to read, and I believe for one, is exceptionally accurate!!

 

[wheelhot]

Bottom line? Ken Rockwell's advice may be abrasive to some, but it is extremely easy to read, and I believe for one, is exceptionally accurate!!

Yeah, you are right, but when he starts being biased. Then that is a problem. Unless the person read what he writes often, then we will understand the point of him being biased but for first time comers. They won't know if he is being biased or truth.

 

[NEiMac]

I do read his sight allot, but I never base a purchase on what he says. Nobody should make a purchase on one persons opinion of something, use Google (or whatever you like) its your friend, read message boards and see what real people think. I often disagree with his opinions allot but he can be fun to read.

 

[Razeus]

He provides somewhat good info for the beginner, but don't hang on every word of his. He's a douche. He's cocky. He thinks he knows it all. Quite frankly, his photos suck. His shots aren't anything interesting, they all look like a point & shoot, and they are all over saturated with color. He's overly biased towards Nikon DSLR's. Someone needs to tell him that it's no longer 1997, and that website are more dynamic, using Flash technology and such things these days.

 

[chrono1081]

Omg please don't read Ken Rockwell if you want to learn photography. Seriously. This guy is the weekly world news of photography.

Instead post your work on something like the Fred Miranda forums who's users usually will tear it to pieces but you will learn a lot from it. There is some serious talent on that board.

 

[Photo Pro]

Ken Rockwell's reviews Rock!!

Ken Rockwell's advice is actually very solid. The photographer makes the photo. Look at the Supreme Court decision on who owns a photo. It starts with someone's vision. Gear cannot make a good photo from bad timing. Being at the right place, at the right time, with a good enough camera. The decisive moment. JPEG versus RAW? One of the biggest uses of photos right now is the slideshow, and such shows done years ago with projectors and chrome slides like Kodachrome and Fujichrome were stunning! Try to do an iPhoto show in RAW format. I do not the dispute the advantage of using RAW in some cases. But JPEG fine large is actually by far the most versatile shooting format and all the RAW files in the world will not save a picture. One fact is that you have to have a DSLR set up properly to get good exposure and RAW will let you save images that were recorded at far less than optimum. Maybe more photographers should get each photo session closer to optimum before firing off a whole sequence of overexposed shots and then "saving" them with Aperature or Lightroom??? Digital has less latitude than color negative film. That is fact. Chromes have less latitude than color film. Digital does record a lot of info with RAW and if your camera is not on the right setting...then maybe RAW is for you!

Bottom line: Ken Rockwell's advice is actually really good. It may not be what some want to hear. Like all reviewers, Ken Rockwell hits the nail on the head better sometimes than others. His reviews are easy to read! His reviews also could save you money! I think his reviews are some of the best on the internet!

 

[qveda]

...Quite frankly, his photos suck. His shots aren't anything interesting, they all look like a point & shoot, and they are all over saturated with color. ....

OK, you are certainly entitled to your opinion of his photos , which he often uses to illustrate a point in his article , ie, not necessarily to showcase his best work. But if you feel someone's photos 'suck', then perhaps you can put a link to yours so we can see what you feel does not suck.

 

[Razeus]

OK, you are certainly entitled to your opinion of his photos , which he often uses to illustrate a point in his article , ie, not necessarily to showcase his best work. But if you feel someone's photos 'suck', then perhaps you can put a link to yours so we can see what you feel does not suck.

First of all, yes I'm entitled to my opinion. If you think it's harsh, then remind yourself it's just my opinion.

2nd, for a guy bragging about photography on his own site, you'd think it best he'd post his best work. So why not showcase his work, on his own site that talks about getting the best pictures. Logical.

3rd, if you want to see my work, my Flickr link is in my sig. It's not bad for a guy doing it as a hobby for the last 5 months and doesn't try to have a website bragging about how good my photos are.

 

[localghost]

Hi Ken!

Hi Ken!

Here is my advice:

Look up your website stats more often – reviving an old thread does not look good.

Get a few accounts on different websites and post once in a while. Nobody listens to a newbie who just posts about on single topic.

Find a new theme to generate your page impressions – the jpg vs raw discussion starts to get boring.

Don’t brag about your gear if you want to stay incognito.


If this was helpful to you: Every single contribution, regardless of how trivial it may seem, is an enormous help since I'm just one guy. (I'm not a tax deduction; in fact, I pay income taxes on everything you send me!) I genuinely and personally appreciate each and every bit you might like to share to help me help me. You may use my pay pal account.

 

[iTiki]

First of all, yes I'm entitled to my opinion. If you think it's harsh, then remind yourself it's just my opinion.

2nd, for a guy bragging about photography on his own site, you'd think it best he'd post his best work. So why not showcase his work, on his own site that talks about getting the best pictures. Logical.

3rd, if you want to see my work, my Flickr link is in my sig. It's not bad for a guy doing it as a hobby for the last 5 months and doesn't try to have a website bragging about how good my photos are.

Not to side track this thread, but out of curiosity, I veiwed your photos. As a friendy suggestion , using the "rule of thirds" would help your photos immensely. Almost all your subject matter is dead center. Just a thought. Now, back to K.R.

 

[localghost]

I realize that gets him the clicks he wants (again – i am fine with that), but I think it’s time to see what we are talking about:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/cayman0604/image/img_0192.jpg
http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2007-10-395/images/17/IMG_4935.jpg
http://www.kenrockwell.com/200210/images/0184alin.jpg
http://www.kenrockwell.com/mexico/organ.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/zion/images/vp1.jpg
http://www.kenrockwell.com/zion/images/vp2.jpg
http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2009-02-route-66/images/06/92960003-1500.jpg
http://www.kenrockwell.com/ca/napa750.htm

Yes, there are better ones. But these are supposed to be pictures a pro photog _choose_ for his galleries (_not_ the tech pages).

Would you hire him?
Those pictures would not stand a chance in any of the macrumors contests!

 

[NightGeometry]

Trying. to. resist. starting. jpeg. vs. raw. discussion. Again.

 

[steviem]

I love the posts by photo pro.

It's almost like Ken is with us (just talking like Elmo from Sesame Street).

 

[localghost]

Trying. to. resist. starting. jpeg. vs. raw. discussion. Again.

You can't. Raw is for loosers. Especially on a Panasonic DMC-LX1, Ixus, or any other P&S that you like.

I love the posts by photo pro.

It's almost like Ken is with us (just talking like Elmo from Sesame Street).

there is definitely some relationship

 

[flosseR]

wow, if we would be back at the end of the 90's i would expect a animated gif banner instead of Photo Pros comment.... geez.. any more hype from him towards KR and its almost confirmed that he IS KR.

can we let this thread rest now?...in Peace??... just let it die...

//FR

 

[paintball312]

I haven't read the whole thread, someone may have posted this:

This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around.

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, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.

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.

I started this site as a joke in 1999 after I took a community college class in webmaking as a place I could share each weekend's photos with my friends. Back then digital meant visiting a rich friend and scanning your slides on their Nikon LS-1000 scanner. There were no amateur DSLRs.

I then started putting up my personal notes about my own tests of my own equipment so that I could access them even if I was in the field. I've been doing these experiments since I was five years old, and used to journal them in books and then on my computer. I still have my written exposure logs going back to my first SLR at age 11 in 1973.

Search engines quickly found these techie pages, and it bugged me that more people were looking at photos of my lenses instead of the photos I made with these lenses.

I only update things as I discover errors. I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion.

Most people up through the 1990s, and even today, are only accustomed to large corporations with larger advertising budgets having large voices. The size of the voice depended on the size of the budget. Today, with the wonder of the Internet, any idiot with something to share has a voice as large as those who want to listen. I admire Shepard Fairey's brilliant work which explores the same idea, but much better than I do. (He's not an idiot, he's a great artist. I'm the idiot.)

I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke.

If you don't know me personally, then you can't possibly have any idea of what I mean when you read my text. Meaning is far more subtle than my kludgy writing, and no one is double-checking what I write before it goes up. I'm not a poet. I can't put what I'm thinking into words so clear that everyone will understand their intent.

