Q. for Ken Rockwell

"Anthony" wrote in message


Ken makes fun of them on his website, perhaps its only proper that they
make fun of Ken on this
newsgroup.



I suspect that he neither reads these posts nor cares what his critics say.
Most of his biggest critics on these NGs are people that we've never heard
of, who apparently think they are authorities on all matters photographic.

They ought to go out and shoot some photographs, rather than waste their
time authoring silly posts criticizing others. If Rockwell's comments are
so inappropriate for their needs, why not just ignore them and move on?

On 5 Dec 2006 01:54:43 -0800, "Anthony" wrote:

Raphael Bustin wrote:

Is a photo "real" only when captured with a sufficiently
expensive camera? Surely you jest.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

No, the people here who say that do not jest. They spent so much on
their flashy camera bodies they hate it when you point out it doesn't
improve their photography. Surely a $5000.00 camera with the proper
sounding brand-name (Leica?) takes better pictures than a $150.00 P&S,
right?

In their world, the quality of the output image is proportional to the
cost of the equipment used to create them. Therefore an image from a
$5000.00 camera is always better than the output from a $150.00 point
and shoot. That is the reason they always mention what camera took the
shot. In this newsgroup the criterias for a good photograph is

(a) sharp
(b) sharp
(c) sharp
(d) sharp
(e) sharp

What about composition, you say? Or theme? Or mood? Or balance? I say,
what the hell are you talking about? This is not an art-group for
Canon's sake! This is a DSLR group! Take your artsy picture taken with
a plastic pin-hole camera and keep it.

Don't ever claim you can make good pictures with a point and shoot.
DON'T! They won't like it. Their cameras improve their photography
because they have spent so much on it. The cost has to amount to
something! Don't let them argue with you because Canon, Nikon and Leica
will be on their side. Let them have the fun of caressing their camera
bodies while making fun of Ken Rockwell. Ken makes fun of them on his
website, perhaps its only proper that they make fun of Ken on this
newsgroup.

Sit back and enjoy the show.

PS.
http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/

I think you misunderstand what's being said.
Let me give an example...
I own a Lumix FX01, and a 30D.
I can (and have) taken a photo with each under identical conditions;
the photographer's input was the same for each, but even you could
tell the difference between the two photos, simply because the cameras
aren't equal in their ability to take photos.

When people like you insist that the photographer's input is the
be-all and end-all of the quality of a photo, you deny reality.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On 5 Dec 2006 01:54:43 -0800, "Anthony" wrote:

Raphael Bustin wrote:

Is a photo "real" only when captured with a sufficiently
expensive camera? Surely you jest.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

No, the people here who say that do not jest. They spent so much on
their flashy camera bodies they hate it when you point out it doesn't
improve their photography. Surely a $5000.00 camera with the proper
sounding brand-name (Leica?) takes better pictures than a $150.00 P&S,
right?

In their world, the quality of the output image is proportional to the
cost of the equipment used to create them. Therefore an image from a
$5000.00 camera is always better than the output from a $150.00 point
and shoot. That is the reason they always mention what camera took the
shot. In this newsgroup the criterias for a good photograph is

(a) sharp
(b) sharp
(c) sharp
(d) sharp
(e) sharp

What about composition, you say? Or theme? Or mood? Or balance? I say,
what the hell are you talking about? This is not an art-group for
Canon's sake! This is a DSLR group! Take your artsy picture taken with
a plastic pin-hole camera and keep it.

Don't ever claim you can make good pictures with a point and shoot.
DON'T! They won't like it. Their cameras improve their photography
because they have spent so much on it. The cost has to amount to
something! Don't let them argue with you because Canon, Nikon and Leica
will be on their side. Let them have the fun of caressing their camera
bodies while making fun of Ken Rockwell. Ken makes fun of them on his
website, perhaps its only proper that they make fun of Ken on this
newsgroup.

Sit back and enjoy the show.

PS.
http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/

I think you misunderstand what's being said.
Let me give an example...
I own a Lumix FX01, and a 30D.
I can (and have) taken a photo with each under identical conditions;
the photographer's input was the same for each, but even you could
tell the difference between the two photos, simply because the cameras
aren't equal in their ability to take photos.

When people like you insist that the photographer's input is the
be-all and end-all of the quality of a photo, you deny reality.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

There are some photo gearheads that could not take a good image with either
of your camera models, and for whom any expensive camera is a waste of
money. Those are the ones that Rockwell was commenting on.

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:44:35 GMT, "jeremy" wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
.. .
On 5 Dec 2006 01:54:43 -0800, "Anthony" wrote:

Raphael Bustin wrote:

Is a photo "real" only when captured with a sufficiently
expensive camera? Surely you jest.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

No, the people here who say that do not jest. They spent so much on
their flashy camera bodies they hate it when you point out it doesn't
improve their photography. Surely a $5000.00 camera with the proper
sounding brand-name (Leica?) takes better pictures than a $150.00 P&S,
right?

In their world, the quality of the output image is proportional to the
cost of the equipment used to create them. Therefore an image from a
$5000.00 camera is always better than the output from a $150.00 point
and shoot. That is the reason they always mention what camera took the
shot. In this newsgroup the criterias for a good photograph is

(a) sharp
(b) sharp
(c) sharp
(d) sharp
(e) sharp

What about composition, you say? Or theme? Or mood? Or balance? I say,
what the hell are you talking about? This is not an art-group for
Canon's sake! This is a DSLR group! Take your artsy picture taken with
a plastic pin-hole camera and keep it.

Don't ever claim you can make good pictures with a point and shoot.
DON'T! They won't like it. Their cameras improve their photography
because they have spent so much on it. The cost has to amount to
something! Don't let them argue with you because Canon, Nikon and Leica
will be on their side. Let them have the fun of caressing their camera
bodies while making fun of Ken Rockwell. Ken makes fun of them on his
website, perhaps its only proper that they make fun of Ken on this
newsgroup.

Sit back and enjoy the show.

PS.
http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/

I think you misunderstand what's being said.
Let me give an example...
I own a Lumix FX01, and a 30D.
I can (and have) taken a photo with each under identical conditions;
the photographer's input was the same for each, but even you could
tell the difference between the two photos, simply because the cameras
aren't equal in their ability to take photos.

When people like you insist that the photographer's input is the
be-all and end-all of the quality of a photo, you deny reality.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

There are some photo gearheads that could not take a good image with either
of your camera models, and for whom any expensive camera is a waste of
money. Those are the ones that Rockwell was commenting on.

But evidently, not the ones you were commenting on.
I saw nothing in your post that woudl indicate you were referring to
such people.
Did I miss it?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

jeremy wrote:
There are some photo gearheads that could not take a good image with either
of your camera models, and for whom any expensive camera is a waste of
money. Those are the ones that Rockwell was commenting on.

I read what Ken wrote and I did not see him saying that at all, what I
heard him say was a cheap camera could make just a good a photo as a
very expensive one. And whereas this might be true for some limited
cases he did not bother to qualify what he said, and gave the strong
impression that only rarely would a DSLR produce a better photo then a
point and shoot, experience says that he is just flat wrong on this.

The other thing that I have to take issue with is your contention that
if a photograph can not take what you consider a good photo a good
camera is a waste of money. For those of use where this not our
business we pretty much take the photographs that we want to take, and
we all have our own reasons for taking the photographs that we do. As
an example I rather like this photograph
http://upload.pbase.com/konascott/image/64194155&exif=Y
it is not going to win any awards but the reason I like it in large
part is we live with these little fellows and to me this photo captures
the personally of this little guy. Now just because this is not
necessarily your idea of high art does that mean that that using a DSLR
to shoot this photo was a waste of money?

The point is I am photographing those things that I want to, and just
because they might not meet your aesthetic criteria for what a
worthwhile photo is I like the photos I take and I can do a much better
job getting the photos I like using a good camera.

Scott