Reading mode: Light Dark

Reichmann vs Rockwell - the war is on!

Go to last post
Rockwell is a bag of hot air. He is so busy pumping himself up, telling you what he thinks of himself and his ability. Look for facts on his site. Hard to find, aren't they?

Why do people value his opinion? I just don't understand. He raves about the color in his images, yet he can't even get the building straight. Who makes these kinds of mistakes, yet raves about color? And in the next sentence, he's trying to tell you it takes the patience of a Saint, and an artists' eye, yet he manages to come home with his stuff "just dashing through a parking garage."

So many newbies fall into his site and they just worship him. If you read his stuff, it's mainly vague generalizations. I've heard better preaching on Sunday morning TV. His analysis is terrible. He is prone to heavy exaggeration and wild conjecture.

I'm surprised he hasn't written a book and tried to sell it through his site. He could go on a national tour signing his books.... at Walmart.

The fact that he's always begging for donations, free hardware, or "click my links so I can support all of these needy photographers". What a crock!

I think people need to take an IQ test before they visit Rockwell's site. If they don't get above 110, they can't get in, and we don't have to deal with all of the dumb, "Hey, Rockwell says , what do you think?"

--

'Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.'
  • Mark Twain
 
hockeynut said:
Rockwell is a bag of hot air. He is so busy pumping himself up,
telling you what he thinks of himself and his ability. Look for
facts on his site. Hard to find, aren't they?

Why do people value his opinion? I just don't understand. He raves
about the color in his images, yet he can't even get the building
straight. Who makes these kinds of mistakes, yet raves about color?
And in the next sentence, he's trying to tell you it takes the
patience of a Saint, and an artists' eye, yet he manages to come home
with his stuff "just dashing through a parking garage."

So many newbies fall into his site and they just worship him.
Click to expand...
you got it. Newbies. Only amateurs value his opinion.

If you
hockeynut said:
read his stuff, it's mainly vague generalizations. I've heard better
preaching on Sunday morning TV. His analysis is terrible. He is
prone to heavy exaggeration and wild conjecture.

I'm surprised he hasn't written a book and tried to sell it through
his site. He could go on a national tour signing his books.... at
Walmart.
The fact that he's always begging for donations, free hardware, or
"click my links so I can support all of these needy photographers".
What a crock!

I think people need to take an IQ test before they visit Rockwell's
site. If they don't get above 110, they can't get in, and we don't
have to deal with all of the dumb, "Hey, Rockwell says , what do
you think?"
Click to expand...
since most of the population is below 100..not too many people will be allowed to read.
hockeynut said:
--
'Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress.
But I repeat myself.'
  • Mark Twain
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
 
Daniella said:
Daniella68313 said:
I think people need to take an IQ test before they visit Rockwell's
site. If they don't get above 110, they can't get in, and we don't
have to deal with all of the dumb, "Hey, Rockwell says , what do
you think?"
Click to expand...
since most of the population is below 100..not too many people will
be allowed to read.
Click to expand...
Half of the population is below 100 which is just about perfect. I put down an extra 10 points just to make sure there weren't any borderline types who might stumble in to Rockwell's site and fall victim to his "teachings."

--

'Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.'
  • Mark Twain
 
Boys with toys, the argument as been going on since the being of time. I'm better than you, we go to war. More civilized now, my car is faster than yours, we race. My camera is faster and has more pixels than yours, we battle in here.
 
If you read the article, what did you see and not read. Because if you fully read the article and links. You noticed what.... That other PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS ARE ALSO THERE AND AGREE WITH ROCKWELL. They all have galleries and said they have used lesser gear. Have you noticed on the web, photo websites that have"PHOTO OF THE DAY" on their sites. You'll notice one thing that I noticed....most of the winners are point-n-shoot cameras. Amateurs, but great pics anyway.
 
Reichmann vs. Rockwell

They're both right... and both wrong.

Reichmann's point:

Who's a great racecar driver? Tony Stewart? (I don't watch car racing so bear with me.) Ok, I'll use him in this scenario. The guy is a fantastic driver. He can shift gears at the right time, eek out every RPM of power out of his engine, and he knows how a car drives. Now, stick him in an '82 VW Beetle with automatic transmission and put me a Ferrari F430. Who do you think would win that race? In some cases, the user is limited by his tools. In this aspect, being knowlegeable and very good at what you do will be enhanced by the best equipment. In the same respect, it can't make up for lack of experience or make greatness out of mediocrity. Put Tony Stewart in another Ferrari, and he'll blow right past me.

(not my photo)



Rockwell's point:

Stevie Ray Vaughan was one of the greatest blues guitarists ever. He played a busted up Fender Stratocaster for years and years. He worked hard, practiced, and developed a signature style of playing. And, he was a creative genius. But he made some of the most amazing music, the most memorable guitar riffs on that old dated guitar. It had six strings, twenty-one frets, crackly pickups and a worn body. It surely was no $8,000 PRS guitar - arguably one of the best hand-crafted electric guitar brands on the planet. But he made it sing and became a legend. In this aspect, it wasn't the tool. It was the user making the most of his gear and developing a unique style with it. Put an $80 WalMart guitar in Stevie Ray Vaughan's hands and give me the $8,000 PRS, and Stevie will embarass me.

