wgerrard
Veteran
1. Your characterization of Rockwell's blog as "inflammatory" is a subjective opinion.
2. I'm not defending Rockwell and I'm not objecting to criticism of Rockwell. i've asked why, among all other bloggers about photography, he seems to annoy people so much that some of them go out of their way to tell us.
3."AdobeRGB offers a richer gamut than sRGB.." -- Irrelevant to people who don't want to post-process and who are satisfied with jpegs.
4. "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." -- As a Mac user, i don't really disagree with Rockwell on this. But, it is an example of hyperbole, although rampant among both camps. On the other hand, learning Photoshop is not a prerequisite for becoming a good photographer.
5. "a solid understanding of the fundamentals of composition will likely make someone into a better photographer..." -- Of course. But you can't measure it or test it. The impact of a photo is determined by how other people react to it. That is completely subjective.
6. "The only thing that counts is "the photo," and yet no one should ever pass judgment on Rockwell's own photos..." -- It's specious to say Rockwell's writing is wrong because you don't like his photos. It isn't unusual for that to happen around here.
2. I'm not defending Rockwell and I'm not objecting to criticism of Rockwell. i've asked why, among all other bloggers about photography, he seems to annoy people so much that some of them go out of their way to tell us.
3."AdobeRGB offers a richer gamut than sRGB.." -- Irrelevant to people who don't want to post-process and who are satisfied with jpegs.
4. "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." -- As a Mac user, i don't really disagree with Rockwell on this. But, it is an example of hyperbole, although rampant among both camps. On the other hand, learning Photoshop is not a prerequisite for becoming a good photographer.
5. "a solid understanding of the fundamentals of composition will likely make someone into a better photographer..." -- Of course. But you can't measure it or test it. The impact of a photo is determined by how other people react to it. That is completely subjective.
6. "The only thing that counts is "the photo," and yet no one should ever pass judgment on Rockwell's own photos..." -- It's specious to say Rockwell's writing is wrong because you don't like his photos. It isn't unusual for that to happen around here.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Shared by many reasonable people, some of whom frequent this forum. What is wrong with a large group of people sharing a subjective opinion?
And yet you are.
And when we give you reasoned, insightful answers, you ignore them.
Actually, the color space your .jpg is processed in has a LOT to do with things if you ever intend to print it out, or even display it on a screen. Of course, if you're shooting RAW (*gasp!* the horror!), you have much more flexibility in switching between profiles, because you have extra information to play with beyond 8-bit jpeg.
But here we come to Rockwell being "inflammatory." Go actually READ his AdobeRGB article. Here's a direct quote from it:
"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography."
Notice he didn't say "Adobe RGB is irrelevant if you aren't already managing your color workflow." No, he says it's irrelevant to "real photography." As if anyone who carefully manages their color-space workflow isn't practicing "real" photography?! How is that not inflammatory?
[/FONT]
But you've already demonstrated you can't recognize hyperbole, even when it's directly pointed out to you.
For being a good photographer, no; for being a good digital photographer, quite possibly yes. For being any kind of photographer, it is certainly more relevant than arguing about Macs vs PCs. I don't even really mind that he prefers Macs—lots of professionals do. It's when he makes uninformed, blanket statements about Windows that he bothers me. But again, if it were just about his Mac fetish, I wouldn't care so much. But it's not just that topic, it's that and almost every other topic with Rockwell.
And yet I came up with a quote from Rockwell himself which basically states you shouldn't take advice from people whose photography you don't admire. But fine, I concede, you are correct, it is specious to say he cannot write about photography even if one doesn't like his photography. But that's NOT why most people don't like him. People have well reasoned arguments about why he is incorrect, or egregiously hyperbolic, etc. At the end of it all, as an incidental note, a few of his critics then mention that they don't particularly care for Rockwell's work. So what? Let people dislike his work! Let people feel as though he's inflammatory! Let people take exception to his opinions!
If you can't see why he bothers so many people, then you've either never been to more than a page or two from his site, or you're just being obstinate.
wgerrard
Veteran
!. Nothing is wrong with sharing an opinion. It doesn't make your assertion that Rockwell's blog is inflammatory a fact.
2. If you think I am objecting to criticism of Rockwell, you are either deliberately distorting what i've said or can't understand it. I've asked why he provokes so much ire. If you think that is defending him against critics, that's not my concern. Rockwell is one guy out of thousands on the web publishing opinion about photography. That is exactly what happens here on this site. Yet, I've seen no reasoned answers to my question All I've seen amounts to this: He irritates you.
3. I'm not interested in what Rockwell did nor did not say about AdobeRGB. I said people who don't want to mess around with the processing required by RAW files will shoot jpegs. So what if they might be missing something when they print, if they print at all. Most do not print. Most people with cameras post to the web and leave it at that.
4. Why do you think picking quotes from Rockwell has any bearing on what I've said?
Look, everything Rockwell has ever published could be entirely wrong. I don't care. But, even if it is, what's it to you? Why are you and others prompted to go onto the web and proclaim to the world your feelings about his site? Do you do the same thing with every site you don't agree with?
You are the one who gets emotional about mundane and largely irrelevant things like RAW files and AdobeRGB and managing color spaces and whatever. These things are not important in real life. If you think trashing the need to manage color spaces is inflammatory, you need to get out more, honestly. You know, I usually shoot film, send my C41 out to be processed, scan the negatives, and do as little post-processing as possible in Photoshop, and post a few photos on the web. I've never printed, period. They'd just create clutter. Do I worry about color space? Not at all. When I do shoot digital, I put the camera on full automatic and turn out jpegs. As I see it, technology is supposed to make life easier, not more complicated. Post-processing a RAW file is a waste of my time if I cannot distinguish the result from a jpeg. You probably do it differently. That's OK. No one is keeping score and there are no rules about how to do photography.
2. If you think I am objecting to criticism of Rockwell, you are either deliberately distorting what i've said or can't understand it. I've asked why he provokes so much ire. If you think that is defending him against critics, that's not my concern. Rockwell is one guy out of thousands on the web publishing opinion about photography. That is exactly what happens here on this site. Yet, I've seen no reasoned answers to my question All I've seen amounts to this: He irritates you.
3. I'm not interested in what Rockwell did nor did not say about AdobeRGB. I said people who don't want to mess around with the processing required by RAW files will shoot jpegs. So what if they might be missing something when they print, if they print at all. Most do not print. Most people with cameras post to the web and leave it at that.
4. Why do you think picking quotes from Rockwell has any bearing on what I've said?
Look, everything Rockwell has ever published could be entirely wrong. I don't care. But, even if it is, what's it to you? Why are you and others prompted to go onto the web and proclaim to the world your feelings about his site? Do you do the same thing with every site you don't agree with?
You are the one who gets emotional about mundane and largely irrelevant things like RAW files and AdobeRGB and managing color spaces and whatever. These things are not important in real life. If you think trashing the need to manage color spaces is inflammatory, you need to get out more, honestly. You know, I usually shoot film, send my C41 out to be processed, scan the negatives, and do as little post-processing as possible in Photoshop, and post a few photos on the web. I've never printed, period. They'd just create clutter. Do I worry about color space? Not at all. When I do shoot digital, I put the camera on full automatic and turn out jpegs. As I see it, technology is supposed to make life easier, not more complicated. Post-processing a RAW file is a waste of my time if I cannot distinguish the result from a jpeg. You probably do it differently. That's OK. No one is keeping score and there are no rules about how to do photography.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
I never said it was a pure, cold hard fact. I said that many people agree with me, and feel "inflamed" by what he says.
Really? Because I've outlined quite a few points from Rockwell that I, personally, take issue with. And yet you are unsatisfied with simply accepting my answer to your question "why all the ire?" Instead, you take up the subjects themselves and start arguing on Rockwell's behalf. (E.g., "but most people don't need to use AdobeRGB!")
So you are deliberately ignoring all the points I've made about Mac vs. Windows, AdobeRGB, etc. I could go on—film has a lot of positive qualities, and I could see someone calling it "the Original RAW." Rockwell calls it "RealRAW." He then over-simplifies how easy it is to get his film processed, while grossly exaggerating how long it takes to process digital RAW files. It's fine if he doesn't like digital RAW, and he may indeed have some good points about film, but he takes deliberately provocative positions about film, beyond just advocating for it.
I honestly don't know how much more explaining I need to do here. I've explained how Rockwell can be less than unbiased, and how his hyperbolic stances can confuse newbies. I think I've said plenty more than "he just irritates me."
Rockwell made grossly exaggerated statements about AdobeRGB. He didn't JUST say "it's irrelevant to amateur photography" nor "it's not important if you're just outputting to screen." He dismissed AdobeRGB out of hand, insisting that it's irrelevant to "real" photography. Rather than listen to my rather cogent discussion as to why I find his statements about AdobeRGB irritating, you instead decide to defend him telling people to not use AdobeRGB. Telling people they should or should not use AdobeRGB is not the issue; the WAY in which Rockwell expresses his opinion IS the issue precicely.
Fine, for the sake of argument, let's say it has no bearing.
For not caring, you are sure quick to step in and support his point of view. Weren't you the one who said "Irrelevant to people who don't want to post-process and who are satisfied with jpegs"? Sounds like defending Rockwell's AdobeRGB position to me, considering that's exactly his argument once you strip away all his pretension and argumentativeness.
Proclaim to the world?! That's RICH. I don't have a hate website setup to mock Rockwell; I don't take out advertisements in Google Adwords disparaging him. I come onto a forum and, when the topic of Rockwell comes up, I mention my reservations with him. What problem do YOU have that you can't accept that?
Most of the sites I don't agree with aren't so inflammatory; most of them don't openly mock the people they disagree with. If you don't see the problem by now, you likely never will. I'm certainly done trying to argue my points with you. If, after my PAGES of reasoned, detailed responses, you still can't glean anything beyond "hurr hurr durr durr he irritates me waah waah" then I really have nothing left to say to you.
These things are just as important to a digital photographer as darkroom methods, choice of enlarging paper, etc. are to a traditional analogue photographer. If you don't think color spaces are important, then you've obviously never had to produce quality, color-correct work for a client. And I don't give a damn if people shoot in RAW or not, but there are good, valid reasons to use RAW. If it's not your cup of tea, fine. But don't go to the expense and hassle of using film and then, in the next breath, decry how difficult and involved processing RAW is (as Rockwell does).
As far as being emotional, YOU seem awfully "emotional" about the fact that some people just really dislike Rockwell's antics.
You need to have a better understanding of color spaces, and of the basic technical underpinnings of your craft. Oh what, did I just make gross assumptions about you and your life? Well, gee. You know what, I get out plenty, thank you very much.
How special for you. There's nothing wrong with your workflow; it's entirely valid. A RAW workflow is ALSO valid, but Rockwell refuses to even accept it as a possibility.
It's still something of a mystery as to what you expect to gain from this conversation. If I truly had no life, if I truly needed to get out more, I could go back over the YEARS of posts Rockwell has made, and point out each inflammatory statement. Rather than just accept an exhaustive list, I'm sure you'd quickly defend each of Rockwell's contentious stances, all the while proclaiming you care nothing about Rockwell's opinions!
It goes further than RAW, AdobeRGB, Mac vs PC, etc. Those are just some obnoxious assertions he's made recently, or that have stuck out in my mind. There are dozens more. Not a month goes by, practically, without him taking an essentially valid and interesting fact or assertion, and then turning it into a flippant attack or mockery against whatever he's upset with du jour.
It's really damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't with you, isn't it? If I say I have a problem with Rockwell, you demand a reason as to why. If I explain my reasons with you, you begin arguing that my reasons are invalid. If I go into detail and explain why my reasons are, in fact, valid, then you switch to ad homenim and "argue" that I need to get out more often. You simply refuse to be satisfied, beyond anything except a total capitulation. That's it, isn't it?! You demand to be "right"—you want me to take back everything I've said about Rockwell, and to keep my trap shut. And if I try to logically, carefully justify my positions, you throw up obfuscations and logical fallacies.
No one is saying Rockwell doesn't have a right to express himself. I'm certainly not saying he's never right—I've pointed out times when I've *agreed* with him. Most people who have a problem with him are content to limit their reaction to a sentence or two. Then here you bluster into the forums, demanding people justify why they dislike Rockwell. You claim to be neutral, but then start defending Rockwell's positions as soon as we express our issues with them.
And really, let's look in the mirror for a second. You claim to be baffled as to why people have so much anger and general ENERGY behind their dislike of Rockwell. And yet here YOU are, doggedly trying to refute every fact and OPINION I have given you as to why I dislike Rockwell. Why do we loathe Rockwell so much? If you're not satisfied by now, you never will be. Fine. You win. Hundreds (and it seems like there are at least a dozen on every major blog) of competent, eloquent, skilled photographers find his antics annoying and unhelpful to the photographic community. We're all wrong. We're all a bunch of know-nothing weenies who spend all day discussing RAW conversions and color spaces and other "irrelevant" things. You're *so* much better than us.
A WINNAR IS YOU!
Last edited:
Ade-oh
Well-known
I can think of a very good reason why pictures taken with a 50mm f1.4 lens look different to those taken with a 35mm f2 and a 24-70 f2.8, and it has nothing to do with what manufacturer's name is stamped on the barrel.
russianRF said:
Well, my point is that Rockwell is just expressing his opinions and it seems bizarre to me that they generate such anger. I'm not a big fan of his photography and I disagree with a lot of his opinions but I find his blog amusing and entertaining to read, even when what he writes is wrong. I can't understand why so many people, on this site in particular, seem to take Rockwell's opinions so personally.
Frank Dernie
Member
Ken Rockwell is not very knowledgeable
Ken Rockwell is not very knowledgeable
I am driven mad by this guy's site. He has strong opinions and makes recommendations which are out of date before long as he learns a bit about things and contradicts one recommendation with a later one. He did not "discover" Leica until earlier this year, having been a Nikon evangelist before that.
His comments about film are so far off mark that I would give him a D- if he submitted this for an examination...
Ken Rockwell is not very knowledgeable
I am driven mad by this guy's site. He has strong opinions and makes recommendations which are out of date before long as he learns a bit about things and contradicts one recommendation with a later one. He did not "discover" Leica until earlier this year, having been a Nikon evangelist before that.
His comments about film are so far off mark that I would give him a D- if he submitted this for an examination...
Frank Dernie
Member
If he did not set himself up as some sort of expert, deleted the begging paragraph from each page and explained that his site was for amusement not edification I would start to agree with you.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
T H A N K Y O U
wgerrard
Veteran
You still haven't answered that question.
You've explained that you think Rockwell is often wrong, inflammatory, hyperbolic, misleading, etc. Fair enough. But, why does that generate your "ire" and anger? Why does it matter to you what he says about RAW or AdobeRGB or what cameras neophytes should use that you would spend so much time trying to convince me? Do you really think those issues are so important to the world that his positions merit your anger?
I'd think indifference and avoidance would be a more likely response.
As for the part of your rant where you turn defensive because you pretend someone doing something differently than you is attacking and demeaning you... well, enough said.
Last edited:
russianRF
Fed 5C User
I didn't turn defensive at any point. Now you're just making s**t up... Par for the course with you, obviously.
wgerrard
Veteran
>><i> We're all wrong. We're all a bunch of know-nothing weenies who spend all day discussing RAW conversions and color spaces and other "irrelevant" things. You're *so* much better than us.
</i>
Sounds defensive to me.
And, I note that you haven't answered the question, still. Explaining why you think he is wrong does not explain why his being wrong angers you and others.
</i>
Sounds defensive to me.
And, I note that you haven't answered the question, still. Explaining why you think he is wrong does not explain why his being wrong angers you and others.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
I don't OWE you any kind of explanation. I, and "others," have every RIGHT to find him irritating.
wgerrard
Veteran
No , you don't owe me anything. But, you've spent a lot of time telling me that when a guy says something you don't agree with he is also be contentious, inflammatory and mocking. For example, you have your preference re: RAW and AdobeRG. He has his. Yet, reading his expression of his opinions generates anger in you. I don't get it. I don't think Rockwell is contentious, inflammatory and mocking. But, even if I did, why would I ever imagine that I was the target of all that? Why would I care that much about technical issues?
ramosa
B&W
much ado about nothing
much ado about nothing
wow. 75 posts about rockwell. perhaps, this free publicity will persuade him to quit asking for handouts.
damn. i made it 76. :bang:
much ado about nothing
wow. 75 posts about rockwell. perhaps, this free publicity will persuade him to quit asking for handouts.
damn. i made it 76. :bang:
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Jason Blake
Member
Ken will be laughing, what great publicity. Personally, I really enjoy what he has to say.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
I wouldn't put it past Rockwell to hire trolls just to generate publicity. It certainly would fit in with his blogging style.
wgerrard
Veteran
Hardly a troll. I've been here for a long time. I'm just stunned that people would take offense at blog posts about technical issues like RAW, color spaces, etc.
i was incorrect to assume you were evading the question when you were explaining at length why Rockwell was wrong. That is the reason: You're upset because you think Rockwell is wrong. It's that equation that I don't understand. I don't understand why you care enough about appliances like cameras to get angry.
That's no troll. That's a real question.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
russianRF: You haven't understood at all Bill's question.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
I'm sure any idiot can surmise from my LENGTHY posts my position, and my reasons for my position. It's OBVIOUS that I've said MULTIPLE times I don't care what Rockwell says so much as how he says it; I don't care about his opinions so much as how he delivers them. I don't feel his writing style, and the contentious way he delivers his points, is helpful to the wider photographic community.
If you don't think I've answered his question, Trius, then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.
Last edited: