wgerrard
Veteran
What's incorrect about any of those statements?
You know, when I read Rockwell's articles, I see a guy who uses DSLR's, SLR's, rangefinders, point and shoots, old cameras and new cameras. He likes big vivid landscape pictures. Perhaps if he moved from California to a cold dark Eastern city and lurked around downtown taking fuzzy pictures in the dark fewer people would freak out.
Last edited:
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Nothing was incorrect in his M9 Review. Rockwell is well known, however, for leading newbies astray with his hyperbolic, extreme positions (e.g. Raw is for losers, AdobeRGB is worthless, true professionals only ever use Macs). He simply can't be taken totally seriously, on most anything, because you have no idea when he's up to his antics. If you are already familiar with the material, he may indeed be funny or entertaining; he is not a place to go for factual information for anything except maybe lens reviews. He also has his hat out looking for money at the beginning and end of each of his reviews.
Whatever...
wgerrard
Veteran
Rockwell runs a blog, not a professional journal with pretensions to objectivity. He's giving his opinion, nothing more. If he wants to say Raw is a waste of time, and provide a justification (he does), then why shouldn't he? It's clear that he's providing his personal view of photography done his way.
His style and even his hyperbole parallels that of many blog writers. The internet is a tough audience. Equivocation doesn't sell there.
His boilerplate urgings that people buy from his advertisers also is common on thousands and thousands of blogs.
As for the snipe at "fuzzy pictures in the dark".... well, I've seen more than one jab taken at Rockwell here for shooting those bright landscape pictures. What's in our photos is no one else's business.
Bottom line: He's one guy with one blog offering his opinions. What's there to get upset about?
His style and even his hyperbole parallels that of many blog writers. The internet is a tough audience. Equivocation doesn't sell there.
His boilerplate urgings that people buy from his advertisers also is common on thousands and thousands of blogs.
As for the snipe at "fuzzy pictures in the dark".... well, I've seen more than one jab taken at Rockwell here for shooting those bright landscape pictures. What's in our photos is no one else's business.
Bottom line: He's one guy with one blog offering his opinions. What's there to get upset about?
functus
Failed Poet
I did find myself smiling at this line:
"The LEICA's image stabilization comes from the quiet, unflappable confidence inherent in every Leica photographer."
"The LEICA's image stabilization comes from the quiet, unflappable confidence inherent in every Leica photographer."
russianRF
Fed 5C User
What's so wrong with disagreeing with him, and feeling as though he makes a bit of an ass of himself. No one here is so upset as to advocate that his site be forced off the Internet or anything. Many intelligent people with well-informed opinions don't like him or what he (often) stands for.
What's so wrong about THAT?
The same defense could be made for his detractors. "Oh well, I take Rockwell with a grain of salt" doesn't make for NEARLY as interesting discussing as "He's an uninformed jerk who says things to just to rile people up; he's a TROLL."
At the very worst, his detractors are guilty of the same thing he is: hyperbole.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think anyone in this thread was attacking his pictures. I certainly wasn't.
As far as them not being our "business;" if he doesn't want people commenting on them, he shouldn't put them on the Internet. I'm sure YOU are (for whatever reason) much more upset about people bagging on his work than HE is...
Bottom line: He's made a lot of wild statements. Again, reasonable, well-spoken people have taken exception to those comments. Why do you feel the need to defend him so much?
dfoo
Well-known
Anyone see http://www.flickr.com/photos/30399736@N03/sets/72157619648817298/ linked from Ken's site? Very nice!
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Well, the deductions he makes. "This company made a bad product in the '70s so the product they make now must also be bad". Of course, as anybody, he is perfectly entitled to have his opinions but some of the arguments like "this is not made in Germany so it is not good" are almost racist and it is not surprise that he receive a lot of criticisms.
Also, had he the very same opinions supported by proper reviews and tests (you know, where he tells us how he tested the product and maybe showed some pictures) then he could be taken much more seriously. Of course, also if he had some professional looking picture on his site instead of the amateurish boring photographs he has that would help too...
Take for example Bjørn Rørslett, he likes the same hyper-saturated colours and is clearly giving reviews as a fan of Nikon products but at least you can see he has tested things and you can get some data from his tests there and nobody has much to say even when his taste is much different than other people's...
GLF
wgerrard
Veteran
Well, Leica has been leaning on the "Made in Germany" gambit for decades. It seems to work, too. Otherwise, people wouldn't fixate so much on what was made in Canada and what was made the other side of the Rhine.
Rockwell is clearly not interested in running exhaustive tests that collect reams of data. Plenty of other sites do that for those who think that kind of data is relevant to their use of cameras. Instead, he takes a camera out for a round of use and then reports his reactions to it. That's a fair and viable approach, as well. Of course, everything he says is his opinion, but so are the conclusions drawn by others from their test data. If someone bases his or her decisions solely on data, then Rockwell will not appeal. If someone wants to learn what an experienced photographer thinks about a camera or a lens, then Rockwell is one source for that information. Innumerable threads here at RFF serve the same purpose.
Our individual impressions of his photos have no bearing here. He takes the kind of pictures he like to take, as do we all when it's our dime. Not every photographer needs to try to mimic HCB.
Fundamentally, though, no one is forced to read Rockwell's site. I'm not sure why those who don't enjoy his site take the time to poke sticks at him.
Rockwell is clearly not interested in running exhaustive tests that collect reams of data. Plenty of other sites do that for those who think that kind of data is relevant to their use of cameras. Instead, he takes a camera out for a round of use and then reports his reactions to it. That's a fair and viable approach, as well. Of course, everything he says is his opinion, but so are the conclusions drawn by others from their test data. If someone bases his or her decisions solely on data, then Rockwell will not appeal. If someone wants to learn what an experienced photographer thinks about a camera or a lens, then Rockwell is one source for that information. Innumerable threads here at RFF serve the same purpose.
Our individual impressions of his photos have no bearing here. He takes the kind of pictures he like to take, as do we all when it's our dime. Not every photographer needs to try to mimic HCB.
Fundamentally, though, no one is forced to read Rockwell's site. I'm not sure why those who don't enjoy his site take the time to poke sticks at him.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Fundamentally, though, no one is forced to pay attention to Rockwell's detractors. I'm not sure why those who enjoy his site take the time to defend him so rigorously.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Then you're ignorant of what's on Rockwell's site. He himself states that you shouldn't take advice from people whose galleries/work you don't respect.
Quoth Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/otherrvw.htm
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Ade-oh
Well-known
What rubbish! I've just re-read that review and his conclusion is that the lens in question is no better than the Nikon equivalent. He doesn't say that it's bad but he does point out that, despite the Zeiss branding, the lens itself is not made by Zeiss. I suspect the inference one is supposed to draw is to question whether a Cosina-made version of an ancient lens design is worth the premium price charged in comparison with other brands. Would anyone buy the ZF 50mm f1.4 if it was 'Cosina' branded? I doubt it.
I think the nub of peoples dislike of KR is that he actually says what he thinks about cameras and lenses. Too many gear collectors feel their manhood is being besmirched if someone suggests they've bought a bad lens.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Nope, it's not, at least not for me. I actually enjoyed when he pointed out how crummy the M8/8.2 was for having a crop sensor. There have been a few times when *gasp* I agree with him.
I personally just resent him for leading me astray on various different subjects while I was a newbie. He makes wild, hyperbolic statements, often of dubious veracity. I realize this is par for the course; he has every right to make those statements. And people have every right to take him to task for those statements.
Last edited:
wgerrard
Veteran
tim_c
Established
Just a remark on the picture of the M9 that Mr Rockwell posted. It's not a photo of a real camera, it's an illustration using a 3D model as its base. It's probably based on an earlier design hence the missing details compared to the production version.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
Well, I don't think that saying "It feels exactly like a third-party manual focus lens from the 1970s, and for good reason. Cosina, who makes this lens, made many of the third-party lenses of the 1970s." is a correct statement. Please notice, it feels like that (it doesn't but that you might call an "opinion") for a good reason...because it is made by a company which made many lenses in the 70s. That for me is a plain wrong statement. The inference "for a good reason" is what makes it wrong. As for the Cosina branded...well I would say in this forum many buy Cosina lenses branded in whichever way they are... A Tokina branded lens is one of the most respected ultrawideangle in Nikon mount... Finally, I personally don't feel my "manhood" offended if someone can tell me something useful about a lens before I spend the money to find by myself whether this and I have no problems in saying for example that on Olympus OM-10, cheap entry level camera, is more reliable in my personal experience than a Leica R4 but I just would rather appreciate if a reason is given, in this case I could tell many stories, for the lens some pictures would help. Finally, I picked up this special recension beside the M9 which was discussed here because:
(a) It has no pictures whatsoever besides what looks to be pictures from catalogues, not even one of the lens on a camera;
(b) It does not mention anywhere how the lens was tested, film, digital, lab, real life;
(3) It mention over and over that the lens is "Made in Japan" as if this was affecting in any way the quality of the lens (sure, this is a true statement);
(4) Most important, I did test the lens both on film and digital against nikkor 35mm f2 Ais and 24-70 f2.8 together with friends who have the lenses and you don't even need to be taking pictures of specially designed targets to see it produce nice images which are different than both the other lenses. you might like it or not and think it is worth or not to spend the money but we could all recognize pictures taken with the lens against the others even if we were not told. In fact, you can see many review with actual pictures taken (one is at photozone.de) which are exactly in line with what we all saw.
