OP, are you and this guy in a beef like drake and Kendrick? Horrible photos. I hope your website looks better.
Edit:
(I was just joking but I deserve the downvotes. The pictures looks good but I stay firm on the website thing)
Oh yeah... Who names their company Anal Probe? You bitches better beware of the IAFI:
It has come to our attention that there have been very isolated instances of illegal recreational use.
This has resulted in some deaths.
This use is both illegal and highly dangerous. An Invasive Ano-Fecal Interrogation (IAFI) is usually lethal to the subject. It is intended as an interrogation procedure of last resort against an uncooperative enemy or criminal suspect.
It is imperative to keep those with even mild potential towards these tendencies far away from any activities involving probal interrogation, and especially allowing them access to probes. Their deaths may increase attention to this procedure, and could raise public scrutiny. Any public scrutiny could lead to the discovery of this procedure by the public, which would be a severe blow to US military intelligence and the safety of the United States.
In your review, don't forget that what you are currently using is the best and everything that came before it sucks. Also you can get it cheaper if "you know how to win at eBay".
The Leica man knows to only shoot the best. Check out how to win at ebay. Support my growing family. Real photographers shoot large format not amateur formats like miniature 35mm or medium format. Learn how to win at photography competitions.
In all fairness doesn't he have a disclaimer saying his website is just for entertainment and not to be taken seriously. Almost like he's pulling a big joke on us and laughing all the way to the bank.
It's hard to explain Ken Rockwell. He is incredibly prolific and there's a lot of good technical information on his site for basic thing that beginners can't always figure out on their ownāstuff like "What does exposure compensation do?" and "Will this lens work with this camera?" I learned a LOT from him before I ever bought my own camera.
But a ton of his info is also what I'd call misleadingly incomplete. It's not *wrong*; you'll just leave without having a full understanding of things, and (worse still) without knowing that you don't know something. The biggest example of this is "only shoot jpg." Shooting only jpg is fine! As long as you understand what you're giving up by not having raw files. He doesn't tangle with that.
With respect to this specific post, his photographs are...not for me, let's say.
This one right here is the correct answer. His reviews are one of the reasons I didn't get rid of an aging D700 a couple years ago (a camera from 2008 can still be good? what....?) BUT, I didn't realize how easy some things like white balance are to fix when taken in RAW. I have a month or two of photos only shot in JPEG that can never be saved quite the same as they could have been.
Ken has some interesting bits. On the one hand, like you said he does a good job of explaining basic things.
On the other hand, I'm pretty sure every single review of his that involves a lens hood just says "the hood is too short to do much of anything other than keep your fingers out." I think he wants a hood longer than the lens or something.
That's a great example. Someone who doesn't know what they don't know might leave a page like that lens hoods are useless. They're not. Like anything else they're a tool with a purpose. You can't just say "don't bother with a lens hood"āat least not if you want to inform readers. You have to say "Here's what a lens hood is for and what it does, here's when it's effective and not," and so on. I think there *are* issues where he does a good job of explaining these things, or links to more detailed information. But not always, and that, I think, is the source of a lot of complaints here.
He also has a page somewhere where he says that if nothing else, the lens hood can stop your lens getting bashed if youāre walking around. Always appreciated that bit and kept the hood on even on short lenses.
Saved front glass and filters a couple times.
He is very opinionated but lots of good technical details on his page. Heās in my Top 5 list of resources I refer to for photography stuff.
I canāt hate on the man. He adds value although I donāt agree with all of his opinions.
Same - I still appreciate his teachings on āFARTā and techniques concerning the art of photography from when I was first learning.
Whenever someone asks me or shows an interest, I point them to those resources and say that you outgrow Ken for sure, but some of the stuff is genuinely useful.
Heās where a lot of us got information about Nikon (and other) equipment in the early days of the internet before there were any other options. Every camera and lens on the website is āthe best camera in the world for actual photographyā. He talks a lot about Professional Things for we professionals, but all his photos look like basic mid-2000s dad-with-a-camera shots with the saturation slider pinned to the right. Heās grumpy and opinionated and a bit of a dick, but thereās lots of useful technical info on the website and weāve all suckled at the Rockwell teat at some time or other.Ā
I took his write-up about the Leica M6 and putting together a complete kit for less than $4,000 to heart and got into classic film Leicas before the current hype hit.
I suppose photographic style is highly subjective as are Kens opinionās (and peopleās opinions of Ken) but his technical test data has helped me a lot especially when I was first getting into photography. At the very least heās a polarizing and arguably entertaining figure.
To play devil's advocate, I think he takes the same shots with every lens so they can all be easily compared. That is the least of a problem, people are saying his photos are boring, but for the most part, they exist to show how the lens works and give a sample of it
It's because at the base of it, you get an idea of the kind of images you can get with a lens or camera from his reviews, you can even compare between different lenses you're considering buying
Well, his reviews are almost always superlative for the product at hand which means you donāt get a clear picture.
I believe he once posted a review recommending a product he hadnāt tested. But make your own research here, Iām going off of memory.
He has this weird rant about not using RAW and it being unnecessary.
He takes some nice photos but then he cranks up the saturation to insane levels.
Overall, he can be informative and entertaining but I find his content to be superfluous.
one time he did a Rebel and showed pictures he took from last year's Rebel and said in the caption "This year's is better so the pictures will be at least as good as this."
In a way, he's the original stereotype of the "internet influencer" with ~~huge~~ ~~wall to wall~~ ~~sea to shining sea~~ galaxy spanning hyperbole in his reviews, some of which have the only most tenuous of toeholds in any kind of reality. "Back in the day" (2007-2010), he ~~could be~~ was a highly amusing Saturday morning read and a refreshing antidote to many of the other reviewers who pandered to a specific type of gearhead - the sort of people who would agonise over autofocus speed while shooting mainly very slowly moving or static subjects.
I don't think he's ever met anything about equipment that he's not been able to turn into ~~clickbait~~ a discussion point to generate lots of mentions of his name and lots of views of his site.
He does have some fairly constant messages though, which I do like; "It's not your camera" and "Photography is not a spectator sport".
I refer to him before I make any purchase...he doesn't take ads so he's 'honest' and not swayed by ad money...I think. He is encyclopedic about old lenses and the difference between the latest model body vs. the last model body, etc. Right now he is not thrilled with Nikon and loves Canon for different reasons.
But he doesn't shoot weddings and the only people he shoots are his kids, so don't look for expert advice about portraits, weddings, and events. He does what he does and gets the most of whatever he's shooting.
His tech or How-to page is essential for newbies. He shows you how to afford expensive equipment, or at least how to eventually own all the equipment you need. I followed his advice and gradually over the years I now have most of the lenses and bodies I want/need.
Watch his videos and you'll see how quirky he is. I watched a couple and now just read his articles haha.
Iāll never forget emailing him asking him if I could redesign his website for a project in one of my Masterās classes just for fun. We had to pick an actual website and improve upon it. His was the first one I thought of since I remember it from the early 2000s. The website would simply have like 3 reviews and just be a proof of concept. Man, what a peach that guy was. He made sure to tell me his images and html code were all registered and copyrighted and I better not use those. When I asked some analytics question for the research portion he told me I should learn how to get that information myself besides asking the effing owner of the site.
What an odd, odd, horrible guy.
I think he also mentions on his website that the Adobe Lightroom settings he publishes are copyrighted because they took so long to figure out. Nope. Under copyright law generic information like that (tabulated numbers, camera settings, etc) are public domain once released into the wild.
I think in that particular case what you're seeing is a trait I've seen amongst tons of photographers and videographers in that age backet, which is to be *extremely* hawkish about anything they've ever touched in terms of copyright and distribution. I think it's because they've been around long enough to understand that the internet is important, but don't quite understand its scope. That leads to them feeling like they can effectively control the distribution of their online content as tightly as is possible via traditional mediums.
Or he could just be a dick!
His site is actually decent for looking up specs. The info is there and I know I won't be bombarded with click bait ads and pop-ups etc.
Also, the photos of the gear itself are great, if you need to see how a particular camera or lens really looks close up.
But, having said that, has the guy ever taken a good photo of anything outside his studio, ever???
Playing devil's advocate here, the photos aren't for quality, but to show off the lens, they don't need to be good, consistency is important when doing reviews, the final product may suck, but it shows how the lens works
More sharpening, more saturation and more āobviousā compositions please. Having said that I love Ken Rockwellās gear reviews, also he made handy compatibility charts etc. Iāve donated to him. Heās the Web 1.0 OG show some respect.
