Where have I said Rockwell is a deity? Or, even worth reading? If you are going to attribute nonsense to me, at least have the decency to be accurate.
I made it quite clear that I was being hyperbolic myself when I made that statement. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that when things are spelled out for you, you *still* don't understand them.
To repeat, why do people here go out of their way -- generating a post -- to attack Rockwell? Why do they care so much?
Why shouldn't they care? He expresses an opinion, and people disagree. He says inflammatory things, and people are, indeed, inflamed. Why do YOU care so much that many people don't like him. It's one thing if you want to defend one of his particular opinions with your own reasoned analysis, but that's not what you're doing here. You're just blindly objecting to virtually any criticism of Rockwell...to what purpose, or why, I have no idea.
And, why is Rockwell's site such a bad thing for a neophyte?
Because he distorts things without giving (or even admitting to, most of the time) an alternate point of view. AdobeRGB is a perfect example—if you shoot RAW, *and* your monitor is calibrated, and you understand how to manage color profiles, AdobeRGB offers a richer gamut than sRGB and is thus preferred by many good photographers. To hear Rockwell tell it, AdobeRGB is a waste of time, a marketing gimmick.
Another thing is his endless tirade against Windows computers. I'm willing to accept, for arguement's sake, that Mac's are a little better than Windows. To hear Rockwell tell it, newbies should toss out their perfectly functional Windows machines and scrimp and save for a new Mac, lest they not be "true" professionals. Ask anyone who has a balanced view on the topic, and they will assuredly tell you that, whatever your platform preference, learning the basics of Photoshop is much more important than anguishing over Mac vs. PC all day.
Because he doesn't engage in tests of debatable value?
No, because he distorts facts and exaggerates the faults of things he doesn't like. And because there's no way for a newbie to tell when he's being serious, versus when he's joking around.
No objective way exists to measure the effectiveness of a photo.
Really? Because one of the few articles of Rockwell's I genuinely admire is his article on composition. He doesn't claim (and nor do I) that there is a scientific, objective, "right every time" way to produce a photo; he DOES claim (as do I) that a solid understanding of the fundamentals of composition will likely make someone into a better photographer.
But, the only thing that counts is the photo and you can neither measure that or test it.
So the only thing that counts is "the photo," and yet no one should ever pass judgment on Rockwell's own photos. And you accuse *me* of being inconsistent?!
