Rockwell and the 'M9 Concept', the big 'M9 losers', finder options

The Thread's greatest hits"

The Thread's greatest hits"

And here I present the thread's greatest hits, for the reading comprehension impaired:

Rockwell is well known, however, for leading newbies astray with his hyperbolic, extreme positions... He simply can't be taken totally seriously, on most anything, because you have no idea when he's up to his antics...He also has his hat out looking for money at the beginning and end of each of his reviews.

What's so wrong with disagreeing with him, and feeling as though he makes a bit of an ass of himself... He's made a lot of wild statements. Again, reasonable, well-spoken people have taken exception to those comments.

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.

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 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 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.

...he distorts things without giving (or even admitting to, most of the time) an alternate point of view... ...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.

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?

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.

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. ... 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). ... 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.
 
I personally love how KR can consistently get a certain segment of the population's panties into a big, sticky wad.
 
If you don't think I've answered his question, Trius, then you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

No, I think you've explained what upsets you about Ken Rockwell's website but you haven't really explained why it upsets you. I disagree with a lot of what Rockwell says but it doesn't actually make me angry.

I have a suspicion that - for some men - cameras and photographic technique occupy the same psychological territory that cars and driving, and guns and shooting, occupy for others: it becomes part of how they define themselves. Thus when Rockwell is disparaging about certain photographic equipment or techniques, it strikes at the self-image of some members of this site in a particularly violent way.

Of course, this is purely whimsical speculation on my part, not backed up by any form of empirical testing.
 
Look guys, russianRF is clear about his reasons:

I personally just resent him for leading me astray on various different subjects while I was a newbie.

And I think he has a point. If you in seriousness would start from KR's site to get advice on what equipment to buy, workflows to use, etc., you might get screwed. Just like using People magazine for real news.
 
And I think he has a point. If you in seriousness would start from KR's site to get advice on what equipment to buy, workflows to use, etc., you might get screwed. Just like using People magazine for real news.

Do you really think so? If you were a newbie to photography, I think Ken's site has some pretty good advice: i.e., that good photography is more about technique than equipment, and that relatively cheap gear is often as capable as the much more expensive 'pro' alternatives. IIRC, he recommends the Nikon D40 kit as a starter DSLR, for example: I couldn't agree more.

As for a beginner's 'workflow' (which is a hideous overblown word, IMHO), he's pretty straightforward about that too: shoot jpegs in sRGB and send them to an online processor for printing if you want to.
 
Go to Thom Hogan, forget ken rockwell... KR states that noone need a tripod, seriously? can you take such a guy seriously? :p
 
Well, noone shoting a modern SLR... ;)

"Hang onto your tripod if you're shooting a real camera like a Hasselblad, Gandolfi, Linhof, Silvestri, Horseman, Tachihara, Gilde, Seitz, Sinar or even a Wisner, Wista or Mamiya, but toss it if you're shooting a popular digital SLR"
 
Any web site that offers advice about photography, or any other subject, can lead a beginner astray. By definition, beginners don't really know what they are talking about and what they want or like. For example, I think Rockwell's recommendation to start with a D40 makes sense. But, there is no way of knowing if that camera will make everyone happy. When I started, I took another site's recommendation and bought a camera and lens combination that I've used only a few times. The lesson: Advice given on the web cannot be personalized for every individual who reads it.

Obviously, as Ade-oh remarked, different people react differently to Rockwell's posts. While I might use words like assertive, opinionated, or melodramatic to describe his writing style, others obviously use words like contentious, mocking, and hyperbolic, which carry a much more negative connotation. Those latter seem to see statements that contradict their own preferences as a personal affront.

And, I enjoy reading a site like Rockwell's, where the personality of the writer dominates, more than an antiseptic test site like dpreview. When I know enough about a writer to understand when his preferences match or do not match mine, I find a Rockwell-style much more useful than a lengthy stack of charts and test data.

BTW, Roger Hicks has a great piece on his site about the perils of heeding gurus.
 
Last edited:
If one is to publish in an academic journal there is peer review to provide some effort to authenticate the material. Equally one would not gererally read too much into a single publication, but when a number of independent sources confirm the same thing, a consensus is reached.

The internet is of course an opportunity for any one to give their opinion without any liability for its factual correctness. KR is one opinion and any one who is 'mislead' by taking one information source too literally will learn a good lesson.

Pesonally I hink KR writes with enthusiasm with a stong emphasis on value for money and his site is very stimulating. I can not see why it generates feelings of such resentment. Amusement would seem more appropriate.

Incidentally I wonder if an M8 had been given to Ken, do you think he might have spotted the Magenta issue? Lots of 'experts' missed it completely!

Richard
 
His latest epistle is a reiteration of one of his frequent themes: Better hardware doesn't make better photos.

That's certainly sound advice, echoed here over and over. What's to object to?
 
I think I know why Ken generates so much hostility. Here's a guy doing what he loves full time, obviously taking a lot of wonderful images (all the time), and publishing articles that help people learn a lot of things that they otherwise might not - and all of it written in a manner that's enjoyable to read.

I figure many of Ken's critics are just jealous.

Maybe the entire site isn't 100% perfect, but what is? Nothing is perfect.

I enjoy going there, seeing what he's got to say, and most of all reading his technical articles.
 
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?
I don't really care for Rockwell. But here's the thing...he challenges what people hold to be almost dogma. Think about how your average religious person acts to an agnostic/athiest challenging their beliefs? For the most part, they respond with anger. Much in the way that people who get pissed off at Rockwell do.

Instead of ignoring him, like many do, they create problems because he doesn't agree with them.
 
The problem with KR is he doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with reality. How can anyone have any use for one who writes reviews on equipment he's never used?
 
I actually don't understand how that clown gets such free, consistent advertising on RFF.

It's because people like you express such irrationally negative opinions about him! :D Whatever his faults, he's not that bad.

johnastovall said:
The problem with KR is he doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with reality. How can anyone have any use for one who writes reviews on equipment he's never used?

That's another common RFF myth about him. He certainly writes about the specifications of equipment he hasn't used, but he doesn't actually 'review' it.
 
The problem with KR is he doesn't even have a passing acquaintance with reality. How can anyone have any use for one who writes reviews on equipment he's never used?

Thats a good accusation. Go ahead, post an example. A link, any link will do.
 
Back
Top Bottom