He uses a calibrated monitor because he's a professional. You probably just think they're over saturated because you're viewing them on your gaming monitor.

ken rockwell is my inspiration

unironically

>>4323743
I guess it's kind of like how movie critics don't necessarily know how to make good movies themselves. His refusal to shoot RAW makes me think he's trolling to some extent as well. I hope so, because his pictures are fucking awful.

>>4323755
Does he actually not shoot raw? I don't believe you. There's no way...

>>4323756
https://kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

lol

>>4323745
I enjoy his photography and vice versa, 'nuff said

>>4323745
>>4323759
accidentally my reply
>Didn't know an Apple displays count as color calibrated

>Raw is designed for people who intend to spend a lot of time twiddling with one image at a time. For these applications I use large format 4x5" film instead for much better quality, thus you see why I don't use raw.

Seems like an extraordinarily based fellow.

>>4323743
Because he's bad at photography. It really is that simple. His reviews are pretty solid though.

>>4323774
>>4323746
Post your work. I want to see what a ken “the saturator” rockwell fan does with a camera.

>>4323777
>His reviews are pretty solid though
for the older stuff, sure. the new shit is all just "canon good" over and over.

File: CHEEPCHEEPCHEEPCHEEPCHEEPCHEEP.jpg (1.75 MB, 3000x1500)

1.75 MB JPG

>>4323780
https://www.flickr.com/photos/siberianhuskyappreciator/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7_2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	120 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	1500
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	120.00 mm
Image Width	4500
Image Height	2250
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4323780
Post your work first! :D

>>4323784
Good to see the alcoholic babushka again even if the content is not fresh. :D

>>4323782
Haven't looked at any camera reviews in a decade but I believe you.

>>4323795
>>4323784
Are they both dog[redacted]?

The real question is where does his money come from. It's gotta be generational wealth right? I would imagine his website barely generates enough income for one person to live off, nevermind a family in southern CA.

>>4323755
>>4323756
>>4323758
Look, I'm no fan of the guy's work, but I don't find any flaw in his logic about getting the image right in-camera. Why would anyone be pissed about someone else wanting to shoot that way?

>>4323802
Because digital isnt film. You’d have yo set your whitebalance and DRO nonsense for every photo, keep the ISO low because grain minimalization and sharpening on cameras sucks balls (ruin everything vs nada)

If i had to shoot jpeg i’d trade my r6 for an elan

>>4323800
he's been online since the early digital days and is very good at SEO. add flashy photos and easy to digest but otherwise flavorless reviews and you have thousands of newfags clicking his affiliates links or, god forbid, sending him paypal donations.

Support the growing family

File: never buy a tamron lense.jpg (1.45 MB, 3000x2000)

1.45 MB JPG

>>4323795
>babushka
excuse me she's basically a puppy

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7_2
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/3000 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Fine Weather
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	300.00 mm
Image Width	4500
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: IYT0CIX.jpg (519 KB, 2837x3131)

519 KB JPG

>>4323800
He was an engineer before he was an internet camera sperg

File: 1647915817767.jpg (102 KB, 1024x958)

102 KB JPG

>>4323774
extremely based

>>4323743
He's earned millions of dollars from his website and photography and you've just wasted money and time on your hobby. Seethe, you sad little retard : )

>>4323802
That's all well and good, but I have LITERALLY never seen a Ken Rockwell photo that was even close to being properly exposed. It's also extremely obvious that he cranks up the saturation (probably with the basic Windows photo editor). I can only imagine what a shit show his film shots are.

>>4323831
bro he sold a condo (the whole building apparently).

File: IMG_0706-half-dome-sunset.jpg (889 KB, 1600x1600)

889 KB JPG

>>4323831
>and photography
lollllll

>>4323855
>Yosemite covered in Cheetos dust
I like Ken Rockwell for the advice he gives that relates to the practical aspects of using the camera, such as how intuitive the menus/controls are, ergonomics, things like that. I just ignore the stuff about "RAW is a gimmick", "saturation should be maxed out", etc.

>>4323857
Sometimes I wonder if ken doesn't actually look at his website, and mostly prints on such a setup that the colors would normally come out cooler and desaturated. The over the top sharpening just screams "meant to be viewed at 300dpi".

>>4323857
Bro he was hungry. Do you really blame him for making an entire mountain look like a cheeto?

>>4323743

he seems to take pictures of dye destruction prints he has had made, i do not know how dye destruction printing works

>>4323859
He's old enough that, no joke, the first TV his family owned as a kid was probably a black-and-white. He probably does genuinely just like the colors that way.

>>4323860
Nah I don't blame him, I've made bad decisions when hungry too.

File: kenvelvia.jpg (419 KB, 1200x1616)

419 KB JPG

>>4323743
I approve of the based God Ken, and I believe that with the wisdom of experience, most others would too.
His controversial claims are based on some general truths:
>photos are made by the photographer, not the camera
>image content is more important than image "quality"
>almost all cameras are perfectly capable of "general photography"
>almost all enthusiast-level digital cameras, even old ones, have capabilities that exceed the requirements for even professional quality output in technical genres, let alone for normal photos of normal things used in normal ways
So when realistically every camera is good enough, should you continue to recommend products (or techniques) that deliver arbitrary improvements to field-irrelevant metrics? Or should you recommend those that make practically useful results easier to achieve with smaller, lighter, more ergonomic, more affordable equipment? Technicians and professionals might make different choices as a result of their different priorities, but they'll probably still end up with a web-sized jpeg at the end, which the lay observer would rarely distinguish from a quality perspective (style/taste notwithstanding). A theoretically useful advantage one system may have, which comes at the expense of handling or workflow, and that results in a marginal or imaginary benefit in a final output even when fully realised, probably doesn't deserve a recommendation, right?
>sony eye af so good, but skin tones all fucked up
>sigma lenses so sharp, but they're fucking enormous, not even that cheap, have ganked featureset on the camera, and can be bricked with a firmware change whenever the oem chooses
>chinese manufacturing give marginal reductions in price for tangible reductions in quality, while materially supporting a political enemy

>>4323877
>content is more important than image "quality"
His own work disproves this. Eye burning shit. Content is part of quality. If cameras and lenses were free, would you agree?

People dont screech about how finer grained film stocks are useless gearfaggotry for soulless idiots… because they can afford both options! And they dont bitch about how sharp lenses are useless gearfaggotry for masturbating trust fund kids literally incapable of art… BECAUSE THEY CAN AFFORD BOTH
:o

Also, “web size” now has two sizes. 4k, which is big enough for 45mp and 24mp to still look different, and 1080p, which is still too big to get rid of mft noise. A lot of his opinions are technologically out of date and assume computers are uganda tier. Including most of his hatred for raws.

>>4323879
of course he says one thing and uses an r5+rf l zooms for vacation snaps right after.

>>4323743
itt: losers seething that ken has his own photographic identity, and they dont

If you are unable to get things correct in camera you might lack creativity.

File: kendigishit.jpg (169 KB, 768x1024)

169 KB JPG

>>4323879
>His own work disproves this.
No it doesn't.
You're conflating his artistic choices with image quality.
In fact his body of work looking substantially similar regardless of the camera he uses is EXACTLY THE POINT.
He is the reason his photos look the way they do, not the gear. Almost any camera used correctly will do almost anything you like, and the biggest difference is how hard you have to work to get there.
How many raw photos are currently posted to 4chan, buddy?
>>4323881
this

>>4323887
What if that was the motel where he fooled around with hookers? Everytime he went there he would use a different camera to take a picture.

>>4323887
His “artistic choices” like oversharpening shit shot at f22 with garbo lenses and adding saturation to 8 bit jpegs. These are IQ issues. His iphone shots drive the point home harder.

Quality is part or content.

Film people don’t contest this. Half frame to 4x5 is “creative chocies”. Expired tri x to velvia 50 is “creative choices”. Digital people seethe because it’s secretly about what they can and can’t afford. Notice it’s called aps-c vs full frame arguments, not half frame vs 35mm arguments.

>>4323745
But when you know that the people actually seeing your pictures will be using those monitors, shouldn't you account for that?

>>4323755
>>4323800
>>4323816
Hold up. I thought he was a professional photographer before he became a reviewer. He's always talking about selling pics to big corporations and "us pros this and that". You telling me hes just some dipshit with a website?

>>4323802
>I don't find any flaw in his logic about getting the image right in-camera
Sometimes your camera doesn't get it right. Sometimes your camera NEVER gets it right because it over-sharpens the piss out of everything until it blurs into a crossword puzzle, even with jpegs set to Ultra Fine and sharpness set to -5 (thanks, Panasonic!), and even the most basic raw conversion has almost ridiculous amounts of detail and ACTUAL sharpness compared to the jpeg.

>>4323895
>>4323879
In less time than you've spent sooking in this thread, he would have written, shot, edited, posted and got 100k hits on one of his camera reviews.
That same review will load in about .2 seconds on a fucking dialup internet connection with dozens of screen filling images.
That a guy in his 70's has his internet game so dialed is hilarious to me, as is that you don't understand what he's doing or why, and that pretty much everything he posts is a subtle troll of gearfag retards like you AND an actual proof of the ultimate correctness of the points he's trying to make.

Also, I don't understand the point you're trying to make about the price of gear? Bloke's got more gear and money to spare than you ever will; he doesn't need to flex with expensive shit that doesn't meet a use case for him. He also doesn't need to shill it. It is however his main job AND recreation to shoot a variety of equipment, so it's kind of stupid to knock him for using premium kit on a dedicated photo trip.

File: kenrockwellsecretsauce.jpg (116 KB, 1008x564)

116 KB JPG

>>4323743
These are his jpeg settings that he shared on youtube.

At the 16 minute mark:
https://youtu.be/cwbx0j8-jQc?si=nW_zlxssH-MBlys6&t=960

>>4323918
>Sometimes your camera doesn't get it right.
M8 your camera is a tool that does as it's told. If you're trying to take a garbage photo in garbage light with wrong settings, yeeting the exposure comp and clarity sliders on a raw is not the answer.
I think that you are exactly the kind of new photographer that needs to read his rants, which are far more illuminating than any of his gear reviews. See the copypasta below in every single lense review:

>Lens sharpness has nothing to do with picture sharpness; every lens made in the past 100 years is more than sharp enough to make super-sharp pictures if you know what you're doing. The only limitation to picture sharpness is your skill as a photographer. It's the least talented who spend the most time worrying about lens sharpness and blame crummy pictures on their equipment rather than themselves. Skilled photographers make great images with whatever camera is in their hands. Most pixels are thrown away before you see them, but camera makers don't want you to know that.

>If you're not getting ultra-sharp pictures with this, be sure not to shoot at f/11 or smaller where all lenses are softer due to diffraction, always shoot at ISO 100 or below because cameras become softer at ISO 200 and above, avoid shooting across long distances over land which can lead to atmospheric heat shimmer, be sure everything is in perfect focus, set your camera's sharpening as you want it (I set mine to the maximum) and be sure nothing is moving, either camera or subject. If you want to ensure a soft image with any lens, shoot at f/16 or smaller at ISO 1,600 or above at default sharpening in daylight of subjects at differing distances in the same image.

>People worry waaaaay too much about lens sharpness. It's not 1968 anymore when lenses often weren't that sharp and there could be significant differences among them; ever since about 2010 all new lenses are all pretty much equally fantastic.

File: tygh.jpg (11 KB, 527x98)

11 KB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	gera
Image-Specific Properties:

He's your typical snapshitter. Most of his pics are /rpt/ tier. The only reason people even know who he is, is because he's been around since forever. Basically one of the first photo guys on the internet. Either way, his pictures are embarrassingly bad so he has nothing worthwhile to say about the subject of photography and should be ignored.

>>4323922
>sharpness isn't about gear, it's about your skill
>sets camera sharpening to max

>>4323881
He writes and produces content like a 13-year-old who just got his first DSLR for Christmas and edits his photos with Windows Photo Viewer. I would hope that nobody here has that identity, because you have to be 18 to post here.

>>4323921
>Sharpening +9
The absolute madman.

>>4323921
lol you can just read any of his camera settings or guides, it's not a secret
Depending on the lens +9 sharpening can be fine, though I set mine to 7.5 myself for a good neutral value (can always add a bit more when editing on iPhone)

File: rockwell03.jpg (222 KB, 1200x906)

222 KB JPG

>>4323960
crunchy as fuck

>>4323774
>shoots JPEGs because he doesn't want to edit photos
>his photos are all badly edited and none of them look natural
Either trolling or senile

File: Screenshot_20240611_08033(...).jpg (2.34 MB, 1440x4327)

2.34 MB JPG

>>4323985
Bro has got much bigger things on his mind.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.G998U1UESAFXD1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1440
Image Height	5495
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:06:11 08:03:37
Light Source	Unknown

>>4323922
Tldr just look at this idiots pictures >>4323855

>>4323919
He’s right. Ken is still a typical digislug. He gear copes non stop like he couldnt take a photo with a nikon. You NEVER seen actual film photographers say the things ken does - or actual photographers for that matter.

Is he rich? Probably not. His wife might be. Post proof he’s a pro - you cant. He actually has a whole page where he long form admits to lying.

So it is:
Not his job
Not actually cheap to him
Not a person you should trust or look up to. Only the dogfuckers of /p/ pretend to because they troll 24/7.

>>4323922
Literally all of this is wrong. What he wrote is wrong. What you wrote is wrong. Camera jpeg engines are shit, and this guy thinks he still shoots 400 speed film but he has an r5. Look at his photos. He is an idiot, a troll, or both.
>”images become softer at iso 200”
Only imatest software could notice iso 100 to 800 differences

>>4323895
>”all digifag opinions are cope”
>”NO BUT I HAVE A SNOY A1!”
they hate him because he told them the truth

>>4323988
>everywhere I look I'm reminded of her

>>4323895
100% correct. Anyone who shoots digital is tainted by this no matter how much they spent. How much of /p/ arguments come down to money after all the wank and pseud rambling melts away? Literally all of them.

Even ken's hatred for raw ultimately comes down to
>when he wrote that article, you needed a very expensive computer to shoot raw and edit it quickly (no longer true - 2tb is $100, a $650 used laptop running capture one will fly through 61mp files)
>raw editors cost money, and he's a gearfag so he'd rather collect bodies and redundant lenses

>>4323992
>Long form admits to lying
His website is a larp persona he puts on for dadographer/MWAC types to meme them into spending as little as possible and taking photos exactly like him. Typical advice-guy blend of altruism and narcissism.

>>4323895
What is 8x10?

Name a single thing he's wrong about

>>4323855
>>4323981
Adams wept

>>4324019
Just open any page, and it will probably be wrong. Thankfully ken rockwell is not a good photographer, so you don't have to care. You don't have to listen to his rebuttals. You don't have to dissect his copes. You don't have to listen to his fanboys, or worry about his or their internal motivations - other than the fact that most of us are trolling you when we praise him. You don't have to try and figure out what makes his apparent hypocrisy make sense. He is photo-mogged by randoms on /p/ and would not be a stand-out in /rpt/. If you want to ask a real photographer what gear is gud or how to take purdy photos, there is a great number of actual artists who would probably be happy to write back to you - if you can find their name they'll probably write back as long as you aren't a complete beginner and have been making serious attempts with a point and shoot or something for a while.

>>4324018
meme format for rich bored faggots

>>4324018
"artistic choice" obviously. is it different? yes. does it look different? yes. does it do different stuff? yes. ok there you go.

>>4324024
monetary cope. if your argument involves money it is categorically wrong. some people are just smarter and harder working, and therefore richer than you. it's not a jewish conspiracy, you're just too busy on 4chan to make money. you might think it would be nice but you don't have the drive to or value something else more. so why not - not care if someone richer than you can afford to use more expensive things?

>>4324025
I shoot 4x5 nigger, I have dabbled into 8x10 and that is why I know that is only for rich bored faggots.

You are not going to get anything from it that you can't get on 4x5.

>>4324026
An 8x10 contact print looks different from your 4x5 enlargement
8x10 has different DOF, more dramatic results from the movements, given the same focal length and relative apparent aperture

Why do you shoot 4x5 instead of a 645 tech camera? Why not a chinese tilt shift on a sony a7r? You must be a bored richfag durrr

It looks different. It does different stuff. Your cope is any% money related therefore it is irrelevant.

>>4324023
based
4x5 dog diddler could go toe to toe with rockwell in a professionally judged 2 man photo contest and win

>>4324026
>t. too pussy to frame an 8x10 positive as-is with a backlight running 24/7 in the display case

>>4324026
That guy is right, especially for contact prints. You have 4x the area of film, which means the tonal resolution or whatever you want to call it will be noticeably finer. Contact printing removes many variables that can lessen IQ, and 4x5 is generally too small to make worthwhile contact prints. It's kind of funny how a larger, more expensive, and relatively inconvenient format provides a much more convenient and efficient workflow when producing prints.

Also 8x10 wetplates are going to be incredible.

Can you share one of your 4x5 scans? I'd love to see what another LF user is producing!

>>4324034
With an attached 4x loupe for your viewing pleasure!

>>4324035
>with a loupe
That reveals “ur a faget” burned onto one little spot so finely the lines in the lettering are barely over a grain wide

File: 1717902967344239.jpg (2.96 MB, 4203x2806)

2.96 MB JPG

>>4324031
Yknow, he really could... if only he cleaned those negatives.

Who would win, this photo, or these photos
>>4323855
>>4323877
>>4323981
>>4323988

>>4324041
they are both shit but for different reasons

File: ;;transamericapic.jpg (907 KB, 2628x2476)

907 KB JPG

>>4324041
How dare you post my image like that?

To my defense that is a very meaningful picture, AND it will undeniably make a beautiful print. Maybe the digital image is not good, but it has everything and more to be a great image to hang on the wall that I will enjoy for years to come, so it does not matter. I shoot film to make prints.

Here's one of my "good ones" from back when I was in a more favorable location and doing more artsy type shit. This image looks incredible printed really big.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	CanoScan 9000F Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.1.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:05:26 23:01:01
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4324043
Ok, but anyone can say anything, so post 1: the best photo you've taken 2: the best photo you think has ever been taken.

Ad hominem isn't a fallacy in art.

>>4324045
>>4324041
both of these mog rockwell hard even if "the art world" has a disdain for dogs in noble situations (the primary constituents have historically disliked dogs)

>>4323988
This nigga makes $3000 gear look like a FinePix from 2005

>>4324051
Do you know if skylum luminar neo is a good program?

>>4324052
It's really bad. Just use lightroom or capture one like everyone else (from forums to fashion)

>>4324051
if you think that's funny, he used to have top of the line nikon shit and stated, in extremely angry, ranty terms, despite all the advice he's given before, that...

It wasn't good enough for him
He could not take that picture with a z6
or a z8
or a z9
he NEEDED to switch to canon, because their lenses are made in japan (mtf charts: the fucking same. political enemy? well lets see, despite political pressure they still have a 'implicitly legal' CP/child prostitution industry and bestiality is so legal there they're the worlds source of FISH PORN)

>>4324062
>ken: lens sharpness doesnt matter
>also ken: i need muh japan lenses the mtf chart deviation is smaller
his hypocrisy only makes sense when you realize he's a shitty photographer trying to guide other shitty photographers away from ending up like him

>>4323743
could someone photoshop that and make his neck just ever so slightly shorter?

>>4324051
>like a FinePix from 2005
That shit is popular with the kids now so maybe he was just ahead of his time.

>>4324062
source for japanese fish porn? with downloads?
t. kanye west

File: k.jpg (116 KB, 729x704)

116 KB JPG

>>4323921
No fucking way those are his actual settings. This nigga trolling.

>>4323981
>GET IT RIGHT IN THE CAMERA

>>4323988
>I never shoot RAW, because I don't like to edit my photos
>I used a shitty one-click AI photo editing software BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME OKAY!?
Literally retarded.

>>4324133
I just posted that cause he photographed a giant rockussy, and thought it was funny.

I wonder what would happen if you emailed him asking to explain himself... About the weird photo editing not the rockussy.

>>4323855
Why are the parts of the mountain in shadow lighter than the sunlit portion?

Did you know that Rockwell isn't even his real name? He just uses it because he thinks it sounds like a name a photographer would have.

>>4324186
I always assumed that was just his adult industry name, and that he entered into the photography game from there. He always talks about his big hands

>>4324189
Oh, so that’s why you can never find his purported client work

>>4323918
I'm sorry your Panasonic makes shitty JPEGs. A lot of other cameras don't, and people are able to achieve their vision with in-camera JPEG processing.

>>4324225
Almost every camera makes shitty jpegs

Maybe leicas and hasselblads do a good job. Nikon Z jpegs are unusably bad. Really shitty sharpening and some sort of moire reduction applied globally. They make people go “well, my iphone can…”. Sony jpegs have their notorious colors. Fuji jpegs have corpse skin. Canon jpegs are dull.

And you know what
Its not the standard for simplicity.

Film had enough latitude that even if the light drifted all your scans and prints would end up the same brightness. White balance would always be way better and REALER looking than AWBs random tint values and the way digital WB has to be spot on per photo or else it looks like rockwellian vomit. A negative has more info than some computer science fucktards good enough image format from 1980. I can shoot film. I do not have the stomach to be enough of a camera fiddling brand specific gear faggot to shoot jpeg. There is a reason all jpeg shooters have the most expensive canon money can buy, or have settled for underexposure and jpeg S on their fuji (hides the worms). With raw i can use any camera i want, just like film, while rockwellians bitch like they still got a core 2 duo and a 1gb CF card and literally cant shoot raw. As if their camera masturbation makes them better photographers. They’re just autistic camera operators who embody the “digital is objectively inferior to film” look.
>i use the WB button… im a pro. Do YOU have a WB button?
>no im not an event snapshitter and i hope the camera drone replaces you sooner rather than later you overcharging gearfaggot. Get the fuck out of the customer base so artists can have more small fun cameras and fewer blobs optimized for 24-120 f1.8 usage.

>>4324227
the news, weddings, sports, etc have never been photographers to look up to anyways
maybe reporters to look up to but not photographers

I love when Rockwell-sama just drops trou and casually shits all over the third world in his camera reviews. Those Canadian dudes in Calgary who used to work for DPReview or the jewfro guy won't give you that in a camera review:

https://youtu.be/cvfMeJupfuk?feature=shared&t=520

File: Z72_4217.jpg (2.88 MB, 3000x2000)

2.88 MB JPG

>>4324225
When I shot jpeg I instantly got sick of messing with wb/dro/exposure, regretted it later, saw a back and forth between the sd card and the PC with lots of slider fiddling just to end up disappointed in my future, and decided capture one renders things nicer anyways. Good thing I only used it for snapshitting visiting friends.

Please show me these people "achieving their vision" with just jpegs. Just one magnum, group vi, or conde nast photographer. I think most cameras are calibrated for the guy at best buy who tries the demo model and goes "oooooh" at the back screen and marketing-friendly FPS/battery life figures so they'll never do as good of a job as just opening the raw with real software and clicking "export" immediately.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7_2
Camera Software	Ver.01.62
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	33060
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:27 12:57:33
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4128
Image Height	2752
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO0
Focus Mode	AF-C
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	40.0 mm; f/2.0
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	14386

>>4324236
Holy heccin’ BASED.

>>4324236
Japan is third world desu

>>4324239
If I'm buying from a Japanese brand, I want the camera to be made in Japan. Ken "Hard R" Rockwell straight up says Indians aren't people in that clip, which is a verified fact.

>>4324241
he's right there but all asians are the same so who cares. it's like caring if something is made in norway or sweden.

Just look at sigma and tamron for that "japanese quality". There is no magic blood on that island. They're the same people as everywhere else, just in japan. They might as well be the stereotypical china in those factories because those factories just make shit. Meanwhile some of my best lenses were made in china.

You know japan used to be known for cheap, low quality crap and just being some shitty island that importers used to undercut US based businesses right? Then they invented floppy discs, anime started airing, and weebs were born.

>>4324236
wtf ken is actually based

>>4324243
actually japan killed both the european and american camera industries so anyone who cares should be buying all leica, all the time
leica jpegs are also one of the few that are extremely well loved so there's ken's "raw wastes my time" box

lenses made in portugal
cameras made in germany
sensors made in france

>>4324243
>>4324246
This, anyone who cares is not using shitty japs cameras.

You want digital? Buy a Leica

Otherwise shoot film made in the USA, in a camera made in GERMANY.

>>4324246
What's more American than buying from our European friends and ancestors? Shooting FILM!
>Large format cameras are still handmade by real hard working, god fearing Americans right here in the USA!
>AMERICAN made 35mm and 120 cameras are still available, made in USA!
>Vast wealth of AMERICAN made lenses still available (too bad japan undercut our consumer optics industry and relegated it to scopes and sunglasses). Yes, lesnes from the USA!
>Kodak film is made - guess where? The U! S! A!
>USA!
>USA!
>USA!

>>4324248
Name one good 35mm and 120 film camera made in burger land.

Germans were better at that, but I agree that burger made LF and film is superior.

>>4324247
lol what German medium format camera am I using anon?

File: 505112250_6100efad9a.jpg (60 KB, 500x375)

60 KB JPG

>>4324253
Most American cameras are actually great, just not worshiped by gearfags because they're better built and therefore normally larger.

>>4324255
A Rollei or an Ikonta you double nigger

>>4324257
lol you mean the folders from the early 1900s

File: IMG_2098.jpg (75 KB, 720x480)

75 KB JPG

>>4324256
Yup, Americans weren’t concerned with small and light, but functional and sturdy. Lot of wonderful specimens from that time period

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON
Camera Model	E990
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2005:01:21 16:19:59
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash
Focal Length	19.10 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	720
Image Height	480
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4324253
Sinar is the best LF camera producer not made of wood, and its a swiss produced camera. There is really nothing better once you get serious about LF. From the norma to the latest P3 all accessories are essentially compatible and can be used to part together whatever sort of camera you need for the job. It is truly an incredible camera system.

>>4323855
I never get tired of this one, it's awful on so many levels. He's the Tommy Wiseau of photography.

File: Screenshot 2024-06-12 at (...).png (480 KB, 862x700)

480 KB PNG

>>4323981
It's pinatubian light. (nevermind that mount pinatubo erupted 2 years prior).

>>4324130
He got it right in camera even with a broken camera.
See /tech/not-about-your-camera.htm

>>4323802
>getting the image right in camera
That's not how it works, bro.

>>4323904
no, files are unfinished photos in storage. A finished photo is a print.

>>4324603
"get it right in camera" is an anachronism from when you needed to use a filter for white balance, you probably had no room to crop and level, and not caring about exposure led to voids of missing shadow detail, because if you did not, you would be fucked. you can only correct a fucked up negative so much.

photography is way different today and shooting jpeg is sort of like dropping a disposable off at walmart

>>4324895
This.

>>4324916
>shooting jpeg is sort of like dropping a disposable off at walmart
but worse, because walmart scans were actually better looking than most cameras jpegs, since it was still film

>>4324916
people used to have to use gnd filters fir skies. you couldnt push the shadows. film had no shadow detail. lol.

File: cQMvuSqpZLDGZT7xmCUpkh-1200-80.jpg (140 KB, 1200x675)

140 KB JPG

>>4324942
>t.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-E1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 11.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	54 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2020:01:16 16:21:30
Exposure Time	1/20 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Brightness	4.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.80 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	675
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

I happen to know from a good source that Ken hangs dong. He can saturate anything he wants.

>>4323755
real pros photograph their fat kids with an iphone and sell them to mcdonalds. think positive and expensive gear will manifest in your bag. then you too can have a well appointed wife, and a fractal tree.

>>4324925
walmart had kodak and other nice machines.

>>4324916
Absolute cope

>>4325015
>I can't tell you what it really is, I can only tell you what it feels like

>>4326300
Kens spaghetti

Ken "Cheeto mountain" Rockwell
>Just get it right in camera
Vs
Ansel Adams
>get as much information in your negative to work on

Really makes you think

>>4326387
They're both getting it right in the camera in their own special way.

>>4326639
Ken rockwell: set your white balance, active d. lighting, picture controls, and exposure for the best jpeg and don't forget to use a GND filter for the sky! oh screw it, i'll replace the white void in photoshop.
Ansel adams: shoot raw, ETTR.

>>4326649
Ken Rockwell
>-.7 exp comp

Incel Adams
>MUH DIFFERENT CONTRAST PAPERS and ENLARGING OOOOOOOGH

>>4326651
You forgot about zone focus and push pull processing, chud.

File: 95430006-half-dome-from-g(...).jpg (1.53 MB, 2400x2400)

1.53 MB JPG

>>4326653
Ken Rockwell
>Radiant Photo and Skylum Luminar Neo

Ansel Adams
>photographic chemicals and a timer

File: Screenshot_20240618_15440(...).jpg (1.4 MB, 1440x2243)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4326655
DigiChud

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.G998U1UESAFXD1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1440
Image Height	2243

https://www.hunterlab.com/blog/how-our-perception-of-color-changes-as-we-age/

its scary 4 me when i remember the early 40s dude i know takes pics with his phone and oversaturates it with filters that are like +50 sat or stronger in photoshop

>>4324434
this photo almost has a claymation miniature set vibe to it. me gusta.

>>4323743
The better question is why does he look 14 despite being in his early 60s?

>>4323758
>Engineering degree
Mechanical or civil no doubt

>>4329040
Being proud of an engineering degree when you’re out of your twenties is pretty pathetic. Do you still wear your high school football jacket too? jfc

Post the ai smoothening horror pictures of his expanding family

File: KRIDF.jpg (586 KB, 1000x558)

586 KB JPG

>>4323759
Ken Rockwell Internet Defense Force detected

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1606
Image Height	896
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2014:05:26 12:41:59
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	558

>>4329040
>Mechanical or civil no doubt
Those are arguably the most based degrees together with naval engineering/marine architecture and aerospace engineering.
Only cringeworthy engineering is software "engineering".
Electrical engineers usually seethe at the rest because they can't into fluids.

>>4329938
holy based

>>4324026
I got 8x10 Gandolfi as an experiment.

Turned out, I love the control I had over perspective, plus the great details

>>4324603
I did it with my Contax, Hasselblad. Virtually all my prints from my film era were cropping ONLY, no dodging

>>4328949
My friends older brother did claymation at Vinton Productions

Nietzsche would love Ken Rockwell.

File: sips.jpg (37 KB, 400x400)

37 KB JPG

>>4323921
>not having midrange sharpening at +9 too
See guys, he's actually holding back a bit

>>4332156
GRIC is truth with film

With digital it is impossible beyond ettr. GNDs to facilitate exposing further to the right, maybe, but can you really get digital colors and detail right in camera? No. Digital has bad colors and weird ugly details. You need to process your way around the inferior tech, or desperately consoom forever until you have an h6d and are still disappointed vs a 6x6 frame of ektar behind a zeiss planar

>>4332207
Getting it totally right in camera was a DSLR/ORF thing if you used uniWB. sadly this is now impossible with mirrorless because EVFs do not have the dynamic range of the eye and turning off preview to use uniwb makes them even worse.

>>4332207
You get used to the odd little colors but I do a bit of adjusting with cameras global settings for color and basically I don't fuck with it after that. I've been doing photography for 35 years and I found that ever since the 70 and the 6D Mark 2 came out the color Fidelity is pretty good. The only times where it's filled is scenes with a lot of contrast in it like the ones people here pointing out with Ken Rockwell in that magenta Iceberg he calls half dome. There's a peak behind my house that's all covered in snow year round and it takes on a beautiful Hue in the winter with Gorgeous usually orgy yellow highlights but Cameron never quite gets it right