KR is rather interesting. I too sometimes don't know how to interpret what he is saying. I do appreciate his positive outlook towards film which seems to not be very common in other like him.
Ken Rockwell and the popularity of film photography
-
- Thread starter kb3lms
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Gundlach-Manhattan Hyperion Diffusion 7in f/4 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Linhof Recessed lens board
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale Leica M4-2
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
I interpret ken as the "teacher" type of a sort - particularly within the realm of "those who cannot do..." (Note I use the term for him because it conveys the thought succinctly but don't really agree with the actual sentiment of the term itself). He also strikes me as a bit impish and playing around with the heads of his audience. I think if he didnt have so much commercial support from various manufacturers etc. you'd see quite a bit more "truth" coming out of his mouth.
Wow, KR has certainly gained a following. Beware of what he says because a lot of it is absolute BS, and he changes his mind continually. This is what KR says about his own website.
This website is [snip] a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination…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…if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof)…
Take anything he says with a huge grain of salt...perhaps an entire salt block...
If you really read his information most of it is fiction.
But, based on the WSJ's recent article on Leica, they didn't do their research enough to figure out what he is actually doing. Instead they quoted him as an "expert." I would guess that KR is laughing his a!! off all the way to the bank.
I have not personally believed a word of what he says and I very rarely read anything on his site.
This website is [snip] a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination…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…if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof)…
Take anything he says with a huge grain of salt...perhaps an entire salt block...
If you really read his information most of it is fiction.
But, based on the WSJ's recent article on Leica, they didn't do their research enough to figure out what he is actually doing. Instead they quoted him as an "expert." I would guess that KR is laughing his a!! off all the way to the bank.
I have not personally believed a word of what he says and I very rarely read anything on his site.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2013
- Messages
- 368
- Format
- Medium Format
And therein lies his genius. KR understands that gear is almost completely irrelevant to photographic results, so he bangs out his reviews and the gearheads/pixel peepers will spend hours discussing the finer points of the latest DSLR masterpiece from Canikon. He happily obliges them (notice how many times he says something like "This camera is the greatest ever, at any price!"
Why would he say that?
Because he understands it doesn't matter. Not in the least. And because it doesn't matter, its also completely true. That camera you want...the one that the marketing machine has convinced you you need and therefore you take to the interwebs looking for people to tell you not only that its great, but that you probably can't live without it...KR is there to push your button. He is there to tell you what you want to hear.
KR understands that every single iconic photograph taken in the 20th century was produced using a camera that was inferior to every single modern camera in every measurable way. In his hyperbole, he indulges the "measurebator" class that actually thinks it matters whether or not they "upgrade" from a D7000 to a D7100 (don't laugh: Surely we've all seen those discussion threads on photography forums. Guys will debate ENDLESSLY whether or not to get X or Y, when in reality they could buy something two generations back and never miss the difference). And they click his links and he makes whatever it is he makes (I actually doubt its all that much, but who cares anyway?).
And what amazes me is that all the while he is publishing his reviews, he is telling people that the reviews don't matter. And people still argue about them.
Heh.
I've never met him, but I bet he is a very funny guy.
Why would he say that?
Because he understands it doesn't matter. Not in the least. And because it doesn't matter, its also completely true. That camera you want...the one that the marketing machine has convinced you you need and therefore you take to the interwebs looking for people to tell you not only that its great, but that you probably can't live without it...KR is there to push your button. He is there to tell you what you want to hear.
KR understands that every single iconic photograph taken in the 20th century was produced using a camera that was inferior to every single modern camera in every measurable way. In his hyperbole, he indulges the "measurebator" class that actually thinks it matters whether or not they "upgrade" from a D7000 to a D7100 (don't laugh: Surely we've all seen those discussion threads on photography forums. Guys will debate ENDLESSLY whether or not to get X or Y, when in reality they could buy something two generations back and never miss the difference). And they click his links and he makes whatever it is he makes (I actually doubt its all that much, but who cares anyway?).
And what amazes me is that all the while he is publishing his reviews, he is telling people that the reviews don't matter. And people still argue about them.
Heh.
I've never met him, but I bet he is a very funny guy.
I like Ken.
