So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?

Annika1980 wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
Those leaves would sure look a lot better with a polarizer.

If you set out to do a camera test what would you choose as the
subject?
Why, moving leaves, of course!

Look at the close-ups (the 4' wide rollover shot). The trunks of the
trees are sharp in the 5D pic and are a blurry halo'd mess with the
P&S.

Seems like Rockwell is shooting himself in the foot these days.
He downplays the importance of better gear, thus making his own
opinions of gear meaningless. So why would anyone go to his web site?

So that people wonder why their prints look like crap, and buy them from
him instead?

Cynicor wrote:
I have to say, it's still a good feeling to get the shot I want with
the
D200 (or D70) and think "I could never have done that with my old Fuji
6900." But the difference is more important when you're doing fancy
shootin' instead of grab shots.
Even shooting grab shots a DSLR makes life a lot easier since you can
do it in much lower light. We went out to eat a number of times in
very dimly lit restaurants, he had to use the flash on the camera to
get any kind of shot at all while I could use available light, did I
mention I really hate photos taken with the on camera flash?

Scott

Cynicor wrote:
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
wrote:

By the way, does a 5D *really* overexpose like that on the default
settings (see 3rd image down), or has Ken fudged it?

Ken's a ****en moron! Though the image taken with the 5D and
16-35/2.8 is
clearly sharper than the one taken with the P&S it is still **** poor
even
for web viewing.

Please. If you must swear, at least star out some of the letters so as
not to offend people. Call him a *****ng moron.
Do mis-spelled swears count?


P.

Scott W wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
I have to say, it's still a good feeling to get the shot I want with
the
D200 (or D70) and think "I could never have done that with my old Fuji
6900." But the difference is more important when you're doing fancy
shootin' instead of grab shots.
Even shooting grab shots a DSLR makes life a lot easier since you can
do it in much lower light. We went out to eat a number of times in
very dimly lit restaurants, he had to use the flash on the camera to
get any kind of shot at all while I could use available light, did I
mention I really hate photos taken with the on camera flash?

I have this discussion with our art director a lot. "No, it's not
digital photography that makes people's faces look shiny in photos. It's
on-camera flashes and JPGs."

Cynicor wrote:
I have this discussion with our art director a lot. "No, it's not
digital photography that makes people's faces look shiny in photos. It's
on-camera flashes and JPGs."
Yup, shooting with the on camera flash is bad enough but to do so in
jpeg mode is like putting the last nail in the coffin. And that is one
of my other problems with Ken, he likes to tell people that they
don't need to shoot in raw mode.

I will use the on camera flash when I have to, but I really hate it
when I am forced to do so.

Scott

Scott W wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
I have this discussion with our art director a lot. "No, it's not
digital photography that makes people's faces look shiny in photos. It's
on-camera flashes and JPGs."
Yup, shooting with the on camera flash is bad enough but to do so in
jpeg mode is like putting the last nail in the coffin. And that is one
of my other problems with Ken, he likes to tell people that they
don't need to shoot in raw mode.

I will use the on camera flash when I have to, but I really hate it
when I am forced to do so.

Need to give Ken my guide to taking more awesome photos!
http://cynicor.blogspot.com/2006/07/...me-photos.html

Scott W wrote:

I will say it very concisely then, give a photographer a better camera
and he will get better photos.


No ... he won't, unless the camera was the limitting factor in the first
place. If you take a ****ty picture with a point and shoot ... you get a
sharper more colorful ****ty picture with a 5D? Is that a better picture? In
fact, I think I might just think it is even more ****ty.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Cynicor wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

Are you being intentionally obtuse here? Ken was saying that if the
photographer is crummy, no camera will fix that. Fix the photographer and
then, if the equipment becomes the limitation, upgrade it, but not before.

I mean really ... who cares if your crappy composition is extra sharp? Who
cares if the picture of your lens cap is true black? Get it? Fix the
photographer.

I will say it very concisely then, give a photographer a better camera
and he will get better photos.

I have to say, it's still a good feeling to get the shot I want with the
D200 (or D70) and think "I could never have done that with my old Fuji
6900." But the difference is more important when you're doing fancy
shootin' instead of grab shots.

In this case, it is because the camera was the limitting factor, not you. I
think Ken was saying the opposite, if you, the photographer, are the limitting
factor, then buying more expensive hardware will not do a thing for you.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Scott W wrote:

Cynicor wrote:
I have this discussion with our art director a lot. "No, it's not
digital photography that makes people's faces look shiny in photos. It's
on-camera flashes and JPGs."
Yup, shooting with the on camera flash is bad enough but to do so in
jpeg mode is like putting the last nail in the coffin. And that is one
of my other problems with Ken, he likes to tell people that they
don't need to shoot in raw mode.


That's because, apparently, Ken does have a post processing workflow. That is
his desire and he gets decent results from that. So, does that make him
wrong?

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:
Cynicor wrote:
I have to say, it's still a good feeling to get the shot I want with the
D200 (or D70) and think "I could never have done that with my old Fuji
6900." But the difference is more important when you're doing fancy
shootin' instead of grab shots.

In this case, it is because the camera was the limitting factor, not you.

Nah, I sucked too.

But if nothing else, shutter lag makes such a huge difference even in
simple grab shots. Smile...keep smiling...no, don't blink...any moment
now....