Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 76,253   Posts: 1,680,475   Online: 713
      
Page 4 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 273
  1. #31
    kintatsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Bavaria, Germany
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    368
    Images
    2
    I'm often asked by folks about my opinion of photo gear. There is one fellow who after asking me, always throws in a "Well, Ken Rockwell say..." about whatever he's asking about.

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,505
    Images
    3
    I'm going to have to go back and reread some of his reviews. I have a pretty good bs detector and I thought his reviews on digital SLRs were some of the best I found and on the up and up. Of course I know so little about digital cameras perhaps I was fooled. But I thought I learned a lot and didn't detect any BS.

  3. #33
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    10,147
    Quote Originally Posted by mrred View Post
    This is nothing more than a clear case of "get over yourselves". If you don't like [Ken Rockwell], don't go there and be done with it. I'm not sure why this deserves a thread on it.
    The OP does not have it on Ken Rockwell in general but on a certain statement of him. (The title of this thread is misleading though.)

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Switzerland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    477
    Images
    125
    Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Personally, I am partial to a bit of Ken Rockwell. He has been hugely influential in my shift to film and to my camera and lens choices for Mamiya 7 and Leica systems. He has a sense of humour and I find the information he shares with us, take it or leave it, is unbiased and charming.

  5. #35
    naeroscatu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Newmarket Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    857
    Images
    39
    If he can attract more photographers to film then I'm not going to complain.
    +1
    Mihai Costea

    "There's more to the picture
    Than meets the eye." - Neil Young

    Galleries:My PN & My APUG

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostman View Post
    Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Personally, I am partial to a bit of Ken Rockwell. He has been hugely influential in my shift to film and to my camera and lens choices for Mamiya 7 and Leica systems. He has a sense of humour and I find the information he shares with us, take it or leave it, is unbiased and charming.
    Same here: I bought my Mamiya 6 because of his review and did not regret it for a second. Same for my Nikon D70 and D7000. The only thing I don't agree with him is about the Konica Hexar RF and the Konica lenses: I love them, he apparently does not. So be it.

    Stefan

    Verstuurd van mijn GT-P7510 met Tapatalk

  7. #37
    MatthewDunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    San Francisco, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    77
    Just my completely personal opinion (that you should feel free to discard)...

    I think there is a real resurgence in a DIY-type of culture out there. At least here in San Francisco (admittedly not a great model of "normal"), you see it in the emergence of more and more 'zines, more and more self-recorded demos, more handmade art, etc. At the same time, I think there is a bit of a (sub)conscious backlash against a world in which everything that makes you "you" (e.g. your photos, your music, etc.) can be stored on a phone. As others have said, people want something tangible - they want records and not mp3s if for no other reason than they want to see a real set of liner notes with lyrics, decent-size photographs of the band, etc.

    My own personal journey back to film is a little more straightforward. First off, I think film (especially B&W) just has a look that I could never simply replicate in digital. I am in no way suggesting that it "can't" be done, but rather simply that "I" was unable to do it. Plus, when I really get deep into digital and had to start managing color profiles, keeping them matched across devices, learn how to use PS, LR, etc...well, for me, the "convenience" became more theoretical than real.

    Again, this is all personal to me and reflects my situation/circumstances, which is that of a mere hobbyist. If I were a working professional, the considerations would obviously be entirely different.

  8. #38
    omaha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    362
    Images
    6
    I think Matthew is right on target with his thoughts there.

    I'll add that one of the things that brought me back to film is the notion of "authenticity".

    I'll grant that it is entirely possible to create, using purely digital photography, just about any "look" that can be created in the analog world. And even if you can't get 100% of the way there, you can get 99.9%.

    But even if you do, you are creating a simulation of something else. Why create that when you can create something authentically real?

    That's what I'm in it for.

  9. #39
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,347
    Images
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by omaha View Post
    But even if you do, you are creating a simulation of something else. Why create that when you can create something authentically real?
    Holy cow! You get this? Really??

    I've been going at this point around here for years now. Most everyone fights me on it tooth and nail. The differences between a real three-dimensional thing and a zero-dimensional virtual abstraction of that thing just seems to escape them. I've tried every analogy I can think of to no avail.

    The idea that a photographic negative (something you can hold in your hand) and a RAW file simulation of a photographic negative (a virtual abstraction that you can't) are significantly different representations is apparently just too many vegetables to swallow at dinner.

    And then you sit down and just write a post that says exactly that.

    Wow.

    Thank you so much.

    Now I can die happy.



    Ken
    Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 08-12-2013 at 11:49 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Grammer...
    "When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."

    — Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932

  10. #40
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,837
    Images
    57
    Yep, and let's not forget about the "depth" of the emulsion as well.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

Page 4 of 28 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin