Ken has lost the plot

Started Jan 23, 2009 | Discussions
Josh69 Contributing Member • Posts: 605
Ken has lost the plot

Ken Rockwell is banging on about the superioty of film again.

Enough already! The only reason film is even under consideration for him is because he figured out he could get cheap high resolution scans off 35mm and medium format slides.

So he is still working off a digital medium, he's just using film as an intermediate step to get it. Prior to scanners, he would still be messing around in a darkroom for hours to produce a single good print.

Maybe for fine landscapes, film is still more detailed than digital, but how many people are shooting detailed landscapes from a tripod? For the large majority of pics digital just saves a lot of work and gives you better results.

eNo
eNo Forum Pro • Posts: 11,744
Re: Ken has lost the plot

One advantage of film is the increased dynamic range over DSLR (I forget, but it's not trivial) for non-slide film. I wonder: is that lost when the film is scanned?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3 of the time.

D80/D90 photos: http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/D80

Goya Regular Member • Posts: 364
Re: Ken has lost the plot

I just don't understand why people get so upset about things this guy says.

eNo,

I'm not an expert by any means in any field in question here. Having said that, I'm going to think out loud anyway and say that I think you probably would lose some of that range converting to digital, which makes me think the whole thing is an exercise in futility. If you're going to use film because it makes you feel unencumbered in the field, you're paying for that freedom by burdening yourself with extra steps in processing and eventually converting back to a digital medium anyway.

-- hide signature --

http://markedup.smugmug.com

Be gentle. My life's a work in progress.

FoolyCooly Veteran Member • Posts: 3,484
Re: Ken has lost the plot

Ken is just mad that he can't swing the D3x so he is pushing high resolution film instead. JK, I don't read KR.

RayK1800 Regular Member • Posts: 172
Re: Ken has lost the plot
-- hide signature --

LOL. KR has lost it I used to stop by his site everyday. I think he's bored as heck with digital right now and found a new interest.

I do like his camera and lenses reviews.

BrunoS Contributing Member • Posts: 928
This has already been settled...

The Bristish have done a comprehesive study to determine which is best: film or digital. You will find the surprising finds in the video below. Of course, the cameras used where the best: Nikon D700 and F5.

http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

 BrunoS's gear list:BrunoS's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 500mm f/4G ED VR Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4E PF ED VR +1 more
AusyG Contributing Member • Posts: 540
Re: Ken has lost the plot

Ken says a few goods things but this one I think he is just 'extracting the urine'!!!

AusyG Contributing Member • Posts: 540
Re: This has already been settled...

The British have done a comprehensive study to determine which is best: film or digital. You will find the surprising finds in the video below. Of course, the cameras used where the best: Nikon D700 and F5.

-- hide signature --

Very interesting!

Cope
Cope Veteran Member • Posts: 6,328
Re: Ken has lost the plot

The problem with Ken is that some have a problem separating the wheat from the chaff when they read his column.
--

'A man will occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of the time he will pick himself up and continue on.'
Winston Churchill

 Cope's gear list:Cope's gear list
Nikon D7000 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG Macro HSM +3 more
RomanJohnston
RomanJohnston Forum Pro • Posts: 18,806
Re: Ken has lost the plot (he's lost more than that...lol)

Josh69 wrote:

Ken Rockwell is banging on about the superioty of film again.

Yeah...well he makes these sily rants in hopes that he will stirr the pot and get somone like you to write a post like this (and me to respond...lol)

Enough already! The only reason film is even under consideration for
him is because he figured out he could get cheap high resolution
scans off 35mm and medium format slides.

Well....6MP approached the detail from quality 35MM slides with wet scans long ago...10 and 12MP surpasses it.

So he is still working off a digital medium, he's just using film as
an intermediate step to get it. Prior to scanners, he would still be
messing around in a darkroom for hours to produce a single good print.

Maybe for fine landscapes, film is still more detailed than digital,
but how many people are shooting detailed landscapes from a tripod?
For the large majority of pics digital just saves a lot of work and
gives you better results.

It's ALL I shoot is landscapes....and while I wouldnt mind MF digital...my 12MP unit does 30" x 45" prints for my customers...so hes off his rocker.

Now...sheet film scans....yeah...they have the edge...but then they dont have the portability or speed of use either....

Roman
--
The SOUL of a photographer is in SEEING the beauty ....
The GOAL of a photographer is to use their craft to capture it.
You CANT have one without the other.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

cdun46 Regular Member • Posts: 459
Re: Ken has lost the plot (he's lost more than that...lol)

I agree with the above posts , been there done that with film .
Having much more fun and appreciate the convenience of digital .
Using Roman's methods , very happy with results from "lowly" 6MP Nikon D40.

  • Chris

mosswings Veteran Member • Posts: 8,206
Re: This has already been settled...

BrunoS wrote:

The Bristish have done a comprehesive study to determine which is
best: film or digital. You will find the surprising finds in the
video below. Of course, the cameras used where the best: Nikon D700
and F5.

http://fwd.five.tv/videos/challenge-blow-up-part-3

And the film used was ASA400, not a resolution champion by any measure, but typical of what snapshooters find in their local stores. A comparison against a good slow pro film might satisfy the pixel peepers more, but the billboard-size blowups were a touch of entertainment genius and a wonderful bit of sarcasm. At regular image sizes, you'd only see the color shifts.

 mosswings's gear list:mosswings's gear list
Olympus XZ-1 Olympus Stylus 1 Nikon D90 Nikon D7100 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +5 more
binary_eye Veteran Member • Posts: 4,290
Re: Ken has lost the plot

Goya wrote:

I'm not an expert by any means in any field in question here. Having
said that, I'm going to think out loud anyway and say that I think
you probably would lose some of that range converting to digital,
which makes me think the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

Most good film/slide scanners have a DMax of 4.8, which means they have the ability to capture roughly 16 stops of dynamic range. Also, one can scan multiple passes at different "exposures" if the dynamic range of the film exceeds that. So there is really no problem converting the dynamic range of film to digital given the right equipment.

Fred Mueller Senior Member • Posts: 2,528
always some truth to what KR says

do not disagree with any of the posts above BUT...

there is always a kernel of truth in what Rockwell says......

  • film has a fantastic "look" mostly related to tonality (even when scanned). You can sort of mimic it in digital, but why not just do the real thing....

  • film cameras are really fun and satisfying to shoot, small and discreet. I take better candids of people with my old Nikon film bodies.....an F3 and an FE, especially the FE. Poeple like it and relax when you CAN"T show them the immediate result, most of which are bad anyway, and you will not use. But all they know is you have a bunch of lousey shots, a few good ones, but they remember the bad ones and therefore don't want to have pictures taken.....its not a good vibe.

  • film camears are cheap.....a very good "rig" can be put together for the price of one really bad lens new lens...every photographer should have one....there is no excuse

  • B&W film has more dymanic range than anything digital: period.....I have read the tests...I don't believe them because I know what I can do with film and a good scanner (an Epson v750 in my case): see below

  • B&W film negatives last a lifetime: see below

cheers Fred

35mm 1/60 f2.8 asa 400....background out window; a partially sunlit parking garage.....no digital camera I know of can do this. Why do you think there are all the post about how lousey the meter is in the D80 for instance, or total bafflment with matrix metering....its not the meter "dudes"....its that digital sensors just have such limited dynamics that any metering error is unforgiven. I bet there was at least an 8 stop difference between shadows in my subjects sweater below and the out the window background here....

here is a recent scan from a 27 yearr old negative....Masi Mara, Kenya, Africa...PlusX Pan ..... shooting parameters long forgotten....I think I used a medium yellow filter

RomanJohnston
RomanJohnston Forum Pro • Posts: 18,806
Re: always some truth to what KR says (of course there is!)

that is the recipe of controversy....put in just enough truth to have some defend you and some not.

Devided opinions is how Ken fuels his website and gets the clicks he needs.

Just enough to have some minor facts....just "over the top" to enrage those who know better.

Ken's Kung-fu is bad...

Roman
--
The SOUL of a photographer is in SEEING the beauty ....
The GOAL of a photographer is to use their craft to capture it.
You CANT have one without the other.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

eNo
eNo Forum Pro • Posts: 11,744
Re: Ken has lost the plot

binary_eye wrote:

Goya wrote:

I'm not an expert by any means in any field in question here. Having
said that, I'm going to think out loud anyway and say that I think
you probably would lose some of that range converting to digital,
which makes me think the whole thing is an exercise in futility.

Most good film/slide scanners have a DMax of 4.8, which means they
have the ability to capture roughly 16 stops of dynamic range. Also,
one can scan multiple passes at different "exposures" if the dynamic
range of the film exceeds that. So there is really no problem
converting the dynamic range of film to digital given the right
equipment.

And that beats my D90's dynamic range by quite a bit... But after reading Rockwell's diatribe, it seems he's suddenly concerned with weight. That's pretty much all he goes on and on about. His Leica is cheaper and lighter than all that D3 equipment people are lugging on hiking trips.

I think he's running short on topics.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3 of the time.

D80/D90 photos: http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/D80

eNo
eNo Forum Pro • Posts: 11,744
Dynamic range

Yup. With dynamic range like that, you can miss you exposure by 1 full stop (or more) and recover quite nicely. That first portrait is simply awesome for its DR.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3 of the time.

D80/D90 photos: http://esuastegui.esmartweb.com/D80

Fred Mueller Senior Member • Posts: 2,528
Re: always some truth to what KR says (of course there is!)

Roman...are you shooting a D700 now ??

Fred

RomanJohnston
RomanJohnston Forum Pro • Posts: 18,806
Nope...still have the D70 and D300....

Will upgrade to D700X or maybe D3X after raising funds.

Roman
--
The SOUL of a photographer is in SEEING the beauty ....
The GOAL of a photographer is to use their craft to capture it.
You CANT have one without the other.

http://www.pbase.com/romansphotos/

lomitabob New Member • Posts: 22
Re: Ken has lost the plot

There are champions for everything from vinyl records to tube amplifiers. Most everything has something to offer but for me as a hobbyist the ability to shoot hundreds of images with little or no cost is a real advantage. I may only print 1 out of a hundred and the rest are for digital sharing.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads