Glen Barrington. Re: Simple Wrong on many levels. Re: Wrong on many levels. Complete nonsense Beach Bum. His pictures are better than yours.. More nonsense Off hand.
Jim Cassatt. Just another Canon shooter. I don't hate Ken Rockwell? Pantyhose Bandit. Is that irony or hate? Re: Is that irony or hate? The Jacal. Brian in Montana. Probably best to shut this thread down Camera owners are generally nuts. You didn't read the Conditions of Entry here? Ron Poelman. Ken Rockwell is a blogger. Mark B. And here is an example of what the OP was talking about. Re: And here is an example of what the OP was talking about. Wow, Unbelievable rant illustrates OPs point.
Re: Wow, Unbelievable rant illustrates OPs point. Re: did he tell you to. Weird hidden pages on kenrockwell. I'm developing new respect for Mr. Don't miss the traditional version! Tom Rogers. Ken probably thrives on his detractors. Re: Ken probably thrives on his detractors. Bias to most photographers……. Re: Bias to most photographers……. No everyone Re:Very well said! Yet more pompous douche-baggery Because he's a pompous know-nothing douche Re: Because he's a pompous know-nothing douche Some Ken Rockwell facts LOL [nt].
Though it may not be to everyone's taste Ken also has a remarkably distinct photographic style. It is more discernible than that of the majority of his critics. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams? Learn more. Are equipment reviews from websites like kenrockwell. Ask Question. Asked 10 years, 7 months ago.
Active 7 months ago. Viewed 13k times. The reasons usually stated include: An oft-cited phrase in his About section says that he 'adds satire and fiction to the site,' although virtually all of his review pages are extremely dry reads. I cannot find a reference offhand but if I recall correctly, it has been claimed that Ken Rockwell published 'reviews' for equipment which he has not used. There are not enough sample pictures, and the ones that exist are heavily scaled, and at best, supposedly only questionably demonstrate equipment's behavior.
Critics claim his pictures are snapshot-quality. He openly claims to make a living off of the site. I wonder if the same might be true of many other websites. Improve this question.
Christian Chapman Christian Chapman 1, 1 1 gold badge 9 9 silver badges 18 18 bronze badges. Just post the quote; Ken Rockwell doesn't understand copyright law. Short quotations for use in criticism are fair use pdf. As another example, at the bottom of most pages he has a copyright warning: "As this page is copyrighted and formally registered, it is unlawful to make copies, especially in the form of printouts for personal use. Also, to give you an idea of how much Ken Rockwell cares about being reliable, check out his about page.
He's essentially playing the Fox News pundit card "It's okay if I say things that may not be accurate, because everything I say may be my opinion, not fact.
Gosh, other than just pointing out that his own about page says his website is little more than a joke, I can't imagine how to answer this in a way that isn't very opinionated and more factual. I will say this, if you've handled it and like it alot - get it and forget some random dude on the internet's opinion.
To that end, he routinely posts stuff that borders on complete nonsense. Dozens of people get on his forums and rake him over the coals for it, and he laughs all the way to the bank. Show 6 more comments. Active Oldest Votes. Improve this answer. Lambert D. Lambert Single source of information is always bad, even if it's a trusted newspaper or what. Thanks for pointing this out. I also to a lesser degree value the customer reviews on sites such as Amazon etc.
Add a comment. From Ken Rockwell's "About" page : Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful, but remember, they are the opinions of one man. Thom Hogan's site simply says : Here you'll find extensive information about Nikon photographic equipment and support for all of Thom's Nikon-related books. It's probably valuable to also include sites like Mike Johnston's The Online Photographer which has a more journalistic mission , and which is meticulous about distinguishing opinion statements from simple facts and even more so — with a sort of midwestern guilt — about highlighting commercial connections , and Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape , which says : It's easy to be a critic.
That seems like the right way to do it — in my subjective opinion. Community Bot 1. Mike Johnston's Online Photographer is one of my must read sites. I'd add Bryan Carnathan's the-digital-picture. I have non-Ls but they get used a lot less because they're heavier, louder, and much slower to focus. This doesn't seem to bother Rockwell which is more than fine; he's probably a much less spoiled than me and b working in different environments where these issues are less serious.
Newbies never know who or what to trust. That's part of what makes you a newbie. You just have to come in and start trying things out and figuring out what does or doesn't work in your particular use case, and not stick religiously to random guy's blog if you find those techniques are not working for you. Pretty much every new Nikon camera body review he puts out is a long list of 'this is exactly the same', interspersed with 'these useless numbers are bigger'.
The only recommendations I think he's given in the past 5 or so years is the D, D7X00 for crop, and the D when that came out. Hell, in the reviews for later versions of a camera, he usually recommends to get an older model used.
And for newbies, it's always the base model. His monetization strategy is straightforward and transparent. As a whole, I've found photography is a very petty niche, populated with many self-important prima donnas. I think it's really easy to make something that appears to be a "good picture", so practically everyone feels like a photographic expert whose authority on the niche should be respected.
I found his articles pretty funny and interesting I'm a noob, so what do I know :lol. I would like to have some feedback on this guy, so I'll know how seriously should I take his advice, thanks. Lord help us with this thread!
I actually agree with him on a lot of points philosophically but he comes from a landscape shooters point of view and often writes in a my way or the wrong way kind of style that is off putting to many. He also tends to review things without actually having them at times. He also goes against many traditions followed by the majority like using tripods and shooting in RAW for the best image possible.
Lastly, if you look at his images, other than the vivid colors, his shots, especially the composition leaves much to be desired in my book. From what I've seen of his site, he'd do better to convert it to an opinion blog and try less to come off as an authority.
Come on Ken haters Time for a slam fest. Seriously, hate is such a strong word. I find some of his stuff usefull, some entertaining, but other stuff pure crap. There are too many articles lie that.
Not sure why, but call me JJ. I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point. I don't hate the guy but I do my best to ignore him. The more you talk about him, the more free publicity he gets. He can make a good point from time to time, but he also give seriously bad advivce as well. Anything he writes is best taken with a grain of salt and with research for a 2nd opinon. That's not to say he isn't right sometime, but blunders and blusters quite a bit more.
Mark Some primes, some zooms, some L s, some bodies and they all play nice together. Forty years of shooting and still learning. Think of him as a media pundit, but for the photography. Considering his writing is aimed more towards amateurs and people just entering the hobby, the general disgust is the fact that he tells people things that they have to unlearn, and often over simplifies things to the point of considering his audience incapable of thought.
0コメント