Ken Rockwell (Page 6): Although I shoot in Raw a famous Macro Photographer photographs in JPEG and wins awards. Remember to each his own...

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

scootersurfs wrote:

Rockwell is a HACK!! He preaches shooting in jPeg format, not RAW. That's all you need to know about him.

Although I shoot in Raw a famous Macro Photographer photographs in JPEG and wins awards. Remember to each his own

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

saichiez wrote:

I'm suspecting that Ken is reading this thread wit... (show quote)

LOL. I think most people are just jealous that someone can actually make a nice living posting his biased opinions on a website that looks like it was created when the Internet was born. Oops, I gave it away... they are "BIASED OPINIONS" and, as saichiez points out, entertaining opinions at times. If you think your opinions are better in some way, then create your own online presence, and use it to create your own comfortable living. If you don't like his opinions, then attack them if you can, but why go out of your way to discredit him? Again, Ken loves this kind of exposure, so keep posting... :-)

jimberton Loc: Michigan's Upper Peninsula

he's no different than most people...whatever they have is the best.

i have canon and nikon both. i could write a book on what i like about each and i could also write a book on what I don't like about each.....

i'm out of money or i would try olympus, sony and pentax...I bet they have some features better than canon or nikon.

back to ken rockwell..it's his site and his opinions. we do not have to agree with him....and for sure he cannot say everything he has or used is better than the other.

I never listen to reviews as i think most are biased......my opinions above are biased because it's how I feel with the equipment that i have. I'm sure canon fanboys and nikon fanboys would have plenty to say about my opinions.

If I am looking to buy a camera body or lens, I rent it first. then the results i find become my opinion. and my opinion alone.

authorizeduser Loc: Monroe, Michigan

The best reviews are side by side comparisons but they seem rare these days

Phreedom Loc: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

jerryc41 wrote:

He has also decided that shooting a digital camera using a tripod is unnecessary. In a later article, he recommended buying a particular tripod.

Here is a link to the "tripod denial" article, Jerry.

KR did say, "Don't use a tripod if you can help it."
He also said, "Only use a tripod for still subjects either at night or when you need long shutter speeds of about 1/60 or slower..."
and
"That said, for the still images I post at my gallery most of them were made at f/22 on a 4 x 5" view camera on a tripod."
Hardly a suspicious flip-flop.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/tripods.htm

Go here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm for his philosphy regarding the site and what it represents.
After all, the site is a growing and aging collection of opinion on a product or process which, just like the product or process, can change with time.

As of September 2013, KH recommends the Nikon D3100 as the best camera for everything.
Does this mean his Nikon "bashing" is over and he's back on Nikon's payroll? 8-)

Kingmapix Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Just ask what Ken thinks about the Fujifilm X100S.
Ol' Ken just gushes.
He does make some good points, however.

Phreedom Loc: Kitchener, Ontario, Canada

BobHartung wrote:

So, my question is who is paying his bills?

;-)

He admits it up front... all those who Donate to the site and use the provided links to check out products.

Who pays UHH's bills? :-D

FredB Loc: A little below the Mason-Dixon line.

mwsilvers wrote:

Ken Rockwell wrote an on line treatise a few years ago on raw vs jpeg files and concluded that shooting raw is unnecessary and that jpegs are actually superior. When I read his ridiculous article he immediately lost all credibility.

I've seen this statement made so many times here that it now demands a reply. Your assessment is incorrect. Here is a link to the page in question, and I will quote some salient points.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Ken wrote:

Quote:

Raw requires dedicated software to read. If you just bought a new camera, you won't be able to open the files until you update your computer's software.

This is true, and impossible to argue against. See recent posts re: Canon 70D and ACR.

Ken wrote:

Quote:

If you use Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw, you just might have to buy the newest version of Photoshop, since Adobe doesn't update older versions to read the files from new cameras.

Also true

Ken wrote:

Quote:

One's preference for JPG or raw depends on what you're trying to do. Each format has no absolute goodness; it's all in how appropriate they are to your particular work at hand. Everyone's needs vary and I just happen to prefer JPG.