He is a mediocre photographer and he contradicts himself often but he does make a lot of sense if you can weed out his bullsh*t. I think Omaha is right that he would be a fun guy to hang out with. As far as interest in film exploding, well exploding sounds exciting and he's vying for readers of his site.
I do have Ken to thank for motivating me to try out large format with his Tachihara review. If he can attract more photographers to film then I'm not going to complain.
He is a mediocre photographer and he contradicts himself often but he does make a lot of sense if you can weed out his bullsh*t. I think Omaha is right that he would be a fun guy to hang out with. As far as interest in film exploding, well exploding sounds exciting and he's vying for readers of his site.
I do have Ken to thank for motivating me to try out large format with his Tachihara review. If he can attract more photographers to film then I'm not going to complain.
All I can say is his site is extremely useful when shopping for trinkets on EBay, here or elsewhere. His opinions are his own like anybody else. I've seen more bs around here than there. The difference is some people here seem to think he shouldn't be there (or anywhere). The reality is everyone has a soap box and some are just louder than others.
This is nothing more than a clear case of "get over yourselves". If you don't like him, don't go there and be done with it. I'm not sure why this deserves a thread on it.
This is nothing more than a clear case of "get over yourselves". If you don't like him, don't go there and be done with it. I'm not sure why this deserves a thread on it.
I'm often asked by folks about my opinion of photo gear. There is one fellow who after asking me, always throws in a "Well, Ken Rockwell say..." about whatever he's asking about.
I'm going to have to go back and reread some of his reviews. I have a pretty good bs detector and I thought his reviews on digital SLRs were some of the best I found and on the up and up. Of course I know so little about digital cameras perhaps I was fooled. But I thought I learned a lot and didn't detect any BS.
The OP does not have it on Ken Rockwell in general but on a certain statement of him. (The title of this thread is misleading though.)
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Personally, I am partial to a bit of Ken Rockwell. He has been hugely influential in my shift to film and to my camera and lens choices for Mamiya 7 and Leica systems. He has a sense of humour and I find the information he shares with us, take it or leave it, is unbiased and charming.
+1
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2008
- Messages
- 82
- Format
- Med. Format RF
Same here: I bought my Mamiya 6 because of his review and did not regret it for a second. Same for my Nikon D70 and D7000. The only thing I don't agree with him is about the Konica Hexar RF and the Konica lenses: I love them, he apparently does not. So be it.
Stefan
Verstuurd van mijn GT-P7510 met Tapatalk
Just my completely personal opinion (that you should feel free to discard)...
I think there is a real resurgence in a DIY-type of culture out there. At least here in San Francisco (admittedly not a great model of "normal"), you see it in the emergence of more and more 'zines, more and more self-recorded demos, more handmade art, etc. At the same time, I think there is a bit of a (sub)conscious backlash against a world in which everything that makes you "you" (e.g. your photos, your music, etc.) can be stored on a phone. As others have said, people want something tangible - they want records and not mp3s if for no other reason than they want to see a real set of liner notes with lyrics, decent-size photographs of the band, etc.
My own personal journey back to film is a little more straightforward. First off, I think film (especially B&W) just has a look that I could never simply replicate in digital. I am in no way suggesting that it "can't" be done, but rather simply that "I" was unable to do it. Plus, when I really get deep into digital and had to start managing color profiles, keeping them matched across devices, learn how to use PS, LR, etc...well, for me, the "convenience" became more theoretical than real.
Again, this is all personal to me and reflects my situation/circumstances, which is that of a mere hobbyist. If I were a working professional, the considerations would obviously be entirely different.
I think there is a real resurgence in a DIY-type of culture out there. At least here in San Francisco (admittedly not a great model of "normal"), you see it in the emergence of more and more 'zines, more and more self-recorded demos, more handmade art, etc. At the same time, I think there is a bit of a (sub)conscious backlash against a world in which everything that makes you "you" (e.g. your photos, your music, etc.) can be stored on a phone. As others have said, people want something tangible - they want records and not mp3s if for no other reason than they want to see a real set of liner notes with lyrics, decent-size photographs of the band, etc.
My own personal journey back to film is a little more straightforward. First off, I think film (especially B&W) just has a look that I could never simply replicate in digital. I am in no way suggesting that it "can't" be done, but rather simply that "I" was unable to do it. Plus, when I really get deep into digital and had to start managing color profiles, keeping them matched across devices, learn how to use PS, LR, etc...well, for me, the "convenience" became more theoretical than real.
Again, this is all personal to me and reflects my situation/circumstances, which is that of a mere hobbyist. If I were a working professional, the considerations would obviously be entirely different.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2013
- Messages
- 368
- Format
- Medium Format
I think Matthew is right on target with his thoughts there.
I'll add that one of the things that brought me back to film is the notion of "authenticity".
I'll grant that it is entirely possible to create, using purely digital photography, just about any "look" that can be created in the analog world. And even if you can't get 100% of the way there, you can get 99.9%.
But even if you do, you are creating a simulation of something else. Why create that when you can create something authentically real?
That's what I'm in it for.
I'll add that one of the things that brought me back to film is the notion of "authenticity".
I'll grant that it is entirely possible to create, using purely digital photography, just about any "look" that can be created in the analog world. And even if you can't get 100% of the way there, you can get 99.9%.
But even if you do, you are creating a simulation of something else. Why create that when you can create something authentically real?
That's what I'm in it for.
Holy cow! You get this? Really??
I've been going at this point around here for years now. Most everyone fights me on it tooth and nail. The differences between a real three-dimensional thing and a zero-dimensional virtual abstraction of that thing just seems to escape them. I've tried every analogy I can think of to no avail.
The idea that a photographic negative (something you can hold in your hand) and a RAW file simulation of a photographic negative (a virtual abstraction that you can't) are significantly different representations is apparently just too many vegetables to swallow at dinner.
And then you sit down and just write a post that says exactly that.
Wow.
Thank you so much.
Now I can die happy.
Ken
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep, and let's not forget about the "depth" of the emulsion as well.
Just to say it (and I recognize that I am preaching to the converted here), I always find it amusing when people use things like Instagram (which I admittedly use), VSCO film presets, etc. Ya know, you don't have to settle for an attempt to reproduce film. You could always go out and, you know, shoot film...
In other words, +1 to omaha and Ken N.
In other words, +1 to omaha and Ken N.
(Back to the topic)
I am what one would say partial to Ken's views, and he has been responsible for me having a GAS and a couple of extra lenses that I dont use often. Also majorly responsible for starting me off on the film journey - the easy Fx on film route, for example. But he also has enough non-gear articles, and like every blog post ever, or a series of forum posts like here, they have to be taken with a bit of researching on your own. I would not have known about the ability to use older Nikon lenses on current digital bodies or vice-versa without that website, so many thanks on that count, to him.
*most* of the gear I own, isnt via his recommendations, mind; but there are enough other useful information on his page and as Omaha pointed out, he does mention that gear doesn't matter.
And I got a really really useful tip off him on buying goods on ebay, bidding at the last minute etc., - not enough information on *that* elsewhere.
[rant]
I do not understand why people go hyperbole on him, if there is a reason to go hyperbole, it as at the dearth of (useful) camera reviews elsewhere, instead there are millions that seemingly put a score to every damn thing and rate them out of 5 or 10 or a billion stars. Most (all?) of *those* reviews are shit compared to a chap expressing an opinion. I would rather read a "review" where a person goes, "Hey, this is my opinion" (and the obvious, go read a bit more blah blah) than a review claiming objectivity and saying its 8.5 out of 10 stars.
Let me illustrate, I was the first in my entire circle of friends and family to buy a digital SLR - back when the idea hadn't even caught on here and the 2nd generation DSLRs were only starting to be announced(now there are more DSLRs than idiots around). I went nuts trying to compare what I had to buy, every review said each camera had one extra feature compared to another. One thing I remember vividly was a review saying X camera (Pentax or Olympus?, dont remember) was better because it had sensor cleaning - which was obliterated by another that said just blow the dust off.
I got lucky that I was in Japan then and could actually go and shoot each of the cameras - in a store, sure, but I could compare each of those I was trying to buy.
And the one I went with was that one that felt most natural to use - and imho that is still the best reason to buy. It is one reason I prefer a manual film camera over a digital film camera over an automated film camera. Sure, horses for courses, but get that out of a review that says 8.75 out of 10 stars.
I since recommend doing that to people who ask me for a recco, but most people still want to compare the 8 out of 10 stars some idiot website gives them OR I get told they *need* a (d)SLR when I recommend that they use a Micro4/3rds/Mirrorless cos its more compact!
