Ken Rockwell

[Tinderbox (UK)]

I like ken`s site, i take everything with a pinch of salt, but as has been said before he has some good information.

I found the text below, it`s just a bit of fun

John.

Ken Rockwell Facts

Contributed by liem, Epic|, Fufie, michel_v, neom, Wintre, Bas|k, lament, mattsteg__ and pal.

Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography
Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.
When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories
Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born
Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine
Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos
For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
The term tripod was coined after his silhouette
Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell
Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues

 

[manaheim]

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:

You look more like a funky turtle fish.

 

[cgipson1]

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:

You look more like a funky turtle fish.

Better watch out, now.. don't make me get all spiny! :angry1:

 

[cgipson1]

Anytime I hear someone quote Rockwell, I just assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they have to say.

 

[480sparky]

Anytime I hear someone quote Rockwell, I just assume they are a clueless NOOB... and totally discount anything they have to say.

But Ken says otherwise!

 

[amolitor]

Ken's photos are fine.

They're oversaturated, oversharpened, technically proficient exercises in making pretty pretty pictures. This is, it turns out, what a huge percentage of people want to make. They're not what *I* want to make, but unpop and I are over here in the corner with the other weirdos.

 

[Vladyxa]

I actually like KR site. For newbie like myself it has a lot of good information all in one place. And, it is easy to read too.

 

[Garbz]

And that's the fundamental problems. Newbies don't belong on his site because they don't know the difference between information and misinformation. Not everything he says is necessarily true nor relevant. His product reviews can be misleading, and in some cases he's published reviews for products that he never even used.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it didn't hit the top of every Google result for everything Nikon. If he was a few pages further down and more relevant information was before him then he'd be just another opinionated person on the net.

Like me.

 

[manaheim]

And that's the fundamental problems. Newbies don't belong on his site because they don't know the difference between information and misinformation. Not everything he says is necessarily true nor relevant. His product reviews can be misleading, and in some cases he's published reviews for products that he never even used.

I wouldn't have a problem with it if it didn't hit the top of every Google result for everything Nikon. If he was a few pages further down and more relevant information was before him then he'd be just another opinionated person on the net.

Like me.

Lol

 

[cgipson1]

I actually like KR site. For newbie like myself it has a lot of good information all in one place. And, it is easy to read too.

NO.. IT DOESN'T! Really! It has a lot of nonsense... that will mislead you, and keep you in NOOB status longer than needed.... but that is YOUR choice!

 

[cgipson1]

And that's the fundamental problems. Newbies don't belong on his site because they don't know the difference between information and misinformation. .

EXACTLY! They don't know enough to know better!

 

[dsiglin]

However affronting you may find KR's photos and content, as a graphic/UI designer I'm 100x more offended by his website. I haven't seen a site that good since 1995.

 

[cgipson1]

However affronting you may find KR's photos and content, as a graphic/UI designer I'm 100x more offended by his website. I haven't seen a site that good since 1995.

He just wants it to make money... not spend money on it keeping it up to date or accurate!

 

[dsiglin]

Clearly he doesn't want a lot of bandwidth costs due to him using non-existent style sheets. Dont get started on visual hierarchy.

 

[Derrel]

I think his reviews of cameras and lenses are reasonably good and reliable. He's one of very few individual people (not photo web sites that that are owned by AMAZON, cough cough) with a very large blog and a large number of followers. He has the resources and popularity that allow him access to a HUGE number of lenses, and a lot of cameras from Nikon, Canon, and Leica, so he's basically a resource for the hobby/enthusiast photographers who want some help and some evaluation points on lenses and cameras.

Ken's suggestion to go with an entirely sRGB color space workflow, for example: widely criticized by the ultra-wide gamut color space snobs, his suggested method actually WORKS BETTER when people e-mail, web-upload, and send out to print their images. And yet, the majority of web "experts" have never even TRIED capturing and editing and working in sRGB mode...

Same with the wide-range zoom lenses Nikon is making: widely criticized by many who do not own them. People who have never even fired a single frame through a Nikon 18-200 will pronounce it "crap". And so on...and so on..and yet, the actual side-by-side tests he's done showed that hey...at f/8...almost any lens is pretty close to another lens, in actual picture-taking.

It's a lot like the lens testing nuts who obsess over MTF charts, when the KEY issue is often how well a lens focuses; if it cannot hit focus reliably, the MTF can be stellar, but the pictures will be rubbish. Ken discusses real-world focusing performance from the point of somebody who knows how to shoot. The Nikon 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 VR-G for example; read his review and he will tell you the lens's biggest weakness: occasional hesitation (ie-NOT even beginning focus activation) in the AF, requiring manual, hand override. You will often NOT find anything at all like that on any of the other web sites that "test" lenses by shooting rez charts or star patterns and making measurements. So...in a way, Rockwell is mostly about how the rubber meets the road...not the lab-testy-statistic-MTF-measurebation kind of site. dPreview is owned by Amazon.Almost everything they test is Gold Star rated. cough,cough,cough.

So, I think Ken Rockwell's blog has some great information in it. Really very helpful for the hobby/enthusiast shooter. However, about once a month Ken writes something that makes me want to gently strike him about the head and face with a 36-inch long Douglas fir 2x4 board, 10 or 15 times. Gently, of course, using only one arm.