Ken Rockwell

[tevo]

It would seem that TPF has a negative inclination towards mention of Ken Rockwell as well as the content of his website. I'm curious - was there some incident that led to this disposition? I don't really care for his photography, but the reviews are pretty innocent right? Beyond that, what is [your] preferred place for gear reviews? I find KR to be fairly accurate in his review of products, making his website very convenient; I am open to other sources.

 

[ShaneF]

I personally find Ken Rockwell preaches misleading and inaccurate information. But thats just my 2 cents.

I tend to stick to youtube channels since video requires less reading.

Some of my favorite channels are below that have helped me as a photo newb, i find it easier to view channels that more fit you my personality since they will hold my attention longer. If you do some searching there are tons out there.


FroKnowsPhoto.com - YouTube
DigitalRev TV - YouTube
Photo Magic Productions - YouTube
FREE Photography Tutorials - YouTube
Gregory Cazillo - YouTube

im sure others could suggest some great websites

 

[molested_cow]

I personally find Ken Rockwell preaches misleading and inaccurate information. But thats just my 2 cents.

Most of it is his opinions. Can you give specific inaccurate information that he has given?


I don't have negative impression of his stuffs. I use his website a lot when researching lens, especially older ones. However he's definitely not the only one that I check with. Basically anything I can find through Google is worth reading.
What I like about his website is actually the way he talks about his opinions. It's full of emotions! I read through them, and I will think if his concerns are applicable to me. So perhaps he hates a lens for a particular reason that doesn't apply to me, that's cool, at least I know what to look out for if I ever come across the same scenario.

 

[ShaneF]

I dont want to start a great debate or flaming war about Ken, i personally dont like him he just annoys me. But thats just me, if you enjoy him i say go for it. Im sure a percentage of what hes says has some accurate information in it. I just suggest like anything and any information you come across, dont take it for 100% true and do your own research.

 

[SCraig]

I have nothing for or against him other than the lack of consistency on his site. He specifically states on his web site that it is a work of fiction but then goes on to write in a format that would indicate knowledge and research on his part and that the information presented is factual. He states personal opinion as being fact as well. In a broad sense there's nothing wrong with that, and we all tend to do the same thing. There are some nuggets of decent information on his site, but new photographers are not able to separate the good information from the fictional information so they tend to treat everything that is said there as being the gospel according to Ken. Again, in fairness to him, he warns people not to do that however on a web site that is primarily informational, and where every page asks for donations, the intent as I see it is that the information within be treated as factual.

That's what I dislike. Make it factual or make it fictional. I don't care which but pick a style so visitors know whether to treat what is said as fact or fiction.

 

[amolitor]

I think he "reviews" products he has never seen, among other things.

 

[ann]

:thumbup: He has even said within a review that he had never touched the piece.

That was the turning point for my recommending him to my students.

 

[o hey tyler]

I'm curious - was there some incident that led to this disposition?

Yes, the creation of kenrockwell.com.

 

[AceCo55]

Mr Rockwell is viewed with some skepticism/sarcasm on a number of photography forums.
If you are really interested, you might want to Google it
There is a very entertaining spoof on him, as the "Chuck Norris" of the photography world, on another forum.
I think people struggle with what they see as exaggerated generalisations and personal bias that are seemingly accepted by photographic newbies ... but which would be torn to shreds in any group of experienced photographers.
There are some who believe he makes these wild claims to drive traffic to his website.

 

[480sparky]

When scooping out a specific item of gear, I do read what he has to say. But like all reviews, I take his opinion with a grain of salt. Most of his reviews are of equipment he manages to beg, borrow or steal for what I presume to be a very short time and may not represent a real-life test of the item. When I narrow down my choices, I prefer to ask for the opines of those who have owned, used, misused and abused the item in question for a longer period of time.

For honest-to-God, real-world opinions, I turn to innernet forums.

 

[unpopular]

The sentiment isn't exclusive to TPF.

Search - photo.net

 

[Overread]

Ken is good at marketing himself - which makes him a popular google result when people do google questions before coming to the site. The thing is, as has been said by several, his guides are often very opinionated and some (such as his stance on tripods) are so highly opinionated as to stand out like a glaring sore as general advice (in fact there is more than one site that quips that everyone, but Ken, uses a tripod in some form).

His guides are good, for himself and for anyone who wishes to shoot how he does. The thing is they often overlook or downtalk any other method other than his approach; which is often a very bad way for a beginner to learn if they want to get a broad scope of skills and get to a position where they choose how to work from a position of knowing instead of being forced/limited by a lack of a wider understanding.

His sites popularity means it keeps appearing here and there and thus threads to the typical thing that we are doing right here.

 

[cgipson1]

Ken is good at marketing himself - which makes him a popular google result when people do google questions before coming to the site. The thing is, as has been said by several, his guides are often very opinionated and some (such as his stance on tripods) are so highly opinionated as to stand out like a glaring sore as general advice (in fact there is more than one site that quips that everyone, but Ken, uses a tripod in some form).

His guides are good, for himself and for anyone who wishes to shoot how he does. The thing is they often overlook or downtalk any other method other than his approach; which is often a very bad way for a beginner to learn if they want to get a broad scope of skills and get to a position where they choose how to work from a position of knowing instead of being forced/limited by a lack of a wider understanding.

His sites popularity means it keeps appearing here and there and thus threads to the typical thing that we are doing right here.

"for anyone who wishes to shoot how he does." sure.. continue letting your images looks like you just bought your camera yesterday... listen to KR! That and the friggin Begging to CLICK here and CLICK there to support his family.... Get a real job, Kenny!

 

[manaheim]

He is obviously controversial, and that should be enough indication for anyone to simply be aware whole they read. Like anything, he's another datapoint, and he probably makes plenty of money doing what he does. Again, something to consider.

Why people get so riled over him I have no idea, but then I'm not 24 anymore. I used to get riled over all kinds of stuff. Now I've got better crap to worry about.

 

[cgipson1]

He is obviously controversial, and that should be enough indication for anyone to simply be aware whole they read. Like anything, he's another datapoint, and he probably makes plenty of money doing what he does. Again, something to consider.

Why people get so riled over him I have no idea, but then I'm not 24 anymore. I used to get riled over all kinds of stuff. Now I've got better crap to worry about.

Same reason I get riled about some things / posts / members here.. lack of valid content! But then, you are a better bunny than I will ever be! :hail: