Air blow or Eye blow... have seen this term being used on Ken Rockwell's reviews

[astroNikon]

Why, thank you, my good man! Air-blow me! (Bwah-haa-haa-haa!)

get a room
There's kids on this site 'ya know ...


:lmao:

 

[lennon33x]

"Eh, I wouldn't worry about it." (needed a comma, but otherwise, utterly spot-on)

How pedantic of you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why, thank you, my good man! Air-blow me! (Bwah-haa-haa-haa!)

View attachment 67091

*shakes head like Lee Trevino in Happy Gilmore*

 

[71M]

In defence of Ken - as if he needs it - what i like about him:

He's been seriously into photography since he was knee-high.
His great passion is colour, and he's devoted to that.
He's very informed about technology.
He prints and he loves to print big.
He's very undogmatic - a sign of an independent mind and spirit.
He's a family guy.

Ken's cool!

 

[Gavjenks]

Because his site ranks high and yet isn't a good source of information once you actually start learning.

I have actually started learning and use his site all the time. It is a great source of information.

ANY review site is useful that has built up a large body of reviews, simply to have comparisons in the same voice if nothing else.
And 90% of what he says is perfectly reasonable, once you realize (fairly quickly) what his few weird hangups are that you can just ignore (like "you don't need anything more than 6 MP" etc.)

Yes, 10% is bizarre crap, but guess what? Most reviewers say MORE bizarre crap than that.

Ken Rockwell knows his stuff in general and does an excellent job. He is by no means perfect, but I don't see any evidence of him being dramatically less perfect than other reviewers, and so I use him all the time, and just like every other site, sift out the stuff that sounds dumb, and learn from the rest before buying things.



If you're a total green n00b, then you're going to be led astray a little bit. ANYWHERE you go. That's not Ken's fault. That's the universe's fault. Think of it like handwriting. A kid who just learned to read can only read clear, block letters. But once you get good at it, you can learn to sift the important core elements out from the noise of the person's own style, even if you've never seen that hand before, after a few sentences. Similarly, a seasoned photographer should pretty easily be able to figure out which claims are BS on a review site after a few reviews. And then the reviewer's faults become not so relevant, because they're just being ignored.

 

[Derrel]

Ken's site is most useful for people who already have a good deal of personal experience and a relatively deep, developed understanding of photography. For the real beginner-level shooter, I think the task of filtering the B.S. and the personal prejudices from the photographic "truth" is a daunting task. Part of the problem comes from Ken leaving sooooo many old reviews and old posts up for years on end; noobs are exposed to a goodly number of exceedingly out-of-date "opinions" and "proclamations of truth", which while perhaps valid back in say, 2006, or 2008, might very well be hopelessly out of date, or even flat-out incorrect and "wrong" in today's market. For about the first five years of the digital movement, Ken was VERY anti-digital, then he was pro-JPEG-ONLY, anti-RAW, and p;ro-JPEG/pro-FILM, then he was ALL-film, all-Leica, for a year or so, even inventing the term "REAL RAW" as his way of saying "shot-on-film". His flip-flopping and outright lunacy used to be much more prominent than today.

I read his lens reviews, which I think he does well. But I have Nikon camera and lens experience dating back to the early 1980's, so I know when he's dishing up bull****, but I think a LOT of people do not. Over the last few years, he's been on a real China-bashing streak, where if a lens is made in China, he bitches and whines like a little bitcX, on and on, and on. One of his WORST traits is "reviewing" lenses that he has never used, and which are NOT EVEN RELEASED!!!! He did that with the Nikkor 45-P, and his review was soooooo far off the mark it wasn't even funny.

One thing about Ken and his eye-blow and air-blow stuff and all that other B.S.--he gets a lot of clicks by being a deliberate fool/tool/jewel. He is all three things, in equal measure.

 

[Coasty]

[/QUOTE]



The other thing I realized, and this was a while ago when I started questioning his opinion, was that his pictures were less than mediocre. [/QUOTE]

Well shucks! Ken has always said my pictures are pretty good. You don’t suppose that the $15.00 I PayPal him every time I ask him something so he can feed his growing family has anything to do with the kind reviews he gives me, do you?

 

[18.percent.gary]

I'm not sure why it hasn't been mentioned but Rockwell's site is not an un-biased, unsolicited review service to help the consumer. It's a money generating source for the author.

I read somewhere that he makes on the order of thousands of dollars a week in click-through revenue. Therefore it's literally his job to get you excited enough about a product to get you to click one of the external product links in the article. When you do Adorama, B&H, Amazon, whoever pays Mr. Rockwell for the referral to their site.

That's why he has so many favorites and must-haves. The only ones that he doesn't hype are items that aren't eligible for his revenue network.

And yes, his photography skills are weak... at best.

Edit: The current monthly advertising revenue of his site is $13,147. (!!!)
Kenrockwell.com Estimated Traffic Net Worth $319,920 by Freewebsitereport.org

 

[AlanKlein]

I read him all the time. He's funny, cheap (well frugal), informative and realizes that good photography has little to do with gear. And tells you so. If a visitor doesn't know a D40 is an old piece of camera, then that person isn't going to get anything out of anyone's site. His jacking up saturation +5 on his OOC jpegs is not my style, but heck, I don't like a lot of what I see here either.

His comment about the 6mb as being big enough is because most people post on-line, in their iPad's or print 8 1/2 x 11" max on their home printer, maybe 4x6. They have no use for anything bigger; he knows it's just ego, you know, who's got the bigger one. You have to read him regularly to understand where he's coming from.

 

[Gavjenks]

His comment about the 6mb as being big enough is because most people post on-line, in their iPad's or print 8 1/2 x 11" max on their home printer, maybe 4x6. They have no use for anything bigger; he knows it's just ego, you know, who's got the bigger one. You have to read him regularly to understand where he's coming from.

I don't disagree with his math and the internet logic. The problem is that "6 MP is all you need" is just another way of saying "pros get it right in the camera 100% of the time lol!" since it implies never cropping, which is obnoxious and silly.

 

[Braineack]

I read somewhere that he makes on the order of thousands of dollars a week in click-through revenue. Therefore it's literally his job to get you excited enough about a product to get you to click one of the external product links in the article. When you do Adorama, B&H, Amazon, whoever pays Mr. Rockwell for the referral to their site.

Don't buy the 70-200 2.8 the 55-200mm does the same thing for less. It's lighter and cheaper, buy it here...