Also true

Ken wrote:

Quote:

I take a lot of heat from tweakers because I, like... (show quote)

Hardly anything worth getting your panties in an uproar about there, is there?

Ken wrote:

Quote:

Raw are proprietary nonstandard formats just for getting images to your computer before saving or processing. They always require a special step just to open them after which you can save them in a useable format. Each camera maker has its own incompatible format.

True.

I don't see anything in Ken's article which is glaringly false, misleading, or otherwise inflammatory. If you read it correctly, and if you can comprehend what he's saying, then the article points out some very important weaknesses of using raw files all the time, and how, if you know what you're doing, the supposed advantages of raw files are minimal, at best.

schuchmn

When I read equipment reviews, I tend to ignore the author's conclusions. What I want from a review is enough information to decide for myself what will likely work for me and what won't. Reviews with more opinion than fact are pretty much useless.

dpreview reviews probably provide the most comprehensive information (as long as you ignore the numerical final grade). If you're a Nikon user, I think Thom Hogan (www.dslrbodies.com) has the best information. He separates opinion from fact and is pretty much unbiased in the fact department. But my conclusions aren't necessarily the same as his.

Whatever reviews you read, you're the only one who can really decide what's best for you.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

FredB wrote:

True.

I don't see anything in Ken's article which is glaringly false, misleading, or otherwise inflammatory. If you read it correctly, and if you can comprehend what he's saying, then the article points out some very important weaknesses of using raw files all the time, and how, if you know what you're doing, the supposed advantages of raw files are minimal, at best.

:thumbup: Yeah, the pixel peepers don't like Ken's comments not because they are grossly inaccurate, but because it challenges their workflow---getting their photos technically perfect on their monitor screens is more important than the final image in print.

pathoot

Is he not getting enough money from the site. Why bash a great company, such as Nikon?

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

scootersurfs wrote:

Rockwell is a HACK!! He preaches shooting in jPeg format, not RAW. That's all you need to know about him.

However, he does explain why he prefers shooting in JPEG rather than RAW, and makes some valid points worth considering. I certainly wouldn't take that as "preaching".

There seems to be a lot of photographers who, perhaps out of lack of confidence in their ability to weigh the pros & cons, or simple lack of confidence in their photography skills, want a preacher figure to tell them what to buy and how to shoot. With that mindset, Rockwell's stated personal opinions (and sometimes changing opinions) is usually not the best place to turn to.

jjestar Loc: Savannah GA

deej wrote:

I think I am about to scratch Mr. Rockwell as a va... (show quote)

Rockwell is a Baboon, I much prefer Thom Hogan for reviews!

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Years ago I wrote reviews for a few hobby magazines, and I didn't buy the products and review them. They were sent to me for evaluation, rarely, did they ask for the items back. So, my guess is that maybe he is getting more sent to him from Canon, or Nikon cut him off. Either way, all reviews and review sites are opinions. The old saying is true, Opinions are like a$$holes, everybody has them, and most of them stink. I tried to be honest with my reviews, but honestly, sometimes when a company was super easy to deal with, that did tend to make me lean one way or another. Anyone who claims different, is either fooling themselves, or just plain telling you lies.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

Take his reviews and others with a grain of salt. Nothing can surpass renting gear or a trip to your local photo store to try out gear.

Hes pretty biased towards whatever company is willing to send him a review model at that time. Right now its Canon. Last year it was Nikon, 3 weeks ago it was Leica. He isnt in the business to be your chum, hes in the business of selling his opinions. Sometimes he makes hilarious claims to attract visitors to his site. Dont be shocked by his trolling mechanics, they generate a ton of page clicks. Once in awhile he does have good info, such as the Nikon Lens Compatibility chart for AI/AIS lenses on digital bodies.

Ill give him credit about being great at marketing himself. Just be sure to read other reviews of gear you are looking at and do not take his word as gospel.