# Ken Rockwell on Lens Sharpness



## eli452 (Sep 22, 2013)

So many topics on the forum deals with lens sharpness that when I come up with the following page
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm
I felt obliged to post it.


----------



## MonteGraham (Sep 22, 2013)

He sounds upset..


----------



## Pi (Sep 22, 2013)

eli452 said:


> So many topics on the forum deals with lens sharpness that when I come up with the following page
> [...]
> I felt obliged to post it.



I hope he is paying you because you are certainly increasing his ad revenue and helping him support his growing family.


----------



## MonteGraham (Sep 22, 2013)

Pi said:


> eli452 said:
> 
> 
> > So many topics on the forum deals with lens sharpness that when I come up with the following page
> ...



+5


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2013)

eli452 said:


> I felt obliged to post it.



"Who's the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?"
―_Obi-Wan Kenobi_


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Sep 22, 2013)

eli452 said:


> So many topics on the forum deals with lens sharpness that when I come up with the following page
> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm
> I felt obliged to post it.



isn´t that enough reason to ban him?


----------



## WPJ (Sep 22, 2013)

Oh man you better subscribe to his site its well worth supporting his family just .99 cents a month......

damn i gotta set this up on my blogs...


----------



## eli452 (Sep 22, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> eli452 said:
> 
> 
> > I felt obliged to post it.
> ...



In Israel we had a minister who said on his prime minister (and the founder of Israel) Ben-Gurion:
"I follow him with my eyes closed, only once in a while I open my eyes to make sure he do not walk with his eyes closed"
What the fault with Rockwell's logic? So far I have read only insults.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Sep 22, 2013)

eli452 said:


> So many topics on the forum deals with lens sharpness that when I come up with the following page
> http://kenrockwell.com/tech/lens-sharpness.htm
> I felt obliged to post it.



Neither are his comments particularly unique or insightful, nor are they blatantly and absolutely wrong. While sharpness is very important, I believe many experts agree that this importance is overrated.
I fail to see the point here, other than inciting a group of people who dislike Ken Rockwell? While I am not a big fan of his, the internet provides us with the wonderful opportunity of choosing what we want to read, and ignore what we don't. If you don't like Rockwell, feel free to avoid his website...


----------



## Lichtgestalt (Sep 22, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> I fail to see the point here, other than inciting a group of people who dislike Ken Rockwell? While I am not a big fan of his, the internet provides us with the wonderful opportunity of choosing what we want to read, and ignore what we don't.
> 
> If you don't like Rockwell, feel free to avoid his website...



i try to avoid him... but noobs keep on quoting him. 

everyone who takes stock images will tell you that a sharp lens is not overrated.
other then that i would be suprised if KR comes up with something that the photography world does not know for ages.

ansel adams.... _there is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. _


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 22, 2013)

When I read it, it seemed like he was giving tips for noobs on getting sharp photos, and for the most part, great. I would agree that lenses are very good, especially compared to decades ago, too. So far, nothing new. I also agree that there are many other variables that must be addressed to get a great pic, again, nothing new. To me, a sharp lens is one less variable that I have to worry about, so it IS important. It is relative and contextual however. I must want/need the lens, and it must be worth it to me.

Note that I did not criticize Ken Rockwell (I loved the lecture on where babies come from), but on the other hand, I am not selling my L glass either.




eli452 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > eli452 said:
> ...


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 22, 2013)

Ken Rockwell for President!!! 8)


----------



## SDPhotography (Sep 22, 2013)

Ken Rockwell is entertaining, and to be taken with a grain of salt and heavy filter. There are some good ideas and themes, but mostly its the same statements repeated. You have to admit he is good at what he does, but as with all things internet, take it or leave it. It's not any different than any other outlet of information, whether it be NPR, FOX, or Reddit/Pintrest/Buzzfeed, viewer discretion is advised.


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 23, 2013)

Ken Rockwell upsets too many "photographers" by saying things like -



> ... there is a segment of the hobby where all people do is take pictures of brick walls and newspaper classifieds, but never make any photos of anything worthwhile.
> 
> The people who worry the most are those with the least experience.



Sound familiar?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 23, 2013)

SDPhotography said:


> You have to admit he is good at what he does...



Yes, he is. But what he 'does' (as in, does for a living) is not photography, nor is it teaching photography or reviewing gear. It's running a for-profit website. Controversial statements generate website hits and ad revenue. Having people act as unwitting shills is great for KR's 'growing family'.


----------



## surapon (Sep 23, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Ken Rockwell for President!!! 8)



+ 1 ---------Ha, Ha, Ha--Ha, Ha, Ha
But He make very good money any how, Because so many people like him.
Me = ??. I do not know my self, But I love to read his article just for FUN and see another point of his view.
No, I never donate any penny to his family----Sorry, Ken.
Surapon


----------



## comsense (Sep 23, 2013)

eli452 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > eli452 said:
> ...


With the awareness that you could be KR himself -
Never follow anyone, much less with closed eyes.
Now KR is not the first and last to make money this way; it's just he takes it to comical heights.
I am not denying that there are people who are obsessed with shooting test charts and want to align their optics beyond what matters for a real world shooting. It's the way KR tries to generalize and tries to explain like 'expert' something that is common knowledge that ticks people off. He offers no more insight and wisdom than Dr google already has in plenty. Another is exaggerated self claims. Probably his buffoonish way attracts people who are starting into photography and makes him stand out among series and drab equipment reviewers. That will make him a good salesman, unfortunately not a photography expert. I am not surprised people follow him, as I see so many believing every word car salesman tells them too. 
Compare his babblings to Roger's post about obsession with sharp copies of lenses (with some data to back it up) that someone posted here. Do you see anyone on the web going after Roger? I will leave it to you to figure out why.........


----------



## noisejammer (Sep 24, 2013)

Lichtgestalt said:


> i try to avoid him... but noobs keep on quoting him. ...


I've more than 40 years behind the eyepiece. I've done weddings, events, portraits, landscapes, pets, macro, street and even astrophotography at 4.30 am on a winter's morning. Some of my images have been published, some of my students have had their images published. Every now and again, KR presents a point of view that I hadn't heard....

...so by your reckoning, I suppose I must still be a noob. Thanks for putting me in my place.

btw... the quoted article is at least five years old. There were fewer photo sites then.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 24, 2013)

While I come to Canon Rumors to learn about interesting technical details from very knowledgable hobbyists I don't object to Ken Rockwell either. I've found his reviews pretty fair.
I personally prefer "The Digital Picture" reviews. I like his formatt of doing things (is it Bryan?).
I've no idea if either of them really know what they are talking about but I find them an interesting read.
I don't know if it's part of being male that comparing things is a natural instinct.
I see it in my son, which is better a Lamborgini or a Ferrari, is Messi better than Ronaldo?
These websites provide this is spades when comparing lens.

What's great about Canonrumors is the depth of knowledge of people like Neuroanatomist and Mt Spokane.
They are doing it for nothing.
I don't object to Ken making some money out of his reviews to feed his growing family (it must be around 20 children at this stage but maybe I've double counted), it's his life work I suppose.


----------



## surapon (Sep 24, 2013)

Hector1970 said:


> While I come to Canon Rumors to learn about interesting technical details from very knowledgable hobbyists I don't object to Ken Rockwell either. I've found his reviews pretty fair.
> I personally prefer "The Digital Picture" reviews. I like his formatt of doing things (is it Bryan?).
> I've no idea if either of them really know what they are talking about but I find them an interesting read.
> I don't know if it's part of being male that comparing things is a natural instinct.
> ...



+100 for " What's great about Canonrumors is the depth of knowledge of people like Neuroanatomist and Mt Spokane.
They are doing it for nothing. "

+ so many Great People who have High level mof knowledge in Photography and Science = Thousand thanks to all of them.

Surapon


----------



## J.R. (Sep 24, 2013)

eli452 said:


> What the fault with Rockwell's logic? So far I have read only insults.



Becaust Rockwell's logic isn't logic in the first place. This is from the "About" page on his website - 



> It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."


----------



## chauncey (Sep 24, 2013)

> Ken Rockwell for President!!!


He could be no worse than the current occupant.


----------



## Northstar (Sep 24, 2013)

Funny that some people get upset that KR makes money doing this....if he didn't, someone else would. There's obviously a market for it and he's not harming anybody/thing. (I know someone is thinking right now that he's harming his viewers photos...beat you to the joke)

It's called capitalism and freedom. 

Go somewhere else if you don't like his site...simple.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 24, 2013)

Northstar said:


> Funny that some people get upset that KR makes money doing this....if he didn't, someone else would. There's obviously a market for it and he's not harming anybody/thing. (I know someone is thinking right now that he's harming his viewers photos...beat you to the joke)
> 
> It's called capitalism and freedom.
> 
> Go somewhere else if you don't like his site...simple.



+1. KR site is heavily opinionated but what I like from him is that he's not afraid to point out what's important in photography which is the art behind it. Most of the time, CR people tend to focus on the technical side and not on the art. Yes, his photos most of the time isn't impressive (at least in my opinion) but at least he's* trying* to take good photos.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2013)

comsense said:


> Compare his babblings to Roger's post about obsession with sharp copies of lenses (with some data to back it up) that someone posted here. Do you see anyone on the web going after Roger? I will leave it to you to figure out why.........


The two things Roger's that Roger's tests add to the mix that nobody else does are: 1) that he is testing rental lenses....lenses that have been used in the real world, are worn, are typical quality and not a specially tuned lens given out for reviews.. and 2) he tests multiple lenses so you get a distribution of data which can give you an idea of what is good, bad, or normal, and helps to indicate what level of quality control and consistancy to expect.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2013)

Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW. Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.

It's the great KR... he must be right... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW. Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.
> 
> It's the great KR... he must be right... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.



Yeah ... and he had another one on the lines of why you no longer need a tripod. I guess that was the last time I visited his site. Well, I visited his website again today, only for confirming the fact that his website only contains "aggressive personal opinions" and not "logical presentation of fact"


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 24, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW. Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.
> ...



You should see my attempts to shoot video without a tripod...... my friend refers to the uneven motion as "nausea inducing"....


----------



## J.R. (Sep 24, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



;D ;D


----------



## Max ☢ (Sep 24, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that some people get upset that KR makes money doing this....if he didn't, someone else would. There's obviously a market for it and he's not harming anybody/thing. (I know someone is thinking right now that he's harming his viewers photos...beat you to the joke)
> ...



I think your observation is spot-on, and the content of this thread is a particularly good proof of that: what started as a (very short) discussion on KR's opinion on lens sharpness vs image value, quickly turned into a name-calling and mud throwing contest... I have seen too few valid arguments (if any) for or against the real added value and importance of lens sharpness on the artistic quality/value of pictures, which was the initial subject by the way (set by KR's article).

Nowadays, photographic equipment manufacturers have gotten so good at designing their lenses that the differences in optical quality (sharpness, but not only) across their current products portfolio has become so small that one has to do some serious pixel peeping in order to see differences between two lens models. Is that the main factor  which really prevents someone from properly projecting his/her vision onto a photograph? ...not really, unless you always work with 100% crops and print billboard-sized posters. A good proof? Check what some people can achieve with a Holga... and I’m not even talking about what kind of crap equipment Photographic Masters of the past used for their work.

So, on this subject I believe that KR has a point. I also agree that Ken is a bit too black-and-white in his analyses, he has strong opinions and often spend his time beating dead horses, but in my opinion he definitely has some interesting points of view (use the "take only what's good for you and leave the rest" phylosophy, that'll prevent you from developing a stomach ulcer). 
If the content of his web site surely has less added value than a good Scott Kelby book, his descriptions certainly raises some useful questions in the head of the (curious) reader, and this is what is needed for any serious photographer (not the tech junky of the lens geek) to improve his/her photographic skills - the ones related to artistic vision that is.
Remember that he approaches the subject of photography from the point of view of art and vision projection; that is certainly what confuses tech experts and gear perfectionists so much. Don't get me wrong, I definitely value technical/scientific knowledge (I am an engineer myself) and appreciate cutting-edge equiment performances, but I do believe that these have little added value to photography as a form of art, although this factor was hugely instrumental in the way photographic technologies evolved from the early days of Nicephore Niepce.


----------



## candc (Sep 24, 2013)

this got a rise out of him, what does "wrfn" mean anyway?

WRFN?

Thanks!

Ken

Sent from iPhone 5

On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:37 PM, Craig Driessen <[email protected]> wrote:

> I really like your tips but your elitist attitude is really pissing me off! Just because someone doesn't make their living taking pictures doesn't mean they don't know how to take a good one. I understand your point but every "non pro" doesn't just troll the forums and argue about meaningless technical bullshit, okay?


----------



## J.R. (Sep 24, 2013)

Max ☢ said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...


[/quote]

The last website I'd go to to improve my photographic skills is KR.... enuf said!


----------



## Max ☢ (Sep 24, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Max ☢ said:
> 
> 
> > verysimplejason said:
> ...



That's your personnal opinion and I respect that. As far as I am concerned, a few of his analyses did open my eye on the fact that I use to put too much emphasis on my equipment rather than on my photographic skills. So, I am glad to see that you already had this epyphany


----------



## J.R. (Sep 24, 2013)

Max ☢ said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Max ☢ said:
> ...



I trust you saw my signature ... I love my equipment for what it does, but then it is only a tool ... so is KR  ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Sep 24, 2013)

J.R. said:


> The last website I'd go to to improve my photographic skills is KR.... enuf said!


I have no opinion on Ken Rockwell, but there is value in learning from what others do wrong:


----------



## comsense (Sep 24, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Funny that some people get upset that KR makes money doing this....if he didn't, someone else would. There's obviously a market for it and he's not harming anybody/thing. (I know someone is thinking right now that he's harming his viewers photos...beat you to the joke)
> ...


    : Did you just say he is trying to take good photos. You insulted him. He thinks he is a gift to photography.
I think KR fans or KR disguised as fans are failing to understand why so many people dislike him....
Its mostly his attitude and personality. Not the fact that he is wrong about half of the things (the chance factor; you have to be genius to be wrong about everything).
You don't need KR to tell you that idea/thought and composition matters most in art photography. Its just common sense....
However, having a good camera+lens+tripod+well aligned optics with post processing does not hurt the art part. Agreed that a good artist with rebel+kit lens is better than bad one with 1DX+allL. However, if you lack idea and composition, its better to have technically sound photos than oversaturated restrooms and garbage bins...


----------



## terminatahx (Sep 24, 2013)

His Sharpness rant is ridiculous and embarrassing for a so-called veteran photographer. If image quality is important, sharpness is paramount. Yes, there are situations where blur and softness are appropriate. 

Ken needs to stop begging for donations, and get out an earn money with all the gear he's used and reviewed, as it's clear that from a skill standpoint, he's very lacking.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 25, 2013)

comsense said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



Hehehe! Again, to reiterate what has been said, take what you can and leave the rest. It's the same anyway for a lot of photography sites. It just depends on how much garbage you can take and sort so you find the gold. That said, KR will teach you at the very least on what's the real meaning of photography as opposed to a collector.


----------



## verysimplejason (Sep 25, 2013)

terminatahx said:


> His Sharpness rant is ridiculous and embarrassing for a so-called veteran photographer. If image quality is important, sharpness is paramount. Yes, there are situations where blur and softness are appropriate.
> 
> Ken needs to stop begging for donations, and get out an earn money with all the gear he's used and reviewed, as it's clear that from a skill standpoint, he's very lacking.



I think you miss the point on his article. I am not proposing he's entirely right but he just pointed out that what's more important. Composition vs sharpness. Sharpness means nothing if you don't nail the composition. It's like pointing out what's different between art and science. 

One more thing, asking for donations for a website isn't wrong. That's purely business. As someone pointed out, it's just the way capitalism is. At least he's not forcing anybody as against some sites who will charge you just for you to read their opinions (e.g. espn insider).


----------



## Max ☢ (Sep 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I trust you saw my signature ... I love my equipment for what it does, but then it is only a tool ... so is KR  ;D ;D ;D ;D



Indeed, good point about your signature. As far as KR is concerned, this is still your opinion but ;D ;D on your last remark!




comsense said:


> I think KR fans or KR disguised as fans are failing to understand why so many people dislike him....
> Its mostly his attitude and personality. Not the fact that he is wrong about half of the things (the chance factor; you have to be genius to be wrong about everything).
> You don't need KR to tell you that idea/thought and composition matters most in art photography. Its just common sense....



Personally, I don't think that his attitude and personality, or why people dislike him, or how he earns his living are even _remotely_ relevant factors in the present context and discussion. Honestly I don't care if the guy’s an a-hole, I care about opinions on some ideas about photography as a technique and as an art.
He is certainly wrong on actually more than 50% of the things, but 1/ that does not mean that all his ideas should be dismissed because on top of that "nobody likes him" and 2/ that means that there is still more that 10% of his site content that can be useful to the learning amateurs - granted that there are better web sites and books for that. 

There are three ways to improve one's photographic skills (technical and artistic): practice more (obviously), acquire new knowledge and/or better equipments, and go back to basics in order to correct wrong biases developed over the years. The last one is often disregarded by long-time photographers (I did not said "experienced" or "skilled") because it is based on the possibility that someone has developed wrong habits over time, and few people question themselves and take the step to review these "common senses", as you put it, once in a while. Too bad, because that's also a good way to improve/correct one's skills.



comsense said:


> However, having a good camera+lens+tripod+well aligned optics with post processing does not hurt the art part. Agreed that a good artist with rebel+kit lens is better than bad one with 1DX+allL. However, if you lack idea and composition, its better to have technically sound photos than oversaturated restrooms and garbage bins...



Having top notch equipment certainly does not hurt the art, but for that you must already have a minimum amount of artistic skills and visions before setting up 10+k of hardware and software. Otherwise, no amount of sharpness will save your sorry attempts at rendering a certain atmosphere, mood or feeling in your photos. Of course, if these are not your goals, then ok, there is nothing wrong at optimizing the technical qualities of your images at the expense of artistic quality (which is, of course, a subjective matter).


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 25, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW. Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.
> ...



So, I think I've got this right. You knew all about his website and what was on it. And today you visited again to confirm that not only does it contain what you thought it did but that it contains precsiely what he says it does. And now you're posting to tell us that too? Okay.

As a complete newbie I stumbled on his site a couple of years ago. He opened my eyes to quite a lot. It wasn't hard given how little I knew but he set me on the path of several very good equipment purchases and technique decisions - and yes I branched to other sites to get a balanced opinion. I don't agree with everything he says, for example his point about longer lenses not being wortwhile but I've found the site an interesting introduction at times, eg wide angle lenses.

Very importantly he doesn't try to blind me with science. CR seems excellent in many ways but like most technical communities it has its own language, initialisms and so on to learn and as is typical of such communities some people delight in making things sound complex. At least with Rockwell I can understand what he's saying and gauge his opinion easily and quickly as a newbie and choose to accept it or challenge it.

That has real value and yes other sites do similar things but why shouldn't he too? He is at least open and honest about what his site is, and is not. If any of the people criticising him think they can do better and lead us simpletons on a "better" path in an easy to understand way then by all means go ahead. Because if you can, I'll be an avid reader .


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 25, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> ... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.



Aren't those things supposed to be intelligent enough to translate between colour spaces ... meaning if the JPEG is produced in sRGB and the printer uses [whatever], the software should remap/translate/re-encode?



J.R. said:


> ... why you no longer need a tripod.



Never use(d) one myself.



Don Haines said:


> You should see my attempts to shoot video without a tripod...... my friend refers to the uneven motion as "nausea inducing"....



May I suggest you look at the Olympus E-M5 with its 5-axis IBIS ...


----------



## Sella174 (Sep 25, 2013)

terminatahx said:


> If image quality is important, sharpness is paramount.



I beg to differ. Photography is art; sharpness is science.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 25, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Hahaha ... I knew I would get a bit of stick for my "knowledge" of KR's website. However, the word "confirmation" used in my post above was confirmation for the OP. 

I stumbled on his site in 2009 when I switched to Canon system and was looking up lens reviews. This guy somehow manages to come up right in the top 2-3 lens reviews on page 1 of a Google search of almost any Canon lens review search you undertake. I found a lot of his material quite odd, if not outright drivel ... his post regarding how digital killed the tripod. This made me wonder as to who the hell was this guy which ultimately led me to the "about" page. 

Given that his site contains his personal opinions regardless of the facts makes things a bit obtuse. Personally, I'd take a logical reasoning of fact as compared to someone's aggravated person opinions any day of the week and twice on Sunday, ymmv. There is hardly anything useful on his site which is not available anywhere else. 

Look at it this way - 


If you want to improve your shooting technique ... get a book, attend photography course, attend photowalks with pros, post photos online and get them critiqued;
If you want to find out more about gear (especially Canon gear), CR is best place to be because if someone is serving pure mashed potatoes, he is sure to get found out by the rest of the posters - some of whom are really knowledgeable 


KR acts a bit like a clown, says that he is acting like a clown and then has people defending him and his opinions to the hilt ... awesome!


----------



## J.R. (Sep 25, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > ... why you no longer need a tripod.
> ...



KR is not alone it seems ... Every absurdity has a champion to defend it ;D 

Jokes apart, maybe it works for you because of what you shoot. For a majority of the crowd, this statement is simply absurd.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 25, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> KR will teach you at the very least on what's the real meaning of photography as opposed to a collector.



Agreed, but the trouble is that it is usually newbies end up on KRs website. Alongwith the good, they learn a lot of idiotic stuff which they believe is coming from an "expert". 

Learning something wrong, consequentially making mistake and having to unlearn it in a few years is best avoided ... hence the rants. 

That said, his pleas to support his family by offering donations hasn't bothered me, and won't bother me. He probably earns his livelihood through his website ... all the best to him.


----------



## ams2d (Sep 25, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Ken Rockwell upsets too many "photographers" by saying things like -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoops ...




Wall_23June2012 

I have this as my background on my work computer since it represents several things to me.


----------



## SDPhotography (Sep 25, 2013)

So far it seems the most divisive topics in photography are... (on this site)

1. Dynamic Range
2. DR Trolls
3. Annnddd... Ken Rockwell

Did I miss something? 

Seriously though, the KR debate only fuels traffic to his site, for better or worse. It's a free* internet, people can post whatever, whenever. Read or don't, arguing the merits only puts coins in the coffers of KR in the long run.

*Only if you don't count the cost of brain cells...

SD


----------



## dppaskewitz (Sep 25, 2013)

Whoops ...




Wall_23June2012 

I have this as my background on my work computer since it represents several things to me.
[/quote]

Great wall. I have taken many similar photos (but none I like as well as this one).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2013)

Don Haines said:


> Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW. Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.
> 
> It's the great KR... he must be right... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.



Simple. Setting the in-camera JPG conversion profile to maximum color saturation and contrast obviates the need for color accuracy.


----------



## captainkanji (Sep 25, 2013)

I use KR's photos as a guide on how not to PP my RAW files. Have to be careful though. If you look at them for too long, you'll go color blind. ;D


----------



## Skirball (Sep 25, 2013)

Watching everyone get their panties in a bunch over a KR discussion has to be one of the most entertaining staples of photography forums.


----------



## Hillsilly (Sep 26, 2013)

I'll disagree with Ken here. Something in your photo should be in focus (at least 99% of the time). A sharper lens accenturates the area in focus leading to a nicer image.

But overall, I've no problem with KR. I agree with a lot of things he writes about and disagree with other things. He's no different to any other photo blogger and probably better than many. The fear that beginner photographers will be misled is a little over the top. Apart from some minor technical matters, I've yet to see anything where he was "wrong". Most of the things I disgree with are purely personal preference related - eg saturation, RAW, cars, how to explain where babies come from etc. But he tends to have a valid reason behind what he writes.


----------



## Pi (Sep 26, 2013)

Hillsilly said:


> Apart from some minor technical matters, I've yet to see anything where he was "wrong".



He is a hypocrite. He would write an article how sharpness does not matter and then brag about how sharp is his new Leica. Do not listen what he says, watch what he does.


----------



## Joe M (Sep 26, 2013)

Personally I find KR fairly amusing. His "reviews" are far from technical which is fine. We all have our opinions but while he tells people not to take him seriously (good advice), he'll later tell you he's the best honest source for information. I remember a friend emailed him over a point one day and got a reply that he ought to stop spending his time reading blogs and that real photographers were to busy shooting to care what people write. I agree. People ought to spend less time caring about what KR wrote about. But here I go seeing something posted about KR and I have to chip in. So I guess he won and got my attention anyway. Other than the amusement factor ( e.g. the latest comparing the SL1 to the 5D3, "As expected, the $699 combo looks the same as the $5,800 combo" he says), it would be nice if anyone who comes across this site would start taking what they read on his blog with a large grain of salt.


----------



## candc (Sep 26, 2013)

I read his blog and I understand his point as I think most people do, whether its cameras, guitars, golf clubs or fishing rods,. You don't need the latest and greatest. but its stupid to say there is no benefit to using the best equipment.


----------



## Pi (Sep 26, 2013)

candc said:


> You don't need the latest and greatest.



_You_ don't (it is what he tells you) but _he_ does, apparently. Leica, Mamiya, etc.


----------



## msm (Sep 26, 2013)

Pi said:


> candc said:
> 
> 
> > You don't need the latest and greatest.
> ...



Is that what he means with growing family? ;D


----------



## ejenner (Sep 27, 2013)

I don't know, before getting into photography I stupidly bought a house without brick on it. Then I realized I had to move so I could properly test my lenses.


----------



## duydaniel (Sep 28, 2013)

I don't have problem with Ken in general.
People are allowed to have different ideas about their stuff especially photography is an art form.

I read and agree with him on many things but disagree others.
New people will be exposed to different styles and KR represent one type of photography who likes 
over saturate images.

If you listen to KR and buy a 18-55 lens since he said 18-55 is as sharp as 24-70 II, then so be it.
In fact, you have saved yourself a few thousands and maybe this could be a good things


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Well sorry I can never resist sarcasm . Some say it's the lowest form of wit but to me scaling what seems its dizzy heights is achievement enough for the day!

But for the record I'm quite clearly not defending his opinions to the hilt or indeed anything else! I like the fact that he's blunt, to the point and so it's very interesting to understand his what he is saying, then like I said you can take it on board or challenge it.

I do agree that CR is a very good place. But it's not always easy for a newbie to understand some of the advice some of the time and seemingly "knowledgeable posters" will argue each other into the ground dressing up fact as opinion and giving widely differing verdicts on any given point.

That's fine, not everything should revolve around people with relatively low levels of knowledge of course and advice will vary depending on preferred styles and applications.

I see value in Ken Rockwell in that he gives a clear, easy to undestand opinion, some food for thought and can open your eyes to a different way of thinking. I often disagree with it but at least he starts a debate in my mind. It's just another of the wide variety of sources out there that can expand knowledge about this wonderful hobby, art form or profession . . . whatever it is to each of us.


----------



## woollybear (Sep 29, 2013)

> dressing up fact as opinion



...don't you mean dressing up opinion as fact?


----------



## fragilesi (Sep 29, 2013)

woollybear said:


> > dressing up fact as opinion
> 
> 
> 
> ...don't you mean dressing up opinion as fact?



Yes, of course


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> woollybear said:
> 
> 
> > > dressing up fact as opinion
> ...



Much the same way all of us have an "aggressive personal opinion" about KR which we quote as "fact"


----------



## comsense (Sep 29, 2013)

fragilesi said:


> woollybear said:
> 
> 
> > > dressing up fact as opinion
> ...


I know, it's way better to read a crazy opinions dressed up as fact and no one else to call the bluff. Who wants to get pinched while dreaming crazy wild sex! 
On the serious note, if you want facts, go for data (TDP, photozone, lensrentals etc), use the lens and form your own opinion. If you are soliciting opinions, it's better to have multiple diverse, so that you can choose one that suits you.
Running to buy SL1+18-55 because some a$$ says it is as good as 1DX+24-70II (while never getting tired of bragging how sharp my Leica is), is plain stupid. Here, you have option of calling these suggestions stupid, which is really valuable.


----------



## J.R. (Sep 29, 2013)

Whenever we seem to get rid of the DR debate (temporarily, of course), the KR BS starts


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 29, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Whenever we seem to get rid of the DR debate (temporarily, of course), the KR BS starts



But is KR DR BS? OMG WTF!


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 1, 2013)

comsense said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > woollybear said:
> ...



Of course. Like I said it's just one place among many. And of course it doesn't matter how many sites you visit or reviews that you read only you can answer the question as to what is right for you, what you like to shoot and how you like to do it. Viewed in that context KR is kind of like having an opinionated mate. Worth listening to but has to be treated with caution .


----------



## aj1575 (Oct 1, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> SDPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > You have to admit he is good at what he does...
> ...



I completly agree with you on this one. !


----------



## sanj (Oct 1, 2013)

aj1575 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > SDPhotography said:
> ...



I do not. His site is full of reviews and tips for the 'normal' photographer.


----------

