Leica LTM Ken Rockwell's take on why Cartier-Bresson only shot with a 50

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
When Tri-X Pan first came out in 1954 it was rated at ASA 200 but the way of rating film at the time included a one stop safety factor to avoid underexposure. Just about everybody knew that if you used an exposure meter, and not everybody had one in 1954, you could safely rate Tri-X at 400. At some point in the 1960's they changed the way films were rated and Tri-X "became" a 400 speed film. Before 1954 Kodak's high speed wonder was Super Double-X Pan which would be rated by today's standards at 250 ASA.
 
A lot of the greats had money

Henri Cartier-Bresson
Walker Evans
Diane Arbus
Richard Avedon
Click to expand...

It's less about money than time. Time to think out your ideas about photography and not to have to deal with the corrosive office politics of a 40 hour a week job.

Evans, I think, went through some skimpy times. Being a photographer or artist in those days involved a lot of loneliness and bare bones choices that we don't really have a model for now. The 1970s were the last of that period.
 
aperture64 said:
It is still beyond me why people read the crap that Ken writes.
Click to expand...

Probably because, unlike most gear reviewers and sites, he's reasonably realistic about what benefits a specific camera or lens is likely to give the average photographer... which is not much unless they have actual photographic ability.

Ken is great: he's reasonably funny; he isn't afraid of stating controversial views; and he isn't beholden to any particular camera manufacturer. He also has an uncanny ability to needle the pompous blowhards who infest photography web forums, and I find that very entertaining.:D
 
I feel some justice is needed to HCB because really I read the simplification "he had money so he could take pictures all the time" way too much.
The Cartier-Bresson family, which was not aristocratic, but a self made family business that got to the status of one of the biggest fortune in France at some point.
But, despite the money of this family, one of HCB main characteristic was is ability to meet and merge with many of the famous people of his times. He had an interest in everything, was passionate by art, and did definitely "spend every minute with the unfolding of history".
 
Ken Rockwell is a genius. Why because with little knowledge and some writing skill he manages to evoke so much emotion from so many people. Reminds me of a saying I once read " better to be spoke of badly than not at all".
 
Should I confess that I was the one who suggested that he send his Leica M4-P to either DAG or Sherry to get repaired? I did try to convince him that he should send his Leica to me, that it was dead, or to Sherry our DAG for repair. He did respond within 24 hours thanking me.

I asked him if he was ever going to review a Pen F, but he said that he doesn't have one. The next Olympus he is reviewing is the 35RC. I wonder if he will do a comparison with the Leica M4-P. . .
 
Ade-oh said:
Ken is great: he's reasonably funny; he isn't afraid of stating controversial views; and he isn't beholden to any particular camera manufacturer. He also has an uncanny ability to needle the pompous blowhards who infest photography web forums, and I find that very entertaining.:D
Click to expand...

Yup. It is a lot of fun to watch people's heads exploding over something he's gone and said.
 
And then he discovered that the SP was a 'real camera.'
Click to expand...

And people have a tendency to quote Mr. Rockwell out of context to suit their own purposes. :) Here's what he said in context (italics mine: )

When I got it the viewfinder was dim, orange, hazy and fuzzy. I couldn't see the rangefinder dot unless I really worked at it. Online reviews said this was what an SP did, and that its finder was never that great. I sent it to Pete to see what he could clean out.

Yikes! I almost dropped it from surprise when I got it back. The viewfinder is now as big, crisp, clear and 3D as my Mamiya 7. It's better, in fact, because the SP viewfinder is life-sized by design. You can focus and compose with both eyes open. Now the SP is a real camera and I guess I'm going go have to shoot and review it.
Click to expand...

It's obvious that what he means is now that the camera actually works, he'll have to try it out.

It's always good when Ken has a revelation.
Click to expand...

It truly is. His enthusiasm more than makes up for any factual errors.
 
I have nothing against Ken at all. These threads pop up every few weeks, and then he gets more traffic. Good for him. :)
 
Aha...the perfect storm for camera forum bashing- HCB, Leica, and Ken Rockwell.

I posted the link for the Hitler/Nikon video on my camera club's forum and one member referred to KR this way: "...he is an internet joke himself. He is all about himself. Please stay away from that site.............."

Then I knew which camp my compatriot was in. He's a good photographer, but apparently a "don't get it" as well. C'est la vie.
 
There seems to be a camp that thinks that everyone else doesn't "get" that Rockwell is trying to be funny. They think everyone else is missing the humor and not realizing that his tongue is pressed firmly in cheek. But I think it's more that although I see what he is trying to do, I just don't think it's funny (like his head is buried deeply up his *ss).

It's like Letterman or Leno or any of the other mainstream late night guys. I get what's supposed to be funny, it just isn't. It's just kind of painful and sad.

I'm not incensed, I just think he's pathetic.
 
nightfly said:
There seems to be a camp that thinks that everyone else doesn't "get" that Rockwell is trying to be funny. They think everyone else is missing the humor and not realizing that his tongue is pressed firmly in cheek. But I think it's more that although I see what he is trying to do, I just don't think it's funny (like his head is buried deeply up his *ss).
Click to expand...

You say you 'get' that he is trying to be funny, you just don't appreciate that form of humor. Fair enough. Then you add the bit about his head being up his ass, which gives the lie to your previous statement.

I don't find Benny Hill funny, but I don't think he had his head up his ass, I just didn't care for his type of humor.

I think the reactions to his humor, especially those that list all the reasons he is 'wrong', are as funny as the original column that spawned the responses. I think there are people who live to be offended - they hang on his every word (and Erwin Puts, and others like them) so that they can react with shock, disbelief, horror, anger, and whatever else they can dredge up when those worthies say something that offends their delicate sensibilities.

Ha, ha, and ha. I like to read his columns, and I like to read people spewing venom about them as their heads explode with rage.
 
summaron said:
It's less about money than time. Time to think out your ideas about photography and not to have to deal with the corrosive office politics of a 40 hour a week job.

Evans, I think, went through some skimpy times. Being a photographer or artist in those days involved a lot of loneliness and bare bones choices that we don't really have a model for now. The 1970s were the last of that period.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom