Browntimdc
Forum Enthusiast
That's not ridicule, that's truth.
Besides, I meant an example of him reviewing a product he hasn't used.
--
I used to think there was no such thing as a stupid question until I went on USENET.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ken Rockwell
- Thread starter JuniorHacksaw
- Start date
Besides, I meant an example of him reviewing a product he hasn't used.
--
I used to think there was no such thing as a stupid question until I went on USENET.
Afn
Leading Member
THE true statement of the day.
Browntimdc
Forum Enthusiast
I totally disagree with Ken about Raw vs Jpg, yet I recognize that as his OPINION based on the way he works, not a lack of technical chops. Discussion groups like Dpreview are so full of dogma. "Oh, he must be an idiot because he doesn't agree with me."
--
I used to think there was no such thing as a stupid question until I went on USENET.
Afn
Leading Member
I use Raw because I love the workflow of Aperture and ability it gives me to save a shot gone bad. I can't get the results from jpg that I can from raw but that's me, that's how I work. If I was good enough to get it right the first time, I'd use jpg too, I need the safety net though.
Robert Deutsch
Forum Pro
I would agree with the description of the 18-55's picture quality, but a "very average lens" for a much-below-average price makes for an outstanding quality/price ratio.
Bob
Robert Deutsch
Forum Pro
If Phil stands for meticulous comparisons and carefully-thought-out conclusions, then Ken Rockwell is the Anti-Phil: get a quick sense of how a product performs and deliver a shoot-from-the-hip kind of opinion, and the more extreme and controversial the statement, the better. He likes to tweak the noses of photographers who are less concerned with photography as an art than as a technology. At best, Ken makes for a refreshing read, and you certainly have no trouble determining what his opinion is, but finely-nuanced opinions are not his forte.
Bob
Bob
Browntimdc are you kidding at me? I don't understand your sarcastic reply. Maybe I have not been clear due to my bad english.
KEN ROCKWELL says:
"Send your prints out. I use my local Costco"
then KEN ROCKWELL says:
"Ditto for people still wasting their time with inkjet printers, which went obsolete back in 2004. I send all my prints out. It's faster, costs less, lasts forever and looks much, much better. "
So KEN (not me) says COSTCO is better than home printing.
KEN (not me) compared home printing to the lowest of the low end labs, and HE said that the lowest of the low end labs is better.
Isn't that a ridicule statement?
--
Juza
Nature photographer
http://www.juzaphoto.com
KEN ROCKWELL says:
"Send your prints out. I use my local Costco"
then KEN ROCKWELL says:
"Ditto for people still wasting their time with inkjet printers, which went obsolete back in 2004. I send all my prints out. It's faster, costs less, lasts forever and looks much, much better. "
So KEN (not me) says COSTCO is better than home printing.
KEN (not me) compared home printing to the lowest of the low end labs, and HE said that the lowest of the low end labs is better.
Isn't that a ridicule statement?
--
Juza
Nature photographer
http://www.juzaphoto.com
Browntimdc
Forum Enthusiast
You said you use a "Costco-LIKE" lab.
Maybe Ken's Costco lab is good.
Maybe the lab you tried was bad.
That's the thing about cheap labs: inconsistency.
When I shot color film I was lucky to find a good cheap lab.
Now I send files to an internet lab that looks at least as good as any inkjet around and it's easier and cheaper.
I used to think there was no such thing as a stupid question until I went on USENET.
Maybe Ken's Costco lab is good.
Maybe the lab you tried was bad.
That's the thing about cheap labs: inconsistency.
When I shot color film I was lucky to find a good cheap lab.
Now I send files to an internet lab that looks at least as good as any inkjet around and it's easier and cheaper.
--
I used to think there was no such thing as a stupid question until I went on USENET.
A Owens
Senior Member
I have an Epson 2200/2100 that is around the 2004 vintage but my impression is that they have moved on 1 or 2 generations since then and only got better. What have I missed?
Apart from that I find Kens views very refreshing. He is a pro that does not have time to mess around with minutiae. His message is Nikon and Canon 8mp and 10mp bodies give the same results, near as dam it. A 18-200VR gives as good a result as a bag full of lenses, near as dam it. JPEG gives as good a result as RAW, as near as dam it. A good photographer will take a better image than a bad one, no contest regardless of equipment and file format.
Apart from that I find Kens views very refreshing. He is a pro that does not have time to mess around with minutiae. His message is Nikon and Canon 8mp and 10mp bodies give the same results, near as dam it. A 18-200VR gives as good a result as a bag full of lenses, near as dam it. JPEG gives as good a result as RAW, as near as dam it. A good photographer will take a better image than a bad one, no contest regardless of equipment and file format.
sergey1968
Senior Member
some people are so high on Ken Rockwell. May be because he states that shooting with 1DsII does not make one's photographs better than they would be with D50? But it's true. As for other internet photo guru at Luminous Lanscape - at least Ken's shots are much better than those proudly shown on LL...
--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov
--
Sergey
http://www.pbase.com/sergeyushakov/
http://www.photo.net/photos/SergeyUshakov
foldedpath
Leading Member
What that statement lacks is context (same problem with Ken's "opinions"). How far have you gone with home printing, and what made you decide it wasn't as good as a cheap outside lab?
It would be more compelling if you said that you bought a printer like one of the factory-calibrated pro Epson inkjet series (4800, 7800, 9800, etc.), and you experimented with a large selection of papers, and you worked hard to get your system color managed with appropriate RIPs or whatever back-end software you think is best.... AND THEN you compared your best shot at home printing with the results from a "good cheap" outside lab. And you found the outside lab print better quality, so you sold the Epson and decided it wasn't worth it.
See, that's the kind of opinion where I'd sit up and take notice. It would be framed in a context of experience with the best technology you can currently use for home printing, instead of passing familiarity or an off-the-cuff opinion.
I get the impression from Ken's printer comment that he hasn't seriously explored home printing to see what it's capable of. Doing that, and then rejecting it, is different from saying that "home printing is a waste of time" without even being familiar with the possibilities.
I have found it the same. I read his articles of actual shooting with interest, but would not bother to consider what he says about gear.
There are so many different applications in photography so bold statements like 'useless', 'waste of time' are usually not valid for someone else. Especially when he has used the mentioned gear for his own purposes (and with his own preoccupations) only minimum time...
There are so many different applications in photography so bold statements like 'useless', 'waste of time' are usually not valid for someone else. Especially when he has used the mentioned gear for his own purposes (and with his own preoccupations) only minimum time...
rebel without a clue
Forum Enthusiast
The kit lens is terrible.
Complete waste of money if you have other lenses or can afford to buy other lenses. Think long term. It does not do justice to the camera at all. At least my copy didn't.
If you can't afford anything else and would be missing memory shots or need something to quiclkly learn your way around the focal lengths, then sure, go ahead, but if you really want to get the best out of your new camera, buy something else.
To decide what, make an informed decision after reading:
Fredmiranda.com
--
Stu.
Complete waste of money if you have other lenses or can afford to buy other lenses. Think long term. It does not do justice to the camera at all. At least my copy didn't.
If you can't afford anything else and would be missing memory shots or need something to quiclkly learn your way around the focal lengths, then sure, go ahead, but if you really want to get the best out of your new camera, buy something else.
To decide what, make an informed decision after reading:
Fredmiranda.com
--
Stu.
Hi!
I too read the Ken Rockwell site. And take it with lots of salt, lots ;-)
I don't have a problem with his obviously provocating opinions like "I always use JPEG Basic" and "I always use the automatic program exposure".
But I find riducolous he keeps saying in the very worst american tradition of self confidence "my photos look great", "my great colors"... have you looked at his galleries? Really unimpressive. Fotos of shilds and signs with over-saturated colors. What's great about that? Is this photography?
Bye,
mrmagixx
I too read the Ken Rockwell site. And take it with lots of salt, lots ;-)
I don't have a problem with his obviously provocating opinions like "I always use JPEG Basic" and "I always use the automatic program exposure".
But I find riducolous he keeps saying in the very worst american tradition of self confidence "my photos look great", "my great colors"... have you looked at his galleries? Really unimpressive. Fotos of shilds and signs with over-saturated colors. What's great about that? Is this photography?
Bye,
mrmagixx
JuniorHacksaw
Member
Have a look at his site, EFS 18-55 v 17-85 IS
He seems to go against most peoples perception of the 18-55 lens, i.e. that it's cheap and nasty
He seems to go against most peoples perception of the 18-55 lens, i.e. that it's cheap and nasty
John Mackay
Leading Member
Is this the same KR that wrote about the Pentax *ist DS that "I see no reason to get this camera" and that it is "inferior to the Canon and Nikon cameras at the same price for real photography". I love him, he's such a comedian.
His first sentence on his review of the *ist's performance states "I haven't seen one yet." Again, just classic Ken Rockwell.
Seriously though, Ken is the quintessential post-modernist camera reviewer parodying the many empty and vacuous reviews of instant experts that pepper the internet as his "About these Reviews" disclaimer states:
"I'm also a big kidder. I never said any of this is true and I like to fool arond now and then and simply make stuff up." (Ken Rockwell 2005)
So, just enjoy it for what it is and have a laugh because the stuff he writes is the funniest stuff on the internet
--
John.
http://www.wildframe.net
http://www.photo.net/photos/John%20Mackay
His first sentence on his review of the *ist's performance states "I haven't seen one yet." Again, just classic Ken Rockwell.
Seriously though, Ken is the quintessential post-modernist camera reviewer parodying the many empty and vacuous reviews of instant experts that pepper the internet as his "About these Reviews" disclaimer states:
"I'm also a big kidder. I never said any of this is true and I like to fool arond now and then and simply make stuff up." (Ken Rockwell 2005)
So, just enjoy it for what it is and have a laugh because the stuff he writes is the funniest stuff on the internet
--
John.
http://www.wildframe.net
http://www.photo.net/photos/John%20Mackay
neographikal
Leading Member
For a guy that places this cr*p in het gallery he has an awfully big mouth...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/2000/bullfrog.htm
Press the next there, some shots are cool, but plenty are just total cr*p 8)7 Not portfolio worthy i.m.o., and I'm just another idi*t with a camera that's too expensive :+
--
http://www.yourlensreview.net ; I'm looking for some more reviews of lenses, it costs about five minutes of your time, please help me out
http://www.kenrockwell.com/2000/bullfrog.htm
Press the next there, some shots are cool, but plenty are just total cr*p 8)7 Not portfolio worthy i.m.o., and I'm just another idi*t with a camera that's too expensive :+
--
http://www.yourlensreview.net ; I'm looking for some more reviews of lenses, it costs about five minutes of your time, please help me out
T
Terry Sessford
Guest
I do. I first encountered Rockwell's website about three or so years ago and I read through various articles with a completely open mind (since I had never heard of him or his reputation at that time). I could not believe the utter garbage that I found - far too many technical errors and far too much unsubstantiated opinion passed off as 'fact'. And as others have stated, it was quite apparent that he 'reviewed' items that he had never actually handled himself, yet gave readers the impression that he had.
I don't know if he has cleaned up his act in the intervening period, but I have no intention of wasting my time returning to his website to find out. If he is now suggesting that the Canon 18-55mm kit lens is a good piece of optics then clearly he is as misguided as ever and should continue to be ignored. It is now widely accepted by virtually every genuinely knowledgeable person that the 18-55mm is a poor lens that is best avoided.
martin.racer
Leading Member
My Epson 340 makes a stunning job of printing .A direct comparison makes them much better than Fhe fuji or Agfa labs I usually use and even better than Kodak send away .Much better depth and colour is more accurate .,less dark .
I am very pleased with it .
I sell my Inkjets to friends and their family at my local MotoX club and they are amazed at the quality .
incidently I had an old SC680 inkjet and after spending a day manually setting it up to print just like what was on the screen ,it was just fantastic compared to auto or colorsync settings .Many could not believe it was an inkjet print .it was in Mac OS9 and sadly I forgot to save the slider settings when It crashes as OS 9is want to do .i cannot do the same in OS10 on the 340 but it doesnt need it .
Martin
http://www.pbase.com/trackpass
I am very pleased with it .
I sell my Inkjets to friends and their family at my local MotoX club and they are amazed at the quality .
incidently I had an old SC680 inkjet and after spending a day manually setting it up to print just like what was on the screen ,it was just fantastic compared to auto or colorsync settings .Many could not believe it was an inkjet print .it was in Mac OS9 and sadly I forgot to save the slider settings when It crashes as OS 9is want to do .i cannot do the same in OS10 on the 340 but it doesnt need it .
Martin
http://www.pbase.com/trackpass
Robert Deutsch
Forum Pro
...and I agree--although there may be greater-than-usual sample variation.
From Phil Askey's review:
"This lightweight 'consumer' lens performed remarkably well considering its relatively cheap price ($100 included with the EOS 300D). It's clearly a little soft at maximum aperture (almost all lenses are), but stopped down it produced good resolution at wide angle and average resolution at full telephoto. It's not going to break any resolution records but overall it's a useful, light and relatively good lens." For more of his comments and test images, see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page16.asp
And here's a quote from Bob Atkins--who, like Phil Askey, is thorough and not given to extreme statemens:
"The 18-55/3.5-5.6 is a very good lens for $100. It's weaknesses show up at the ends of its zoom range (18mm and 55mm), especially in the corners of the frame when used wide open where resolution and contrast can be rather poor. To get decent sharpness in the corners requires stopping to f8 at 18mm or f11 at 55mm - but you still won't get the same image quality as you would from a a prime or "L" series zoom lens. In the mid range (28mm), performance is pretty good at both center and edge. For a cheap, plastic mount, low end consumer lens, the 18-55 is certainly better than I would have expected. It's not a rival for an "L" series lens, but much of the time it can hold it's own against Canon's full frame coverage mid-range consumer lenses, especially in the center of the frame." See http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/
Bob
From Phil Askey's review:
"This lightweight 'consumer' lens performed remarkably well considering its relatively cheap price ($100 included with the EOS 300D). It's clearly a little soft at maximum aperture (almost all lenses are), but stopped down it produced good resolution at wide angle and average resolution at full telephoto. It's not going to break any resolution records but overall it's a useful, light and relatively good lens." For more of his comments and test images, see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page16.asp
And here's a quote from Bob Atkins--who, like Phil Askey, is thorough and not given to extreme statemens:
"The 18-55/3.5-5.6 is a very good lens for $100. It's weaknesses show up at the ends of its zoom range (18mm and 55mm), especially in the corners of the frame when used wide open where resolution and contrast can be rather poor. To get decent sharpness in the corners requires stopping to f8 at 18mm or f11 at 55mm - but you still won't get the same image quality as you would from a a prime or "L" series zoom lens. In the mid range (28mm), performance is pretty good at both center and edge. For a cheap, plastic mount, low end consumer lens, the 18-55 is certainly better than I would have expected. It's not a rival for an "L" series lens, but much of the time it can hold it's own against Canon's full frame coverage mid-range consumer lenses, especially in the center of the frame." See http://photo.net/equipment/canon/efs18-55/
Bob
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum