carpediem007
Member
Thanks Ken 
Thanks Ken
Don't we all now and then?
I'm happy about any "well known & respected?" member of the photographic community advocating film use...
Some beginning photographers might even start using film because of him and that only betters my chances of being able to use film for years to come...
Also, at last months Photokina for example, David Mecey (of Playboy "fame") talked about one of his new books and showed some very large (and VERY beautiful) prints (like 1x2 meters) from MF B/W contact sheets(!) he'd done lately. You should have seen the look on the faces of some of my "digital only" friends
I'm not saying "one is better than the other" (I use both); it's just nice to have the choice... Ken helps me have that choice... Thanks Ken...
Cheers,
Michael
Thanks Ken
Don't we all now and then?
I'm happy about any "well known & respected?" member of the photographic community advocating film use...
Some beginning photographers might even start using film because of him and that only betters my chances of being able to use film for years to come...
Also, at last months Photokina for example, David Mecey (of Playboy "fame") talked about one of his new books and showed some very large (and VERY beautiful) prints (like 1x2 meters) from MF B/W contact sheets(!) he'd done lately. You should have seen the look on the faces of some of my "digital only" friends
I'm not saying "one is better than the other" (I use both); it's just nice to have the choice... Ken helps me have that choice... Thanks Ken...
Cheers,
Michael
Last edited:
funkaoshi
Well-known
As others have said, Rockwell has a habit of talking out of his ass a lot of the time. I'm still not entirely sure why he has the sway that he does.
kevin m
Veteran
He'd fit right in here, then, wouldn't he?
Because he's more entertaining and informative than most posts here, and it's easy enough to tell when he's full of it.
literiter
Well-known
Yeah, I don't see what the problem is. The only time I'm inclined to go to his site is when someone quotes him on this site. He at least provides a little fodder for discussion.
When he says "DSLRs are fine and dandy if you don't mind blowing a few grand every other year just to stay current" really rings a bell for me. As well; "No digital display can match the brightness and vividness of a transparency on a light table." Then; "No friggin shooting delays" and "No batteries or battery chargers."
The are just some of the reasons I'm not really passionate about Digital myself, and why I'd rather wait before committing myself to digital photography.
When he says "DSLRs are fine and dandy if you don't mind blowing a few grand every other year just to stay current" really rings a bell for me. As well; "No digital display can match the brightness and vividness of a transparency on a light table." Then; "No friggin shooting delays" and "No batteries or battery chargers."
The are just some of the reasons I'm not really passionate about Digital myself, and why I'd rather wait before committing myself to digital photography.
NickTrop
Veteran
Flip-flopper here. Film most of life with my cheap Cosina SLR and a Vivitar 50/1.7... Digital convert after SLR jammed... thought something lacking with digital files (a point-n-shoot, mind you), lacked bokeh, shutter lag, washed out and delay with LCDs, ability to shoot above 200, eye always on the battery indicator (how many times did I want to grab my camera after not using it for a while to discover it was almost dead, along with the spare), and only 4 aperture settings...
... decided to by a MF camera instead of a DSLR to "learn photography". Saw how beautiful film is, esp. MF. Then acquired several FLRFs, fixed my SLR (by giving it a good thwak on the back, 'click' - read that solution on the web - worked...)
Never looked back...
Ken is rediscovering film. So did I. It takes the best images. Cameras are funner to use, cheaper, last longer...
Nothing wrong with that.
|
... decided to by a MF camera instead of a DSLR to "learn photography". Saw how beautiful film is, esp. MF. Then acquired several FLRFs, fixed my SLR (by giving it a good thwak on the back, 'click' - read that solution on the web - worked...)
Never looked back...
Ken is rediscovering film. So did I. It takes the best images. Cameras are funner to use, cheaper, last longer...
Nothing wrong with that.
|
Tuolumne
Veteran
I think the saying is that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." Maybe Ken's more a Walt Whitman fan: Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself!
I like Rockwell; even if he's too chatty, his site is still full of useful info and his enthusiasm for whatever catches his interest that day is infectious. But does he think getting your film scanned when it's developed is some sort of new invention? Haven't most of us been doing that for years now?
Yes, and with such poor results I no longer bother to have my film scanned by the processor. (And did I mention the scratches they put on it?) I don't know what he is smoking when he looks at his scans.
/T
Nh3
Well-known
All those system admins who bought DSLRs and thought they'll become photographers overnight are up for a rude awakening.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
I had checked his site a number of times. He's as authoritative as any of us, and, let's admit it: wouldn't we like to be as well-known? At least he's not like Puts, of Leica fame...
Now, I don't have any problem with Ken. In fact, I sold him a Contax G1 manual through eBay; he paid very promptly, got a bit chatty and posted luminous feedback. He's rediscovering film... and that's fine and dandy with me. Let's all have a good day!
At least he's not like Puts, of Leica fame...Now, I don't have any problem with Ken. In fact, I sold him a Contax G1 manual through eBay; he paid very promptly, got a bit chatty and posted luminous feedback. He's rediscovering film... and that's fine and dandy with me. Let's all have a good day!
Chuck Albertson
Well-known
Try telling all the photogs frantically trying to recover their images from Digital Railroad, before they turn into pumpkins at midnight tomorrow, that the all-digital model is the grooviest thing since sliced bread. You might get an argument from some. With film, you at least have a tangible original.
peter_n
Veteran
Yes indeed. What a disaster!
S
Socke
Guest
Prints from contact sheets? Now that is interesting!
Prints from contact sheets? Now that is interesting!
How did he do the printing? I once made internegatives from 9x12cm LF contact prints because the originals got lost in the mail.
The result was good enough for the intended purpose and they where heavily retouched and handcoloured.
It was about making a picture and not taking a picture
But they weren't good enough to be enlarged much beyond 0.3x0.4 meters.
Prints from contact sheets? Now that is interesting!
How did he do the printing? I once made internegatives from 9x12cm LF contact prints because the originals got lost in the mail.
The result was good enough for the intended purpose and they where heavily retouched and handcoloured.
It was about making a picture and not taking a picture
But they weren't good enough to be enlarged much beyond 0.3x0.4 meters.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
You beat me to it Kevin. There are only a small number of people on this forum who write well enough to pull of what Ken Rockwell does, and at least one of them gets PAID for his writing.
Nh3
Well-known
This guy coming to the dark side is a sign that he has sniffed the changing wind and now wants to get chummy with the film crowd.
I can't stand him and his freaking kids. lol
I can't stand him and his freaking kids. lol
katgut@earthlink.net
Established
It's very difficult to know where exactly Rockwell stands. His site is a mass of contradictions and apples-oranges comparisons. On one hand, he says that it makes no difference which camera you use, while on the other hand he can't wait to buy the latest cameras and then trash whatever last week's favorite was.
This is the problem with self-editing, and blogs in general.
This is the problem with self-editing, and blogs in general.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
Ken is a guy who writes about photography for a living or supplement to his day job. I'm not certain which, not that it matters. He gives product reviews. That's a thankless job. I know because I've done them. No one is ever satisfied and usually half of the readers have some character assassination comments.
I encourage all the "stone throwers" in this thread to pick up the ball and start a competing column or blog. I know I'll read them all avidly! ;D
cheers Jan
BTW: Isn't it strange that a group of people at RFF who have a vested interest in seeing film survive are busy 'p.oo-pooing' a writer who has picked up the torch? Something to think about.
I encourage all the "stone throwers" in this thread to pick up the ball and start a competing column or blog. I know I'll read them all avidly! ;D
cheers Jan
BTW: Isn't it strange that a group of people at RFF who have a vested interest in seeing film survive are busy 'p.oo-pooing' a writer who has picked up the torch? Something to think about.
IK13
Established
Regardless of whether you dig Ken or not, what this studio is doing should be encouraged!
With less and less places to develop your film (especially MF) and even less places that offer affordable "high resolution" scanning (good luck with 120), shops like this should be commended.
I for once will send them a batch later this month (waiting to have 120/220 negative and slide and 35 negative and slide) and if they pass my test - I'll gladly switch to using their services.
With less and less places to develop your film (especially MF) and even less places that offer affordable "high resolution" scanning (good luck with 120), shops like this should be commended.
I for once will send them a batch later this month (waiting to have 120/220 negative and slide and 35 negative and slide) and if they pass my test - I'll gladly switch to using their services.