[/rant]
On film, I think its gotta do with new range of Instant cameras that are around and of course Lomography. Of course, not every one wants to process film, or own a darkroom, the digital convenience will still rule (where everything needs to go on FB/Instagram instantly), but I reckon the "wow" factor of having a print just handed out would rule - recently, My brother and his friends(all ~20-22) were wowed when a restaurant offered them a digital print of an evening out!
I am what one would say partial to Ken's views, and he has been responsible for me having a GAS and a couple of extra lenses that I dont use often. Also majorly responsible for starting me off on the film journey - the easy Fx on film route, for example. But he also has enough non-gear articles, and like every blog post ever, or a series of forum posts like here, they have to be taken with a bit of researching on your own. I would not have known about the ability to use older Nikon lenses on current digital bodies or vice-versa without that website, so many thanks on that count, to him.
*most* of the gear I own, isnt via his recommendations, mind; but there are enough other useful information on his page and as Omaha pointed out, he does mention that gear doesn't matter.
And I got a really really useful tip off him on buying goods on ebay, bidding at the last minute etc., - not enough information on *that* elsewhere.
[rant]
I do not understand why people go hyperbole on him, if there is a reason to go hyperbole, it as at the dearth of (useful) camera reviews elsewhere, instead there are millions that seemingly put a score to every damn thing and rate them out of 5 or 10 or a billion stars. Most (all?) of *those* reviews are shit compared to a chap expressing an opinion. I would rather read a "review" where a person goes, "Hey, this is my opinion" (and the obvious, go read a bit more blah blah) than a review claiming objectivity and saying its 8.5 out of 10 stars.
Let me illustrate, I was the first in my entire circle of friends and family to buy a digital SLR - back when the idea hadn't even caught on here and the 2nd generation DSLRs were only starting to be announced(now there are more DSLRs than idiots around). I went nuts trying to compare what I had to buy, every review said each camera had one extra feature compared to another. One thing I remember vividly was a review saying X camera (Pentax or Olympus?, dont remember) was better because it had sensor cleaning - which was obliterated by another that said just blow the dust off.
I got lucky that I was in Japan then and could actually go and shoot each of the cameras - in a store, sure, but I could compare each of those I was trying to buy.
And the one I went with was that one that felt most natural to use - and imho that is still the best reason to buy. It is one reason I prefer a manual film camera over a digital film camera over an automated film camera. Sure, horses for courses, but get that out of a review that says 8.75 out of 10 stars.
I since recommend doing that to people who ask me for a recco, but most people still want to compare the 8 out of 10 stars some idiot website gives them OR I get told they *need* a (d)SLR when I recommend that they use a Micro4/3rds/Mirrorless cos its more compact!
[/rant]
On film, I think its gotta do with new range of Instant cameras that are around and of course Lomography. Of course, not every one wants to process film, or own a darkroom, the digital convenience will still rule (where everything needs to go on FB/Instagram instantly), but I reckon the "wow" factor of having a print just handed out would rule - recently, My brother and his friends(all ~20-22) were wowed when a restaurant offered them a digital print of an evening out!
I would not anymore take seriously anybody who writes to attract attention and makes money from it. I have read his website for about a year or so when I was a beginner and realized my photography improved greatly when I completely stopped following whatever advice he gives. Interesting personality, really, but in the back of my mind I have always thought I don´t actually find anything inspiring in his photo gallery...
OP
OP
Hey this is all a great debate about KR, and I like his site most of the time, too, but the real topic was about this comment about "the exploding popularity of film!"
I do agree that the idea of having something tangible in your hand (real negative) rather than virtual in the computer (digital file) seems to be coming into it's own again. Kind of the same idea as going into a store to see, touch, feel an actual item rather than buying on the web or catalog. Ken and Omaha you are correct: Why create a simulation of a film image when it is far simpler and easier to create the real thing!
Well, I hope this (relative, surely) exploding business is enough exploding to convince the Kodak's of the world to stop exploding the factory and keep feeding the film explosion.
-- Jason
Do your best to show how beautiful film can be and the prints made from it and it'll never die. My recent pinhole shots just made 2 conversions...
And is a man isn't useful, he should at least be handsome.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |