NEVER listen to Ken Rockwell

Status
Not open for further replies.
So I take it some people arent that keen on Ken... seems to be that new photographers arent capable of much other than blind faith in whatever they read on the internet... and have a distinct lack of humour. I must admit that when I have read any of his articles I wasnt aware he was such a dangerous character but I do promise to be more aware in the future.
Are there any other people that I should be wary of?
 
essexash said:
can you link the blogs where he admits to making things up? This is the whole myth of KR, people make more stuff up about him than he does himself!

I just found this thread interesting in that the OP started it off with claims that KR is the spawn of satan and then it ends up with him agreeing with some of what he says. So you agree with some stuff he says and not the rest. You can say that about anyone alive, apart from Mugabe i guess.

And the whole jpeg thing, if i brought another fuji x-whatever then id be more than happy to shoot jpeg. It processed the raw files as well as i could.
Click to expand...


Extract:
''I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun''

He makes a few references throughout:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
 
big soft moose said:
Depends what you use it for - if all you do is drive a mile in a 30mph limit each day to take the kids to school the real world difference will be negligible

likewise if all you ever do is put your images on facebook , or on forums , then jpeg basic and 6mp will be more than ample
Click to expand...

Agreed, under certain circumstances who could say but that wasn't the point- there is a difference so basic, normal and fine are not the same- how could they be and if they were why would manufacturers even bother having three different settings but I note he's been doing some editing of his site - changing the language and removing sentences since I looked at the start of the week. Prob all part of a cunning marketing plan:D
 
Vertigo1 said:
This is the whole point - he may be funny to those of us who already know what we're doing but, to new photographers who treat his word as gospel, he's dangerous.

Isn't this the same muppet who compared an 18-55 kit lens to a 24-70 II and said they were basically the same quality?
Click to expand...

How is that comparison dangerous to a new photographer?

I know they are not the same quality. You know they are not the same quality. But someone new enough to need that advice probably won't see any difference in their shots if they used one.
 
Did he ever say they were the same ? I thought he was just saying that basic would be adequate for most beginners purposes
 
All this raw v jpeg stuff.... I use the raw + fine jpeg setting.
Best/worst of both. ;) and nobody gets upset!
 
In his defence KR produces in depth reviews from a personal persective , there were plenty of you on here recently on one of my threads saying DXO mark was a pile of doo da, DXO is the other end of the review spectrum based on figures and lab tests. I am guessing therefore that some of you dont need reviews or information and just consult your magic balls before making a purchase.

For me if you have any sense whether beginner amateur or pro you would take various arguments and reviews into consideration before making a decision on a purchase and there is nothing wrong with either KR or DXO both have been going long enough to have experience and opinions worth listening too, and yes they get things wrong occasionally who doesnt ?
 
I think a beginner would know that basic, medium and fine infers a quality difference. They're new to photography, not new to the way things are described. I can't understand why many experienced photographers assume that newcomers will know nothing about the meaning of terms used in many other areas that will have been experienced since childhood.

Describing KR as dangerous is assuming new photographers that read what he says have no ability to reason things out for themselves or also read other photography sites.

It's all a touch elitist IMO.
 
Last edited:
Dr_O said:

I bet you Ken is treating himself after this months traffic:D

He does admit he makes stuff up and anyone that can't work out for themselves that there will be a difference in quality between different JPEG settings is an oxygen stealer. It's like saying the performance from a 2,3 and 4litre BMW is the same.
Click to expand...

This is, somewhat inadvertently, a great example.

A 2, 3 or 4 litre BMW will have negligible performance differences if pootling around a busy city at 30mph, but the 4l will just be using more fuel to achieve precisely the same outcome of the 2l.

I'm going to hazard a guess that less than 0.05% of all the photos taken globally in the past few years ever gets seen at a resolution that would be more than sufficiently covered by the lowest quality JPEG settings on any given camera. Thankfully storage and bandwidth is nice and cheap, so it's less of an issue than burning fuel, but it's overkill none the less.
 
Ken may express some odd views but at least he expresses them, often with passion and I think that too many people seem afraid to express either. Even when I disagree with what he's saying I still usually find him entertaining and to be honest and in my opinion... I think that some of his advice / articles are really rather good.

He does tend to over saturate his images now and again though :D
 
Pete keeps a few down his trousers. Or at least he says he does - I didn't check.
 
3 pages devoted to the guru rockwell? When will this madness end
 
The issue is not JPEG vs RAW, it's the idea of using Basic JPEG. That is completely nuts.
 
Also for those who think RAW is so amazing, 99.9% of photos shot by the international agencies at the Olympics, World Cup, Cannes, Oscars and indeed every major event since the dawn of digital photography have been shot in JPEG.
 
I emailed Ken Rockwell not so long back sharing a link to TP from a thread with a very strong insult towards the guy. I enjoyed his response, it was quite appropriate.
 
Steve Smith said:
Please share!


Steve.
Click to expand...

Nah. I was surprised to get a response but it is not right to post that here.

At the time I thought it appropriate to alert the guy. Now I am not saying I agree or disagree with what he writes, but there is a difference between disagreeing with someone and being verbally offensive. What he was being called was appalling. I just thought the guy should know about what he was being called so sent the link to these comments.

Mind you, I do find the comments here about him being dangerous quite amusing, but i really appreciate the safety warning. :) I am pleased to be alerted to this danger so that I may avoid serious injury or worse! :)
 
Last edited:
inkiboo said:
Also for those who think RAW is so amazing, 99.9% of photos shot by the international agencies at the Olympics, World Cup, Cannes, Oscars and indeed every major event since the dawn of digital photography have been shot in JPEG.
Click to expand...

Yes but why is that? I'd guess that it's possibly because they were shooting a large number of shots and didn't have time to process them and I'd also guess that during the same time period the vast majority of fashion, advertising, "art" and other less volume shots were raw. I wonder why that would be.
 
woof woof said:
Yes but why is that? I'd guess that it's possibly because they were shooting a large number of shots and didn't have time to process them and I'd also guess that during the same time period the vast majority of fashion, advertising, "art" and other less volume shots were raw. I wonder why that would be.
Click to expand...

Your right some shoot its better to use Raw & sometimes its better to shoot J-peg,i would think most pro would know which one is suitable for them.
The confusion come to photographer just starting out,in which case i would say try both and see what suit you and the photos you like to shoot :)
 
simonblue said:
Your right some shoot its better to use Raw & sometimes its better to shoot J-peg,i would think most pro would know which one is suitable for them.
The confusion come to photographer just starting out,in which case i would say try both and see what suit you and the photos you like to shoot :)
Click to expand...

Well, if you're shooting JPEG you save processing time but I suppose you'll have to spend some time wading through and setting the various in camera JPEG settings for colour and sharpness and everything else. Once that's done you could no doubt take a couple of hundred shots at a footie or running or throwing stuff match at the Olympics and have them zapped off to your editor in 2.5 seconds :D

If you're shooting raw you'll spend less time wading through camera settings and more time sat at your pc (although these days some cameras do have in camera raw processing but I suppose that will need to be waded through and set up like in camera JPEG.) So, if you attend the same running up and down or throwing stuff match as a JPEG shooter after the match you'll need to fire up your pc and process a couple of hundred shots and they'll have to hold the back page.

But if you're taking few shots and want to get the best image quality you can or want to tailor them to your own personal taste (which may vary greatly from what the technician at Canon or Nikon likes) or carry out corrections due to difficult shooting conditions then I suppose that raw files give you the most scope for that. Plus of course you can think of a raw file as a digital negative that you can return to time after time and produce endless versions of and that is probably going to be easier to do with a raw.
 
woof woof said:
Well, if you're shooting JPEG .... I suppose you'll have to spend some time wading through and setting the various in camera JPEG settings for colour and sharpness and everything else. .
Click to expand...

why would you suppose that - every dslr I've owned has been fine to shoot jpegs out of the box
 
I don't think it's a "technician at Canon or Nikon" that decides how JPEGs are processed, I would think that it was a Group of Joint Photographic Experts who laid down the standard and generally they've done a pretty good job!

As far as the original post goes, all I can say is "NEVER listen to anyone who tells you their way of doing things is the only way and the right way!"
 
big soft moose said:
why would you suppose that - every dslr I've owned has been fine to shoot jpegs out of the box
Click to expand...

I assume that many JPEG shooters would want to set the camera up for their own taste.

You don't set your own preferences and just use the default settings?
 
Last edited:
Nod said:
I don't think it's a "technician at Canon or Nikon" that decides how JPEGs are processed, I would think that it was a Group of Joint Photographic Experts who laid down the standard and generally they've done a pretty good job!
Click to expand...

The JPEG standard is one thing and how things like colour and sharpness are tweaked in camera is something else and would explain why it's not so strange that reviews of JPEG outputs vary so much.
 
simonblue said:
Same here most cameras have an good J-peg engine,for that very reason :)
Click to expand...

I've never owned a camera that gave JPEG's that satisfied me 100% of the time. Many newer cameras do a lot better than older ones though but even so I prefer to have the raw so that I can do as I wish with it.

If you're happy with JPEG I'm happy for you, it'll certainly save you time on the pc :D
 
stu.artd said:
All this raw v jpeg stuff.... I use the raw + fine jpeg setting.
Best/worst of both. ;) and nobody gets upset!
Click to expand...

Ditto - I can quickly import the small jpeg into the ipad if required, well small jpeg is still huge res compared to internet usage.
 
ukaskew said:
This is, somewhat inadvertently, a great example.

A 2, 3 or 4 litre BMW will have negligible performance differences if pootling around a busy city at 30mph, but the 4l will just be using more fuel to achieve precisely the same outcome of the 2l.
Click to expand...

Ah but at 120mph the 2l will probably be using more.

Which proves nothing other than the analogy is flawed :D
 
kev2010 said:
I emailed Ken Rockwell not so long back sharing a link to TP from a thread with a very strong insult towards the guy. I enjoyed his response, it was quite appropriate.
Click to expand...

I thought the OP was being quite libellous. Brave really.
 
Nod said:
As far as the original post goes, all I can say is "NEVER listen to anyone who tells you their way of doing things is the only way and the right way!"
Click to expand...

So now I'm confused. Do I listen to or ignore your advice? :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
woof woof said:
I've never owned a camera that gave JPEG's that satisfied me 100% of the time. Many newer cameras do a lot better than older ones though but even so I prefer to have the raw so that I can do as I wish with it.

If you're happy with JPEG I'm happy for you, it'll certainly save you time on the pc :D
Click to expand...

Yep i am happy,i must admit i hate spending to much time on the pc :)
 
big soft moose said:
Did he ever say they were the same ? I thought he was just saying that basic would be adequate for most beginners purposes
Click to expand...

Sorry Pete missed this, looks like it's gathered a bit of momentum since too. Originally on one of his sample images he had a slightly goading statement which was something along the lines of 'see it's sharp basic= fine.'
Assuming he amended it off the back of all the furore as it just says something like 'is this sharp enough'- if I'd known I'd have screen grabbed- nah I wouldn't, I'm not bothered what he writes- I enjoy his site precisely because it's a mix of fact and fiction which he openly states.
It's a pity he feels the need to make amends although probably less hassle- after the JPEG vs RAW rants he made some amends too- less grief from internet nutters I guess.

What he's saying on the other page is that basic looks the same as fine which is more qualitative than what he did write on the other page- but then those bits are just copied from all his other guides and you just take them for what they are- information interspersed with a few Clarkson-sque comments. They've been around for ages so not really sure why it all kicked off- unless driven originally by the basic=fine comment and then people have just homed in on anything. It wouldn't surprise me if it was Ken just stirring up some activity- good job either way:LOL:

For me the onus is on the consumer- if someone bought a 28-300 because he says it's brilliant and they can get rid of all their lenses then the jokes on them. Likewise anyone who thinks 10MB fine images are the exact same as 2MB basic images because he says so (ok he's reworded now) and can't work out that 10 being the bigger number has more data than 2 and will therefore be better quality has bigger issues. Of course, none of that bothers me unless someone has given them a driving licence and they use the same roads I do- then I might have an issue with someone that can't grasp simple maths or physics driving around:p

Jared's a bit OTT here I think- there's a place for both as they are.
 
ukaskew said:
This is, somewhat inadvertently, a great example.

A 2, 3 or 4 litre BMW will have negligible performance differences if pootling around a busy city at 30mph, but the 4l will just be using more fuel to achieve precisely the same outcome of the 2l.

I'm going to hazard a guess that less than 0.05% of all the photos taken globally in the past few years ever gets seen at a resolution that would be more than sufficiently covered by the lowest quality JPEG settings on any given camera. Thankfully storage and bandwidth is nice and cheap, so it's less of an issue than burning fuel, but it's overkill none the less.
Click to expand...

Except the man said basic= fine which is what I was discussing and was the original context. It does not, in the same way that 2 does not equal 4- whether you've been to public, private or no school.

I agree with what you are saying in your context but it's off at a tangent from my context:D.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top