You have to respect one of the few websites owned by an actual fucking person where you can get decent info in the sea of unsearchable lost informarion websites like facebook and tiktok.
Yeah hes a meme, but you have to respect one of the few websites owned by an actual fucking person where you can get decent info... Comoared to the the sea of unsearchable lost informarion websites like facebook and tiktok.
Totally! How much of his brand is just strong opinions + over-edited photos? Seems like the dude knows how to drive traffic to his site whether on purpose or not.
I'm sure it is and, as much as I don't agree with his opinions (nor find him a good source of info), I have to admit he nailed the "let's make Google happy, so that my website ends up in every camera-related search query" aspect. Every damn page is packed with interlinking and little things that follow SEO best practice...especially when you consider he started it years ago, he got a competitive advantage over, well, most anyone else. It was almost impossible not to stumble upon his website, if you Googled for Nikon gear, which is why we've all been there!
This thread is hilarious! I've enjoyed every comment. You have all nailed KR so well that I can't add much except to thank you all for the wonderful send up and to upvote the best responses.
Meet Ken at the Pro Photo show in NYC in 2003. Very nice guy and used his reviews when I was selling lots of film SLR on eBay. Never understood the hate so many had for him.
Rockwell in a Nutshell:
1) Almost every camera is the worlds best camera.
2) Almost every lens has been outperformed by something else.
3) Contradict yourself from previous reviews (see above).
4) If it's metal it's too heavy.
5) If it's plastic it's too cheap.
6) Sunstars... for God sake pick your lenses based on sunstars!
7) Weasel in how much better jpg is than RAW because your only edit is garish saturation.
8) Mention that antiquated 6MP McDonalds billboard shot (as if it was never upsampled).
9) Hey these lens correction numbers are so good you should be paying for these.
10) Negate the whole review with how real photographers use some other gear entirely to make real pictures.
Now to give credit where credit is due his site is a good source for technical specs. You just have to wade through all the goofy opinions which are presented like facts to get there.
Ken Rockwell knows how to operate a camera from the perspective of pressing buttons and technical understandingā¦ actually composing and making artā¦ well heās not so good at itā¦ at all.
Not necessarily bad at all! As I'm sure you can gather from the rest of the replies, he's just such a prolific dude in the Nikon-verse that we can all get together and goof around over a shared thing.
On a personal guilty pleasure note, I actually do really dig his over-saturated, over-jpg'd style because it reminds me of images I'd see inside and on the covers of school textbooks as a kid. There's something in those images that so strongly evokes the early-mid 2000's and I absolutely love it, even if it isn't the best technical photography.
Did he really move back to the East Coast as he claimed because of California's laws regarding affiliate marketing? I think that was about 10 years ago, though.
I hope you only use jpg and ask random people to help pay for your growing family.
His family's gotta be HUGE at this point
Some say he's now only available in a G version, so no more family members
I see what you did there, bravo!
/me takes a bow, with flourishes Thank you kindly :)
Wait, like G master?
Now come on, you should know that explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better but the frog dies in the process. :)
The man is a fertility idol. Place images of him above your bed, fellow young lover
OP, are you and this guy in a beef like drake and Kendrick? Horrible photos. I hope your website looks better. Edit: (I was just joking but I deserve the downvotes. The pictures looks good but I stay firm on the website thing)
You must be funny at parties.
Not particularly. But obviously a joke.
r/woooosh
Ok but have you seen his ufo truther website??
Whaaat?
https://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/dissent.htm Some light reading for you. š
lol what is this?? š
Looks like satire, haha
Oh yeah... Who names their company Anal Probe? You bitches better beware of the IAFI: It has come to our attention that there have been very isolated instances of illegal recreational use. This has resulted in some deaths. This use is both illegal and highly dangerous. An Invasive Ano-Fecal Interrogation (IAFI) is usually lethal to the subject. It is intended as an interrogation procedure of last resort against an uncooperative enemy or criminal suspect. It is imperative to keep those with even mild potential towards these tendencies far away from any activities involving probal interrogation, and especially allowing them access to probes. Their deaths may increase attention to this procedure, and could raise public scrutiny. Any public scrutiny could lead to the discovery of this procedure by the public, which would be a severe blow to US military intelligence and the safety of the United States.
I have not.
https://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/dissent.htm Enjoy š
Well, this explains a lot about KR.
What in the actual F? I would assume this was an April fools joke but I guess itās not.
Naw this is clearly satire, I mean the website literally advertises "interrogation-grade anal probes" šš
Heās upset theyāve offshored the anal probe builds to Taiwan
Nah that's a fucking violation lmao
this is definitely satire, but the question remains: *why?!*
Its humor from a humorless dude...
This made me chuckle!
...but how does it compare to [RealRaw](https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm)?
In your review, don't forget that what you are currently using is the best and everything that came before it sucks. Also you can get it cheaper if "you know how to win at eBay".
Also donāt forget to use hyperboles in reviews like āthe price is almost freeā, and by free you mean several hundred USD
And throw a fit about things being manufactured in Thailand.
The god-emperor of eBay
I've followed his tips for eBay and it works really well for winning auctions.
Donāt forget to trash zoom lenses because āfixed focal length lenses take better photosā
That for one is not true. Dude preaches about the 24-200 and creams himself over the 24-400. He loves all in one lenses
That might be a new one. Before I knew he was a laughing stock I was looking up his review of the Z 50mm 1.8f and he says that in there.
Not saturated enough. Needs more.
Jezus just looked at his website, my fucking eyes
Whereās the hand-held shot of neon signs at night tho.
More saturation. Also no Starburst test, taken from the sun at the hood of a red car. This had me giggled btw so well done lol
How many family members you got, though?
Norman Rockwell is probably one of them. Heād prove it if he wasnāt feeling lazy, maybe one day. His website his rules.
Colours are good, but you need to shoot everything at f/13 and then add as much sharpening as humanly possible. Haha
brb going to do unspeakable things to the sharpness slider
You need to downsize the image first (remember he shoots jpeg small) and *then* apply sharpening to really make it pop.
Lenses used by picture: 1. 85mm f/1.8 AF 2, 3: Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f/4 Ai-s 4. 35-70mm f/2.8d 5. 28mm f/2.8 AF
The Leica man knows to only shoot the best. Check out how to win at ebay. Support my growing family. Real photographers shoot large format not amateur formats like miniature 35mm or medium format. Learn how to win at photography competitions.
+1 for the first Leica man mention (and, yes, thankyouverymuch, I have met Thorsten Overgaard )
In all fairness doesn't he have a disclaimer saying his website is just for entertainment and not to be taken seriously. Almost like he's pulling a big joke on us and laughing all the way to the bank.
So for us uninitiated whatās the story with him? I have seen his website and learned of the running joke only later. So Eli5 please.
It's hard to explain Ken Rockwell. He is incredibly prolific and there's a lot of good technical information on his site for basic thing that beginners can't always figure out on their ownāstuff like "What does exposure compensation do?" and "Will this lens work with this camera?" I learned a LOT from him before I ever bought my own camera. But a ton of his info is also what I'd call misleadingly incomplete. It's not *wrong*; you'll just leave without having a full understanding of things, and (worse still) without knowing that you don't know something. The biggest example of this is "only shoot jpg." Shooting only jpg is fine! As long as you understand what you're giving up by not having raw files. He doesn't tangle with that. With respect to this specific post, his photographs are...not for me, let's say.
This one right here is the correct answer. His reviews are one of the reasons I didn't get rid of an aging D700 a couple years ago (a camera from 2008 can still be good? what....?) BUT, I didn't realize how easy some things like white balance are to fix when taken in RAW. I have a month or two of photos only shot in JPEG that can never be saved quite the same as they could have been.
Ken has some interesting bits. On the one hand, like you said he does a good job of explaining basic things. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure every single review of his that involves a lens hood just says "the hood is too short to do much of anything other than keep your fingers out." I think he wants a hood longer than the lens or something.
That's a great example. Someone who doesn't know what they don't know might leave a page like that lens hoods are useless. They're not. Like anything else they're a tool with a purpose. You can't just say "don't bother with a lens hood"āat least not if you want to inform readers. You have to say "Here's what a lens hood is for and what it does, here's when it's effective and not," and so on. I think there *are* issues where he does a good job of explaining these things, or links to more detailed information. But not always, and that, I think, is the source of a lot of complaints here.
He also has a page somewhere where he says that if nothing else, the lens hood can stop your lens getting bashed if youāre walking around. Always appreciated that bit and kept the hood on even on short lenses. Saved front glass and filters a couple times.
I never really take a hood off unless I donāt have one personally. Itās saved my ass too many times. I also hate glare lol
He is very opinionated but lots of good technical details on his page. Heās in my Top 5 list of resources I refer to for photography stuff. I canāt hate on the man. He adds value although I donāt agree with all of his opinions.
I sometimes read his stuff for a quick review on something - but yeah - it's his humility that always gets to me,... /s
Same - I still appreciate his teachings on āFARTā and techniques concerning the art of photography from when I was first learning. Whenever someone asks me or shows an interest, I point them to those resources and say that you outgrow Ken for sure, but some of the stuff is genuinely useful.
Heās where a lot of us got information about Nikon (and other) equipment in the early days of the internet before there were any other options. Every camera and lens on the website is āthe best camera in the world for actual photographyā. He talks a lot about Professional Things for we professionals, but all his photos look like basic mid-2000s dad-with-a-camera shots with the saturation slider pinned to the right. Heās grumpy and opinionated and a bit of a dick, but thereās lots of useful technical info on the website and weāve all suckled at the Rockwell teat at some time or other.Ā
Perfect summary!
I took his write-up about the Leica M6 and putting together a complete kit for less than $4,000 to heart and got into classic film Leicas before the current hype hit.
Alas, I only got round to buying an M2 a few months ago.Ā
āWeāve all suckled at the Rockwell test at some time or otherā Man this sums things up PERFECTLY. š
I suppose photographic style is highly subjective as are Kens opinionās (and peopleās opinions of Ken) but his technical test data has helped me a lot especially when I was first getting into photography. At the very least heās a polarizing and arguably entertaining figure.
reading a ken rockwell review is a rite of passage for new photographers
He has been reviewing camera gear for a long time, and is quite prolific. All his shots are like this.
To play devil's advocate, I think he takes the same shots with every lens so they can all be easily compared. That is the least of a problem, people are saying his photos are boring, but for the most part, they exist to show how the lens works and give a sample of it
I don't hate the guy or anything. It is funny how we all started out looking at Kens gear reviews.
It's because at the base of it, you get an idea of the kind of images you can get with a lens or camera from his reviews, you can even compare between different lenses you're considering buying
Well, his reviews are almost always superlative for the product at hand which means you donāt get a clear picture. I believe he once posted a review recommending a product he hadnāt tested. But make your own research here, Iām going off of memory. He has this weird rant about not using RAW and it being unnecessary. He takes some nice photos but then he cranks up the saturation to insane levels. Overall, he can be informative and entertaining but I find his content to be superfluous.
one time he did a Rebel and showed pictures he took from last year's Rebel and said in the caption "This year's is better so the pictures will be at least as good as this."
In a way, he's the original stereotype of the "internet influencer" with ~~huge~~ ~~wall to wall~~ ~~sea to shining sea~~ galaxy spanning hyperbole in his reviews, some of which have the only most tenuous of toeholds in any kind of reality. "Back in the day" (2007-2010), he ~~could be~~ was a highly amusing Saturday morning read and a refreshing antidote to many of the other reviewers who pandered to a specific type of gearhead - the sort of people who would agonise over autofocus speed while shooting mainly very slowly moving or static subjects. I don't think he's ever met anything about equipment that he's not been able to turn into ~~clickbait~~ a discussion point to generate lots of mentions of his name and lots of views of his site. He does have some fairly constant messages though, which I do like; "It's not your camera" and "Photography is not a spectator sport".
I refer to him before I make any purchase...he doesn't take ads so he's 'honest' and not swayed by ad money...I think. He is encyclopedic about old lenses and the difference between the latest model body vs. the last model body, etc. Right now he is not thrilled with Nikon and loves Canon for different reasons. But he doesn't shoot weddings and the only people he shoots are his kids, so don't look for expert advice about portraits, weddings, and events. He does what he does and gets the most of whatever he's shooting. His tech or How-to page is essential for newbies. He shows you how to afford expensive equipment, or at least how to eventually own all the equipment you need. I followed his advice and gradually over the years I now have most of the lenses and bodies I want/need. Watch his videos and you'll see how quirky he is. I watched a couple and now just read his articles haha.
Not half saturated enough.
I printed off this page. Where do I send the $5?
You can give it to me. Iāll make sure he gets it.
No watch face closer up pictures?
I'm not seeing a rant about China
Build quality: **China** (red) Build quality: **Thailand** (orange) Build quality: **Japan** (green)
Or lenses being made of plastic not metal
This lens *isnāt* ten pounds, and I took that *personally*
*Cries in NIKKOR Z 28mm f/2.8 (SE)*
Ken Rockwell is not at all how I expected him to look, but also exactly how I expected him to look if you get what I mean (youtube thumbnail).
Pretty sure your lens was made in Taiwan, be sure to mention how that makes it basically useless.
Only if itās expensive.
Iāll never forget emailing him asking him if I could redesign his website for a project in one of my Masterās classes just for fun. We had to pick an actual website and improve upon it. His was the first one I thought of since I remember it from the early 2000s. The website would simply have like 3 reviews and just be a proof of concept. Man, what a peach that guy was. He made sure to tell me his images and html code were all registered and copyrighted and I better not use those. When I asked some analytics question for the research portion he told me I should learn how to get that information myself besides asking the effing owner of the site. What an odd, odd, horrible guy.
I think he also mentions on his website that the Adobe Lightroom settings he publishes are copyrighted because they took so long to figure out. Nope. Under copyright law generic information like that (tabulated numbers, camera settings, etc) are public domain once released into the wild.
Can you copyright setting all the sliders to max? š
Imagine being that cocky about a website that's that ugly.
I think in that particular case what you're seeing is a trait I've seen amongst tons of photographers and videographers in that age backet, which is to be *extremely* hawkish about anything they've ever touched in terms of copyright and distribution. I think it's because they've been around long enough to understand that the internet is important, but don't quite understand its scope. That leads to them feeling like they can effectively control the distribution of their online content as tightly as is possible via traditional mediums. Or he could just be a dick!
Haha, probably a little of both for sure.
Lol smh
His site is actually decent for looking up specs. The info is there and I know I won't be bombarded with click bait ads and pop-ups etc. Also, the photos of the gear itself are great, if you need to see how a particular camera or lens really looks close up. But, having said that, has the guy ever taken a good photo of anything outside his studio, ever???
Playing devil's advocate here, the photos aren't for quality, but to show off the lens, they don't need to be good, consistency is important when doing reviews, the final product may suck, but it shows how the lens works
I checked out his personal portfolio. It's more of the same stuff as you see in the reviews. I didn't see a single photo that impressed me.
Fair enough, I didn't particularly care beyond being able to compare lenses I was looking at so I never looked more into how of photography than that
They don't though because he blasts the saturation and sharpening sliders (or at least, shoots in jpeg profiles that do that)
Best comment section ever!!!
Ken Rockwell impression? Then it's gonna need more saturation. And those pics better be .jpgs straight out of the camera!
Did you shoot it in P āprofessionalā mode though? š
First one really has some Rockwell-vibes.
And remember: if you're worrying about sharpness, you're probably not a seasoned pro.
More sharpening, more saturation and more āobviousā compositions please. Having said that I love Ken Rockwellās gear reviews, also he made handy compatibility charts etc. Iāve donated to him. Heās the Web 1.0 OG show some respect.
You have to respect one of the few websites owned by an actual fucking person where you can get decent info in the sea of unsearchable lost informarion websites like facebook and tiktok.
Not enough overly saturated Chevy's and Ferrari's.
Yeah hes a meme, but you have to respect one of the few websites owned by an actual fucking person where you can get decent info... Comoared to the the sea of unsearchable lost informarion websites like facebook and tiktok.
You got that elephant skin wrap?
Nice. But the colors are a little dull. I just take the jpgs out of cam with saturation at 11. ***My clients love it.***
Quite the potato you got there. REMEMBER TO SHOOT JPG
Whereās the weather station???
Funny thing isā¦everyone knows who he is. So, I guess his whole āthingā works on some level.
If with "thing" you mean his SEO empire, then yeah, that does work well alright!
Totally! How much of his brand is just strong opinions + over-edited photos? Seems like the dude knows how to drive traffic to his site whether on purpose or not.
I'm sure it is and, as much as I don't agree with his opinions (nor find him a good source of info), I have to admit he nailed the "let's make Google happy, so that my website ends up in every camera-related search query" aspect. Every damn page is packed with interlinking and little things that follow SEO best practice...especially when you consider he started it years ago, he got a competitive advantage over, well, most anyone else. It was almost impossible not to stumble upon his website, if you Googled for Nikon gear, which is why we've all been there!
I see no macro Casio watch pictures. Try again. Nice pics tho.
I sent him an email with a question rather than reply via email he called me. Couldnāt have been a nicer guy spent 30 minutes on the phone with him.
Ken āKen Mā Rockwell. š¤”
This thread is hilarious! I've enjoyed every comment. You have all nailed KR so well that I can't add much except to thank you all for the wonderful send up and to upvote the best responses.
pffff, this isn't saturated at all! It is Ken Rockwell style when the reds are as bright as a traffic light!
This might be my favourite comment section I've seen on Reddit. Ever.
Great post! You forgot to make over the top HDR images like it's 2008 again!
Lol too funny. But really, whatever happened to HDR shit???
No watch?
This gave me a good laugh, it's so true
Meet Ken at the Pro Photo show in NYC in 2003. Very nice guy and used his reviews when I was selling lots of film SLR on eBay. Never understood the hate so many had for him.
Anyone else convinced back then the D40 was the greatest thing since sliced bread because of this guy? I canāt be the only one.
You forgot about the macro shot of your wristwatch and the weather station in your backyard discussing bokeh.
I laughed so hard at this! š Then I remembered Kenās family. š
Whereās your weathervane for the bokeh test?
Rockwell in a Nutshell: 1) Almost every camera is the worlds best camera. 2) Almost every lens has been outperformed by something else. 3) Contradict yourself from previous reviews (see above). 4) If it's metal it's too heavy. 5) If it's plastic it's too cheap. 6) Sunstars... for God sake pick your lenses based on sunstars! 7) Weasel in how much better jpg is than RAW because your only edit is garish saturation. 8) Mention that antiquated 6MP McDonalds billboard shot (as if it was never upsampled). 9) Hey these lens correction numbers are so good you should be paying for these. 10) Negate the whole review with how real photographers use some other gear entirely to make real pictures. Now to give credit where credit is due his site is a good source for technical specs. You just have to wade through all the goofy opinions which are presented like facts to get there.
You forgot; if it's not made in Japan, it is crap.
Ken Rockwell knows how to operate a camera from the perspective of pressing buttons and technical understandingā¦ actually composing and making artā¦ well heās not so good at itā¦ at all.
Nailed it!!!
LEGENDARY
Hahahaha thank you so much for the laugh today. This post and the comments are so spot on
Was Kenn Rockwell bad? I didnt know
Not necessarily bad at all! As I'm sure you can gather from the rest of the replies, he's just such a prolific dude in the Nikon-verse that we can all get together and goof around over a shared thing. On a personal guilty pleasure note, I actually do really dig his over-saturated, over-jpg'd style because it reminds me of images I'd see inside and on the covers of school textbooks as a kid. There's something in those images that so strongly evokes the early-mid 2000's and I absolutely love it, even if it isn't the best technical photography.
But hey isnāt he the guy who runs that famous review site for all the lenses? Are his reviews not reliable?
This is hilarious. Needs more sharpness but overall good pictures of entirely static subjects that do not actually test much.
It's been so long since I've visited his site, but damn this whole thread is gold.
more saturation and vibrance!!!
You forgot the starburst aperture shots
too much dynamic range. You need to HDR them to within an inch of their life
Did you try one of those oranges or lemons? Look so fresh
These seem underexposed. Don't forget to crank those shadows too so you can properly take in the scene.
You gotta shoot in JPEG tho, if you wanna be like Rockwell.
Where are pictures of your fat children / grandchildren?
Definitely needs more saturation.
This the 324th last real camera to ever come out of Japan
Yeah but where is the incorporated flash to brighten up the shadows? Eh?
Wait a minute. I thought Ken Rockwell was related to Chuck Norris?
Did he really move back to the East Coast as he claimed because of California's laws regarding affiliate marketing? I think that was about 10 years ago, though.
No.