# Ken Rockwell?



## Caty1113 (May 17, 2012)

Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?


----------



## Josh66 (May 17, 2012)

Yes, it's all true.  Even the parts about aliens.


He does have some semi-useful stuff on there, and it is entertaining to read - but take it all with a huge chunk of salt.  

Read his 'About' section and you will see that the whole thing is a joke.


----------



## Overread (May 17, 2012)

Also a fair amount of Ken's "serious" advice is rather biased toward his viewpoint on photography and his style of work/shooting. If that's in line with you it works - if not its miss leading. Generally its a site many advise beginners avoid because the advice is very weighted and its best read once you actually have some ability to sift the fact from the opinion.


----------



## KmH (May 17, 2012)

Visit Ken's *About Me and My Site* page: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm



> 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. ....


----------



## macpro88 (May 17, 2012)

From his site:

"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. 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.""


&#8203;Some of his stuff is useful and good to get to know the basics, but don't take everything literal...



EDIT: Ninja'd...


----------



## sleist (May 17, 2012)

It all stuff designed to drive up site traffic.  Controversial comments increase clicks.  It's a mix of good information, bad information, and total BS.  Unfortunately, some people don't know enough to know which is which.  This is the biggest gripe people have with him.  I love when he reviews stuff he hasn't actually used.  Just know not to use him as the final word on anything and you'll be fine.


----------



## ulrichsd (May 17, 2012)

Caty1113 said:


> Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?



I think he is trying to make the point that it is the photographer's imagination and abilities and not the equipment that makes a good photograph.  For instance a 40 year 35mm camera system (<$250) in the hands of a professional will yield far better results than a D7000 in the hands of a beginner.


----------



## DScience (May 17, 2012)

Just because he says that the info is of fictional value (opinion) doesn't mean he's useless. That's just his way of laying out a disclaimer. Anyway, I love Ken Rockwell. I agree with A LOT of what he posts about equipment. He's helped guide me to buy several purchases: Nikon 105mm f/1.8 AIS, Fujifilm X100, Nikon 24mm f/2.8D. Also, he put out an amazing manual for the D700 which I thought was extremely helpful. 

If you are curious about older lenses (nikon and some canon) or even newer lenses, I would say check out what he has to say. But it's not like he's a god or anything who should be revered.


----------



## Crollo (May 17, 2012)

He's just a guy who posts his own opinions on items, and he heavily uses sarcasm for his own humour. I think people who call him an idiot need to grow up, it's just entertainment.


----------



## Overread (May 17, 2012)

I always find it amazing how he gets high rankings in Google all the time - when he's hardly more than one or two photos on his website. And how much people talk about him. Whatever he might be he's an expert in marketing himself!


----------



## Buckster (May 17, 2012)

Here's the problem I have with Ken Rockwell:



Caty1113 said:


> Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?



Untold numbers of people who don't know any better are getting total crap for information from that idiot.


----------



## Derrel (May 17, 2012)

I've been buying, using, and reading about Nikon lenses since the early 1980's...Ken Rockwell's opinions on most lenses are very good in terms of the opinions of a real-world, experienced Nikon lens user. He has some very spot-on points about how various Nikkors actually handle and shoot, warts and all. For the person looking for good information about the MANY,many discontinued lenses Nikon has made, or about Nikon camera/lens compatibility, Ken's charts and comments and reviews are, in my opinion, some of the best.

He does a lot of "family" photography of his kids and his travels, and so he does have a preference for convenience in terms of the modern DX Nikkor zoom lenses. BUT, and this is the thing--a LOT of the "new" Nikkor zoom lenses have one,two,or even three aspherical elements and one to three ED glass elements. What does that mean? It means that a LOT of the old so-called wisdom about how wide a zoom ratio can be before image performance goes to hell is now outdated B.S.. I see a lot of bad-mouthing and chit-talking about various Nikkor lenses from certain people over and over...like for example on the AF-S G 70-300mm VR Nikkor f/4.5~5.6...there are "some" people that keep saying it's not a good lens...well...the "old 70-300 G was a POS; the old 70-300 ED glass was "okay"; the new 70-300 AF-S VR is is QUITE decent! I bought one, cheap, $349,pawn shop...it's a surprisingly good lightweight, easy-to-carry tele-zoom.

Nikon 70-300mm VR


----------



## unpopular (May 17, 2012)

he's just an old man who recently discovered the internets.


----------



## sovietdoc (May 17, 2012)

Ken Rockwell? Who is that?


----------



## DScience (May 17, 2012)

unpopular said:


> he's just an old man who recently discovered the internets.



What are you talking about? When did _you_ start using the internet? 

"I started this website in 1999 as a way to share the photos I took each weekend with my friends. I took one free class in how to use Dreamweaver back in 1999, and that's my only formal instruction in making websites."


----------



## Trever1t (May 17, 2012)

He's the smartest man in showbiz! He makes his entire living (comfortably I'd bet) from donations that people who have nothing better to do with their money give him. Any person who can do what they love and earn $ doing it is my hero


----------



## sm4him (May 17, 2012)

Caty1113 said:


> Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?



Nah, you didn't waste your money...you just wasted several minutes of your life on his website. 
If you'd wasted money, you could always earn more. But you'll never get those minutes back. 

I'm just kidding. Kinda. No, not really. I just think that Ken Rockwell has *almost* as much credential as I do on the topic of photography.  

Ken uses kinda the same philosophy I use in my Sunday School class; when I come to a word I have no idea how to pronounce, I just pick a pronunciation and say it very confidently. Then everyone looks at me like "Oh, THAT'S how you say that." 
He just seems to figure if he pretends he knows what he's talking about, everyone will look to him as an expert.  Scary thing is, many do.


----------



## unpopular (May 17, 2012)

DScience said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > he's just an old man who recently discovered the internets.
> ...


Bahahahahahahaaaaa. I was looking up nudies on Gophernet (if you don't know what that is, you're either too old or too young) when I was 12! Before that I snuck onto AOL with my dads account when I was like nine. KOChat FTW. We very likely had one of the first ten private Internet connections at home in our state, a solid year before it was offered commercially, in all it's 9600kbs glory! It was like downloading nudies over a serial connection! 

So yeah. It's 2012 now, and I'm 30. I have him beat by nearly a decade if you count AOL. And seriously, I taught myself Dreamweaver, as did most of my peers. The fact he took a should class should say something.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (May 20, 2012)

He's a smart guy who knows how to play the game. Anyone who calls him an idiot just doesn't understand how to filter though his writing and see what's serious, and what's not.


----------



## Derrel (May 20, 2012)

Ken Rockwell is the best thing to hit the photography scene since...well,lemme think here a sec...since Polaroid film was invented back in the late 1940's!


----------



## unpopular (May 20, 2012)

don't knock polaroid!


----------



## unpopular (May 20, 2012)

Sw1tchFX said:


> He's a smart guy who knows how to play the game. Anyone who calls him an idiot just doesn't understand how to filter though his writing and see what's serious, and what's not.



Ahh yes. The genius is just buried under all the BS.


----------



## Alex_B (May 20, 2012)

I do like his webpage, IMHO it is not all BS. But I agree you have to filter, and beginners who do not know anything yet are easily misled by his way of expressing and polarising things.

To me reading it is very entertaining, and some things he writes I just ignore


----------



## belial (May 21, 2012)

I do read it. Primarily for the entertainment value. But I've also picked up a few little tricks from him I do like. Thing with me is I've never been the type of person that only goes off of one source for anything. I also find things I disagree with more entertaining than things that I agree with.


----------



## Patriot (May 21, 2012)

He said those that shoot raw do so because they cant get it right in camera using jpeg. I guess I must suck because I only shoot raw.

Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk


----------



## Buckster (May 21, 2012)

Patriot said:


> He said those that shoot raw do so because they cant get it right in camera using jpeg. I guess I must suck because I only shoot raw.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk


Same here.

Sent from my Home Computer using My Fingers on A Keyboard


----------



## belial (May 22, 2012)

Patriot said:
			
		

> He said those that shoot raw do so because they cant get it right in camera using jpeg. I guess I must suck because I only shoot raw.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk



Yeah. That essay was particularly bad. He said ALL pros use Jpeg and hobbyists use raw. Pretty condescending to many pros out there actually


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2012)

Getting it "right in the camera" is an approach left over from color slide film when meaningful, predictable and useful processing adjustments were extremely limited.

This position I think indicates a limited view of exposure and how exposure relates to RAW processing.


----------



## vipgraphx (May 22, 2012)

Ken is the Superman of vivid photography and a crap load of usefull and un-useful information....you guys just are haterz cause its not your name on that website but, like they say haterz makes you famous.


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2012)

so by vivid you mean post cards and those free calendars you get at the credit union?


----------



## zamanakhan (May 22, 2012)

one of my few gripes with him is how he keeps saying that "this new camera" is the best ever... then u read another review of yet another best ever camera on the same site. Also his pictures are at a level of snapshot pro, they look and are simply vacation shots. He loves the skin tones he gets out of his camera in jpeg yet everything seems to be +20 saturated, so the skin tones actually aren't natural? and everyone is yellow as hell. 

I actually did read plenty of his material when i first started, you can search anything nikon and he is usually one of the very first reviews, so naturally he would of had a few clicks from me when i was starting out. There is also some great information buried in all the crap however. For example his compatibility chart is GREAT, anyone looking into film or has a new dslr, and wants to know which lenses function with what, should take a look at that chart. 

It wasn't his reviews that led me to believe he is in fact a nutter, but the fact that everything he writes is soo absolute. The constant contradictions, this is the best lens, no this is the best lens, no this is all you will ever need. Blah blah blah. I am just constantly surprised as how often he is quoted as the end all be all of nikon equipment. 

Also Darrel does indeed bring up a valid point, usually he is one of the few people that has reviews on outdated equipment, which can be helpful if you are on a budget.


----------



## Patriot (May 22, 2012)

Go to Ken Rockwell's site and read his Raw vs Jpeg article and you'll see all the nonsense he says. Here is one of my favorite quotes from his site, "I never shoot raw. Why would  I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than  JPG even when you can open the files." According to him, "[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later." That is a load of BS if I say so myself. I'm no pro by any chance at all but I take some good pictures, yes I postprocess just like everyone else to tweak my file and make them better. [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]So remember folks that, "The          JPG processing in the camera can be better than what you may be able           to do later in software from raw[/FONT]."


----------



## unpopular (May 22, 2012)

I resent that, Mr. Rockwell!! I over expose on purpose!


----------



## jake337 (May 22, 2012)

Caty1113 said:


> Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?



It's more about photographic lighting and understanding post processing than anything.  


Did you waste money on the D7000?  Hell no, it's a sweet camera that will last you many years.


These were all taken with a D80. You can get one used for about $399.  But you won't be able to take pictures like this without knowledge, no matter what camera body you are holding in your hands.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brookeshaden/5559000472/in/set-72157624369900004/


[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/brookeshaden/5422312498/in/set-72157624369900004/"]http://www.flickr.com/photos/brookeshaden/5422312498/in/set-72157624369900004/


[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/brookeshaden/5405026891/in/set-72157624369900004/"]http://www.flickr.com/photos/brookeshaden/5405026891/in/set-72157624369900004/


the other side | Flickr - Photo Sharing!





[/URL][/URL]


----------



## TCampbell (May 22, 2012)

Patriot said:


> He said those that shoot raw do so because they cant get it right in camera using jpeg. I guess I must suck because I only shoot raw.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk



At first I didn't understand this ... since his photos are so heavily saturated that I just assumed he was adding that in post.

But then... I came across this:  Nikon D300 and D3 Picture Control Settings

So it looks like Vivid +3 Saturation is one of his favorites.

But of course the hypocrisy here is that he's still post processing images -- he's just having the camera do it instead of doing it in Lightroom or Photoshop.


----------



## zamanakhan (May 22, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > He said those that shoot raw do so because they cant get it right in camera using jpeg. I guess I must suck because I only shoot raw.Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk
> ...


I love the article where he replaces his sons head on the image with another one using photoshop... Man it looks sooo awful. I actually actively read some of his articles just for the humour


----------



## Solarflare (May 24, 2012)

Um, he actually writes 25$ vs 5000$ camera.

And I think the claim is so obviously wrong nobody can misunderstand it. It just means that, if you want to get a price winning photograph, the main issue is your skill at photography, not the camera you are using.

Dont blame the bathing suit if you cant swim, is all.

(Also, he describes the advantages of chemical film over digital: better resolution, better range, and much easier to use with infrared photography).


----------



## unpopular (May 31, 2012)

TCampbell said:


> So it looks like Vivid +3 Saturation is one of his favorites.


Another velvia casualty.

---

Ken Rockwell is just some guy with an internet connection. I don't buy this argument that you have to sort through the BS to get to the good stuff. A good reference will have very little flawed information. Much of Rockwells site isn't even information, but rather spouting off opinions based on flawed understandings of modern photographic technologies.


----------



## Chris R (May 31, 2012)

Patriot said:


> Go to Ken Rockwell's site and read his Raw vs Jpeg article and you'll see all the nonsense he says. Here is one of my favorite quotes from his site, "I never shoot raw. Why would  I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than  JPG even when you can open the files." According to him, "gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later." That is a load of BS if I say so myself. I'm no pro by any chance at all but I take some good pictures, yes I postprocess just like everyone else to tweak my file and make them better. So remember folks that, "The          JPG processing in the camera can be better than what you may be able           to do later in software from raw."



You need to "get" Ken Rockwell before his advice becomes quite valuable. He is making the above claims for 2 reasons: First is to help the reader understand that it's more important to learn your camera so that you can get a great shot straight off it without spending hours post-processing. In theory he is right that you are completely wasting your time and hard drive space with RAW files *if* you can take the correct shot in the first place. By confidently stating his opinion as fact he is getting novices to shoot in JPEG so that if they take a crappy shot they later can't fix it as easily - This encourages them to focus on their photography skills rather than their Photoshop skills. The 2nd reason he words his advice like this is to piss people off and start debates. It keeps his name out there and drives traffic to his site. 

He truly is brilliant no matter which way you look at it. I went through a stage where I thought Ken Rockwell was an idiot but then I looked at the bigger picture and realized that underneath all his sarcasm he is absolutely right most of the time.


----------



## Buckster (May 31, 2012)

Chris R said:


> Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Go to Ken Rockwell's site and read his Raw vs Jpeg article and you'll see all the nonsense he says. Here is one of my favorite quotes from his site, "I never shoot raw. Why would  I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than  JPG even when you can open the files." According to him, "gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later." That is a load of BS if I say so myself. I'm no pro by any chance at all but I take some good pictures, yes I postprocess just like everyone else to tweak my file and make them better. So remember folks that, "The          JPG processing in the camera can be better than what you may be able           to do later in software from raw."
> ...


That's kind of like saying, "You need to _*believe*_ in the volcano gods before you'll truly _*understand*_ how important it is to sacrifice virgins to them.  In the meantime, you'll just have to trust those of us who are already enlightened."

Sorry.  Not buying it.  :thumbdown::er:


----------



## Solarflare (May 31, 2012)

Just for the record, I consider myself a beginner and thus the intended target for Rockwells site, and I have no trouble with understanding the part with the JPEG advice.

If you read his site, you know that he has been photographing since early childhood, which was in the early 70s. Naturally, with such a long training on chemical film, photographers like that tend to get their shots right, and thus dont really have a need for RAW.

I thought about his advice and instantly decided to not follow it, since I have no reason to. Today, harddisk space is cheap, and I have bought the biggest memorycard available for my camera - thus the accumulator will be long empty before the card is full, even with shooting RAW.

Also, my favorite theme is people, and I cant repeat a shot a second time if I didnt nailed it the first time. Why should I lose the chance to work on correcting a suboptimal, but actually great shot ?


----------



## unpopular (May 31, 2012)

Solarflare said:


> If you read his site, you know that he has been photographing since early childhood, which was in the early 70s. Naturally, with such a long training on chemical film, photographers like that tend to get their shots right, and thus dont really have a need for RAW.



Coming from a black and white film background, processing in reference to exposure makes sense to me. The difference is that instead of developing for the hilights, i'm processing for the shadows. While I can see the merit, I think the 'get it right in camera' is kind of like applying the disadvantages of color slide film to digital.


----------



## xjoewhitex (May 31, 2012)

If I need some quick details about a certain lens or camera without looking thru tons of websites I usually turn to ken, but I wouldn't at all live from his advice. Sure a camera is a camera, but there is a huge difference between a $20 dollar walmart special, and a d800.. but there's an equal difference between the facebook photographer and a highly acclaimed fashion photographer.


----------



## chuasam (May 31, 2012)

Caty1113 said:


> Is the information on that website actually true? I looked on there and he basically says there is no difference between a $250 camera and a $5000 camera.. so I basically wasted my money getting the D7000?


 Absolutely true! Here, I'll trade you that $5000 camera for $250 camera.


----------

