|
K-Rock.com is the easiest place to find decent technical information on Nikon (and some other) lenses and bodies. His photography advice, on the other hand, leaves a lot to be desired. Of course it doesn't help that he peppers his technical articles with personal opinion. You just need a strong bullshit filter. It's not that hard to figure out where he's going off on some tangent versus giving you cold hard facts. edit: I guess what I'm trying to say is that his site seems to be aimed at grandma and grandpa who want to feel like more of a serious photographer, but just want someone to tell them what to do and how to do it. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Oct 5, 2010 |
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
We don't have a krock tag for nothing!
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
Ballistic Photon posted:Is there any general consensus on Ken Rockwell around here? I see people often linking to his site on other photography forums. I just can't find myself getting into anything he has to say. After hearing how I'm an idiot for using a tripod during the day because he failed to account for the multitude of reasons why someone might use one, and being told to use the FART system for better photos, I felt I was done with Mr. Rockwell. He's very much a "Don't bother buying a lens with image stabilizing, I don't, so you will of course never need one either." kind of guy. He seems to know what he's talking about, but his point of view is THE WAY. Oh so many statements that he tells as fact, are just his misguided opinion. His reasoning behind the tripod thing. "These indoor and night shots are hand-held. Tripods are for the weak. I stack the odds in my favor by firing bursts of several shots in the Continuous shutter mode and sorting out the sharpest later" 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. When Ken Rockwell went digital, National Geographic nearly went out of business because he was no longer physically discarding photos. When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of the photo win first place in three different categories. Cyberbob fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Oct 5, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 22:50
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:He seems to know what he's talking about, but his point of view is THE WAY. Oh so many statements that he tells as fact, are just his misguided opinion. In recent times, he has been more careful about making it clear that when he says something is the best for whatever, he clarifies that it may not necessarily be the best for other things. For instance, he has a huge hard-on for Leicas and other manual focus gear but recognizes that they're not ideal for action and that he'd rather use his Nikon D3 for that, which is fair enough and I can't disagree with that. The key thing to remember is that he speaks largely from the perspective of a landscape and still life photographer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
Cyberbob posted:"I stack the odds in my favor by firing bursts of several shots in the Continuous shutter mode and sorting out the sharpest later" To be fair, I'm totally guilty of this. At least I know it's a terrible practice 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:We don't have a krock tag for nothing! Oh, I didn't even realize that was for Ken Rockwell.  I thought it was some radio station or some poo poo.Yeah, I figured his site had good information, but that anything regarding personal opinion was going to be worthlessly vitriolic at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:31
|
|
|
To his credit, he actually did amass a good collection of information and has firsthand experience with it, so he can actually talk about it. I kind of want to put a site like that together, cut out the personal agendas, then find some way to get it ranked #1 on google for every nikon search. edit: But then I don't want his baby to starve
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2010 23:35
|
|
|
oh hey, I don't remember if you guys remember NICK GAINES PHOTOGRAPHY, where everything is over exposed at least 2 full stops, but he's got a new project now. Oh no never mind it's the same thing. And this time he's gonna charge you 10 bucks to model for his project! gently caress this guy makes my blood boil. Look at these so far! http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=47713&id=1643179013 seing poo poo like this really makes me hate my own work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:20
|
|
|
Why would you hate your own work after seeing that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Why would you hate your own work after seeing that? no one pays me 
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:32
|
|
|
I just looked at the page you linked, nothing else, and from that I don't feel like I can hate him. His photos are kinda nice. Does that make me a hack?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:35
|
|
|
I don't really like many of the shots he put up. Some of them are bland, some of them are unflattering at best. Don't really care one way or the other about the guy though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 00:48
|
|
|
Ballistic Photon posted:Is there any general consensus on Ken Rockwell around here? I see people often linking to his site on other photography forums. I just can't find myself getting into anything he has to say. After hearing how I'm an idiot for using a tripod during the day because he failed to account for the multitude of reasons why someone might use one, and being told to use the FART system for better photos, I felt I was done with Mr. Rockwell. Ken Rockwell is a camera hobbyist not a photographer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 01:05
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Ken Rockwell is a camera hobbyist not a photographer. This is pretty true although you have to appreciate him shooting 4x5 velvia. Most of the stuff he says is just a geyser of bullshit though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
This photographer I follow on my RSS feed got it into his head to buy a vintage Leica (digital) camera and do a project with it: Leica Digilux: documenting the human experience 1.3 megapixels at a time
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 06:12
|
|
|
I read an article about some pretty cool wedding photographers today. Not sure I'd want them for mine though... Also shooting a wedding on medium format must be a nightmare!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 12:48
|
|
|
This is pretty awesome http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/go...otographer.html I want to know if the lens survived! I only saw it because apparantly the cigar guy in the crowd on the right has become some sort of meme and Time magazine posted on their twitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:I want to know if the lens survived! He got hit in the chest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 17:07
|
|
|
HPL posted:He got hit in the chest. He said his camera got dinged too, came out of it just fine though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 17:15
|
|
|
Trying to buy a secondhand camera from an established photographer. She went out of town for a shoot but was supposed to be back last Saturday. You'd think someone whose business revolves around communicating with clients would be good enough to reply to an email every now and then. At least "hey I'm kind of busy let me get back to you". She made a blog post since, so I know she has internet access  It's a good deal on a camera so I don't want to hound her, but c'mon. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Oct 6, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 17:29
|
|
|
Ballistic Photon posted:Yeah, I figured his site had good information, but that anything regarding personal opinion was going to be worthlessly vitriolic at best. Ken Rockwell is kind of like Bill O'Reilly. He can't see past his own personal experience and even if he happens to be right, he still manages to frame it in an annoying way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 19:53
|
|
|
brad industry posted:Ken Rockwell is kind of like Bill O'Reilly. He can't see past his own personal experience and even if he happens to be right, he still manages to frame it in an annoying way. You're not implying that Bill O'Reilly happens to be right on anything..right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 21:39
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:You're not implying that Bill O'Reilly happens to be right on anything..right? There isn't a word in the English language that describes the amount of loathing I feel toward Bill O', however I really hope we can refrain from turning this, or any thread it to a big shitheap of political sperging.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
My roommate just spent $145 to buy one of these from lomo: http://microsites.lomography.com/spinner-360/
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 22:14
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:My roommate just spent $145 to buy one of these from lomo: http://microsites.lomography.com/spinner-360/ I hate myself for thinking this, but that's actually kinda cool.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 22:24
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:I hate myself for thinking this, but that's actually kinda cool. That was exactly my reaction
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 22:29
|
|
|
It's overpriced for how simple it is but it's cool and a pretty clever design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 22:37
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:That was exactly my reaction You can always trump him and get one of these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/corylum/1805917158/ And be all  One of my favourites from it: http://www.flickr.com/photos/corylum/2510463806/
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 22:51
|
|
|
Hey guys, will this look good with my Leica collection? http://www.autoblog.com/2010/10/06/image-adjustment-hasselblad-launches-h4d-ferrari-limited-editio/
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2010 23:39
|
|
|
And again on the "Will it blend?" front, Leica now has a Neiman Marcus edition M9 for $17,000: http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/06/leica-announces-nieman-marcus-edition-m9-17-500-limited-to-50/
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 01:08
|
|
|
HPL posted:And again on the "Will it blend?" front, Leica now has a Neiman Marcus edition M9 for $17,000: I saw that yesterday and just sat in front of my computer staring at the screen for a while, pondering why anyone would purchase it. I mean I understand that it is a collectors item and all that but are there really that many rich retards who would throw away $18k on a camera? Im sure in X amount of years this thing will sell for twice what it is going for now, but then who is going to pay $36k for a then outdated camera. I just dont get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
I've stopped trying to understand how people spend money a while ago. I see people in my business who are plastic surgeons, they are trained to make a ton of money, but then want to throw all that away and learn how to flip houses and end up taking on a ton of debt. WTF. I'm super excited about a last minute photo op I got called in on. The cover of our next magazine is going to be my second preplanned cover. The editor wants the 4 owners of an Inc. 500 company on an outdoor track. She picked a track because the name of the company is Marathon Consulting, so hopefully I won't gently caress it all up too bad. The last planned cover shot I did was the Harley Davidson guys, which turned out to be a wreck for me, but everyone liked it well enough. This time it's not going to be as complicated and I kind of know the guys already. What kinds of shoots have you guys been the most nervous or excited about?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2010 14:58
|
|
|
http://cgi.ebay.com/Wollensak-28-75-2-3-Fastax-Raptar-Rare-Movie-lens-/290483519957 What the hell is this? I've never heard of a f/2.3 zoom before.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:http://cgi.ebay.com/Wollensak-28-75-2-3-Fastax-Raptar-Rare-Movie-lens-/290483519957 Movie lens. Movie lenses are often faster than regular camera lenses because they don't cover as much of an image circle (16mm film in this case) so they can make faster glass without being monstrous. You might be able to jimmy it up to work with a m4/3 camera. EDIT: Upon further research, you'd probably still get vignetting even on a m4/3 sensor. HPL fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Oct 8, 2010 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 03:20
|
|
|
Augmented Dickey posted:http://cgi.ebay.com/Wollensak-28-75-2-3-Fastax-Raptar-Rare-Movie-lens-/290483519957 http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/35-100_20/ http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1334
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2010 16:05
|
|
|
drat, as an Oly used you'd think that I would have remembered those. Guess it's cognitive dissonance at work since I'll never be able to afford them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
Oh no... Cup
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2010 14:58
|
|
|
You mean I'm not supposed to put the real ones in there?
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 02:54
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:You mean I'm not supposed to put the real ones in there? It's fine as long as you put a filter on it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 16:54 |
|
|
Greybone posted:Cup
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2010 13:11
|
|
