Ken Rockwell on Lens Sharpness

[fragilesi]

Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW. Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.

It's the great KR... he must be right... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.

Yeah ... and he had another one on the lines of why you no longer need a tripod. I guess that was the last time I visited his site. Well, I visited his website again today, only for confirming the fact that his website only contains "aggressive personal opinions" and not "logical presentation of fact"

So, I think I've got this right. You knew all about his website and what was on it. And today you visited again to confirm that not only does it contain what you thought it did but that it contains precsiely what he says it does. And now you're posting to tell us that too? Okay.

As a complete newbie I stumbled on his site a couple of years ago. He opened my eyes to quite a lot. It wasn't hard given how little I knew but he set me on the path of several very good equipment purchases and technique decisions - and yes I branched to other sites to get a balanced opinion. I don't agree with everything he says, for example his point about longer lenses not being wortwhile but I've found the site an interesting introduction at times, eg wide angle lenses.

Very importantly he doesn't try to blind me with science. CR seems excellent in many ways but like most technical communities it has its own language, initialisms and so on to learn and as is typical of such communities some people delight in making things sound complex. At least with Rockwell I can understand what he's saying and gauge his opinion easily and quickly as a newbie and choose to accept it or challenge it.

That has real value and yes other sites do similar things but why shouldn't he too? He is at least open and honest about what his site is, and is not. If any of the people criticising him think they can do better and lead us simpletons on a "better" path in an easy to understand way then by all means go ahead. Because if you can, I'll be an avid reader .

 

[Sella174]

... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.

Aren't those things supposed to be intelligent enough to translate between colour spaces ... meaning if the JPEG is produced in sRGB and the printer uses [whatever], the software should remap/translate/re-encode?

... why you no longer need a tripod.

Never use(d) one myself.

You should see my attempts to shoot video without a tripod...... my friend refers to the uneven motion as "nausea inducing"....

May I suggest you look at the Olympus E-M5 with its 5-axis IBIS ...

 

[Sella174]

If image quality is important, sharpness is paramount.

I beg to differ. Photography is art; sharpness is science.

 

[J.R.]

Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW. Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.

It's the great KR... he must be right... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.

Yeah ... and he had another one on the lines of why you no longer need a tripod. I guess that was the last time I visited his site. Well, I visited his website again today, only for confirming the fact that his website only contains "aggressive personal opinions" and not "logical presentation of fact"

So, I think I've got this right. You knew all about his website and what was on it. And today you visited again to confirm that not only does it contain what you thought it did but that it contains precsiely what he says it does. And now you're posting to tell us that too? Okay.

As a complete newbie I stumbled on his site a couple of years ago. He opened my eyes to quite a lot. It wasn't hard given how little I knew but he set me on the path of several very good equipment purchases and technique decisions - and yes I branched to other sites to get a balanced opinion. I don't agree with everything he says, for example his point about longer lenses not being wortwhile but I've found the site an interesting introduction at times, eg wide angle lenses.

Very importantly he doesn't try to blind me with science. CR seems excellent in many ways but like most technical communities it has its own language, initialisms and so on to learn and as is typical of such communities some people delight in making things sound complex. At least with Rockwell I can understand what he's saying and gauge his opinion easily and quickly as a newbie and choose to accept it or challenge it.

That has real value and yes other sites do similar things but why shouldn't he too? He is at least open and honest about what his site is, and is not. If any of the people criticising him think they can do better and lead us simpletons on a "better" path in an easy to understand way then by all means go ahead. Because if you can, I'll be an avid reader .

Hahaha ... I knew I would get a bit of stick for my "knowledge" of KR's website. However, the word "confirmation" used in my post above was confirmation for the OP.

I stumbled on his site in 2009 when I switched to Canon system and was looking up lens reviews. This guy somehow manages to come up right in the top 2-3 lens reviews on page 1 of a Google search of almost any Canon lens review search you undertake. I found a lot of his material quite odd, if not outright drivel ... his post regarding how digital killed the tripod. This made me wonder as to who the hell was this guy which ultimately led me to the "about" page.

Given that his site contains his personal opinions regardless of the facts makes things a bit obtuse. Personally, I'd take a logical reasoning of fact as compared to someone's aggravated person opinions any day of the week and twice on Sunday, ymmv. There is hardly anything useful on his site which is not available anywhere else.

Look at it this way -

• If you want to improve your shooting technique ... get a book, attend photography course, attend photowalks with pros, post photos online and get them critiqued;
  If you want to find out more about gear (especially Canon gear), CR is best place to be because if someone is serving pure mashed potatoes, he is sure to get found out by the rest of the posters - some of whom are really knowledgeable

KR acts a bit like a clown, says that he is acting like a clown and then has people defending him and his opinions to the hilt ... awesome!

 

[J.R.]

... why you no longer need a tripod.

Never use(d) one myself.

KR is not alone it seems ... Every absurdity has a champion to defend it ;D

Jokes apart, maybe it works for you because of what you shoot. For a majority of the crowd, this statement is simply absurd.

 

[J.R.]

KR will teach you at the very least on what's the real meaning of photography as opposed to a collector.

Agreed, but the trouble is that it is usually newbies end up on KRs website. Alongwith the good, they learn a lot of idiotic stuff which they believe is coming from an "expert".

Learning something wrong, consequentially making mistake and having to unlearn it in a few years is best avoided ... hence the rants.

That said, his pleas to support his family by offering donations hasn't bothered me, and won't bother me. He probably earns his livelihood through his website ... all the best to him.

 

[ams2d]

Ken Rockwell upsets too many "photographers" by saying things like -

... there is a segment of the hobby where all people do is take pictures of brick walls and newspaper classifieds, but never make any photos of anything worthwhile.

The people who worry the most are those with the least experience.

Sound familiar?

Whoops ...


Wall_23June2012

I have this as my background on my work computer since it represents several things to me.

 

[SDPhotography]

So far it seems the most divisive topics in photography are... (on this site)

1. Dynamic Range
2. DR Trolls
3. Annnddd... Ken Rockwell

Did I miss something?

Seriously though, the KR debate only fuels traffic to his site, for better or worse. It's a free* internet, people can post whatever, whenever. Read or don't, arguing the merits only puts coins in the coffers of KR in the long run.

*Only if you don't count the cost of brain cells...

SD

 

[dppaskewitz]

Whoops ...


Wall_23June2012

I have this as my background on my work computer since it represents several things to me.
[/quote]

Great wall. I have taken many similar photos (but none I like as well as this one).

 

[Loswr]

Another great KR diatribe was how you didn't need to shoot in RAW. Obviously, if you know what you are doing you can program the camera for each and every exposure to get the proper white balance, noise reduction, sharpening, colour space, lens corrections, contrast etc etc... out of the camera as a Jpeg.

It's the great KR... he must be right... but I don't understand how to get a single jpeg that has the right colour profile for a printer, a monitor, and a projector all at the same time.

Simple. Setting the in-camera JPG conversion profile to maximum color saturation and contrast obviates the need for color accuracy.

 

[captainkanji]

I use KR's photos as a guide on how not to PP my RAW files. Have to be careful though. If you look at them for too long, you'll go color blind. ;D

 

[Skirball]

Watching everyone get their panties in a bunch over a KR discussion has to be one of the most entertaining staples of photography forums.

 

[Hillsilly]

I'll disagree with Ken here. Something in your photo should be in focus (at least 99% of the time). A sharper lens accenturates the area in focus leading to a nicer image.

But overall, I've no problem with KR. I agree with a lot of things he writes about and disagree with other things. He's no different to any other photo blogger and probably better than many. The fear that beginner photographers will be misled is a little over the top. Apart from some minor technical matters, I've yet to see anything where he was "wrong". Most of the things I disgree with are purely personal preference related - eg saturation, RAW, cars, how to explain where babies come from etc. But he tends to have a valid reason behind what he writes.

 

[Pi]

Apart from some minor technical matters, I've yet to see anything where he was "wrong".

He is a hypocrite. He would write an article how sharpness does not matter and then brag about how sharp is his new Leica. Do not listen what he says, watch what he does.

 

[Joe M]

Personally I find KR fairly amusing. His "reviews" are far from technical which is fine. We all have our opinions but while he tells people not to take him seriously (good advice), he'll later tell you he's the best honest source for information. I remember a friend emailed him over a point one day and got a reply that he ought to stop spending his time reading blogs and that real photographers were to busy shooting to care what people write. I agree. People ought to spend less time caring about what KR wrote about. But here I go seeing something posted about KR and I have to chip in. So I guess he won and got my attention anyway. Other than the amusement factor ( e.g. the latest comparing the SL1 to the 5D3, "As expected, the $699 combo looks the same as the $5,800 combo" he says), it would be nice if anyone who comes across this site would start taking what they read on his blog with a large grain of salt.

 

[candc]

I read his blog and I understand his point as I think most people do, whether its cameras, guitars, golf clubs or fishing rods,. You don't need the latest and greatest. but its stupid to say there is no benefit to using the best equipment.

 

[Pi]

You don't need the latest and greatest.

You don't (it is what he tells you) but he does, apparently. Leica, Mamiya, etc.

 

[msm]

You don't need the latest and greatest.

You don't (it is what he tells you) but he does, apparently. Leica, Mamiya, etc.

Is that what he means with growing family? ;D

 

[ejenner]

I don't know, before getting into photography I stupidly bought a house without brick on it. Then I realized I had to move so I could properly test my lenses.

 

[duydaniel]

I don't have problem with Ken in general.
People are allowed to have different ideas about their stuff especially photography is an art form.

I read and agree with him on many things but disagree others.
New people will be exposed to different styles and KR represent one type of photography who likes
over saturate images.

If you listen to KR and buy a 18-55 lens since he said 18-55 is as sharp as 24-70 II, then so be it.
In fact, you have saved yourself a few thousands and maybe this could be a good things