My theory is that people who are overly attached to their purchasing decisions take offense at his casual praise for most cameras.
Originally Posted by analoguey
For the most part, KR either declares something "The Best Ever At Any Price" or "Absolute Shite". Not a lot of middle ground.
And most stuff rates as "The Best Ever..." because KR understands that stuff doesn't matter anyway.
So the guy who just dropped $2k on the latest Canon suddenly reads that the latest Nikon is "The Best Ever..."!!!
Total consumer culture vapor lock! This isn't just some guy on the internet who disagrees. This is a fundamental assault on my manhood!! Why, don't you know that the gaussian pixel Bayer filter asymptotic polychromatic auto ISO USB diffraction layer on the Nikon was ranked by DPReview as 0.03% WORSE than the Canon?!?!?!? How could one possibly, in a million years, expect to take a single competent photograph with such garbage kit as that?!?!?
KR tweaks them because he gets that the gaussian pixel Bayer filter asymptotic polychromatic auto ISO USB diffraction layer doesn't mean a damned thing, and that you can take an absolutely glorious photograph with a Kodak Instamatic camera if you know what you are doing.
Its all pretty amusing, really. There are guys out there with countless thousands of dollars invested in gear who never take any actual pictures. But by golly, that camera they never use...well, it is the best!!
I think there are two other factors that figure into people's reactions to him.
First, for whatever reason, people love to manufacture personal offense on the internet. Despite the fact that this is a medium in which everyone is well aware that people are expressing themselves in shorthand (whether in a blog post, a tweet, a FB update, etc.) and without the benefit of hand gestures, facial expressions and all the other things that provide the necessary context that we take for granted in face-to-face communication to detect sarcasm, hyperbole, etc., a significant percentage of internet readers seem utterly hell bent on construing everything they read as a personal attack.
A: "I had a great latte this morning at Starbucks?"
B: "What the $%^&, why do you hate Peet's so much and why are you so hellbent on destroying the lives of American children? Are you a terrorist?"
A: "Excuse me? Are you speaking to me?"
The second phenomenon seems to be a corollary of the first, which is that people seem to give absolutely no consideration to the source of information. Without trying to make a political point (I absolutely despite politics and conversations about politics, so this is merely a (hopefully balanced) example), certain people get bent out of shape when they listen to someone like Keith Olberman rant and rave about the more conservative elements of our society. He was a SportsCenter anchor before he started doing political talk shows. I'm not sure I'd consider him an "authoritative source" on anything (other than a Giants score) and I can't imagine getting too riled about anything he has to say. Similarly, my understanding is that Glenn Beck never finished HS (although I believe he eventually did get his GED) and yet he seems to have a boundless understanding of our Constitution and Constitutional law. With due respect, I went to three years of law school and passed two bar examinations (one of which is considered the hardest in the country) and I consider myself to have a pretty feeble understanding of Constitutional law (and I think most lawyers would say something roughly similar). A lot of these folks are being extreme because they recognize that it makes good copy and good copy sells advertising and keeps them in a job. Ken is the same way. If he were bland, no one would read the site and there would be nothing to talk about, which wouldn't be very lucrative for him...
Just my $.02. I like his site in the same way that I like reading TMZ. It's a guilty pleasure that is good for a laugh. I don't take "I only shoot JPG and never RAW" as advice to follow, but rather a lighthearted moment to help get me through the day. Obviouly, YMMV.
"Once the amateur's naive approach and humble willingness to learn fades away, the creative spirit of good photography dies with it. Every professional should remain always in his heart an amateur." - Alfred Eisenstadt
Originally Posted by omaha
“The contemplation of things as they are, without error or confusion, without substitution or imposture, is in itself a nobler thing than a whole harvest of invention”
Pffftt!! PT was wrong, there is a sucker born every second, not every minute. And KR has most of em on his hook. And for those that are not yet hooked there are lots of apuggers that are trying hard to put them there.
For all those who are printing 30" x 40" enlargements of course.
Originally Posted by Poisson Du Jour
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ken Rockwell is all about affiliate marketing.thats all I know about him.You click his link he get paid, you buy though his link.he get percentage...
I would agree.
Originally Posted by omaha
Originally Posted by Chris Lange
His pix are not awful, just not exciting. He talks more than shoots. Never read his blog. Just his reviews of Leica / Zeiss glass.
I actually heard you state that opinion more than once...twice.....twenty times....anyway... the problem with it is you are assuming everyone is like you. You are like the guy with a classic car with a stick shift and tells everyone with an automatic transmission that their driving experience is not "authentic".
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
They can't feel the gears, experience the joy of the downshift and upshift, as they power in and out of the corners, so while they tool around the country in their car with an automatic transmission, they aren't getting the real experience of what driving should be.
So you are assuming that for a lot/most people that they really care about that, or should, but instead they care about getting to their destination. That is their goal, how that is achieved is just a matter of semantics.
You are a "process" guy. You love the process and to you if we don't agree with you then we are not authentically experiencing photography.
But some people are goal oriented. The process is semantics. They'll use the tools available to achieve the best print they think they can get because to them the print is the ultimate goal of the exercise. Now you can argue that in your world the print is better, but in my world and experience it is not, for many reasons.
Many here on APUG are process guys/people. To many this is a hobby. A way to get in the darkroom and get away from the old lady, kids, computer work for a while. It's all about the process. One print today and maybe 4 by the weekend.
But some here are goal oriented and the process does not fit well with today's demands.
I've driven a stickshift and I now drive an automatic. I would never go back.
But feel free to enjoy your choice but don't assume that just because you think your choice is authentic that you are necessarily correct, you are merely happy with your choice and trying to evangelize to everyone that your choice is the only choice or the only REAL choice.
If the negative is the score but the print is the performance, does it really matter if the score is written in pen or on a computer screen.
What would Ansel do?
I couldn't think of anything witty to say so I left this blank.
The two processes are not mutually exclusive, they are just not the same. And because they are not the same process they produce different end results. Both physically and aesthetically. Which result suits any individual's needs at any given moment is up to each individual to decide for themselves. And that decision may change with each subsequent moment or need.
Originally Posted by blansky
Go back and reread our extensive PM exchange again. I can't be any more clear and consistent in this common sense position. Neither method is better or worse than the other. They are just not exactly the same thing. And asserting that they are, as you and others have repeatedly done in the past, does a massive disservice to both. As well as to the blindingly obvious realities of both.
So tell me, when you have finished a portrait session do you normally disassemble your camera, then disconnect and remove the CCD sensor, then immerse it into D-76 diluted 1+1 for 11 minutes at 68F/20C with agitation for 10 seconds out of each 60?
"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