geekcop wrote:
I’ve always thought of his site as a bit of a farce. I base this on his about page statements that have been there for years.
“ This website is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination and personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact... I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax...A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke...I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here...”...Show more →
Pretty much alike other reviewsites do.
The difference is KR is honest about it, while others hide their agenda..
SouthwestS2K wrote:
I was chatting with some folks on a photography group and one posted a link to Rockwells Z7 review.. and he took it serious. I knew of Kens page, I've went on a few times but, is this guy serious or what? I mean most of his pictures are literally horrid. People take his reviews serious, yet based on his pictures, I don't know if he's serious. The thing is, why or how can people take camera advice from someone who can't change white balance to make the picture look like it was taken on Earth and not mars. I mean look at this: https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49072350211_3ed1a0405f_h.jpg...Show more →
I've found lots elsewhere that Rockwell hasn't covered, but remarkably, his reviews interject far more facets to consider than many other resources. Plus, it's evident from his pages that the content is his opinion and style of reviewing.
His layout is very comprehensive and fairly organized.
The photos are not presented as photography, as much as he is trying to demonstrate. For example, Rockwell may talk about vignetting at a certain aperture,
Like in the OP here, you talked about white balance change, which I don't recall Rockwell discussing since he veers away from creative talk. But on the other hand, he adds a lot about prices of lenses and buying considerations. And whenever I look at prices on Ebay, etc., the prices he talks about are in the ball park.
SeattleDucks wrote:
For many years now - long before the Youtubers existed - Ken has been laughing all the way to the bank - his site has made him a millionaire.
I don't think that's the point here. Is not about him. Is about how much of a value readers could get from his site and his reviews in 2020. I am glad we have made him rich and famous before FB and Instagram...
My son works in advertising, does the 'social media' stuff for a big agency.
It is amazing how much advertisers pay to google/youtube, and the huge amounts that make their way to *influencers*. Hundreds of thousands of eyeballs / month at 10 cents each makes for a fortune over time.
Had a question about Athentech's Perfectly Clear; got it from a link on his site. Last two updates, each of which 80% in German (a language in which I was CIA fluent way back in a previous century). But I digress. Two separate contacts with CS, multiple reinstalls, no cigar. I'm beginning to restore my fluency . So, I emailed KR on his contact link on his site, Sunday morning last. BAM, a virtual immediate response advising me that he would contact Athentech to see if he could get a clarification of what the glitch is and followed it up with another indicating that the holiday season may preclude an immediate response. Pretty nice. Besides: I LOVE VIVID
I don't know why people get mad about the satire mixed into his general commentary, and I often do agree with / find useful his vintage lens reviews. Only thing I wish he wouldn't do is put up "here's what I presume from word of mouth" reviews of lenses he hasn't used. They're easy to distinguish once you've read a fair bit of his work, but still. If you want to put up data pages for lenses you haven't used, to make the site more comprehensive, cool, but you don't need to include speculative reviews.
Ken's target audience is soccer moms and football dads. A few years ago I told people at camera club about Fred Miranda. A few took what I said. They came back and said this place was full of pedantic and supercilious %$^#()&(. These people are part of PSA and what not. They shoot for competition. Remember that Ken satisfies his audience with easily understood terms. They could not care less about MTF, CA's, bokeh and other technical shit. All they worry about is the camera getting little Johnny playing whatever. Pontificate if you must, but photography is moving toward the Ken Rockwells while Fred Miranda is becoming(?) a niche market of perfectionists.
Or is everyone just upset that Ken Rockwell manages to make good money from his seemingly sophomoric reviews? Every time I look for information on gear, KR is almost always in the top 5 searches. He is doing something right.
Sauseschritt wrote:
Well, Rockwell is pretty absurd. That he only shoots JPEG is just one example. He friggin shoots JPEG even with Fujifilm GFX.
Well ... then what about the truth ?
First off, I would never tell anyone who shoots Raw that they should switch to Jpeg. There is no doubt that Raw is the best path to optimizing image quality. However, given the advancements in in camera image processing over the past 5-6 years, whether or not you shoot Raw or Jpeg is soooo far down on the list of what makes a good photograph or a good photographer that it's irrelevant and this type of comment comes across as misinformed, elitist, and insulting. People love to play the "raw" card as if it's some badge of honor and points to their expertise or commitment to their craft. Anyone who spends time on these forums would know that couldn't be further from the truth.
As far as Ken goes, it's the first place I'll go to look for specs, compare features, etc. The amount of detail and information he puts out there is mind boggling. Couldn't care less about his photos or his opinions. I'm wondering if the OP isn't a relative, he most likely just gave Ken's site a big boost
Gary
sum1sgrampa wrote:
First off, I would never tell anyone who shoots Raw that they should switch to Jpeg. There is no doubt that Raw is the best path to optimizing image quality. However, given the advancements in in camera image processing over the past 5-6 years, whether or not you shoot Raw or Jpeg is soooo far down on the list of what makes a good photograph or a good photographer that it's irrelevant and this type of comment comes across as misinformed, elitist, and insulting. People love to play the "raw" card as if it's some badge of honor and points to their expertise or commitment to their craft. Anyone who spends time on these forums would know that couldn't be further from the truth.
As far as Ken goes, it's the first place I'll go to look for specs, compare features, etc. The amount of detail and information he puts out there is mind boggling. Couldn't care less about his photos or his opinions. I'm wondering if the OP isn't a relative, he most likely just gave Ken's site a big boost
Gary ...Show more →
I don't care if his images are over-saturated. Yes, I think it is odd, but I got over it. And his images do show me some interesting things in California.
I like Rockwell's reviews.
I go directly to his INTRODUCTION section. I get a lot of information in the first sentence of that section.
- palm trees
- "This lens is for people who deserve the very best and aren't afraid to pay for it"
His reviews are technical, practical and often ground you with your wants and needs. Those points are all great and for this I'd say he adds some significant value to the community. I'm interested to see his reviews.
With that said, this is a hobby and that extra 10% that you can get out of some lenses is where the fun can be at. Ken doesn't offer this. Other reviewers that show real-world images and show off that extra 10% of the artistic side of the lenses provide me with something I'm more interested in seeing before testing a lens.
SeattleDucks wrote:
For many years now - long before the Youtubers existed - Ken has been laughing all the way to the bank - his site has made him a millionaire.
I recently watched Ken on one of his Youtube videos and actually really liked the guy. I bet it would be fun to have a couple beers with him and chat about Nikon's long history of cameras and lenses. And I respect his business model, he was a pioneer at figuring out how to make a fine living talking about gear.
Just another click bait site. Gotta hand it to him though, a lot of people like him and he's been smiling all the way to the bank for well over a decade.
I'm with a lot of others. I do enjoy his reviews, even though I do take them with the traditional grain of salt.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Nikon guy, so I take those reviews somewhat more seriously. He's not the be-all, end-all, but I always use him as a starting point. One of my "Jones-ing" lenses is the Nikkor 70-180 Micro AF. They're a bit scarce on the market and priced accordingly. I read his review, then searched out others. Mine came to me via KEH. It's every bit the lens that Ken espoused.
PS - KEH shipped a lens rated "BGN" that's perfect, sans a spot on the lens hood.
