So, how many of you will pay Ken Rockwell and his Growing Family™ $500 to have him follow you around the Sierra Nevada, ordering you to turn saturation to +5?
I would, $500 doesn't seem too much for the knowledge you might get. I'm the kind of guy that paid for seminars while in uni and values experience more than anything else. I have way more keepers now that I've learned about not using RAW and getting it right in camera as well as the numerous articles on how to keep your composition interesting and simple.I know Ken is controversial and it's ok if you don't like him. Every boomer loves saturated colors, they eat up that shit and absolutely adore AI birds and landscapes from indian facebook pages but that doesn't mean you can't learn lots of useful stuff from them. It doesn't surprise me that his saturated style is the first thing that comes up on this shitty board but his other tips are intentionally ignored. If you must know he uses saturated picture styles for nature and landscapes but not for people or sports, I plan to do the same becausemy clients are not angsty zoomers who like digishit washed out colours.
>>4328328>The knowledge you might getThe knowledge that when he says he's a professional photographer, that refers to his blog and these tours, lol>His other tips90% of them are only sensible tips in the context of pre-2010s technology. Like raws rarely being supported, taking up too much space, and taking forever to edit - my macbook loads them as fast as a jpeg and proper software on a mac can render a raw file better than the chintsy software on a japanese camera, with the advantage of not having to buy a specific brand for their jpeg engine, because everything but hasselblads fall behind a capture one install. Or made in china being bad - some of the worst lenses on earth are made in japan, and some of the best are made in china. Neither country is really our cultural ally, and china is a greater economic ally and more likely to accept progress since it's not also literally dying. He also shills cheap DSLR gear as being enough to deliver a great jpeg that's big enough for any print and then insists on using an R5 and L zooms after all the "megapixels are a myth" and "all lenses are sharp". In fact, he even threw a little blog fit about how a nikon Z8 somehow wasn't enough for him. I wonder whyThere are small time photographers it would be worth taking a clinic or buying an ebook fromI'd pay alex burke $200 to follow me around and tell me to use a different GND, maybeken rockwell is not one, he's basically a /p/ regular that's hyper-confident in their gearfagging
>>4328320Only if he makes my pictures perfectly clear™
>>4328332Yeah some content might be a bit old but I, for one, can still see a hindrance in using RAW for *workflow* and *deadline* reasons, but that's just me! Why don't you read his articles on composition? or the one about affording anything? Hell, his 2006 blog about apple computers still makes a lot of sense. His ramblings about things being made in china seems kinda outdated though. What's the problem of recommeding a cheap DSLR? They might suck for you but they can get the job done. If you love photography you can and will use anything but if you are doing it for a living then just get the one that makes you deliver your work faster (like R6 and beyond). I know people making photos with shitty Canon Rebels and they turn out great, they don't even know what lens they are using but engage in picture taking not gearfagging, that's Mr. Rockwell's point.All lenses are sharp enough for commercial work as subject and composition matter the most. Sure, you can have even sharper lenses with better contrast and colours but then comes the underdog with an entry level camera but better knowledge and shits on you (better knowledge, not *more* knowledge), then he gets enough money to buy the latest and greatest and shits on you even more, that's the point of all this. I think ergonomics and minor industry standard settings matter enough for him to disregard the latest Nikon and Sony and just get the Canon.What's the point of this thread? Discuss the guy and come up with a general concensus? If you prefer a different kind of photography but insist on discussing about the type of photography that you don't like then all I can say is "ok, zoomer".
>>4328342>Workflow and deadline reasonsI agree if you are a journalist and need usable jpegs NOW, then you might even need to brandfag for whoever supports on-camera delivery the best (this is why i laugh when i see hobbyists buying cameras with ethernet ports and leaving them covered), but most photographers would take nicer looking photos and be happier with their gear if they left as little to the camera as possible.>What's the problem of recommeding a cheap DSLR?The part where he's a massive hypocrite about it, look, he's not a professional photographer he's a professional blogger and tour guide, and he couldn't swing a z8, jej>All lenses are sharp enough for commercial work as subject and composition matter the most.We all want to believe this, but we all know it's not true. It's more true that there are a lot of cheap lenses that are sharp enough, often too sharp, and there are a lot of cheap - and expensive - lenses that are blatantly not sharp enough to be used as anything but an effect lens and have obnoxious aberrations that are easy to notice and hard to fix (strong bokeh fringing is the absolute worst - color matters and when a slightly OOF white thing turns green it's worse for a photo than a baby butt soft lens). And it hurts our feelings to know the guy with an arri master prime actually does have something we don't and that thing matters, a lot, or else people wouldn't have their clients paying them extra to use it, sure, but that doesn't mean it's not true. This was always a money-driven opinion. The more accessible quality autofocusing optics get the less everyone cares to cope about optical quality and the more ready everyone is to admit that digital unsharp mask looks really bad. Thankfully we're reaching the point where what was top shelf quality is $250 viltrox quality>What's the point of this thread? Discuss the guy and come up with a general concensus?Would you pay an average forum gearfag to be your tour guide? Naaaaaaaaaah.
Steal of a lifetime
>>4328344>most photographers would take nicer looking photos and be happier with their gear if they left as little to the camera as possible.objectively true>buy old dslr>shoot raw from day 1>your camera keeps gaining amazing abilities like focus stacking, pixel shift, AI enhancement, and deep space imaging abilities>color science is whatever the fuck you want it to be>hardware hasnt changed at all except for the slide rail for focus stacking, you're just shooting raw>pixel shift is achievable by just moving the camera very slightly and aligning and averaging 16 photos
>>4328332I own a lot of stuff made in China and lately more stuff by actual Chinese companies e.g. DJI and Laowa. Most work great and some don't but it follows the general rule of you get what you pay for. But I like him mentioning when lens manufacturing gets dumped to China or Vietnam or Thailand etc since it is a proxy for when a country has moved up the value chain.BTW, both China and Japan have rapidly aging and shrinking populations. Not sure what that has to do with accepting "progress" except that neither country will progress rapidly economically in the future
>>4328348Jpegfgs used to and still do switch cameras for the nr/sharpening being different. A lot of cameras are only usable at high ISOs if you shoot raw. Kind of a joke desu.
>>4328320How do people fall for this? By not knowing this exists?https://www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htm
>>4328320I’d pay $500 to buy Ken Rockwell some fucking rubbers so he can take some god damn responsibility for his fucking.
>>4328363>https://www.kenrockwell.com/gallery.htmJfc my retinas…I like that we blame boomers for the oversaturated snapsharts, but mf we saw the late Millenials/GenZ kids absolutely drive the saturation in their projects to the fucking max til the histogram ate itself, fir about 10 years before everyone got sick of it & niw its all “lets bring pastels back”. Jfc these fucks.
>>4328363NPCs are not discerning life-forms.
>>4328363Man really loves his Cheeto mountain We need more photos of his slampig daughter.
>>4328390Bruv she’s like twelve or some shit what the fuck
The closest ken came to a good landscape photo was using medium formathttps://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2019-05-yosemite/index.htmIf he shot raw he could have done this on a full frame camera with half the resolution but only mf jpegs are big enough to hold up to his overcooking or not need it kek
>>4328394This anon is correct, the term would be slampiglet.
>>4328320idkGregory Crewdson is the director of the photography department at Yale school of Art.How much does that cost?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2006:04:11 11:31:05Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1680Image Height1091
>>4328401why do all of his photos look like they were taken on a 2005 point and shoot, though? somehow, he even manages to make medium format look like a 1" sensor. how does he do it?
>>4328405okay i looked it up it's $50 000/yr. Does it automatically buy you gallery shows or something>?
>>4328320He already likes my photos so I’m good there
>>4328396I liked his old stuff he shot on Velvia 50, since the saturation was on the film it had a better look to it, although some of it I think he scanned to clown colors. He was really good on Velvia desu. I like his B&W analog stuff too.You have to admit this is impressive for slide film.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width750Image Height403Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4328320It would be fucking worth it just for the meme and the stories you would get out of it. Jesus christ I'm so tempted..
>>4328414>>4328396>Someone magically turns into a good photographer when they're shooting film or medium formatDisturbingly, many such cases.>>4328406Because he tortured those poor 8 bit jpegs THAT much. It took all of MFs mighty image quality to withstand the onslaught. Dude makes his R5 look close to his iphone.
>>4328419Here’s some recent film stuff of his. Still pretty good. His digital B&W stuff is better too, it’s his coloring that holds him back the most.I talked to a boomer photog once on Facebook marketplace. I get why boomers do this clown colors HDR shit they love. It’s because when they were using film for decades they wish they could have an image that was “more saturated” and with “more dynamic range” so once they got a hold of cameras where these things could be taken to the extreme, they had no self control.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1600Image Height2399Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4328428His colors are on point little zoomer Some people actually enjoy colorful images that are eye-catching and attractive instead of washed out boring trashYou either get it or you don't, and in your case it is clear you never will
>>4328428It's the lead poisoning, it's affects how your brain processes colors
>>4328320Someone's got a case of sour grapes it seems.
Ken has enthusiasm for his craft, he strikes me as an example of "do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life". I don't subscribe to all of his advice and practices, but if I lived down there, I'd consider going. Enthusiam is infectious, and I you're enjoying the experience of getting out and taking photos, then that's one day in the "good" basket to me.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width853Image Height1280
>>4328320i'd rather watch David Muench take his last breath for 500$>pic related, shot in 1984
>>4328429Gr8 b8 m8. I rel8, appreci8, and congratul8. I r8 this b8 an 8/8. Plz no h8. I'm str8 ir8. Cre8, can't w8. We should convers8, I won't ber8, my number is 8888888, ask for N8. No calls l8 or out of st8. If on d8, ask K8 to loc8. Even with a full pl8, I always have time to communic8 so don't hesit8.
>>4328320i won't pay him shit but i love the butthurt this guy generates among gearsexual /p/lets.
>>4328736It's ass and he missed focus
>>4328967Looks more like a bit of camera shake on what is obviously a long exposure desu. You'd need to be trying to get an entire shot like that out of focus.
>>4328369>I’d pay $500 to buy Ken Rockwell some fucking rubbers so he can take some god damn responsibility for his fucking.You'd be better off paying me 500 to buy some rubbers to show him the result of his fucking by breaking his daughter's back in her bed for a month straight
>>4328363I thought you guys were fucking memeing, ain't no way some one calling themselves a pro and selling a fucking 500 dollar print has something like this in their official portfolio what the actual fuck
>>4329930Without using meme language, profanity, or trolling, explain why this is bad.
>>4329939>heavy chromatic aberration>saturation cranked way up>sharpness is so extreme to the point the leaves look straight out of ps1 era>color banding due to a mix of all of the aboveI know you're just a shitposter, but come on man, nobody is going to fall for the bait that he's some how a good editor.
>>4329963Forgot to add, I do like the subject(think it's the tree he's going for, it's a dope tree) and the framing.But this image is CRUNCHY
>>4329930absolutely no shape to anything here. its in the hellish purgatory between a depiction and paint randomly thrown at a canvas. the man must have vision issues if this is what happens when he chooses his own edits. his film shots are fine.
>>4329978the thing that gets me since I found this thread, he actually has some decent shots that aren't fried to shit, but it's 1 in 10 and they usually are still CRANKED saturation wise. Rarely it's beneficial(pic rel, genuinely like this one although I would have toned it down a bit).
>>4329978The rockwell problem. All saturation, no contrast. No deep shadow. No white highlights. Just red, green, and blue. He legitimately has vision issues or a broken monitor.
