Read this !

Perhaps posted already ?
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/death-of-photography.htm

I don't like Ken Rockwell's blog because he tries too much to be the devils advocate and he despises Sony Dslr’s, but he has a point even if he puts his opinion down like a raving lunatic.

... and he has been so for some time now. A few months ago he started a battle against RAW (Film is the real RAW and other crappities)

He's trying to convince people that they're wasting time processing their photos in their Lightrooms.

but wait Ken...

Before Lightrooms there were Darkrooms!

and people also used to waste time their processing their photos!

So what?

There is some merit in what he try to say but as usual it comes out like a complete rant against anything and everything, dragging irrelevant examples, making wrong conclusions, etc.

Not a good communicator. I wonder why people even bother reading his blog. Probably the same people who grab every thread as opportunity to let off some steam.
--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/

IMHO, boring reading full of banalities with simetimes wiered and baseless statements.
The usual style of KR.
Funny this guy treat himself as a PRO.
--
MAKE PHOTOS, NOT FLAMES!
--

Sony Alpha 700 * KM 5D * KM 20/2.8 * KM 50/1.4 * SAL 50/2.8 macro * Tamron 90/2.8 macro * KM135/2.8 * SAL 24-70/2.8 ZA SSM * SAL 70-300/4.5-5.6 G SSM * KM 28-75/2.8 * KM 70-210/3.5-4.5 * KM 18-70/3.5-5.6 * Tokina 100-300/4 * KM 5600HS * Kenko 1.5 Teleconvertor

this guy has shown that he lacks the qualifications to even have an opinion, let alone communicate it. he is dumb.

threads like this just serve to bring traffic to his blog and therefore money in his pocket. that's why he writes these controversial pieces.

do not read his blog.

--
the second mouse gets the cheese

While I don't really agree it was internet porn that almost wiped photography from the face of the planet, I do tend to agree about his gearhead vs. photographer argument.

This is nothing new, of course. When I first go into computers, I tweaked and benchmarked them more than I actually used them. My friend (who, ironically enough, introduced me to boot magazine, later MaximumPC) used to always pick on me for having my computer apart and in pieces more than put together and working "as intended"

The same thing with cars, the same thing with really any gadget/doodad-oriented hobby, photography included.

Just take a look at the various forums to get a taste of this. DpReview forum is all about taking pictures of brick walls, micro-comparing the tiniest details of noise, and thumping ones chest on the benefits of 9 FPS vs 7 FPS.

Go to somewhere like PentaxForums.com or other "small-time" brands, and they seems more interested in just posting pictures.

I really am beginning to see this - The smaller brand users generally aren't a large of a gearhead as the Canon/Nikon guys (I used to shoot both!)

I've moved on to Sony I guess because they had the best at what I needed, but certainly not the "best specs". I do see a lot of people chasing specifications, though, instead of good pictures (sometimes myself included)

--
JL Smith
http://jl-smith.smugmug.com
Gear listed in profile!

I only read the link that was posted so i don't know his views on anything else, but he's right that hobbyists spend too much time playing with gear.

It's not going to be a popular view on this forum where people can be frequently heard talking about how they need an a700-class of camera and couldn't shoot with anything else.

The reality is that almost all hobbyists don't need anything other than an a200 + 2 lenses. That's to take pictures with.

I posted a long time ago that most of the greatest pictures ever taken were shot with cameras that had no shutter speeds faster than 1/500.

He seems obsessed with his D40 as though nothing could be better than it.

Knowclue said:

Perhaps posted already ?
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/death-of-photography.htm

I don't like Ken Rockwell's blog because he tries too much to be the devils advocate and he despises Sony Dslr’s, but he has a point even if he puts his opinion down like a raving lunatic.

Click to expand...

He's an idiot. One example: in this article, for "Product of the decade - 1980's": http://kenrockwell.com/tech/photo-product-of-the-decade-2000s.htm

He completely glosses over the ground-breaking Minolta 700(AF) and the also ground-breaking Minolta 7000i(first with predictive AF) and certainly other innovations that might have made the cut in any objective analysis. He is a Nikon Shill, the only time he mentions other brands(other than Leica) is to make uninformed, derogatory comments. When I visit his site, I use Google cache so he doesn't get the "hits" or "visits" registered -- I don't believe in supporting such nonsense.

I notice that further down the page, he starts on about a Leica IIIF and how it keeps it's value (along with other film cameras like the Nikon F4) and that digital cameras are quickly worth little. What he fails to point out is that:

1. Film photograpic technology was already mature at the time that the Leica was produced, let alone the F4, so there were few huge advances that made older gear quickly obsolete. Whereas digital photographic technology is still on a pretty steep point in it's evolutionary curve, so cameras feature sets and performance become rapidly out of date thus affecting the value in a negative manner.

2. He fails to mention that with the exception of a few iconic cameras, most film cameras are worth next to nothing now.

He seems to be taking a very strange direction in his rambles but it is amusing to read from time to time, if not to take seriously.

--
Malcy

Not particularly surprising, really... You don't see musicians reading audiophile magazines and drooling over the specs, they're too busy enjoying the music.

At least he is smart enough to capitalize words at the beginning of each sentence.

andialpha said:

this guy has shown that he lacks the qualifications to even have an opinion, let alone communicate it. he is dumb.

threads like this just serve to bring traffic to his blog and therefore money in his pocket. that's why he writes these controversial pieces.

do not read his blog.

--
the second mouse gets the cheese

Click to expand...

--

Sony A300 - Minolta 24-50/4 - Minolta 35-105(old) - Minolta 70-210/4 - Minolta 50/1.7 - Minolta 100-200/4.5 - Minolta 75-300 (new) - Kenko telepro 300 1.4 TC - extension tubes

. . . spending too much time "playing" with images on the computer. And so we get photography on computers bad - real photography good!

Ken Rockwell says "When computers could receive information from other computers, that meant that computers were now pornography portals to the world. Men could get their porn instantly, and even better, it evaporated instantly as soon as the wife or girlfriend or mukhabarat came around. Pornography, and plenty of games and other distractions, now pulled men away from photography and into their computers. Even if no one admits to it, someone is spending 100 billion dollars a year on pornography alone, even before we factor in video games."

Cheers,
William

--
http://www.williampitcher.ca

Ken Rockwell is far from clueless. I don't agree with everything he says but he is right on in a lot of ways.

There is absolutely no question the gear we have and use contributes a very small part to most of our photography unless we are into some specialized macro/astro ect. type images.

Is it fun to buy and collect gear? No question about that and nothing wrong with it.

Is it fun to PP to the extreme some times to see what we can end up with? Sure.

Is concentrating on the gear and PPing the most important part of photography? Not really. Is there anything wrong with enjoying that part of photogrtaphy hobby? No - it can be a big part of the hobby to a lot of people but I doubt that most very successful pro's who actually sell quality images are successful in selling images for that reason.

Let's face it very few people have any real talent (especially me) and we a lot of times collect gear to help us as much as possible and just enjoy having it and using it. Reality sucks at time - but is real.

--
tom power

Hello Tom,

tompower53 said:

Is it fun to PP to the extreme some times to see what we can end up with? Sure.

Is concentrating on the gear and PPing the most important part of photography? Not really.

Click to expand...

This sums up the problem I see in KR's logic. He's giving water to a strange mill according to which PP is a shameful activity. I guess that this trend is fueled by people who do not feel as comfortable in front of a computer as they used to feel inside a darkroom chamber. My point is that PP is as important now as darkroom work used to be in the past, and that people like KR despise PP because they do not want to re-learn their techniques.

The funny thing is that KR raves on and on about how much better his "gen2" nikons are relatively to the "gen1". The main difference between the two generations is the amount of PP done in-camera (CA removal, NR, tone curve adjustment, DR optimization, and so on). What crosses KR's mind is sometimes tough to figure out...

J

Although I disagree with virtually everything KR writes, at least I do so in the knowledge that he is not so sure of the truth himself. Anyone that hasn't read his 'disclaimer' should do so before jumping up and down:

"I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly. Here are some typical photos of me in the studio.

This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around. Don't take any of this as true; I like to make things up as much as any other kid.

I don't own the gear you see me talk about. Even if I did own it when I wrote about it, this site has been on-the-air for over ten years, and very little, if any of it, is still here today. Most of the items I write about I've borrowed from friends and have returned, or if I did own them, were given away to freinds, donated to charity, or in the old days, sold.

While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector or sense of humor, please treat this entire site as the work of fiction. This site it is the product of my own imagination, not fact.

This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own.

Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No matter how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day."

Hi Dave,

It's a very convenient position for KR to have kind of a cult following while declaring himself irresponsible of his writings at the same time. That way he gets the bread (a big fanclub when he's right) and the butter (no responsibility whatsoever when he's wrong).

His disclaimer should thus not prevent us to give him the bashing he deserves whenever he deserves it (that is, frequently!)

J

I have been involved in Photography, woodworking, Aquariums, and fishing and there are always gear heads with too much money. You can get caught up in the technical aspects of the hobby or just be dreaming, Its all part of it, But so far I have over 100k pics stored on my hard drive, and I don't think I am alone. so there are many of us that like the technicals but do actually do the hobby as well
dave

... and there is nothing that binds us together better than having a common enemy.

--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/

JulienA said:

Hi Dave,

It's a very convenient position for KR to have kind of a cult following while declaring himself irresponsible of his writings at the same time. That way he gets the bread (a big fanclub when he's right) and the butter (no responsibility whatsoever when he's wrong).

His disclaimer should thus not prevent us to give him the bashing he deserves whenever he deserves it (that is, frequently!)

J

Click to expand...

No disagreement there! (But he must be pretty hungry if gets the bread only when he's right )