All I can say is his site is extremely useful when shopping for trinkets on EBay, here or elsewhere. His opinions are his own like anybody else. I've seen more bs around here than there. The difference is some people here seem to think he shouldn't be there (or anywhere). The reality is everyone has a soap box and some are just louder than others.
This is nothing more than a clear case of "get over yourselves". If you don't like him, don't go there and be done with it. I'm not sure why this deserves a thread on it.
Get it right in the camera, the first time... My flickr
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.
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.
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.)
Originally Posted by mrred
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.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
If he can attract more photographers to film then I'm not going to complain.
"There's more to the picture
Than meets the eye." - Neil Young
& My APUG
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.
Originally Posted by Ghostman
Verstuurd van mijn GT-P7510 met Tapatalk
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.
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.
Holy cow! You get this? Really??
Originally Posted by omaha
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.
Thank you so much.
Now I can die happy.
Last edited by Ken Nadvornick; 08-12-2013 at 11:49 PM. Click to view previous post history.
"There is very limited audience for the arty stuff, and it is largely comprised of other arty types, most of whom have no money to spend because no one is buying their stuff either. More people bring their emotions to an image than bring their intellect. The former are the folks who have checkbooks because they are engineers, accountants, and bankers—and generally they are engineers, accountants and bankers because they are not artists."
— Amanda Tomlin, Looking Glass Magazine, 2014