Once again, if his articles had some data I would appreciate the informations but as it is this can be called, as you did with my comment: rubbish. The same is in my humble opinion true with most of the other comments. And as rubbish they don't even deserve to be commented in this forum.
GLF
russianRF
Fed 5C User
I completely fail to see how you got that from my post. Maybe you are the one who's thinking of things in terms of black and white? I see Rockwell in shades of grey, albeit darker than lighter. As I've said before, it's not as though I'm advocating he be removed from the Internet or anything.
Frankly, I follow his site regularly. I value his lens reviews, and my current favorite Canon EOS lens was purchased, partly, on his recommendation (EF-S 60mm Macro). At the same time, I would steer newbies, and anyone easily flustered, away from his site. Do I trust Rockwell's opinion, or do I trust my professor's? Well, my professor for studio photography insists on us shooting RAW in AdobeRGB. Rockwell doesn't just disagree with this approach, it's anathema to him. He's certainly welcome to his opinion, and to expressing it online. There are, however, many informed people who disagree completely with many of his core views. Again—why are you so hostile to the mere act of disagreeing with Rockwell?
Just has he has every right to occasionally provide good information, while always serving up lots of bias and hyperbole, I have every right embrace some of his views, while rejecting many others.
At this point, I'm not even certain as to the intention of your posts. Agree=good, disagree=bad? With no room for nuance, agreement with reservations, etc.? What point are you making exactly? That we either have to embrace him totally, or reject him outright? That we can't have informed discussions about why we disagree with him?
Or are you, at this point, just posting what you feel is the bare minimum to keep people riled up and posting over your comments?
wgerrard
Veteran
Where have I expressed that hostility? I have said I don't understand what motivates people to take the time to trash a blog they obviously don't like. Why not just avoid it and move on?
No one is questioning any of your rights. I will question your assertion that he "always" engages in bias and hyperbole. It seem contradictory that you would sometimes trust someone who always writes with bias and hyperbole.
You told us why you didn't like Rockwell's blog, and then you told us you did like his posts when you agreed with them.
Look, I don't really care if people read Rockwell's blog or not. Or whether they think he's honest or if he skews his reviews. What interests me is that he seems to be a punching bag for people who go out of their way to attack him here. After all, he's just talking about cameras and lenses. What's the big deal if he says something someone else doesn't agree with? For example, he says he doesn't want to mess with post-processing RAW images so he shoots jpegs. He's happy with the results. So what if he posts long pieces telling us about that?
russianRF
Fed 5C User
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuance
nuance One entry found.
- Main Entry: nu·ance
- Pronunciation: \ˈnü-ˌän(t)s, ˈnyü-, -ˌäⁿs; nü-ˈ, nyü-ˈ\
- Function: noun
- Etymology: French, from Middle French, shade of color, from nuer to make shades of color, from nue cloud, from Latin nubes; perhaps akin to Welsh nudd mist
- Date: 1781
[...]
3 : sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)
I said I didn't think his blog was/is a good source of information for newbies. I also said that I can understand why some people don't particularly like him, or agree with much of what he says. I was then magnanimous enough to admit that, in some circumstances, for some things, Rockwell is a good source of information. I think it's fairly clear that my thrust throughout this conversation has been that Rockwell is inappropriate for the photographic neophyte, and that many people have very valid criticisms of his work. See the definition above...
What interests me is your dogged refusal to accept that Rockwell is not some sort of photographic deity. How dare we blaspheme by implying that he is not correct all (or most) of the time! Okay, maybe that was a bit sarcastic (or hyperbolic even!)... I'm sure Rockwell doesn't much feel like a punching bag; I'm sure he much doesn't care. What interests ME is the fact that YOU feel as though you must come online and defend him from attacks—real and IMAGINARY (no one brought up the quality of his portfolio in this thread until YOU did first).
wgerrard
Veteran
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.
To repeat, why do people here go out of their way -- generating a post -- to attack Rockwell? Why do they care so much?
And, why is Rockwell's site such a bad thing for a neophyte? Because he doesn't engage in tests of debatable value? No objective way exists to measure the effectiveness of a photo. You measure what you can measure and you test what you can test. But, the only thing that counts is the photo and you can neither measure that or test it.
To repeat, why do people here go out of their way -- generating a post -- to attack Rockwell? Why do they care so much?
And, why is Rockwell's site such a bad thing for a neophyte? Because he doesn't engage in tests of debatable value? No objective way exists to measure the effectiveness of a photo. You measure what you can measure and you test what you can test. But, the only thing that counts is the photo and you can neither measure that or test it.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?!
Last edited: