something funny and stupid from Rockwell

Ste_S said:
I'm sure Ken's ideal camera would be one where the saturation goes all the way up to 11.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, most of the older samples on his site are shot on Velvia 50...

Rockwell is a strange beast. Opinionated and completely over the top, but if you get past that his site is a fantastic resource for a lot of gear.
 
nickthetasmaniac said:
Makes sense, most of the older samples on his site are shot on Velvia 50...

Rockwell is a strange beast. Opinionated and completely over the top, but if you get past that his site is a fantastic resource for a lot of gear.
Click to expand...


I often end up at his site first when I’m searching for the part number for a certain hood or the filter size for a lens. That part is helpful.
His reviews are, um, adequate.
I do not think his is a pro photographer or even an advanced amateur that has photography as a serious hobby.

He is more of a knowledgeable dad photog that has an opinion about everything.
The snob at the annual family picnic, if you will, who is always telling others they are shooting from the wrong angle or holding the camera wrong.
Does he believe in UFOs or secret reptile rulers? No, that is the other guy.
Is he angry and has wacko theories about magnets?
No that is the other, other guy.
His site is a better resource for legacy equipment than those two guys.

I have never supported his growing family by buying from Adorama.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I admire his uncle George L.

The funny thing is I think, hard to say for sure, but he has been the most successful photography blogger and made a pretty decent living from it for the last ten years or so. His traffic was several multiples the other blogger types, Luminous Landscape, the Online Photographer, the shoe mount flash dude, etc.

I definitely use his older lens comparisons and data, those are legit.
 
I read Ken. I enjoy his wind-ups, mickey-taking, and goofy humour but most of all I enjoy his site as a treasure trove of information and knowledge - a fair bit of it non-photography related (I particularly like his piece on the Saturn 5 and Apollo program and his audio reviews). His reviews are a lesson in simplicity and clarity, and judging by the gear he’s reviewed that I use, accurate.

He’s a working photographer and yes, he’s opinionated, same as any number of photographers I have met over the years. He does it his way and I appreciate this.

I have emailed him a few times about his camera and hi-fi reviews and he’s always responded promptly with follow-ups in a friendly, engaging and decent way.
 
Does anyone else find the iPhone HDR photos godawful? I'm in my early 30s (so I'm not some sort of anti-tech luddite... yet), I use a late model iPhone, and I can't stand the weird clown world saturation and ultra tone mapped look that comes out of it. Looking at Kens examples just amplifies my thoughts.

Everyone marvels at the computational photography in the iPhone but I find it overwhelmingly tacky. It's true good photos have been shot with it, but I see it as being a lowest common denominator device.
 
maigo said:
...

Does he believe in UFOs or secret reptile rulers? No, that is the other guy.
Is he angry and has wacko theories about magnets?
No that is the other, other guy.
His site is a better resource for legacy equipment than those two guys.

I have never supported his growing family by buying from Adorama.
Click to expand...

:):):)

Please tell me neither of those other guys is Mike, I recognize the other. All the photo bloggers have kind of gone off the rails lately.
 
I think Rockwell has really done a great job assembling useful and detailed information on various cameras and lenses -- and it represents an extraordinary amount of work on his part. The camera internet needs more of this. The only minor quibble I have with some of his stuff is the making too sweeping of statements about certain lenses' performance without showing some underlying data and assumptions -- especially when comparing two different lenses.
 
gavinlg said:
Does anyone else find the iPhone HDR photos godawful? I'm in my early 30s (so I'm not some sort of anti-tech luddite... yet), I use a late model iPhone, and I can't stand the weird clown world saturation and ultra tone mapped look that comes out of it. Looking at Kens examples just amplifies my thoughts.
Click to expand...


Other than the sky, I don't mind the example Ken posted. The sky though is the dead giveaway that it is HDR. It is overcooked. At least it is on my monitor.

I work with a guy though.... Everything he shoots, he runs through an HDR program with all the settings turned to the max. To him, there can be no other. He must like them that way because I've never seen him do anything different.
 
css9450 said:
I work with a guy though.... Everything he shoots, he runs through an HDR program with all the settings turned to the max. To him, there can be no other. He must like them that way because I've never seen him do anything different.
Click to expand...

:eek: :eek: :eek: To that guy, reality must look incredibly dull! :D
 
I've never been a huge fan of the way iPhone photos look. Or so I thought, until going through my archive a few months ago to make a photo book for my wife for Mother's Day. Damned if I didn't wind up with half the photos in the book being from my iPhone(s) [I went back a ways in my archive so I've got photos in there from ever since my daughter was born, including photos from my iPhone 4S, 5S, and my latest Xr.]


Sure, if you compare Ken's iPhone shot with his Fuji, Leica, and Canon shots, the details are all smudgy and the Smart HDR makes the colors look a bit garish, but for fast family snapshots that will only be printed at relatively small sizes (up to 9" x 9" in the case of my book), the iPhone really nails it. I was quite impressed with the printed results.
 
Corran said:
I think a lot of folks, especially photo nerds, are put-off by such articles because they don't want to admit that in most conditions a modern phone will be the same, if not better, than their $10,000 rig for actually making photos and posting them to where people want to see them.

I used to do commercial photography with a large national corporation and I would chuckle when the affluent dads at graduations would be fumbling with their settings and different lenses whilst I would swoop in with a $400 DSLR rig and flash and nab a candid photo of the graduate. Now everyone is using their phones and I see the entire industry kinda going down the tube because they can get quick, good-quality photos. Next frontier I think is video instead of stills...

Even the portrait market is a mess, with most successful photographers I've seen making it by providing props and exclusive locations. Run-of-the-mill posed portraits are more and more done by the individual with their phones by a family member, and with the new DOF manipulations and such, they look more or less the same as the pro DSLR with a fast prime. Of course a good photographer can make better compositional choices and pose people to look their best - but is good enough, well, good enough?
Click to expand...

It was way too many in the past who were paid just because they were good at focusing of manual SLR. Now it is over.
Before COVID I meet ex-customer who is back to paid image making. He has to trade his Canon FF DSLRs gear to meet clients requirements for large prints. He got FujiNoFilm dMF camera. I have seen his prints, no phone could do.
But, yes, now nobody really needs your work in the past because phones could do it now.
Couple of years ago public was outraged for Canadian government paying some photog with whatever $400 or $4000 cameras to take some meaningless photos of one of their gatherings. People were saying - just use damn phones, it is good enough. And it was rightfully so.

Nerds? How good is phone for macro, BIF and sports?
I remember how one father posted at P.O.T.N. answer for similar to your comments. He wrote what photography of his daughter deserves good gear. Personally, I'm with him. I like to have family photo which I could bring 1:1 and see every hair.
Phone can't provide photo like this. But if I have fun moment to share with people on FB, I use phone. Take and share is instant.
 
You make my point for me. Birds/Sports are specialized fields but 99% of photos taken day-to-day are not this. Phones can do macro too though (of course not as good). But your post about the "father" further illustrates my point. Increasingly the average photo nerd dad has more/better gear for their hobby (shooting daughter's sports) than the average full-time photographer. I know very few full-time photographers that own a 300mm f/2.8. The one that does is a sports pro for several newspapers.

I didn't say everything can be done with a phone. That's moving the goalposts. Obviously there are applications out there where you need a long/fast lens, fast AF, or whatever. But what percentage of photos taken each day are in that category? 1%? 0.1%? Less? Most of the photos posted here from a Leica Mwhatever and 28/35mm lens are basically indistinguishable from a phone photograph in quality, as presented at ~1000-1500px.
 
Rockwell is a clown and an entertainer. I remember he once said that output of Fuji GFX is the same as Canon's full frame. LoL :))
 
I find KR to be a very helpful resource, especially when it comes to MF Nikon lenses. And he sure as hell knows how to get the "clicks" he needs to support his "growing family." And I'll say this: I don't know if those interior shots of the home he features in some of his architectural work belongs to him, but if it is his, I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank, as the saying goes. Good for him. Full disclosure: I LOVE eye-bleeding VIVID. :D :D
 
Corran said:
You make my point for me. Birds/Sports are specialized fields but 99% of photos taken day-to-day are not this. Phones can do macro too though (of course not as good). But your post about the "father" further illustrates my point. Increasingly the average photo nerd dad has more/better gear for their hobby (shooting daughter's sports) than the average full-time photographer. I know very few full-time photographers that own a 300mm f/2.8. The one that does is a sports pro for several newspapers.

I didn't say everything can be done with a phone. That's moving the goalposts. Obviously there are applications out there where you need a long/fast lens, fast AF, or whatever. But what percentage of photos taken each day are in that category? 1%? 0.1%? Less? Most of the photos posted here from a Leica Mwhatever and 28/35mm lens are basically indistinguishable from a phone photograph in quality, as presented at ~1000-1500px.
Click to expand...

Where did you find so many phone photos with 1500px size?
You must be an expert on phone photography, because I'm not exposed this much into this size of the photos from mobile phones. Nor is Instagram supporting it, if I'm not mistaken. Which is dominate show place for phones photography. Viewed on the phones.

Here is close up photo with this Iphone whatever 11 max pro.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ramarsh45/50010963443/in/pool-14624434@N24/
And with close inspection, IQ is garbage. Something which would not even stand as desktop picture.
But, I guess, everyone who wants to look at the image not from the phone screen is nerd in your categories.

I'm not in the circles of paid photographers. Our daughter was the one and she had FF DSLR with matching flash and pro lenses. I could clearly see why this rig was necessary. No phone could do long exposures with flash on the second curtain.
The paid photog I mentioned, switched to dMF gear and has studio in Toronto downtown. Not something whom you would call as nerd would have.
My ex-colleague is real estate and yachts photographer now. He has special tripod heads, drones and license, plus knowledge and software to build virtual tours.
So, even with my limited knowledge, it is contradicting with our corporation photog with one $400 camera past time.

Do you know Ansel Adams was a gearhead, sorry, nerd?
 
Ko.Fe. said:
And with close inspection, IQ is garbage.
Click to expand...

Congrats on completely missing the point.

PS: For the past few years my main focus has been architectural photography projects that pay in the five-figures range, and continue to work on establishing more work in that realm. I am well aware of the needs of actual pro photographers doing specialized work - I am one. Meanwhile, the average person wanting some nice pictures of their family out at a touristy place or some farm are, in my experience, using a phone more and more rather than hiring a "pro" or trying to do it themselves with a cheap DSLR. Posted on Facebook or Instagram they have no appreciable difference in quality.
 
I like KR for his writing on film cameras, lens comparisons with photos (center and edge at various apertures), and some historical perspectives about cameras and lenses. He's also got the best Nikon lens/body compatibility chart on the internet.

He doesn't take things too seriously and likes pulling people's legs.

Bob Michaels said:
...
since no one seemed to use a Vivitar 283/285 any more...
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention that - I used my Vivitar 285 last month with my Contax IIIa and just a few days ago with my Nikon S2. What a great flash unit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom