# Is this bad advice or am I just being pesimistic?



## masquerad101 (Jul 4, 2013)

Ok so Ive been reading through the Ken Rockwell D3200 users guide and to be quite honest I feel a little frustraited with it. The first thing I notice is the image size paragraph. Ken (God bless him) Recomends that we choose an image size of small 
(6MP or 3,008 x 2000 pixles). I dont understand because the first thing that attracted me to the D3200 is the huge 24 Megapixels! Ken says and I quote 

"No one needs 24 Megapixels, or even the MEDIUM setting of 13.5 MP.I make plenty of 20 x 30" (50 x 75 cm) prints from 6MP cameras, and they look great. Set down to 6MP, the D3200 makes even sharper images than native 6 MP cameras, and I've seen great 40 x 60" (1 x 1.5 meter) prints made from the 6MP D40.
By setting the smaller resolution, everything about transferring, storing, backing-up, selecting and editing your images runs much, much faster than if you leave the camera at its defaults.
At the default of LARGE NORMAL you get 6 MB files, while at SMALL BASIC, I get pictures which look identical with only 700 kB of data."

So then The question I ask is " Why would you or what is the point of buying a 24 Megapixel camera If it works better at 6 Megapixels?
Ok so the rest of the guide is very informative and helpfull but now I feel cheeted and I'm wondering should I have went with the Canon 600D or 650D?


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Jul 4, 2013)

Don't read ken Rockwell and you'll be fine.  There is benefits of larger files and more MP


----------



## tecboy (Jul 4, 2013)

Rockwell is just saying that, because he doesn't crop his photos, and he only uses jpeg and not raw file format for all his photos.


----------



## masquerad101 (Jul 4, 2013)

tecboy said:


> Rockwell is just saying that, because he doesn't crop his photos, and he only uses jpeg and not raw for all his photos.



Nice. So if I dont crop and only shoot jpeg then 6mp should be fine 

Problem is I love to crop my photos and I only shoot raw.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 4, 2013)

Actually, if you watch his youtube videos, these are quite funny.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 4, 2013)

If I remember reading somewhere, he said 2mp is enough.


----------



## manicmike (Jul 4, 2013)

Reading Ken Rockwell for photography advice is like listening to Paula Deen for health food advice.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 4, 2013)

Where do Babies Come From?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 4, 2013)

I agree.... Rockwell is very popular with those new to photography, because he is good at keeping his website high in the search rankings. But as far as content and advice goes, I wouldn't listen to him. Some of the stuff he writes is indeed comical!


----------



## dbvirago (Jul 4, 2013)

The fact is there are times when 6MP is enough. But you can always downsize. Why would you restrict yourself in camera? (Of course, this sets off the jpeg vs raw argument)


----------



## masquerad101 (Jul 4, 2013)

Love this forum


----------



## SCraig (Jul 4, 2013)

dbvirago said:


> The fact is there are times when 6MP is enough. But you can always downsize. Why would you restrict yourself in camera? (Of course, this sets off the jpeg vs raw argument)



Yeah, but that was, what, 2005 or so?


----------



## tecboy (Jul 4, 2013)

Opps, my mistake.  3mp is good enough according to this article.  The Megapixel Myth


----------



## dbvirago (Jul 4, 2013)

SCraig said:


> dbvirago said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is there are times when 6MP is enough. But you can always downsize. Why would you restrict yourself in camera? (Of course, this sets off the jpeg vs raw argument)
> ...



Depends on what you are going to do with it. 6MP was enough for a 5 x 7 print in 2005 and it's enough for a 5 x 7 now. For people who only print 4x6 and 5x7 prints for family or show on a computer, 6MP is plenty. 

Having said that, there is no reason to shoot that small if your camera has better capabilities.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 4, 2013)

dbvirago said:


> Depends on what you are going to do with it. 6MP was enough for a 5 x 7 print in 2005 and it's enough for a 5 x 7 now. For people who only print 4x6 and 5x7 prints for family or show on a computer, 6MP is plenty.
> 
> Having said that, there is no reason to shoot that small if your camera has better capabilities.



There was a time when I thought a digital camera that shot 1024 x 768 was plenty to.  Heck, I seldom print anything at all and reduce my web images to 800 x 533 so virtually anything should be good for me.  But it isn't.

6mp was/is perhaps good enough *IF* you work with the entire frame.  When you start cropping the situation begins to change dramatically.  Shoot a small target at a long distance and cropping is a way of life.  I shoot birds and sometimes crop off 75% of a frame.  If I did that with a 6mp camera I'd be down to 1.5mp images, and that doesn't work for me.  I prefer all the resolution I can get, and if I can pack it into the area of an APS-C sensor it's even better.


----------



## zcar21 (Jul 4, 2013)

One disadvantage of shooting with large megapixels is the file size. at 6mp the raw file is around 5MB, 24mp is over 20MB. Loading a bunch of pictures on Lightroom and processing is probably very slow. 
To answer your question, more resolution gives you more detail which usually is a good thing. The question you should be asking yourself is how much resolution do I need? For me 6MP is enough, but I disagree with what Ken Rockwell says.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 4, 2013)

Ken Rockwell has some interesting views. There's seldom any question in photography that has only ONE "right answer". I think Ken writes often times for specific types of users, and depending on who he thinks those users are, his material will be tailored for the expected audience. I'll try and be brief. If you have a D3200, which is a 24MP APS-C sensor camera, to get the MOST out of 24 MP, you will need the best lenses Nikon makes. 24MP on DX sensor is demanding. I honestly do not think that the kit lenses are really good enough to handle 24MP. Unless you have top-grade lenses, I don;t think there's much difference between a 16.2 MP D3100 and the new 24MP D3200 and D5200.

Also, how are images viewed these days? Mostly on average monitors, under Windows, on non-color-aware web browsers. We read a lot about using wide-gamut color spaces and all this crap, but in terms of a typical camera-to-Windows OS-to-megastore color print workflow, you're better off setting the camera to sRGB,turning Active D-Lighting to HIGH or AUTO, and setting in-camera sharpening to High, and shooting Medium-sized Direct Print optimization RAW+JPEG files. *At least until you become an expert, or near expert* in about five different disciplines in serious digital photography.

On photo forums, you'll get advice advising all sorts of exotic, best-practices methods, as viewed by really enthusiastic, often times quirky people. There's another side to the coin though. Real-world shooting, in sRGB JPEG mode, and sharing images on the web, via e-mail, and taking files or sending files out to be printed automatedly. So go ahead, and USE the Advanced D-Lighting setting, and go ahead, and shoot in sRGB color mode, and feel free to enjoy the D3200.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 4, 2013)

CaptainNapalm said:


> Don't read ken Rockwell and you'll be fine.



WORD!


----------



## Buckster (Jul 4, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> Ok so Ive been reading through the Ken Rockwell


_*BRAKE SCREEEEECHHHH!!!!!*_

/thread


----------



## tecboy (Jul 4, 2013)

Ken Rockwell: Digital Photography Review: Digital Photography Review


----------



## orb9220 (Jul 4, 2013)

+1 Scraig - As to the reasons for higher the better MP for me is cropping and retaining as much detail and largest file size I can get away with. Many times due to cost constraints we all can't afford that 600mm f2.8 for wildlife. But due to higher pixel count can squeeze by with something like the 70-300vr or a 300mm f4 with a 1.7x and cropping.

The other plus side is the newer larger sensors also have additional benefits of Dynamic Range and better ISO performance.

Like many I also stumbled onto Rockwell's Whirlpool of Confusion & Mayhem! Some of his technical charts and reviews for lenses and such I find useful as a starting point. But for the most part ignore his personal opinions on photography.

*"Mom! Everyone's Picking On Kenny Again!"* 
.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 4, 2013)

You have to take Ken Rockwell's site with the grain of salt that was intended.  Read the first paragraph on his About page and it says it all.  The issue that I have with his site is that new shooters do now know where the fiction ends and the truth begins.  They simply assume that someone with his depth of experience would never put anything on their web site that wasn't factual, and wind up believing everything there.  Once one has a bit of experience to temper their judgement they begin to see his site for what it is.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 4, 2013)

I think Ken Rockwell is right on about a vastly higher *proportion *of opinions than almost any other photo blogger.

However, his thoughts on megapixels are a bit... eccentric, but not really very far off. He's totally right about them in terms of them being a ridiculous marketing tool. A difference of 18 to 20MP, for instance, is meaningless for all practical intents and purposes. He's also totally right about 6MP being enough for almost any size print if you don't crop. The difference between 6 and 18 does make a difference if and when you crop, which some people do more than others.  That's just taking it a bit too far.

BUT you have to realize that this was written in 2008, when 20 megapixels was not just something you find in an alley on the way home from work.  If it doesn't COST appreciably more along with the other features you want, then it doesn't matter as much, and he may not have written the same article today.  And you also have to keep in mind that this opinion goes together with a whole philosophy of getting things right mostly in the camera and spending the majority of your time out in the world taking photos.  If you don't buy into all of that completely, then the logic behind the 6MP thing naturally doesn't apply as much.  It's sort of a package deal.

But anyway, yeah. Went a little too far, everybody has their foibles / strikes out sometimes.  Don't let it put you off of his website entirely.  If you were to throw a dart and pick a random page of his, and then come on here and start a thread making the exact same argument, but not saying it was inspired by Ken Rockwell, then probably 85% of the time people would agree with you.  A lot of people just have grudges against him, because they eventually ran across one or two opinions that they thought were really dumb, and wrote off the whole operation. Happens a lot with famous people... not just in photography by any means.




Also FWIW, 90% of my photos that other people have ever seen besides me were viewed at about 800x1200 pixels, which is my standard "resize for the internet so that it doesn't take half an hour to upload" resample. Which = 1 megapixel. OR printed at smaller sizes like 8x10s, which from the cheap printing services I can afford, is probably around 7MP. Never has resolution bothered me for display in either situation. So there's that.  How many of you can really say differently? How many people print half of all the photos that they share at poster size, etc.?


----------



## tecboy (Jul 5, 2013)

Ken Rockwell has a lot of good points in his articles.  However, he doesn't have anything to backup these up.  When I read about Canon vs Nikon, I was so convinced until I read further.  Where did he get those informations?  How does he know about the history and other technologies.  He admitted his website is fictional, and he is still writing and asking for donation.  I don't know what he is accomplished, but a lot of his articles are interesting and amusing.  I don't believe everything he wrote.  I just read because I'm just curious.


----------



## cptkid (Jul 5, 2013)

I dont mind some of Ken Rockwells stuff. 

What annoys me about him though is when he says stuff like "the 70-200 2.8 VRII is a pointless less to carry with you, when you can take XYZ instead" 

Yet on the page about the 70-200 2.8 he says "this is must have lens in your bag" 

His website is full of contradictions and missinformation, but if you cherry pick, he does have some useful info on his site.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 5, 2013)

I am baffled by Ken Rockwell logic when it comes to pixel count.  His target audience is mostly beginners, and beginners need high pixel count more that anyone.  They often need to crop heavily and fiddle with the image in post production to get a decent result. The better your exposures are the less pixels you need.  
So essentially high pixel count is for beginners and some pro artists who need more freedom to work with an image file. Most of the pros, as far as I can guess, need operational speed and better high ISO performance more than the possibility to crop away two thirds of the frame. 
Where is that lowest denominater is - is it 6 or 12 or 16 MP I do not know, but there should be some number of pixels beyond which the choice is not about the IQ but about post production opportunities vs operational advantages. 
Methinks.


----------



## sashbar (Jul 5, 2013)

cptkid said:


> I dont mind some of Ken Rockwells stuff.
> 
> What annoys me about him though is when he says stuff like "the 70-200 2.8 VRII is a pointless less to carry with you, when you can take XYZ instead"
> 
> ...



He is not that stupid, he understands that the guy who clicks on his 70-200 2.8 most probably is looking for a top quality glass and for that audience it is indeed a "must have lens in your bag".  If you read his 70-300 VR review, he says - this is the only tele I use because it is not heavy and does not cost an arm and a leg.  And it is a great argument for an amateur on a budget. Then you open his 18-300 review and it says this zoom makes 70-300 obsolete because of its wider range. And he is again right, because there are a lot of customers who do not care about some small differences in IQ between 70-300 and 18-300.  
 So he addresses different people, even though his main audience are beginners.  I can not possibly imagine someone seriously choosing between 18-300 and 70-200 2.8 so, as strange as it seems, there is not that much contradiction in his opinions.


----------



## Mach0 (Jul 5, 2013)

He has a few decent points on the reviews.  I read reviews from him and Thom Hogan as well.
The thing that gets me, is that almost every camera, he writes a review about, is the best camera out and others are garbage next to it. How many "best cameras" are there ? Lol


----------



## SCraig (Jul 5, 2013)

sashbar said:


> He is not that stupid, he understands that the guy who clicks on his 70-200 2.8 most probably is looking for a top quality glass and for that audience it is indeed a "must have lens in your bag".  If you read his 70-300 VR review, he says - this is the only tele I use because it is not heavy and does not cost an arm and a leg.  And it is a great argument for an amateur on a budget. Then you open his 18-300 review and it says this zoom makes 70-300 obsolete because of its wider range. And he is again right, because there are a lot of customers who do not care about some small differences in IQ between 70-300 and 18-300.
> So he addresses different people, even though his main audience are beginners.  I can not possibly imagine someone seriously choosing between 18-300 and 70-200 2.8 so, as strange as it seems, there is not that much contradiction in his opinions.



You have to look at dates on his site.  The 70-300 lens came out long before the 18-300, so the review of the 70-300 was likely written long before the review of the 18-300.  He stated that he doesn't go back and update pages so both of them stand alone as they were written at the time.  When the 70-300 came out his view was probably correct.  When the 18-300 came out perhaps his view at that time, a few years later, was also correct.  The fact that we read both pages today just makes it sound confusing.

That is the case a lot when he reviews camera bodies.  Read one of his review of an old body, say the D1 or D2 and you'll think it is the king of the hill.  Then read a review of, say, the D4.  By reading only what is on those pages one would find it hard to choose between those bodies while in reality there is no comparison.  The problem is the passage of time between when the pages were written that is not evident in the writing.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 5, 2013)

Putting it another way, Ken Rockwell has very narrow opinions which are sometimes applicable, and sometimes not... but all his opinions are spoken as if they are the unquestioned laws of reality. It's up to you, the reader, to decide which is which.

If you're inexperienced... that will be MUCH harder to do.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 5, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Putting it another way, Ken Rockwell has very narrow opinions which are sometimes applicable, and sometimes not... *but all his opinions are spoken as if they are the unquestioned laws of realit*y. It's up to you, the reader, to decide which is which.
> 
> If you're inexperienced... that will be MUCH harder to do.



Well put... sounds like some others I know!


----------



## manaheim (Jul 5, 2013)

Is that a hint?!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 5, 2013)

manaheim said:


> Is that a hint?!



hahaha.... not aimed at you, Chris... ever!  lol!  I have seen you call out of some the KR's!...  lol!


----------



## manaheim (Jul 6, 2013)

hahaha...


----------



## greybeard (Jul 6, 2013)

I think that Ken takes a lot of liberties with what he thinks we all NEED when it comes to digital photography.  I can remember reading a computer magazine back in the 80's where some computer geek wrote that 64K of memory was all anybody would ever need to do anything with a home computer.  I do agree with Ken when he writes that a good 6MP camera with good glass is capable of producing great images.  But, I think a good 24MP camera with good glass is capable of producing even better ones.  If you got it, flaunt it.


----------



## Danuser (Jul 6, 2013)

The way I take Rockwell's site is that he'll almost always advocate for the most practical, common-sense, and low-cost approach. This is valuable for novices (like me) who can easily get caught up in tech specs and minutiae in the quest to take better pictures. It is a useful reality check to have an experienced voice say "Don't worry about that, all you really need is this." He's definitely saved me some money and helped me to identify some lower cost lens options, which has been great.

He's also a heavily opinionated writer who is prone to extreme points of view, and often seems deliberately provocative, as if he enjoys pushing the buttons of people who like delving into the nitty gritty details. I think as long as you can filter out the bravado, there are some broad points that make a lot of sense.

And hey, the guy must be doing something right, given how many threads I see with his name mentioned! Love him or hate him, people spend a lot of time talking about him.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 6, 2013)

Danuser said:


> The way I take Rockwell's site is that he'll almost always advocate for the most practical, common-sense, and low-cost approach. This is valuable for novices (like me) who can easily get caught up in tech specs and minutiae in the quest to take better pictures. It is a useful reality check to have an experienced voice say "Don't worry about that, all you really need is this." He's definitely saved me some money and helped me to identify some lower cost lens options, which has been great.
> 
> He's also a heavily opinionated writer who is prone to extreme points of view, and often seems deliberately provocative, as if he enjoys pushing the buttons of people who like delving into the nitty gritty details. I think as long as you can filter out the bravado, there are some broad points that make a lot of sense.
> 
> And hey, the guy must be doing something right, given how many threads I see with his name mentioned! Love him or hate him, people spend a lot of time talking about him.



Being good at marketing doesn't necessarily make him good at what he using as a vehicle for the marketing! Just another blogger that tries to convince others that his word is final, so that he can hopefully make some money on it. Funny, If he was really that good.. he would have a lot of corporate sponsors... and they want nothing to do with him.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 6, 2013)

First of all, why 6mp, he stated 3mp is same as 6mp.  Did he ever tested these camera out and find out his theory is correct?  How does he knows the higher res is all about marketing gimmick?  Does he ever worked in canon or nikon industry?  Does he even ever talked those engineers in these industries?  Ken Rockwell has nothing to support this.  That is why people call him opinionated.

Do you learn anything from this video?


----------



## manaheim (Jul 6, 2013)

I have a 36MP camera. Anyone with less than 36MP is a massive raging failure.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 6, 2013)

tecboy said:


> First of all, why 6mp, he stated 3mp is same as 6mp.  Did he ever tested these camera out and find out his theory is correct?  How does he knows the higher res is all about marketing gimmick?  Does he ever worked in canon or nikon industry?  Does he even ever talked those engineers in these industries?  Ken Rockwell has nothing to support this.  That is why people call him opinionated.
> 
> Do you learn anything from this video?


I said it on the first page of this topic and I'll say it again: You HAVE to look at the dates on things on his web site.  That video was from 2009.  You cannot compare what was "Best" in 2009 to what is "Best" in 2013.  The digital camera industry has changed dramatically in the past 4 years.



manaheim said:


> I have a 36MP camera. Anyone with less than 36MP is a massive raging failure.


I have 28.7 megapixels!  I spread it out over 3 bodies so it would last longer 

Edit:  Typo: I have 38.7mp


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 6, 2013)

manaheim said:


> I have a 36MP camera. Anyone with less than 36MP is a massive raging failure.



DITTO!  lol!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 6, 2013)

Nice to know charlie's not talking about ME, since I don't make a nickel on my blog, don't attempt to, and cannot imagine how I even start trying to.


----------



## tecboy (Jul 6, 2013)

SCraig said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > First of all, why 6mp, he stated 3mp is same as 6mp.  Did he ever tested these camera out and find out his theory is correct?  How does he knows the higher res is all about marketing gimmick?  Does he ever worked in canon or nikon industry?  Does he even ever talked those engineers in these industries?  Ken Rockwell has nothing to support this.  That is why people call him opinionated.
> ...




I still have 3.2mp p&s camera.  These pics still looking good on my monitor.  I'm saying noobs still following ken rockwell advices for several years and came out to be broken hearted.  Even his website is outdated, noobs still follow.  In the 2009 video, he did not say what technology in these camera had and how much megapixel.   He did not mentioned which cameras was top of line in that year.  There is no history in this video.  All his videos are like that.  Blah, blah, blah,.....  
You should look the one video he teaches photoshop.


----------



## Tony S (Jul 7, 2013)

Even Ken Rockwell does not take his advice seriously... it's posted somewhere on his blog, but it's been so long since I've looked I can't tell you exactly where.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 7, 2013)

Why do we even debate something said by Ken Rockwell? Shouldn't it be taken as false by virtue alone?


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Why do we even debate something said by Ken Rockwell? Shouldn't it be taken as false by virtue alone?



YES! But the noobs don't know that... and some of them HAVE to be convinced! (until next week... then they will badmouth him too) lol!


----------



## kathyt (Jul 7, 2013)

Once you start to evolve you will then start to question everything. That is when the real magic starts to happen!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Once you start to evolve you will then start to question everything. That is when the real magic starts to happen!



What an image... Neanderthal to Photographer.... lol!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 7, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Once you start to evolve you will then start to question everything.



Is this like other bits of wisdom that arrogant middle-aged boomers pull from their ass but don't actually believe or fully understand, like, 'the older I get the more I realize that I know nothing at all'?


----------



## Buckster (Jul 7, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Once you start to evolve you will then start to question everything. That is when the real magic starts to happen!
> ...


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

unpopular said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Once you start to evolve you will then start to question everything.
> ...



Shawn, that is unnecessarily rude! Who is being arrogant now?


----------



## unpopular (Jul 7, 2013)

^^ entitled much


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

^^ Off his meds!


----------



## unpopular (Jul 7, 2013)

Hey cgip! THERE ARE KIDS ON YOUR LAWN!


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 7, 2013)

If I remember correctly in my old age, after reading one of Kens pages that was posted earlier in the thread, KR flat out TELLS you that his page is more or less JUST his OPINION.  he even goes on to say that there is a lot of humor and tongue in cheek comments like in "the onion". He also says that he does NOT go back and edit pages later so...his comparison of a camera from 2009, is still just that....from 2009. 

the only time I can see even a new photographer NOT feeling like they should probably look up additional sources on ANYTHING Ken Rockwell says, is if they dont bother to read the opening pages of his web site. If you just click on a review, and only read ONE page from the middle of his site, you are NOT getting proper context for his statements.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 7, 2013)

The web is filled with nonsense and untruths. Why pick on Ken specifically?


----------



## Overread (Jul 7, 2013)

Ken is just good at marketing and at ranking high in Google so he comes around a lot. He also puts up some decent articles which balance out against the more nutty comments. Plus he's a character and he's brought that through online very strongly - heck I knew a few good quality review sites who have tongue in cheek comments referencing back to Ken and heck TPF has PAGES of posts on him every time he's mentioned 

But yes his advice and comments are very strongly bias in general toward his kind of shooting - which is great if you're a ken sorta guy. For everyone else its not always the most ideal advice.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 7, 2013)

Overread said:


> But yes his advice and comments are very strongly bias in general toward his kind of shooting



Uninspired, over saturated landscapes?


----------



## Overread (Jul 7, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > But yes his advice and comments are very strongly bias in general toward his kind of shooting
> ...



I can honestly say I've never actually looked at his photography - primarily because his site is geared up for tech and reviews not as a gallery so its just never presented as strongly to the reader to go look. 

As for what they do look like; eh I don't mind or care. It's a bit like liquorice - I think it tastes horrific whilst my dad and sister love it. Neither viewpoint is wholesome or perfect or divine or more true to the love of sweet things than the other - they are just different. IF he likes what he produces and if he's had the drive to experiment outside of those shots to try different things and still come back to what he likes then that's perfectly fine with me.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

unpopular said:


> Hey cgip! THERE ARE KIDS ON YOUR LAWN!



Durn Kids! I bet it is that dang Dennis kid from next door again...


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 7, 2013)

Might as well rename his site to krockwell.com


Because 99% of the time what he says is a crock of ****.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The web is filled with nonsense and untruths. Why pick on Ken specifically?



Maybe because, like some others... he presents his words as Gospel, and targets the young and innocent (in other words, NOOBs) that don't know any better.. that fall for his BS!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 7, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > The web is filled with nonsense and untruths. Why pick on Ken specifically?
> ...



Man, I hate those dudes.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

amolitor said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



Yea.. so do I... Passionately!


----------



## Overread (Jul 7, 2013)

*SQUIRREL!*







This distraction and return to normality was brought to you by the letter S, the number 0 and the reminder to ease up a bit and calm down 

Also the word squirrel looks darn odd when in bold capitals


----------



## tecboy (Jul 7, 2013)

"This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]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.""
--Ken Rockwell[/FONT]


----------



## kathyt (Jul 7, 2013)

unpopular said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Once you start to evolve you will then start to question everything.
> ...


Sure ole' wise one.


----------



## kathyt (Jul 7, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...


What the F is lucifer talking about now? I also wonder what he is classifying as "middle age."


----------



## kathyt (Jul 7, 2013)

unpopular said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > Once you start to evolve you will then start to question everything.
> ...


I would be happy to explain any of these phenomenons to you if you need further clarification. They can be a little complex and thought provoking.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



Don't let it bug you, Kathy... I will PM you!


----------



## masquerad101 (Jul 7, 2013)

I think it was darrel who said earlier that we have to look at how images are viewd these days, there mainly viewed on bad monitors on windows OS! Yes to a certain degree he is right! Most people who own a facebook,twitter or myspace account and a compact or bridge camera only take photos to post them in there own social networking bubble or to email them to there friend who is taking a gap year in austrailia...Im not 1 of them! Every single picture I take is taken with the intention to print it if it is a keeper. I'm not just taking snapshots of my childs first steps or my wifes 30th birthday bash, Im an artist/photographer. (yes I know that sounds condesending but lets face it thats how we all view ourselves here)

I spend a lot of time planning and executing my shots and I use 2 IPS monitors with a wide-gamut colour space not just the lcd that came with the tower. Im not having a go at you darrel but I think what you say only applies to peopl who have no intentions of actually doing photography, the ones who just take photos for a laugh and to show there mates. There is absolutley nothing wrong with that either.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

masquerad101 said:


> I think it was darrel who said earlier that we have to look at how images are viewd these days, *there mainly viewed on bad monitors on windows OS*! Yes to a certain degree he is right! Most people who own a facebook,twitter or myspace account and a compact or bridge camera only take photos to post them in there own social networking bubble or to email them to there friend who is taking a gap year in austrailia...Im not 1 of them! Every single picture I take is taken with the intention to print it if it is a keeper. I'm not just taking snapshots of my childs first steps or my wifes 30th birthday bash, Im an artist/photographer. (yes I know that sounds condesending but lets face it thats how we all view ourselves here)
> 
> I spend a lot of time planning and executing my shots and I use 2 IPS monitors with a wide-gamut colour space not just the lcd that came with the tower. Im not having a go at you darrel but I think what you say only applies to peopl who have no intentions of actually doing photography, the ones who just take photos for a laugh and to show there mates. There is absolutley nothing wrong with that either.



OH? Something wrong with the Windows OS? It makes images look bad? lol!


----------



## kathyt (Jul 7, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> kathythorson said:
> 
> 
> > unpopular said:
> ...


Oh Charlie, he is fine. It takes a lot for someone to _really _get under my skin. He can continue with his little banter, I have my big girl pants on.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > kathythorson said:
> ...



And I bet those big girl britches are plenty cute, too!


----------



## tecboy (Jul 7, 2013)

"Leave Britney Alone!!!"  Oops,  I mean,"Leave Ken Rockwell Alone!!!"
Buyer Beware: Ken Rockwell | Anthony Hereld Photography


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 7, 2013)

tecboy said:


> "Leave Britney Alone!!!"  Oops,  I mean,"Leave Ken Rockwell Alone!!!"
> Buyer Beware: Ken Rockwell | Anthony Hereld Photography



But KR has Tiger Blood.. he is "WINNING"!    lol!

Nice find on the link...


----------



## tecboy (Jul 7, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> tecboy said:
> 
> 
> > "Leave Britney Alone!!!"  Oops,  I mean,"Leave Ken Rockwell Alone!!!"
> ...



I better stop thinking about him.  He is like a homeboy to me.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 7, 2013)

Overread said:


> This distraction and return to normality was brought to you by the letter S, the number 0 and the reminder to ease up a bit and calm down



I tried with my generational warfar hand grenade, but with my reputation as a troll I fear my ability to derail threads has diminished.


----------



## thereyougo! (Jul 8, 2013)

I think people doth protest too much.  It becomes a badge of honour to have a pop at Ken, and in bashing threads I rarely see any real evidence that the basher knows much better than Ken himself.  In so doing you actually help Ken get further up the google tree.  so he won't be bothered at the bashing.  Not all he says is nonsense, and I find it bizarre that people have a go at him for saying that one camera is the best ever in 2009, and then saying that another camera is the best ever in 2011.  You could easily say that about many consumer cameras.  2 years is a very long time in electronics.

I would take *ANY *advice I found online to be worth taking a pinch of salt with.  Much of it is opinion based, so differs according to viewpoint.  But let's not pretend to be better at what we do because we think we know better than Ken.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 8, 2013)

Jessica654 said:


> The fact is there are times when 6MP is enough. But you can always downsize.



Spammers always have the best advice.


----------



## greybeard (Jul 9, 2013)

I've thought long about this post and the flames that have come from it concerning Ken Rockwell.  Like him or hate him, he does evoke discussion.  What he does offer is a definite, highly opinionated answer to just about every possible photographic question.  Many photographers want just that, a simple, maybe practical answer without all the "*well, it all depends*".  For instance, he sees no reason to shoot RAW, he feels that JPEG is just fine for all his and everyone else's photographic needs and then states his reasons.   We all know that the question of Raw vs JPEG is another one of those "*well it all depends*" answers but the people who like Ken, don't want "*well it all depends*" answers. (jmho)


----------



## manaheim (Jul 14, 2013)

This thread is actually the real problem with Ken Rockwell.

People just won't shut up about him.


----------