I love to kid around, but no joke goes over well throughout every world culture served by the Internet. I get email from researchers at both north and south poles, as well as everywhere else from the frozen north of Norway, Igloolik, tiny tropical islands in the warm Pacific, every world continent and even ships on the ocean. I'm read in the chateaux of Switzerland and Beverly Hills to ox-powered PCs in the shantytowns of countries too poor to have telephones for computer support call centers. I'm read by everyone from the corporate rulers of the world to students who one day will build the world.

The site generally has VERY LITTLE good advice, but it does have some. It has provided me some laughs at how ridiculous it is, and frankly, I don't take it seriously. If you are a budding photography looking to get better, don't do so from Ken Rockwell's site.

 

[sangosimo]

Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]

 

[Photo Pro]

Camera Reviews

Not once did I say I have seen Ken Rockwell photos that were exceptional.
What I did say his equipment reviews are quite complete and many of those knocking his work are only providing comments which are their own opinions, often expressed quite abrasively. My advice to the harshest critics is start your own website if you are so wonderful. As to posting my photos? I have lots of work to do. I run an environmental company and we do good work. Photos for me are a tool, and rarely do I knock others photos, some are better than others. If I HAD TO TAKE A PHOTOGRAPHER TO EMULATE it would be William Henry Jackson. His work helped to start the US National Parks. Some of the Dust Bowl photos by Dorthea Lange......some of her work is truly extraordinary. Myself I just try to photograph what I have been fortunate enough to see and care a lot about encouraging others to share their work, with those present, and those in the future. But when i think I need to endanger my farm or family to buy a new lens.......I need to know the pros and cons. As to egos......there seems to be a lot of that out there on these pages. Recommend you not take another photo before you go take a long look in the mirror......I never push my work as the best. I never push my work as exceptional. What I do think is we are all lucky to live on planet earth and I like to share some of the happier times and places. I do not like to be in combat areas and killing fields. I prefer to encourage others to get to see places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, Acadia......I also believe in getting there with a good enough camera to help you savor a wonderful time. That is pretty much it. I like to try to get good advice before I buy. I also HATE to give advice that latter I totally regret!

Many respondents to these threads apparently spend a lot of time in front of computer screens. I myself need to get to work!

 

[theBB]

He ignores Sony, Olympus etc, but he explains why. As a pro he owns a lot of lenses and accessories, so he sees no need to get into another brand just because one offers similar features for $50 less. He explains why pro sports photographers switched to Canon and now they don't go back to Nikon, even though the performance of their cameras are now similar.

He prefers Nikons, but he owns at least one Canon that he speaks very highly of. I remember his review of a Canon ultrawide as the best in the market. He also reviewed ultrawides from Nikon and three other third parties that were Nikon compatible and guess what, he decided one of the third parties was the best. He does not even recommend Nikon filters. For a while he was recommending Casio point and shoots, now he is recommending Canons. Where is this extreme bias that he supposedly has for Nikons?

He also says he hardly ever gets free review units, so he does not feel the need to find good things to say. This is the same policy as Consumer Reports, although they are more strict about it. Sure, he is cocky, dismissive and condescending and his photos are not all that great, but it seems most of the people who hate him are the ones who are better at discussing the numbers based tests of gears than actually taking photos.

By the way, he has excellent articles about filters, depth of field selection, RAW vs JPEG etc that is very valuable for beginners.

 

[Photo Pro]

Raw versus JPEG

Good Commentary from theBB on Ken Rockwell. His website is a very quick way to check what is now available and lens that maybe you'd be better to save your money. His comparison of lens like Nikkor 16-85VR to Nikkor 18-200VR (which he rates very highly) is a classic and I believe very useful.

On his recommendation of Canon Point and Shoots compared to other brands I have owned a few up to mini-Leicas.....and KR was right on target I believe. Excellent reviews can save the consumer time and money! I do feel Comsumer Reports are poor in the DSLR review area. KR's reviews are much better than many reviewers!