Even with an M9 Ken Rockwell never changes

he likes to provoke people. As long as you take what he says with a bowl of salt, all is well with the world.
 
I will never understand why a M8 is not good enough for him when his photos are all, run of the mill, beat you over the head with colour, garbage. He could've taken that same photo with a Nikon D3000 with a kit lens, no wonder he reckons that equipment doesn't matter. His arrogance is staggering too, what qualifies him to write an article on how to create a masterpiece?
 
Its strange how this guy polarizes opinion. Over at photonet they will not allow forum members to include any hotlinks to articles or reviews which appear on his site - the software looks for links to his domain and blocks them. I got hot under the collar when a perfectly reasonable discussion I was involved in and which included a link to his site got banned and told the administrator that this was unreasonable and that if I were Rockwell I would contemplate legal action - at which they banned me from posting on that forum. (Who cares its a boring - crap forum anyway!) But it shows how hotly contested is anything pertaining to him. I do not mind him - as long as you realize his limitations.

Now to business "I will never understand why a M8 is not good enough for him when his photos are all, run of the mill, beat you over the head with colour, garbage." I do not dispute this but this is true of any number of us. How often do I see on this forum and others dedicated o photo equipment what is usually described as "obligatory crap pictures" taken with a new lens or camera. (The one that leaps to my mind -not on this forum I hasten to add - is a photo taken from someones rear window of their apartment of an ugly alley full of garbage cans. Every time this guy gets something new this is what he photographs - must be agoraphobic.) So many of us (me too sometimes) are gear freaks who do not concentrate enough on photography and too much on photographic gear.
 
Last edited:
I like him - he's something of a cliche but he does care about important things and isn't afraid to puncture over-inflated products. He seems to be a vigorous, strident voice and we benefit from such people. It's a useful contrast to the more studious reviews one can access from others, which are typically worthy but terribly dull.
 
Obviously his photography is not to everyone's taste, but this is so subjective, I think its time to ease up on Mr Rockwell, its not as if he is an asshole, time to give him a break and let him be, I find his musings are hilarious and a nice variation to the more technical reviews that I also enjoy.
 
I agree with Peter. The heat generated by Rockwell is perplexing. He takes the kind of photos he likes to takes, he gets to play with a lot of cameras, and he puts some of the photos and a lot of his opinions on his blog. Where's the problem?

Is it that some folks don't like his photos, and so dismiss his opinions? Or, perhaps, some don't appreciate his enthusiasm and think photography should be treated as a Deadly Serious Art with proper reverence for Sacred Cows?

You know, it's just takin' pictures. If you do it for money, you take what the money wants. If you do if for fun, you take want you want. No one is keeping score.

I don't alway agree with Rockwell and I don't always like his photos, but that has no bearing on my enjoyment of his blog. He writes about photography as he sees it and makes no apologies. That exposure of his thinking and his character in his writing is the essence of a blog. I find that approach, from Rockwell and others, much more useful and interesting than the formulaic pseudo-lab approach taken by dpreview and others. Although that approach does make it much easier to write the posts.
 
It's fun to see how any thread involving Rockwell sets people off. I looked at this set of his pictures the other day and was truly struck by the one taken inside a McDonalds, presumably at or near Yosemite. The colors are typically extreme and the scene in and of itself is bland -- yet the combination of the giant American flag hanging behind soda machines under the golden arch neon logo, the sign reading "Beverage Center" (and the interplay of the broad red dominating the upper part horizontally, the play of white in the flag strips in the middle and the blue of the cabinets on the bottom) and the mother and child in the lower right add up to an ironic kind of 21st Century Norman Rockwell comment on American values. I love that picture.
I don't always agree with what he writes but I congratulate him for finding a way to make a living taking the pictures he likes while using the cameras we'd all love to play with.
 
Must be slow season... Maybe the M9 has too few "" issues" so we must turn to this. I'll ask Leica to provide more food for fights....:D
 
Joseph: That's a nice test set from Ken, thanks for the link ... I think. All I need now is about $9K for an M9 and a few lenses. :)
 
jreid said:
It's fun to see how any thread involving Rockwell sets people off. I looked at this set of his pictures the other day and was truly struck by the one taken inside a McDonalds, presumably at or near Yosemite. The colors are typically extreme and the scene in and of itself is bland -- yet the combination of the giant American flag hanging behind soda machines under the golden arch neon logo, the sign reading "Beverage Center" (and the interplay of the broad red dominating the upper part horizontally, the play of white in the flag strips in the middle and the blue of the cabinets on the bottom) and the mother and child in the lower right add up to an ironic kind of 21st Century Norman Rockwell comment on American values. I love that picture.
I don't always agree with what he writes but I congratulate him for finding a way to make a living taking the pictures he likes while using the cameras we'd all love to play with.
Click to expand...

+ 2

... and thanks for the link.
 
Quote "Even with an M9 Ken Rockwell never changes"

I think a significant point to remember, is that it's the photographer that makes a picture, rather than the camera.
 
He is like 98% of most photographers in this world. Crappy.

It's junk IMO. Useless photographs of things which have been photographed a million times, which have nothing real or valuable to say other than "look. color. of old dead signs. seven million other people have photographed me in the same exact way. yay.".


If your gonna photograph something, at least have a reason or some kind of real and valuable thing to say with the work.

Otherwise, as far as i am concerned, it can be thrown away just like all of the other five million useless photos of no-meaning objects in this world.
 
Who is to say that Ken doesn't have a reason? I don't particularly like all of his photos, no more than I particularly like all of anyone's photos, even those of the supposed 'masters.'

That's one reason I don't post many of my own photos, they are valuable to me, but they probably have little interest for anyone else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom