Ken Rockwell is the Chuck Norris of photography
Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
Sure, Ken Rockwell deletes a bad photo or two. Other people call these Pulitzers.
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
Ken Rockwell ordered an L-lens from Nikon, and got one.
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.
When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories
Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
Once Ken tested a camera, he said I cant even put Canon on this one,thats how Pentax was born
Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
On Ken Rockwell's desktop, the Trash Icon is really a link to National Geographic Magazine
Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer phyically discarding photos
For every 10 shots that Ken Rockwell takes, 11 are keepers.
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
The term tripod was coined after his silhouette
Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
A certain braind of hig-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" rockwell
Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues
p.1 #9 · Ken Rockwell is a Chuck Norris of photography!
I dont get the hate. His target is not the photographer who spends hours and hours reading MTF charts and browsing forums to find every possible instance of someone who once got a uncalibrated lens or had to send it back twice before they got a "sharp" copy.
You are well outnumbered by the people who read a few of the most popular reviews and then go to the local Best Buy/Costco and buy a DSLR kit with two zooms and 4 filters and a cheap tripod. Numbers = income. Never knew that smart business decisions was a reason to consistently hate a person.
p.1 #11 · Ken Rockwell is a Chuck Norris of photography!
Go to this review page:
(where the original post references) http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/803-rockwell-blasts-xt-10/#entry10957
Scroll down to Phil's post on Rockwell's comparison to the X-T10.
This is the same I have found out reading his reviews. In one place, let's say Nikon, he will rave about it blasting Leica. But then when you go to a Leica review, he will rave about it still being the best, much better than the Nikon (including the model you just read a review on).
To say he contradicts himself is mild. Obviously he has learned how to get people to click on the links at the end of a review, and makes a living off of it. But in reality to take his reviews as objective and factual, you are only fooling yourself.
p.1 #12 · Ken Rockwell is a Chuck Norris of photography!
Robert E wrote:
Go to this review page:
(where the original post references) http://www.fuji-x-forum.com/topic/803-rockwell-blasts-xt-10/#entry10957
Scroll down to Phil's post on Rockwell's comparison to the X-T10.
This is the same I have found out reading his reviews. In one place, let's say Nikon, he will rave about it blasting Leica. But then when you go to a Leica review, he will rave about it still being the best, much better than the Nikon (including the model you just read a review on).
To say he contradicts himself is mild. Obviously he has learned how to get people to click on the links at the end of a review, and makes a living off of it. But in reality to take his reviews as objective and factual, you are only fooling yourself.
Seems like you are right into Ken's site knowing details like this. Wonder who is the fool here, Ken going to the bank with all those clicking on his site and making fun of him...or those people wasting their own time reading ken's stuff...stuff you all say is made up baloney, but you still go there and read it.
Now again, who is really the fools here?
p.1 #13 · Ken Rockwell is a Chuck Norris of photography!
rw11 wrote:
It's sad that blogger Krockwell mis-advises those people, and they wind up with over-processed pap. I'm sure he's sincere tho.
I have read on his site multiple times that a simple D40, 18-55 VR, 55-200 VR and a 35 1.8G are all that 95% of people who want better pics need. Is that true? Absolutely.
p.1 #14 · Ken Rockwell is a Chuck Norris of photography!
I appreciate Ken's work - he has created an easy-to-read photography resource with clear, comprehensible data. I particularly like the lens data he has amassed over time. He's a soft target for many whose own contributions to the community are near zero.
p.1 #15 · Ken Rockwell is a Chuck Norris of photography!
Funny stuff. I guess I am simple too. In fact, I'd rather seem simple and laughing than sophisticated and sad.
He has good data on his site. Especially all the Leica lenses. And if you take his "advice" as serious, then I believe you are the simple one, but not in a laughing way.
p.1 #17 · Ken Rockwell is a Chuck Norris of photography!
myboostedgst wrote:
I have read on his site multiple times that a simple D40, 18-55 VR, 55-200 VR and a 35 1.8G are all that 95% of people who want better pics need. Is that true? Absolutely.
That's not the mis-advice. He goes far beyond that. I agree he has some good compilations on his site.
p.1 #18 · Ken Rockwell is a Chuck Norris of photography!
chez wrote:
Seems like you are right into Ken's site knowing details like this. Wonder who is the fool here, Ken going to the bank with all those clicking on his site and making fun of him...or those people wasting their own time reading ken's stuff...stuff you all say is made up baloney, but you still go there and read it.
Now again, who is really the fools here?
