How to Annoy a Photography Snob

[infared]

I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining. 8) 8) 8)

How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"? ;D

My only beef with third party lenses is poor resale value, which of course stems from people's ignorance of third party lenses, thus triggering a vicious cycle.
So if the 35A and 35L were both the same price I'd go for the L. I've used it briefly, and while the Sigma is probably better, the 35L is amazing already. But I won't pay $ 500 for that L ring! I actually tape over the L rings on my lenses.


But not only the L fanboys are vehement against Sigmas and Tamrons. I was shocked how Ken Rockwell snubbed the excellent 18-35mm (even he had to agree it is optically superior) and advocated not in favor of an L but all the EF-S lenses! Of course, he recourses to simply lying when comparing the 35A's build quality to the 35L's. Without batting an eyelid, he says the Canon has a metallic body and the Sigma has a cheap plastic body.
And in both Sigma reviews he holds being sharp as a bad thing, saying these are sharp because they are built for amateurs, who care only about sharpness! Lol! So to build a lens for pros, Canon and Nikon deliberately build non-sharp lenses.

Another reason to never read a single word Rockwell has said about anything, ever!

You were joking when you said you taped over your L red rings, right?

Rockwell makes for fun reads. Gives you a chuckle once in a while, but you're right- not for any edification.
I actually did tape (gaffer's) over my red rings- well over my entire 24-70II, actually (and a lenscoat is en route for my 70-200).
Captures less attention (it is important for me for a few reasons) and keeps my lens scratch free as a bonus.
By the way, you were totally right about the 135L- it is magical. Just received it yesterday and I already love it!

I will keep that in mind, and approach his page with that attitude. I've only briefly looked at it years in the past...it must have been off-putting to me even then, lol. Doesn't the tape leave a residue? I've had to clean it off lenses before (not my own). No doubt you have good reason for using it though, so I didn't mean to question your motivation. It's just I think of people doing the opposite, putting red tape to make a ring on a lens that doesn't have one! Lol...

I am delighted to hear that anything I said about the 135L, helped you in any way. That you are enjoying it is a very thick chocolate icing on the cake! I look forward to seeing some images you get from it, if you ever share them.

The only thing I want to know here is HOW did my original comment denigrate into a Ken Rockwell discussion??? LOL!

 

[infared]

(I saw an "pro" once...shooting a wedding in jpeg...I just HAD to wonder how the detail looked in the bride's dress..my thought was..."why buy a 5dIII to shoot jpegs...wouldn't the Rebel have sufficed?..I guess it only mattered to me.. So I think that makes me a snob....oh well....8).).

Just curious ... how did you know he was shooting in JPEG mode?

I engaged him in a conversation about photography......but I did not "show my cards"...there was no reason (so that makes me a clandestine photo snob, I guess)...I did say (because I am old), that digital cameras were amazing...and we had a discussion about image files...but I did not express opinion. I expressed an awareness of the different files..and basically the gist if the conversation was that he shoots jpegs to conserve space on his computer... which I guess it does!

 

[infared]

I just love to come here and gush about a Sigma lens....especially when it's better than the Canon counterpart....You can just feel the "L" Groupies getting nervous tics...they try to express their opposing opinion (...the "rendering" in the "L" is more to my liking...) with tact...but you can just feel their indignation right thru your keypad.....I guess I don't understand the Fanbois groupie thing....but it is entertaining. 8) 8) 8)

How dare you sir? ... don't you know that there is a commandment that says "thou shalt not question L supremacy"? ;D

It's all about the "rendering"!!! LOL. (I love my "L" lenses...but they are not the only fish in the sea.)

 

[sagittariansrock]

Maybe I didn't read his review carefully enough, in which case apologies in advance, but where in his review does he say that sharpness is a bad thing, that amateurs only care about sharpness, that pros don't care about sharpness,

He doesn't "say" sharpness is a bad thing, but he "holds" it as a negative factor, because he associates sharpness with amateurs, instead of praising it as a feature.

Warning 1: Image sharpness depends more on you than your lens.
Warning 2: Lens sharpness doesn't mean much to good photographers.
Amateurs waste too much time worrying about lens sharpness, and since this lens is designed for amateurs, it's super sharp.

[....]

Why do you feel the need to start an argument by claiming "I am making things up"? You could have nicely asked for a clarification. Because online posts are anonymous, we don't need to be polite and courteous to each other, is that it?

OK, apologies for the tone - I perhaps should have said that your interpretation of his comments on sharpness is not persuasive. They don't read like that in isolation, and you will find language to that effect in every lens review he writes (every one I've read, at any rate), regardless of who makes the lens, and regardless of whether he likes it, including all his Nikon and Canon favorites. It seems to be part of his review template. Nowhere does he say that sharpness is a negative factor - it's part of his insistence that sharpness is overrated and that sharpness also depends on factors beyond the physical properties of a lens.

That's fair enough. As I wrote in my linked comment- I don't completely disapprove of his views on sharpness. It is his overdoing it, and lying about the Sigma's build quality that irked me.
Now let me wrap this up before there's another remark on how Ken Rockwell got into this thread.

 

[jrista]

I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.

I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T

 

[sagittariansrock]

I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.

I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T

Shoot, now how will I ever un-see that?
Interesting definition of oral contraceptive, by the way. They neglected to teach me this one in medical school!

 

[Arctic Photo]

I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.

I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T

This actually makes me accept that a couple of countries Ive lived in has internet censorship. He must have been drunk.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.

I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T

I now blame you for making me read that crap ;D ;D ;D ... seriously that guy really sounds like a "poo-poo hole"

 

[wickidwombat]

I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.

I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T

This actually makes me accept that a couple of countries Ive lived in has internet censorship. He must have been drunk.

unfortunately for me china didn't block that now i will never un see that either :'(

 

[Arctic Photo]

I lost all respect for Ken Rockwell after reading this:

http://kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

I know he, in his weird way, was trying to be "funny"...but so many things just go over the line in that page. When reading his photography pages, and when you see him in the few YouTube videos he is in, you get the feeling is a crass, arrogant buffoon...but when you read his "Where do Babies Come From"...you realize he's everything you fear he is...then you throw up.

I don't even bother to click on links to kenrockwell.com anymore...all I ever see now is...where do babies come from... T_T T_T T_T T_T T_T

This actually makes me accept that a couple of countries Ive lived in has internet censorship. He must have been drunk.

unfortunately for me china didn't block that now i will never un see that either :'(

I don't sleep well any longer

 

[privatebydesign]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

 

[sagittariansrock]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

Yeah. I'm going to dodge that bullet. Rockwell institute of biological sciences did enough for me...

 

[CarlTN]

On a side note, the movie "Noah", disappointed me...it was just pure silliness.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

On second thoughts, I actually watched a few. The guy is corny as hell, but not totally ridiculous as Rockwell's baby page, and also accurate about the facts. Well mostly, anyway.
Sorry, how did we get here again?

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

how did we get here again?

I was thinking the same thing ... maybe people are only reading the words "photography snob" from the title, and they immediately think of Ken ;D

 

[CarlTN]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

how did we get here again?

I was thinking the same thing ... maybe people are only reading the words "photography snob" from the title, and they immediately think of Ken ;D

We're all photography snobs, jaded on some level, are we not?

 

[sagittariansrock]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

how did we get here again?

I was thinking the same thing ... maybe people are only reading the words "photography snob" from the title, and they immediately think of Ken ;D

We're all photography snobs, jaded on some level, are we not?

Yes we are, and I think snobbishness exhibits a skewed bell-shaped distribution with knowledge.
If you know very little, you're not a snob.
As you get to know more, but far less than enough, you develop more and more snobbishness.
You think all you know is correct- and everything else is wrong.
However, once you know a lot, you cross the peak of snobbishness, and you go into enlightenment.
And then on it's all downhill in terms of snobbishness.

Along that scale, my knowledge and snobbishness are both early on the upward slope (fortunately only in terms of photography knowledge, not in my chosen profession, but I have spent a much longer time in that).
Still long way to go here though...

 

[CarlTN]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

how did we get here again?

I was thinking the same thing ... maybe people are only reading the words "photography snob" from the title, and they immediately think of Ken ;D

We're all photography snobs, jaded on some level, are we not?

Yes we are, and I think snobbishness exhibits a skewed bell-shaped distribution with knowledge.
If you know very little, you're not a snob.
As you get to know more, but far less than enough, you develop more and more snobbishness.
You think all you know is correct- and everything else is wrong.
However, once you know a lot, you cross the peak of snobbishness, and you go into enlightenment.
And then on it's all downhill in terms of snobbishness.

Along that scale, my knowledge and snobbishness are both early on the upward slope (fortunately only in terms of photography knowledge, not in my chosen profession, but I have spent a much longer time in that).
Still long way to go here though...

Excellent observation, but if it were true, it would mean the most knowledgeable people are not snobs, and they clearly are.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Anybody struggling with the Rockwell link should watch a Zefrank video or two on YouTube. True Facts About The Armadillo

how did we get here again?

I was thinking the same thing ... maybe people are only reading the words "photography snob" from the title, and they immediately think of Ken ;D

We're all photography snobs, jaded on some level, are we not?

If we are honest with ourselves, yes we are all snobs ... it does not have to be only photography, it could be anything ... everyone is prejudiced about something or another ... so yes, we are snobs at some level.

 

[AcutancePhotography]

If we are honest with ourselves, yes we are all snobs ... it does not have to be only photography, it could be anything ... everyone is prejudiced about something or another ... so yes, we are snobs at some level.

Not sure I agree with this sweeping generalization.

I am only a snob when I look down on or denegrate people who do not share my opinions. If I happen to like something but I am accepting of others not liking it, I don't think I am a snob.