Ken Rockwell's blog

[alkemyst]

I wish these were mine.
These are made some photographer hobbyist from Russia. He doesn't consider himself a Pro because he has a day job.
It's not a camera, it's a TALENT, that a few have...I haven't seen better portraits.
He used before Olympus, now Sony - which in fact are Minolta.

If he's taking money, he is a pro. He is being elitist by not considering himself otherwise.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

You honestly think Photoshop will correct the issue well enough?

Lmao. Wow.

"Photoshop perspective correction" returns 197,000 results on Google, so I guess a lot of people do. A lot of the first returns were "how to" articles.

And yes it probably could handle what I need to do But, I choose to pay $2K for the lens because I hate PP.

JR

 

[alfa147x]

So you're using the amount of results from a google search to back your argument?

 

[JohnnyRebel]

So you're using the amount of results from a google search to back your argument?

Partially. Also, partially the number of "how to" articles.

Mainly, it's an attempt to show you that KR writing a few dozen words about correcting perspective in PP isn't him being misleading. This seems to be a valid and popular use of an industry standard tool. He was super clear as to his purpose and how to achieve it. Why can't you see this?

Try and get past your preconceived notions on this. Just because you don't like KR doesn't make him misleading. It's OK just to dislike his work without trying to justify it with this sort of hogwash. The criticism in a previous post about a lens review where he got a bad sample was better, but still a far cry from "misleading".

Wouldn't it be more honest to just say "I disagree"?

JR

 

[alfa147x]

That is misleading.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

That is misleading.

I now see. You're right. Sorry about disagreeing with you. Resistance is futile against such rhetoric.

JR

 

[twistedlogic]

A few words from his recent article on Kodak's bankruptcy:

"Kodak are still the eyes of professional photography, both real photography and "digital."

"Color Photography" is an oxymoron; photography is a black & white medium. "Color" is merely a distortion from pure photography.

WTF is "real photography" and "pure photography"?

 

[JohnnyRebel]

A few words from his recent article on Kodak's bankruptcy:

"Kodak are still the eyes of professional photography, both real photography and "digital."

"Color Photography" is an oxymoron; photography is a black & white medium. "Color" is merely a distortion from pure photography.

WTF is "real photography" and "pure photography"?

KR nomenclature. I guess when you're the most read photography writer in the world you can coin your own phrases.

Thank goodness (by which I mean Alfa147x) I've been delivered.

JR

 

[alfa147x]

Seems like someone here is a fanboy... Many points have been brought up (nearly none by me) yet you won't give up.

I'm pretty sure at this point you're:
1) Being paid by him to defend his site.
2) Are KR
3) A current lover of KR

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Seems like someone here is a fanboy... Many points have been brought up (nearly none by me) yet you won't give up.

I'm pretty sure at this point you're:
1) Being paid by him to defend his site.
2) Are KR
3) A current lover of KR

Since those are the only possibilities you can imagine, I guess you're right again! Man, it must be awesome to be you.

JR

 

[Dubb]

Mainly, it's an attempt to show you that KR writing a few dozen words about correcting perspective in PP isn't him being misleading. This seems to be a valid and popular use of an industry standard tool. He was super clear as to his purpose and how to achieve it. Why can't you see this?

More info:

You're partially right, but only about the bolded part. Perspective correction in Photoshop works reasonably well for images that are only slightly off and when the resolution lost isn't a deciding factor. Like every tool, it has it's limits. Rockwell doesn't appear to know that the image he chose was well beyond the limits of the tool (as photographs of tall buildings usually are), and he doesn't appear to have the ability to analyze the results the tool gave him.

If he wanted to write a "simple little thing" that was "obviously not exhaustive," he'd have picked an image more appropriate to the process he was using.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

More info:

You're partially right, but only about the bolded part. Perspective correction in Photoshop works reasonably well for images that are only slightly off and when the resolution lost isn't a deciding factor. Like every tool, it has it's limits. Rockwell doesn't appear to know that the image he chose was well beyond the limits of the tool (as photographs of tall buildings usually are), and he doesn't appear to have the ability to analyze the results the tool gave him.

If he wanted to write a "simple little thing" that was "obviously not exhaustive," he'd have picked an image more appropriate to the process he was using.

And I mostly agree with you. Good points. He is what he is. I just got peeved, probably due more to it being slow at work than anything else. Too much time on my hands. I have always particularly hated this sort of attack on success, almost always by the unsuccessful who claim to know more and do better work; but somehow the system keeps them from getting the recognition they believe they so richly deserve.

Bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

Cheers!

JR

 

[Midwayman]

Try and get past your preconceived notions on this. Just because you don't like KR doesn't make him misleading. It's OK just to dislike his work without trying to justify it with this sort of hogwash. The criticism in a previous post about a lens review where he got a bad sample was better, but still a far cry from "misleading".

Wouldn't it be more honest to just say "I disagree"?

JR

I just reread a few of his articles just to remind me of the misleading statements. They are usually in the category of "Yes that's how it usually works, but its an oversimplification."

For example he makes statements like "Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography. sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors."

Which true for the average person who doesn't know what they heck they are doing, but incorrect for someone who understands what these are and how to manage color. He does go on to expand on this a bit. I guess you could call "irrelevant" an opinion or conclusion but saying the sRGB gives the same or brighter colors is provably wrong. Its a smaller color space.

Its just one example I found, but he does this frequently- stating a rule of thumb as fact.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

For example he makes statements like "Adobe RGB is irrelevant for real photography. sRGB gives better (more consistent) results and the same, or brighter, colors." Which true for the average person who doesn't know what they heck they are doing, but incorrect for someone who understands what these are and how to manage color.

Adobe RGB should never be used unless you really know what you're doing and do all your printing yourself. If you really know what you're doing and working in publishing, go right ahead and use it.

I get what your saying. So, farther down is he wrong when he explains why you might get duller colors?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range (makes them duller) before recording them to your file. Special smart software is then needed to expand the colors back to where they should be when opening the file. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since Adobe RGB squeezes colors into a smaller range, the full range represents a broader range of colors, if and only if you have the correct software to read it. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Played back on most equipment, the internet or email, the colors look duller, and when played back with the correct software, the extra chroma gain required adds a little chroma quantization noise. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is the example above. The bottom grad is what an Adobe RGB file looks like when interpreted as sRGB, which is what happens over the internet, email, or most printers unless you're printing directly at home from Photoshop. Printed correctly the Adobe RGB grad looks the same as the sRGB grad, so I asked myself, why bother? [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you use Adobe RGB you will have to remember to convert back to sRGB for sending your prints out or sharing them on the Internet. Otherwise they look duller than sRGB! [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you have the right software to re-expand the colors you theoretically might have a slightly broader range of colors. However, if at any point in the chain you don't have the right software and haven't attached the Adobe RGB profile you'll get the duller colors as recorded![/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Web browsers don't have, and print labs rarely have, the right software to read Adobe RGB This is why people who shoot it are so often disappointed. Even if a place has the right software, if you forget to add the Adobe RGB profiles to your files these places will read them incorrectly and you'll get dull colors. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Adobe RGB may be able to represent a slightly larger range of colors, but no screen or print material I've used can show this broader range, so why cause yourself all the trouble? I've experimented with 100% saturated grads in these two color spaces and never seen any broader range from Adobe RGB either on my screen or on SuperGloss Light jet prints.[/FONT]​

 

[Midwayman]

I get what your saying. So, farther down is he wrong when he explains why you might get duller colors?

Only in that is doesn't technically record your colors as duller, but instead the reading device just doesn't understand the units. Picking nits really.

Other things like "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need." are what probably eats people.

While equipment in not the primary determinant if a photo is good or not, gear does affect quality. Some lenses are simply sharper. Some cameras have more pixel or dynamic range. Also there are some shots that simply aren't possible without the right gear. Its not only easier and faster all the time.

I appreciate the sentiment that the person behind the camera makes all the difference and that you can make great photos with crappy equipment. I agree actually. However it doesn't mean it doesn't affect image quality or you can get any shot with enough time and effort. Simple example. Slap a fish eye on a dslr and take any picture. Now try to take that picture with your compact. Can't be done.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Only in that is doesn't technically record your colors as duller, but instead the reading device just doesn't understand the units. Picking nits really.

Other things like "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need." are what probably eats people.

While equipment in not the primary determinant if a photo is good or not, gear does affect quality. Some lenses are simply sharper. Some cameras have more pixel or dynamic range. Also there are some shots that simply aren't possible without the right gear. Its not only easier and faster all the time.

I appreciate the sentiment that the person behind the camera makes all the difference and that you can make great photos with crappy equipment. I agree actually. However it doesn't mean it doesn't affect image quality or you can get any shot with enough time and effort. Simple example. Slap a fish eye on a dslr and take any picture. Now try to take that picture with your compact. Can't be done.

I tend to chalk that up to hyperbole, and usually appreciate the idea behind the exaggerated statements.

I can understand why people might not take it the same way. 90% of communication is non-verbal, so any written media is influenced by the reader (the shorter the text, the worse this is). I know we've all had an email or IM taken differently than we intended.

Thanks a lot.

JR

 

[Gintaras]

"Photoshop perspective correction" returns 197,000 results on Google, so I guess a lot of people do. A lot of the first returns were "how to" articles.

And yes it probably could handle what I need to do But, I choose to pay $2K for the lens because I hate PP.

JR

Jesus Christ...
$2K lense won't stop anyone from PP. 99% of photos on the net are PP'd.

Another thing:

I think, you should stop trolling - no camera, no wish to learn, no photos to show...etc, etc, just posts in Photo Forum: "Nikon School", "Ken Rockwell"...etc.

If you...or anyone else would like to learn about photography, there are easy steps:

1)buy an entry level dsrl or advanced P&S.
2) take photos, any photos...post online in forum more related to photography - like dpreview...There are many people, who would give hints - what's good, what's bad in your photo.
3) Once you get better photos, you've learned something, participate in dpreview challenges - don't need to take seriously, but, at least, you could find, what your photos are "worth"...
4) It's all about hobby, not business. People nowadays like to fantasize - how to make millions of $$$ while taking photos, when never before anyone of those had any camera in their hands.For most MOST PEOPLE - it's a hobby...
Pro's won't ask any questions on here.
Leonardo Da Vincie's aren't born everyday. Even if you have good account in a bank, money won't help you. None of cameras have not have yet "Instant Masterpiece" button yet, and won't have one in near future or at all.
Everything takes a learning curve. Ken Rockwell- his blog and his BS won't make you a good..or a better photographer, Nikon cameras are just like other cameras, maybe just Ken Rockwell is fooling people(like yourself) in and fools start to believe. It's all BS.
You don't like PP? ever done? $2K lense won't do PP for you. People with even 10K lenses do PP...No Magic in cameras or lenses. Stop fantasizing and trolling...

What makes you to troll in a forum about photography?

 

[twistedlogic]

I think, you should stop trolling

+1

Just quit it JR.