(not my photo)



Ansel Adams was the greatest. His gear was limited by the technology of the time. But he knew, understood, and mastered the art of photography and used his gear to the best of its potential. If you went back in time and handed Adams a Canon 1DsMkIII, a Mac, and PhotoShop CS3, I have no doubt he would learn those as well and master them. Would it make a difference in his photos? Who knows? He had the eye for great composition and his work displays that. But the better equipment might just elevate his work to a higher level, if just slightly. Perhaps he wasn't happy with the grain in some of his images, he could fix that now. And maybe there were lost shots due to slow FPS on his old gear - lost masterpieces that never came about. He'd get those shots now.

I don't know where I'm going with all this. I do think it's interesting to discuss. But it shouldn't make enemies out of lovers for the same trade. To each his own...

--
'That rug really tied the room together, Man!' - The Big Lebowski
 
Hey

I have read a lot of Mr ROckwells lyrics :-) And its, like so much in this world, all about ego. And when Egoes fight we never come to agreement. Some of hes opinions makes sense and some not, at least IMO :-)

Hes talking about less is just as good - comes from a man who carries a 5D with L glass :-))) And offcourse you can take a great shot with a P&S cam, but for some kind of photography its simply not enough (speed and versatility, out of focus backgrounds and I could go on).

If he only carried a P&S for ALL hes work, then I would eat my hat.

--
Regards
Martin DK Copenhagen
 
hypnoterapi said:
And offcourse you can take a great shot with
a P&S cam, but for some kind of photography its simply not enough
(speed and versatility, out of focus backgrounds and I could go on).
Click to expand...
Well said. Having modern gear certainly improves the hit rate for certain types of photograph - like anything that moves fast, subjects in dim lighting, etc.

There is no substitute for having a 'good eye' for looks right - but for most people the kit they have these days makes it significantly quicker to obtain the shot(s) you might want to keep/print. At the extreme, my 10yr old son with his P&S might get a fantastic shot at a motor sport event or air show, or the school play, but I'm far more likely to do so with my (D)SLR.

--

http://www.thebaldphotographer.com/
 
saxe said:
"It's not the camera, it's the photographer".

True or false?
Click to expand...
If that is the case, nobody in this world should buy prime lens and FF DSLR. May be the low night capacity of DSLR, anti-shake on tele lens is meaningless as a good photographer can do everything, even without a tripod?
 
I always look forward to a good photographer to use a 12mp P&S with a 1/2.5 CCD, and take a low light high ISO photo which can compete in every area with a Canon FF DSLR and a prime lens. The photo need to print at big poster size.

Until somebody can do it, I will not agree "it's not camera".
 
When is the last time you had to do that ?

Way too many snapshots-for-the-web on this board, too little art.

The former does not require the latest greatest and neither does the latter, imo.

I will concede to portrait photographers and birders/nature types. The former don't want art, the latter is industrial photography where clarity and true to life color of the subject, matters.

I doubt the famous painters of the world sat around and criticized the lack of sharpness in their paintings.

Just a rant on my part. I too want the sharpest lens I can afford so I am no different than most, here. I do accept that it will not make me a better photographer.
 
For a great many of us, photography is about having fun, and about challenging ourselves, but not challenging ourselves in too stressfull a way. For us, the camera to have is "the one which satisfies me". My wife takes wonderful pics with her SD500 P&S, (which she never uses in any other way than strict P&S). I've really enjoyed my 20D and my G9. I look forward to getting a 40D or whatever follows next - some day.

I'll never be Ansel Adams, or Michael Reichman, or whomever this other fellow is. I know that. But I get a tremendous amount of pleasure out of the snapshots I take of my family, our dogs, and the few places we get to travel to. I'll bet that, in that respect, I'm like 90% of the people on these forums.

I even love getting lost in Photo Shop, obsessing about whether I've done the best possible job of editing a photo (no, I never get to "best possible"). It's the most pleasant addiction I've ever had, and the safest one.

So - for me the camera (actually, all the gear) is important. I can control that to some extent. The photographer is also important, but I can't change him. I just want him (me) to have fun and to continue learning.

Bill Hansen
 
I know what you're saying, but your argument doesn't really cut it..!

;0)

Very simply: if this (excellent) picture of yours http://www.pbase.com/isabel95/image/92467697 was as blurry, soft and poorly composed as Cartier-Bresson's Picasso portrait, you would have deleted it without a second thought and it would never have seen the light of day .

I'm right, aren't I?

;0) ;0) ;0)

The reason you got your shot (your own talent aside) is because you're using the right equipment for the job.

So - sorry - to at least some (significant) extent, it is the camera - and the lens, of course (the same kit that I use, as it happens).

Cartier-Bresson could not have taken your picture with his equipment.

The problem with Rockwell's nonsense is the way he generalises: what's true for him and his photography (pretty much always of stuff that doesn't move , you will note) is inherently true of eveyone else's photography, in his eyes.

Sorry, Ken - it just ain't...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top