# Ken Rockwell



## tevo (Jul 12, 2013)

It would seem that TPF has a negative inclination towards mention of Ken Rockwell as well as the content of his website. I'm curious - was there some incident that led to this disposition? I don't really care for his photography, but the reviews are pretty innocent right? Beyond that, what is [your] preferred place for gear reviews? I find KR to be fairly accurate in his review of products, making his website very convenient; I am open to other sources.


----------



## ShaneF (Jul 12, 2013)

I personally find Ken Rockwell preaches misleading and inaccurate information. But thats just my 2 cents.

I tend to stick to youtube channels since video requires less reading.

Some of my favorite channels are below that have helped me as a photo newb, i find it easier to view channels that more fit you my personality since they will hold my attention longer.  If you do some searching there are tons out there.


FroKnowsPhoto.com - YouTube
DigitalRev TV - YouTube
Photo Magic Productions - YouTube
FREE Photography Tutorials - YouTube
Gregory Cazillo - YouTube

im sure others could suggest  some great websites


----------



## molested_cow (Jul 12, 2013)

ShaneF said:


> I personally find Ken Rockwell preaches misleading and inaccurate information. But thats just my 2 cents.




Most of it is his opinions. Can you give specific inaccurate information that he has given?


I don't have negative impression of his stuffs. I use his website a lot when researching lens, especially older ones. However he's definitely not the only one that I check with. Basically anything I can find through Google is worth reading.
What I like about his website is actually the way he talks about his opinions. It's full of emotions! I read through them, and I will think if his concerns are applicable to me. So perhaps he hates a lens for a particular reason that doesn't apply to me, that's cool, at least I know what to look out for if I ever come across the same scenario.


----------



## ShaneF (Jul 12, 2013)

I dont want to start a great debate or flaming war about Ken, i personally dont like him he just annoys me.  But thats just me, if you enjoy him i say go for it.  Im sure a percentage of what hes says has some accurate information in it.  I just suggest like anything and any information you come across, dont take it for 100% true and do your own research.


----------



## SCraig (Jul 12, 2013)

I have nothing for or against him other than the lack of consistency on his site.  He specifically states on his web site that it is a work of fiction but then goes on to write in a format that would indicate knowledge and research on his part and that the information presented is factual.  He states personal opinion as being fact as well.  In a broad sense there's nothing wrong with that, and we all tend to do the same thing.  There are some nuggets of decent information on his site, but new photographers are not able to separate the good information from the fictional information so they tend to treat everything that is said there as being the gospel according to Ken.  Again, in fairness to him, he warns people not to do that however on a web site that is primarily informational, and where every page asks for donations, the intent as I see it is that the information within be treated as factual.

That's what I dislike.  Make it factual or make it fictional.  I don't care which but pick a style so visitors know whether to treat what is said as fact or fiction.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 12, 2013)

I think he "reviews" products he has never seen, among other things.


----------



## ann (Jul 12, 2013)

:thumbup:  He has even said within a review that he had never touched the piece.

That was the turning point for my recommending him to my students.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 12, 2013)

tevo said:


> I'm curious - was there some incident that led to this disposition?



Yes, the creation of kenrockwell.com.


----------



## AceCo55 (Jul 12, 2013)

Mr Rockwell is viewed with some skepticism/sarcasm on a number of photography forums.
If you are really interested, you might want to Google it
There is a very entertaining spoof on him, as the "Chuck Norris" of the photography world, on another forum.
I think people struggle with what they see as exaggerated generalisations and personal bias that are seemingly accepted by photographic newbies ... but which would be torn to shreds in any group of experienced photographers.
There are some who believe he makes these wild claims to drive traffic to his website.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 12, 2013)

When scooping out a specific item of gear, I do read what he has to say. But like all reviews, I take his opinion with a grain of salt.  Most of his reviews are of equipment he manages to beg, borrow or steal for what I presume to be a very short time and may not represent a real-life test of the item.  When I narrow down my choices, I prefer to ask for the opines of those who have owned, used, misused and abused the item in question for a longer period of time.

For honest-to-God, real-world opinions, I turn to innernet forums.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 12, 2013)

The sentiment isn't exclusive to TPF.

Search - photo.net


----------



## Overread (Jul 12, 2013)

Ken is good at marketing himself - which makes him a popular google result when people do google questions before coming to the site. The thing is, as has been said by several, his guides are often very opinionated and some (such as his stance on tripods) are so highly opinionated as to stand out like a glaring sore as general advice (in fact there is more than one site that quips that everyone, but Ken, uses a tripod in some form). 

His guides are good, for himself and for anyone who wishes to shoot how he does. The thing is they often overlook or downtalk any other method other than his approach; which is often a very bad way for a beginner to learn if they want to get a broad scope of skills and get to a position where they choose how to work from a position of knowing instead of being forced/limited by a lack of a wider understanding. 

His sites popularity means it keeps appearing here and there and thus threads to the typical thing that we are doing right here.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Overread said:


> Ken is good at marketing himself - which makes him a popular google result when people do google questions before coming to the site. The thing is, as has been said by several, his guides are often very opinionated and some (such as his stance on tripods) are so highly opinionated as to stand out like a glaring sore as general advice (in fact there is more than one site that quips that everyone, but Ken, uses a tripod in some form).
> 
> His guides are good, for himself and* for anyone who wishes to shoot how he does.* The thing is they often overlook or downtalk any other method other than his approach; which is often a very bad way for a beginner to learn if they want to get a broad scope of skills and get to a position where they choose how to work from a position of knowing instead of being forced/limited by a lack of a wider understanding.
> 
> His sites popularity means it keeps appearing here and there and thus threads to the typical thing that we are doing right here.



* "for anyone who wishes to shoot how he does." *sure.. continue letting your images looks like you just bought your camera yesterday... listen to KR!  That and the friggin Begging to CLICK here and CLICK there to support his family.... Get a real job, Kenny!


----------



## manaheim (Jul 12, 2013)

He is obviously controversial, and that should be enough indication for anyone to simply be aware whole they read. Like anything, he's another datapoint, and he probably makes plenty of money doing what he does. Again, something to consider.

Why people get so riled over him I have no idea, but then I'm not 24 anymore. I used to get riled over all kinds of stuff. Now I've got better crap to worry about.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

manaheim said:


> He is obviously controversial, and that should be enough indication for anyone to simply be aware whole they read. Like anything, he's another datapoint, and he probably makes plenty of money doing what he does. Again, something to consider.
> 
> Why people get so riled over him I have no idea, but then I'm not 24 anymore. I used to get riled over all kinds of stuff. Now I've got better crap to worry about.



Same reason I get riled about some things / posts / members here.. lack of valid content!   But then, you are a better bunny than I will ever be! :hail:


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Jul 12, 2013)

I like ken`s site, i take everything with a pinch of salt, but as has been said before he has some good information.

I found the text below, it`s just a bit of fun 

John.



> Ken Rockwell Facts
> 
> Contributed by liem, Epic|, Fufie, michel_v, neom, Wintre, Bas|k, lament, mattsteg__ and pal.
> 
> ...


----------



## manaheim (Jul 12, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Same reason I get riled about some things / posts / members here.. lack of valid content!   But then, you are a better bunny than I will ever be! :hail:



You look more like a funky turtle fish.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

manaheim said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Same reason I get riled about some things / posts / members here.. lack of valid content!   But then, you are a better bunny than I will ever be! :hail:
> ...



Better watch out, now.. don't make me get all spiny!  :angry1:


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Anytime I hear someone quote Rockwell, I just assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they have to say.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 12, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Anytime I hear someone quote Rockwell, I just assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they have to say.



But Ken says otherwise!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 12, 2013)

Ken's photos are fine.

They're oversaturated, oversharpened, technically proficient exercises in making pretty pretty pictures. This is, it turns out, what a huge percentage of people want to make. They're not what *I* want to make, but unpop and I are over here in the corner with the other weirdos.


----------



## Vladyxa (Jul 12, 2013)

I actually like KR site. For newbie like myself it has a lot of good information all in one place. And, it is easy to read too.


----------



## Garbz (Jul 12, 2013)

And that's the fundamental problems. Newbies don't belong on his site because they don't know the difference between information and misinformation. Not everything he says is necessarily true nor relevant. His product reviews can be misleading, and in some cases he's published reviews for products that he never even used. 

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it didn't hit the top of every Google result for everything Nikon. If he was a few pages further down and more relevant information was before him then he'd be just another opinionated person on the net. 

Like me.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 12, 2013)

Garbz said:


> And that's the fundamental problems. Newbies don't belong on his site because they don't know the difference between information and misinformation. Not everything he says is necessarily true nor relevant. His product reviews can be misleading, and in some cases he's published reviews for products that he never even used.
> 
> I wouldn't have a problem with it if it didn't hit the top of every Google result for everything Nikon. If he was a few pages further down and more relevant information was before him then he'd be just another opinionated person on the net.
> 
> Like me.



Lol


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Vladyxa said:


> I actually like KR site. For newbie like myself *it has a lot of good information all in one place. And, it is easy to read too.*



NO.. IT DOESN'T! Really! It has a lot of nonsense... that will mislead you, and keep you in NOOB status longer than needed.... but that is YOUR choice!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Garbz said:


> *And that's the fundamental problems. Newbies don't belong on his site because they don't know the difference between information and misinformation.* .



*EXACTLY!* They don't know enough to know better!


----------



## dsiglin (Jul 12, 2013)

However affronting you may find KR's photos and content, as a graphic/UI designer I'm 100x more offended by his website. I haven't seen a site that good since 1995.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

dsiglin said:


> However affronting you may find KR's photos and content, as a graphic/UI designer I'm 100x more offended by his website. I haven't seen a site that good since 1995.



He just wants it to make money... not spend money on it keeping it up to date or accurate!


----------



## dsiglin (Jul 12, 2013)

Clearly he doesn't want a lot of bandwidth costs due to him using non-existent style sheets. Dont get started on visual hierarchy.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 12, 2013)

I think his reviews of cameras and lenses are reasonably good and reliable. He's one of very few individual people (not photo web sites that that are owned by AMAZON, cough cough) with a very large blog and a large number of followers. He has the resources and popularity that allow him access to a HUGE number of lenses, and a lot of cameras from Nikon, Canon, and Leica, so he's basically a resource for the hobby/enthusiast photographers who want some help and some evaluation points on lenses and cameras. 

Ken's suggestion to go with an entirely sRGB color space workflow, for example: widely criticized by the ultra-wide gamut color space snobs, his suggested method actually WORKS BETTER when people e-mail, web-upload, and send out to print their images. And yet, the majority of web "experts" have never even TRIED capturing and editing and working in sRGB mode...

Same with the wide-range zoom lenses Nikon is making: widely criticized by many who do not own them. People who have never even fired a single frame through a Nikon 18-200 will pronounce it "crap". And so on...and so on..and yet, the actual side-by-side tests he's done showed that hey...at f/8...almost any lens is pretty close to another lens, in actual picture-taking.

It's a lot like the lens testing nuts who obsess over MTF charts, when the KEY issue is often how well a lens focuses; if it cannot hit focus reliably, the MTF can be stellar, but the pictures will be rubbish. Ken discusses real-world focusing performance from the point of somebody who knows how to shoot. The Nikon 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 VR-G for example; read his review and he will tell you the lens's biggest weakness: occasional hesitation (ie-NOT even beginning focus activation) in the AF, requiring manual, hand override. You will often NOT find anything at all like that on any of the other web sites that "test" lenses by shooting rez charts or star patterns and making measurements. So...in a way, Rockwell is mostly about how the rubber meets the road...not the lab-testy-statistic-MTF-measurebation kind of site. dPreview is owned by Amazon.Almost everything they test is Gold Star rated. cough,cough,cough.

So, I think Ken Rockwell's blog has some great information in it. Really very helpful for the hobby/enthusiast shooter. However, about once a month Ken writes something that makes me want to gently strike him about the head and face with a 36-inch long Douglas fir 2x4 board, 10 or 15 times. Gently, of course, using only one arm.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jul 12, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> NO.. IT DOESN'T! Really! It has a lot of nonsense... that will mislead you, and keep you in NOOB status longer than needed.... but that is YOUR choice!


Like what? I disagree. I think that if you want to get photos like Ken Rockwell's (which are indeed quite decent), then you would do pretty well in getting them if you followed all of his advice to the T.  It's internally consistent like that.  It's by no means the ONLY way to shoot, but it is A consistent and valid way to shoot, as a whole package.

When it fails is usually only if/when you attempt to take some piece of his advice and transplant it into a totally different shooting style.  And you don't have to be a professional to realize that that is a likely consequence of doing such a thing.  That's just common sense, which newbies should be equally able to figure out as anybody else.

I don't know much about welding (I'm a "newbie"), but I'm an intelligent adult, thus I still know that if I ask a professional 30 year welder what his advice is, and he rattles off a whole 18 step procedure he always goes through, that I can't just pick and choose which steps I feel like following myself, and expect to get the same results!  I have to either follow the whole thing, and trust him, OR pick and choose, but no longer hold him accountable if my picking and choosing led me astray. *Even as a newbie, I know that I would have to NOT be a newbie in order to alter and cherrypick advice and still guarantee its success.*

That's just something that's going to be generally true of any experienced person's advice who uses any style to do anything: It might not work piece-meal.

That doesn't mean that it's "wrong" or "misleading."  Wrong advice is advice that doesn't even work when you use it in the context of the whole package/Ken Rockwell style.  Which there is very little of on his site. Do you have some examples of things he says that are just flat out wrong no matter what, even if you generally shoot the way he does?



> And that's the fundamental problems. Newbies don't belong on his site  because they don't know the difference between information and  misinformation. Not everything he says is necessarily true nor relevant.  His product reviews can be misleading, and in some cases he's published  reviews for products that he never even used.


He usually explicitly says that his reviews are not from things he has used, when that is the case.  Either that, or such items have a barebones page with nothing but manufacturer advertised stats and maybe a paragraph of editorializing. I don't see how either is irresponsible or misleading.  if you can't read a disclaimer, then that's your fault, and if you trust the information on the barebones ones that don't have disclaimers, then it isn't going to hurt you much anyway, because it's all just the same information you would have got from the manufacturer.  Where is the dangerous misleading happening, exactly?

"Not everything he says is necessarily true nor relevant."  <-- Lol what? That's called "being a human being." As long as he isnt intentionally providing wrong information, then he is no worse than any other review blog you're going to find online. And I'm not aware of any *intentionally *wrong information provided. Not is the unintentionally wrong information very common, compared to any other reviewers/bloggers.



Like Derrell points out, I think that 90% of what he says is spot on, extremely insightful commentary that really works and pans out.
People get all bent out of shape over the 10% of his pages that just only "might" work or are occasionally almost certainly wrong, and then give up on the entire man, without really stopping and asking the question "Well wait, who else out there* isn't* wrong at least that often?"
For example, I got a good laugh out of the first or second reply to this thread where somebody suggested that FroKnowsPhoto was a much superior source of less preachy information than ken Rockwell... He's a good guy, and I like his site a lot too, but he is definitely 2-3x as preachy as Ken Rockwell is (gets extremely visibly agitated every 10 seconds, repeats himself constantly in a way that literally sounds like a sermon, etc.), and isn't really right any more often.

Who is this magical reviewer who is right 100% of the time and whose advice always works out of context?  Because I'd love to go check out their site every week as my new priority if somebody can lead me to them.


----------



## tevo (Jul 12, 2013)

I believe I understand the issue a bit better now. I too have noticed how he tends to assert that what he says is factual without actually saying it. In my experience I have bought two lenses on the basis of his good review, and found that he was for the most part accurate. However I have also seen reviews on lenses that I (previously at any rate) own where his information is misleading / inaccurate. 



Derrel said:


> I think his reviews of cameras and lenses are reasonably good and reliable. He's one of very few individual people (not photo web sites that that are owned by AMAZON, cough cough) with a very large blog and a large number of followers. He has the resources and popularity that allow him access to a HUGE number of lenses, and a lot of cameras from Nikon, Canon, and Leica, so he's basically a resource for the hobby/enthusiast photographers who want some help and some evaluation points on lenses and cameras.
> 
> Ken's suggestion to go with an entirely sRGB color space workflow, for example: widely criticized by the ultra-wide gamut color space snobs, his suggested method actually WORKS BETTER when people e-mail, web-upload, and send out to print their images. And yet, the majority of web "experts" have never even TRIED capturing and editing and working in sRGB mode...
> 
> ...



The imagery is fantastic. We need a gif of this.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Anytime I hear someone quote Rockwell, I just assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they have to say.



I only quote like this  ^^ and since I don't recall seeing KR on here, I'm pretty sure I've not quoted him. Going back to figure out why Charlie discounts me...... I'll be over here  ---->


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > NO.. IT DOESN'T! Really! It has a lot of nonsense... that will mislead you, and keep you in NOOB status longer than needed.... but that is YOUR choice!
> ...



You like and admire KR? You want to shoot like KR? Go for it... 



cgipson1 said:


> Anytime I hear someone quote Rockwell, I just   assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they   have to say.  ;-)





cgipson1 said:


> Anytime I hear someone like Rockwell, I just   assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they   have to say.  ;-)





cgipson1 said:


> Anytime I hear someone defend Rockwell, I just   assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they   have to say.  ;-)





cgipson1 said:


> Anytime I hear someone admire Rockwell, I just   assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they   have to say.  ;-)


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

tevo said:


> I believe I understand the issue a bit better now. I too have noticed how he tends to assert that what he says is factual without actually saying it. In my experience I have bought two lenses on the basis of his good review, and found that he was for the most part accurate. However I have also seen reviews on lenses that I (previously at any rate) own where his information is misleading / inaccurate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would prefer a video.. OF IT happening!  lol!


----------



## amolitor (Jul 12, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Who is this magical reviewer who is right 100% of the time and whose advice always works out of context?  Because I'd love to go check out their site every week as my new priority if somebody can lead me to them.



Me, duh. Pay more attention, dude.


----------



## ronlane (Jul 12, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Anytime I hear someone quote Rockwell, I just assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they have to say.





amolitor said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Who is this magical reviewer who is right 100% of the time and whose advice always works out of context? Because I'd love to go check out their site every week as my new priority if somebody can lead me to them.
> ...



Wait, wait, wait.  THIS is worth quoting. Welcome back Andrew or is that Manaheim, pretending to be Andrew? Got to get my quote right. lol


----------



## flow (Jul 12, 2013)

I've only really looked at the product review stuff on his site. But isn't EVERY product review (no matter who wrote it) mostly opinion, and heavily based on context and personal needs? If I look at reviews for a new vacuum and see "this vacuum does a fantastic job on stairs" - well, glad they liked it, but I don't care because we're in a single-level home. It's the same no matter what you're trying to buy - you have to consider the source's use and your own intended use. That's not a 'photographer' thing, it's a 'smart consumer' thing. If a purchase is worth seeking out reviews first, it's worth getting them from more than one source to be sure your view is balanced.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 12, 2013)

ronlane said:


> Wait, wait, wait.  THIS is worth quoting. Welcome back Andrew or is that Manaheim, pretending to be Andrew? Got to get my quote right. lol



I think I was just insulted!


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

manaheim said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > Wait, wait, wait.  THIS is worth quoting. Welcome back Andrew or is that Manaheim, pretending to be Andrew? Got to get my quote right. lol
> ...



Yepp. insulted!  lol!


----------



## alv (Jul 12, 2013)

tevo said:


> It would seem that TPF has a negative inclination towards mention of Ken Rockwell as well as the content of his website. I'm curious - was there some incident that led to this disposition? I don't really care for his photography, but the reviews are pretty innocent right? Beyond that, what is [your] preferred place for gear reviews? I find KR to be fairly accurate in his review of products, making his website very convenient; I am open to other sources.


what other sites are can be recomended


----------



## snowbear (Jul 12, 2013)

KR is the patron saint of MWACs, GWACs & fauxtographers!

He does have some helpful information mixed in with the horsestuff, the problem is noob's can't always tell the difference between the two.  I have found a LOT more valid and helpful information on this site.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jul 12, 2013)

snowbear said:


> KR is the patron saint of MWACs, GWACs & fauxtographers!
> 
> He does have some helpful information mixed in with the horsestuff, the problem is noob's can't always tell the difference between the two.  I have found a LOT more valid and helpful information on this site.



Charlie,

You are a wise man!

Charlie.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 12, 2013)

TPF has its own collection of prejudices, mixed advice, as well as wildly varying ideas about what's important and how to teach.

Pick your poison, basically. If it works for you, great.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 12, 2013)

You know, I guess I'm just not interested in blasting him simply because I don't like what he says. I'm not really interested in blasting him because he's a hack, or a douche, or because he talks about things he has no actual experience with, or because he presents his opinions as though they are, and should be respected by all as, gospel.

There's plenty of that running around right here at TPF...


----------



## dsiglin (Jul 12, 2013)

So what is you guys' opinion of steve huff?


----------



## AlanKlein (Jul 12, 2013)

It's interesting that everyone here is talking about his review of equipment.  If you really read him, he consistantly tells people they're pretty much wasting their money as they chase the holy grail of photo equipment.  It's all manufacturer's hype to sell you equipment.  None of it will make you a better photographer

If you really want to know where Rockwell shines, read his "soft" reviews and discussions about how to be a better photographer and get better pcitures.

How to Take Better Pictures


----------



## runnah (Jul 12, 2013)

Reading Ken's stuff is time I could spend taking photos.


----------



## Bulb (Jul 15, 2013)

As a newbie, quite a few of his articles have helped me get started with photography.

That being said, I figured out early on that I don't agree with everything that he says.

His "How to Take Better Pictures" articles are alright and his reviews are generally helpful.

I would never use him as my only source of information about anything, though.


----------

