Re: WOW! Ken Rockwell Buys On eBay!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Böwser, Sep 2, 2008.

  1. Böwser

    Böwser Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I'm impressed. Let me clarify, I'm impressed with the fact that he buys
    >> on eBay, not with him. He's a goofy looking chap.
    >>
    >> <http://myworld.ebay.com/kenrockwell>

    >
    > He is a bit odd looking (or his usual facial expression is) but his site,
    > http://www.kenrockwell.com/, is interesting and informative. Yes, he's
    > very opinionated and some of his opinions are to be taken with a liberal
    > helping of salt, but much of what he has to say is worth reading.


    Right. Read his "about" page before you believe *anything* he's written.
    Remember, this is the guy who sees no value in shooting RAW...

    >
    > I didn't know he's an eBayer; that's interesting.
    >
    > Neil
    >
    >
     
    Böwser, Sep 2, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Böwser

    Böwser Guest

    "C J Campbell" <> wrote in message
    news:2008090209120643658-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
    > On 2008-09-02 08:00:29 -0700, Böwser <0m> said:
    >
    >>>

    >>
    >> Right. Read his "about" page before you believe *anything* he's written.
    >> Remember, this is the guy who sees no value in shooting RAW...

    >
    > I know a lot of pros who agree with him. It is fun to go to a convention
    > like WPPI and ask the pros whether they shoot raw or JPG. It is about
    > 50/50, and both sides have strong advocates for why they do it the way
    > they do. It is worth listening to them even when you disagree -- you might
    > actually learn something.


    I've read enough of his site to know to avoid it. Yes, he says some things
    anyone can agree with, but so what? There's far too many inaccuracies and
    errors for me on that site to trust anything. Also, when someone publishes
    "review/tests" of gear he's never even held, well, draw your own
    conclusions.
     
    Böwser, Sep 3, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Böwser

    Böwser Guest

    "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Böwser" <0m> wrote in message
    > news:hycvk.343$Wd.62@trnddc01...
    >>
    >> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>
    >>> "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> I'm impressed. Let me clarify, I'm impressed with the fact that he
    >>>> buys on eBay, not with him. He's a goofy looking chap.
    >>>>
    >>>> <http://myworld.ebay.com/kenrockwell>
    >>>
    >>> He is a bit odd looking (or his usual facial expression is) but his
    >>> site, http://www.kenrockwell.com/, is interesting and informative. Yes,
    >>> he's very opinionated and some of his opinions are to be taken with a
    >>> liberal helping of salt, but much of what he has to say is worth
    >>> reading.

    >>
    >> Right. Read his "about" page before you believe *anything* he's written.
    >> Remember, this is the guy who sees no value in shooting RAW...

    >
    > I don't know if he "sees no value in" it, but I do recall his saying he
    > doesn't use it himself.
    >
    > Neither have I, so far. I'll get around to playing with it sooner or
    > later, but frankly I'm in no hurry to do so. JPEG has served my purposes
    > perfectly well.


    If JPG serves your purposes, more power to you. But to dismiss RAW, as he
    did, well, that's stupid. The opportunities to fine-tune a shot, extract
    more detail, adjust white balance, tone down highlights, and other
    adjustments is too powerful forme to dismiss. Why spend thousands on gear
    (if you own an SLR with some glass) and then cripple the results?
     
    Böwser, Sep 3, 2008
    #3
  4. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    drugs began to take hold. I remember Böwser <0m> saying
    something like:

    >> He is a bit odd looking (or his usual facial expression is) but his site,
    >> http://www.kenrockwell.com/, is interesting and informative. Yes, he's
    >> very opinionated and some of his opinions are to be taken with a liberal
    >> helping of salt, but much of what he has to say is worth reading.

    >
    >Right. Read his "about" page before you believe *anything* he's written.
    >Remember, this is the guy who sees no value in shooting RAW...


    The man's an idiot - he dismisses out of hand using Nikon manual lenses
    on dSLRs, simply because he 'finds it difficult', the tosser.
    He's got some amusement value and that's all.
    --

    Dave
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Sep 3, 2008
    #4
  5. Böwser

    Mr.T Guest

    "charlesbsamone" <cbsamone@mail_me_not.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Every time I see someone posting about how they *NEED* RAW, I only laugh

    to
    > myself and say, "No, what you NEED is to learn how to buy a good camera

    and quit
    > wasting your money on that piece of shit like you already have."



    And every time I see someone dismissing RAW, I wonder why they bother with a
    12 to 16 bit sensor camera and then throw away 4 to 8 bits when saving the
    file to an 8 bit Jpeg?

    Some of these fools even go so far as to do "HDR" using Jpeg's!
    At least it's good for a laugh I suppose :) :) :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Sep 4, 2008
    #5
  6. Böwser

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Let me guess, Charles - Photoline32??

    charlesbsamone wrote:
    > I only use 32-bit and 64-bit
    > editors. You need at least twice the math-bit-depth to data-bit-depth to retain
    > the data properly. No wonder that their HDR images all come out looking like
    > cartoons.


    That's actually *not* why they look like cartoons.

    But anyway, how about showing us some of the superior masterpieces so as
    to inspire us, 'Charles'? I know *I'm* not worthy, but surely someone
    might be..
     
    Mark Thomas, Sep 4, 2008
    #6
  7. Böwser

    ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:30:57 +1000, Mark Thomas wrote:

    > Let me guess, Charles - Photoline32??


    Such big, obvious footprints makes them varmints easy to track.


    > But anyway, how about showing us some of the superior masterpieces so as
    > to inspire us, 'Charles'? I know *I'm* not worthy, but surely someone
    > might be..


    Nah, won't happen. It intends to take all of its "award winning"
    photographs to the grave, along with a box of socks.
     
    ASAAR, Sep 4, 2008
    #7
  8. In rec.photo.digital Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:

    > "charlesbsamone" <cbsamone@mail_me_not.net> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Every time I see someone posting about how they *NEED* RAW, I only laugh

    > to
    >> myself and say, "No, what you NEED is to learn how to buy a good camera

    > and quit
    >> wasting your money on that piece of shit like you already have."


    > And every time I see someone dismissing RAW, I wonder why they bother with a
    > 12 to 16 bit sensor camera and then throw away 4 to 8 bits when saving the
    > file to an 8 bit Jpeg?


    Possibly because they're going to have to print the final image on
    the best paper with the best printing inks.

    > Some of these fools even go so far as to do "HDR" using Jpeg's!


    HDR is a technique for using localised remapping of dynamic range to
    bring a high range image within the scope of a lower dynamic range
    resolution output medium. Such as a print.

    Curious minds would like to know how you get even as much as 8 bits of
    dynamic range from your prints?

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 5, 2008
    #8
  9. Böwser

    Mr.T Guest

    "charlesbsamone" <cbsamone@mail_me_not.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What's the color-bit-depth of your final display? Paper or monitor. Your

    image
    > will never be better than your weakest link. If your camera correctly does

    all
    > of the work for you, in the camera where the sampling-depth counts, then

    what's
    > the harm in losing it if you will never see it or can never tell the

    difference?

    If YOU are happy to let the camera make all YOUR choices, I have no problem
    with that.


    > Think of it like sound-sampling. You need at least a 44kHz sampling rate

    to
    > capture the audible 22kHz sound. Does your audio-recording equipment

    playback
    > those 44kHz signals to your ear? After they have been properly processed,

    will
    > you miss them if they are not there even though you would never be able to

    hear
    > them? Can you think?


    Yep, and I bet I know a lot more about sound recording and it's irrelevance
    to this thread too!
    I do know the benefit of starting with the best possible signals before post
    processing in each case however.
    Or to put it another way, the difference between capturing data, and the
    final product.


    > What I find even more hilarious are those fools who are trying to do HDR

    with
    > 16-bit images, a process that often requires 32-bit and 64-bit

    color-depths for
    > masking/blending, and then trying to combine them using a 16-bit-math

    editor
    > like Photoshop. Even today it is still only a 16-bit math package. I

    haven't run
    > any 16-bit-only software since Windows 3.1, I only use 32-bit and 64-bit
    > editors. You need at least twice the math-bit-depth to data-bit-depth to

    retain
    > the data properly. No wonder that their HDR images all come out looking

    like
    > cartoons. They'd be better off using 8-bit JPG files as HDR source-files

    if they
    > are going to use something as ancient as Photoshop's math platform for

    their HDR
    > editor. They're intentionally losing most of the data in the expensive

    camera
    > that they bought with an outrageously priced editor that they bought. How
    > amazingly silly and amazingly stupid. But then I expect nothing more than

    that
    > from those that call themselves "pros" and "professionals".



    Thanks for pointing out you don't know how to properly manipulate RAW
    images, or even that a decent RAW file may make a 2 shot "HDR" Jpeg
    unnecessary in the first place.

    But hey, professionals are glad most people are ignorant, it helps keep them
    in business :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Sep 5, 2008
    #9
  10. Böwser

    Mr.T Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Some of these fools even go so far as to do "HDR" using Jpeg's!
    > > At least it's good for a laugh I suppose :) :) :)

    >
    > Not such a big laugh. JPG is non-linear so doing HDR is valid. After
    > all, one JPG exposed 2 stops down from another can be HDR'd with
    > another.


    Of course they can, but why throw away data if you are actually after more?
    Seems rather pointless to me.
    Most people only do it because they don't know any better.

    > Raw allows you more latitude and conserves more dynamic resolution when
    > imported as 16 bit/color into, say photoshop, for successive operations.


    Exactly.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Sep 5, 2008
    #10
  11. Böwser

    Mr.T Guest

    "Chris Malcolm" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > And every time I see someone dismissing RAW, I wonder why they bother

    with a
    > > 12 to 16 bit sensor camera and then throw away 4 to 8 bits when saving

    the
    > > file to an 8 bit Jpeg?

    >
    > Possibly because they're going to have to print the final image on
    > the best paper with the best printing inks.


    .....so want to start with the least possible data, and not have to make any
    further choices, or require any extra work of their own?

    And of course if and when display techniques improve, I'll be able to laugh
    while simply reprocessing old data. They can only hope they don't live long
    enough to regret their choices. :)


    > > Some of these fools even go so far as to do "HDR" using Jpeg's!

    >
    > HDR is a technique for using localised remapping of dynamic range to
    > bring a high range image within the scope of a lower dynamic range
    > resolution output medium. Such as a print.


    Yep, so why throw away data in each shot, just so you have to take more?
    It's the manipulation of the data that brings it within the range of the
    output medium with the desired look.
    Starting with 8 bit shots instead of 16 bit only means you need more of
    them.

    > Curious minds would like to know how you get even as much as 8 bits of
    > dynamic range from your prints?


    I suggest you actually read why HDR techniques are used in the first place.
    It is for exactly that reason of manipulating the contrast range into
    something printable with the desired range, rather than simply clipping all
    the shadow and highlight details.

    I'm amazed people here are so ready to point out their ignorance before
    reading up on the subject.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Sep 5, 2008
    #11
  12. Böwser

    Mr.T Guest

    "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Most people only do it because they don't know any better.

    >
    > The user might have other issues such as storage space.


    These days? Doubt they'd bother with HDR then.

    > Or simply, like
    > one acquaintance of mine absolutely no desire to beyond the basic JPG,
    > adjust bright/contrast and print. And this is someone quite willing to
    > do HDR and panos. Just not bother with managing raw files.


    I'd probably put that into the "doesn't want to know any better" category.
    But as with everything in life, we all get to make our own choices. Just so
    long as they don't claim their is the *best* way, which is what originally
    initiated my response.

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Sep 5, 2008
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Annika1980

    Q. for Ken Rockwell

    Annika1980, Dec 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    34
    Views:
    926
    Scott W
    Dec 5, 2006
  2. Bill

    Ken Rockwell is a liar

    Bill, Dec 1, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    62
    Views:
    2,865
    John Turco
    Dec 11, 2006
  3. Bigbazza
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,727
    Bigbazza
    Oct 16, 2007
  4. Noons

    Re: WOW! Ken Rockwell Buys On eBay!!

    Noons, Sep 3, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    295
    ASAAR
    Sep 4, 2008
  5. rb

    Re: WOW! Ken Rockwell Buys On eBay!!

    rb, Sep 7, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    564
    Noons
    Sep 10, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page