I don't intend to start a flame war.... (1 Viewer)

...... but this just might.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Having lit the blue touch-paper, Duncan stands well back.

Give a photographer the best (and probably most expensive ) equipment and send him/her into the world to take a photograph.

Then give the same photographer one of those £9.99 digital cameras and send him/her off to take the same picture.

It cannot be done to the same quality. Artistic vision is a prerequisite for good photography but without at least halfway 'decent' kit the vision will not be realised.

Woody

I doubt that many people here will get to upset about it - I'm sure that most of us would agree that the skill of the photographer is essential.
If you were to give an average camera to a top photographer and a top camera to an average photographer we all know who'd get the better picture.

However to say that kit has no effect is clearly rubbish - I recently switched from a zoom to a prime lens the difference is massive. I have taken shot through both lenses of the same subject (the only think changed was the lens) and the difference is stunning. A good photographer can take a good photo with average kit, but their photos will be better if they're using better kit. This seems obvious to me, if the difference wasn't noticable then pros wouldn't pay thousands for lenses.

I agree with previous folks. This article is a gross overstatement of an obvious fact - that better photographers take better pictures. But to say the equipment doesn't matter is just hyperbole, and a flame itself. The guy obviousy has an attitude. I suppose he'd claim that the instrument a musician plays doesn't matter either. Well, it's clearly overstated BS. That's the best flame I can come up with ;-)

Yelvertoft said:

...... but this just might.

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Having lit the blue touch-paper, Duncan stands well back.

Click to expand...

An extract follows: "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."

I usually try to be diplomatic, or kind, but in the case of Ken Rockwell, I throw caution to the wind. The man is a fool and a loud mouth. I would not be surprised if he wears a revolving bow tie, and long curly shoes. Every few months I check out his website to have a good laugh. There's a lot of interesting and good stuff, but there's also a large number of complete howlers that are plain wrong. He claims to be an expert, but he is not.

Elsewhere he says that real photographers should not use a tripod, despite the fact that numerous books I own, written by pro-photographers, make the explicit point that a tripod is an essential accessory. Then again, what do world class phoographers know? Elsewhere he 'reviews' products, and it's only at the end that you realise that he has NOT used the product in question. Hence his comments about image quality are pure supposition.

Here is King Ken's statement on cleaning lenses:

"To clean a lens or filter I prefer to breathe on it to coat the lens with a thin fog of pure disuntiled water. I then wipe it gently with a clean dry soft cotton T-shirt. "

Aaaaaahhhhhhh. It is painful to read. (I presume 'disuntiled' is Ken speak for 'distilled' ?)

The statement that: "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image." is complete and total bull. Without the use of reflectors, fill flash, diffusers, a slow grain film, a tripod, my pictures of fungi would be rubbish. I like to kid myself that they are quite decent, and many people have been generous enough to make positive comments.

The man uses hyperbole in the same way as Jeremy Clarkson, except that Clarkson KNOWS that he is being absurd for humourous reasons.

Here some more gems:

"Don't use a tripod if you can help it. They are a pain and cripple creativity. Only use a tripod for still subjects either at night or when you need long "shutter speeds of about 1/60 or slower."

The next bit always makes me laugh out loud:

"It's a common misconception among photo teachers and amateurs that tripods are good, although no one really knows why. I guess some people just associate tripods with serious photography."

Marvelous.

As I've said, the man is a fool. Sadly people take him seriously and their photography will suffer. Buy a good book by a respected pro-photographer and ignore charlatans such as KR.

Leif

Leif said:

"Don't use a tripod if you can help it. They are a pain and cripple creativity. Only use a tripod for still subjects either at night or when you need long "shutter speeds of about 1/60 or slower."

The next bit always makes me laugh out loud:

"It's a common misconception among photo teachers and amateurs that tripods are good, although no one really knows why. I guess some people just associate tripods with serious photography."

Marvelous.

Click to expand...

No, no - I think he right - in fact I'm gonna throw my tripod away right now...

I usually try to be diplomatic, or kind, but in the case of Ken Rockwell, I throw caution to the wind. The man is a fool and a loud mouth. I would not be surprised if he wears a revolving bow tie, and long curly shoes. Every few months I check out his website to have a good laugh.

Click to expand...

Ah Leif, I assume Ken isn't on your Christmas card list then ! ! !

I too like to chuckle at his website on odd occasions and it is safe to say that this article, like most others he writes, is bunkum.

We all know that a tripod is an essential piece of any photographers kit (or a monopod) just ask any of the press throng at sports events or outside broadcast units shooting TV & film - no slow shutter speeds there.

High quality kit is also a must have - yes you will get the occasional gem shot by someone with a budget camera (right place, right time,etc.) but I doubt the likes of Messrs Bailey, Snowdon, Swannell and Ansell Adams would have created the iconic images they did using hand held box brownies.

Thankfully forums like ours exist to help people with a desire to learn their craft by sharing the combined knowledge of those who have the benefit of practical experience, not simply self designated 'expert' status.

Long may BF reign and hopefully not too many budding photographers will fall for the 'words of wisdom' of KR.

Tripods ARE a pain in the butt. But for the scope, you need it anyway. I take most of my pictures with a light weight video camera. (The scope stays home on nonbirding trips.) There I use a monopod if needed.

Let's get a good discussion going. I read the article and thought it was a good one. He quoted some good sources and has a few years experience of his own using different kit to be qualified to make these comments. I have used different quality cameras and lenses myself over the years , starting with an Olympus Trip 35 (which I still think took some of the best photos I've taken ) and I've found that the quality of light makes a lot more difference to the photograph than the brand of lens (different cameras make very little difference ). I had a look at the photos posted by the Responders to this Thread and saw some very good photos taken with average kit. I didn't see any Pro Nikon/Canon/Hasselblad camera and lenses taking these photos. I also saw some good photos that weren't taken on tripods (flight shots- I assumed this so please correct me if I'm wrong ). Just for the record I use a Nikon D100 with a Nikon 300mm ED/f4 , a Sigma 170-500mm APO and a Nikon 80-400 ED VR lens and from memory I don't think I have ever used a tripod with any of them (I do digiscope with a tripod though). Neil.

Neil said:

Let's get a good discussion going. I read the article and thought it was a good one. He quoted some good sources and has a few years experience of his own using different kit to be qualified to make these comments. I have used different quality cameras and lenses myself over the years , starting with an Olympus Trip 35 (which I still think took some of the best photos I've taken ) and I've found that the quality of light makes a lot more difference to the photograph than the brand of lens (different cameras make very little difference ). I had a look at the photos posted by the Responders to this Thread and saw some very good photos taken with average kit. I didn't see any Pro Nikon/Canon/Hasselblad camera and lenses taking these photos. I also saw some good photos that weren't taken on tripods (flight shots- I assumed this so please correct me if I'm wrong ). Just for the record I use a Nikon D100 with a Nikon 300mm ED/f4 , a Sigma 170-500mm APO and a Nikon 80-400 ED VR lens and from memory I don't think I have ever used a tripod with any of them (I do digiscope with a tripod though). Neil.

Click to expand...

Hi Neil: You want thought eh? Evidently a subversive. Okay, I'll go for the bait.

The problem is that I've seen "It's not what you've got, it's the way that you do it" arguments so often it gets tiresome, and I find Rockwell's essay simplistic to the point of hyperbole. IMO the black and white approach is what he favours. And of course INWYGITWTYDI sounds good: it's a nice catchy soundbite, and at first sight seems reasonable.

Needless to say, a poor photographer with good kit will produce poor photos, but a good photographer with poor kit might also produce poor photos. My opinion is that you need good kit, appropriate to the task, but that does not necessarily mean expensive kit. A 20 year old Nikon 75-150 F3.5 E lens will outperform most modern lenses costing much more. A 20 year old Nikon FE is a nice camera, but it is hard to use in a dark forest as the viewfinder readouts are invisible in low light, and the flash is crude. A modern camera makes it so much easier to get an ambient exposure with -3 stops fill flash, and IMO this does make a big difference. I get much better results with a modern Nikon F80 than an old Nikon FE, though the latter is a lovely piece of engineering, and inexpensive. Oh and the FE gets very cold in cold weather due to the metal body. Eeeek. In a forest the FE is in my experience almost unuseable, or at least very hard to use. However I have several A4 photos of dragonflies taken with the FE and a manual 200mm lens that are pin sharp. All were taken on a tripod, with a good lens, and fine grain film.

Yes there's no doubt photos can be taken without a tripod, and some styles of photography are best without one. But the comments that Rockwell makes are crass generalisations based on ignorance. The vast majority of my photos (nature and landscapes) were taken with a tripod to ensure maximum sharpness. The same can be said of numerous famous wildlife photographers with far more developed skills than my own. I have learnt from experience to use a tripod for better results and not because of some mindless brain washing but because it's the only way that I can get what I want. See the attachment for an example. Bird photographers will take some flight shots handheld, and candid street photographers and some photo journalists will also avoid using a tripod. The reason is obvious: the subjects are moving and a tripod is either not needed, or would be unwieldly and/or intrusive.

Life is a bit more complex than the crass statements beloved of Chairman Ken.

BTW there was a thread on Photo.Net devoted to KR. It wasn't all adulation. :eek!:

Leif

That's the point, isn't it?

It is entirely possible to take great images using relatively low-tech, unsophisticated kit - witness the popularity of Lomoblogging - but for what most of the people on this forum are interested in and aspire to (quality wildlife images) it's clear that different rules apply, and to get the best (at the risk of further generalisation) you need the gear to do it.

It's apples and oranges really, isn't it?

Neil said:

Let's get a good discussion going. I read the article and thought it was a good one. He quoted some good sources and has a few years experience of his own using different kit to be qualified to make these comments.

Click to expand...

I don't know anything about the person who wrote the article - however I do know that it says just ain't true. I do agree that a lot depends on the photgrapher - however good your kit is you still have to compose and then take the shot.

That said the quality of kit does have an effect - in a recent thread there was discussion about the value of prime vs zoom lenses http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=37420 in this thread there are a number of exaples that prove that lens quality does make a difference. In my gallery it is easy to see the difference in the photo I've taken before and after getting a prime lens - the detail is so much clearer.

As for tripods - I had a Sigma 170-500 lens and could hand hold this - some of the pics in my gallery are hand held, but others are on a tripod. My new lens weighs 3.1kg and hand holding it is simply not an option - a tripod (or other support) is a must.

postcardcv said:

I don't know anything about the person who wrote the article - however I do know that it says just ain't true. I do agree that a lot depends on the photgrapher - however good your kit is you still have to compose and then take the shot.

That said the quality of kit does have an effect - in a recent thread there was discussion about the value of prime vs zoom lenses http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=37420 in this thread there are a number of exaples that prove that lens quality does make a difference. In my gallery it is easy to see the difference in the photo I've taken before and after getting a prime lens - the detail is so much clearer.

As for tripods - I had a Sigma 170-500 lens and could hand hold this - some of the pics in my gallery are hand held, but others are on a tripod. My new lens weighs 3.1kg and hand holding it is simply not an option - a tripod (or other support) is a must.

Click to expand...

I still think people are missing the point here , and I don't think tripods were mentioned in the article so that is a red herring. He is not comparing a Sigma zoom versus a Nikon prime. He is saying that a Sigma zoom today is better than most of the lenses the early photographers had to work with and they still did such good work that people today still have trouble matching the quality. If you gave Edward Westin a disposable Kodak he would still produce good work within the limitations of the equipment. I had a look at Ken's Death Valley photos and they look pretty good to me. Neil.

Neil said:

I still think people are missing the point here , and I don't think tripods were mentioned in the article so that is a red herring. He is not comparing a Sigma zoom versus a Nikon prime. He is saying that a Sigma zoom today is better than most of the lenses the early photographers had to work with and they still did such good work that people today still have trouble matching the quality. If you gave Edward Westin a disposable Kodak he would still produce good work within the limitations of the equipment. I had a look at Ken's Death Valley photos and they look pretty good to me. Neil.

Click to expand...

The reason why so few people equal the work of the earlier photographers such as Ansel Adams is because earlier people such as AA used BETTER EQUIPMENT. Ansel Adams used a huge plate camera, with sturdy tripod, mounted on top of this car. He had his own dark room, and chemicals, and enlarger, and he performed complex dodging and burning. So much for Chairman Ken's argument.

I took a look at Rockwell's pictures and thought they were awful, with poor composition, and exaggerated colours, but I admit that that is a subjective judgement on my part.

I suppose what really annoys me about Chairman Ken, in addition to his ignorance, is his egotism. He loves to tell us that he takes "great pictures", and he continually makes it clear that he is in his opinion a very knowledgeable expert. If someone is going to take such an egocentric line, then they should at least have a portfolio to support their claim. Try the web sites of people who are respected such as John Shaw, or Arthur Morris if you want to see real quality rather than hot air. John Shaw is IMO a genius at composition. Morris is also very talented. There's many more wonderful web sites out their. Also try Luminous Landscapes for some interesting articles from a pro-photographer.

Also if you want thought provoking discussions, from a range of contributors, rather than one person's often ill-informed rantings, try www.photo.net.

Leif

Neil said:

I still think people are missing the point here , and I don't think tripods were mentioned in the article so that is a red herring. He is not comparing a Sigma zoom versus a Nikon prime. He is saying that a Sigma zoom today is better than most of the lenses the early photographers had to work with and they still did such good work that people today still have trouble matching the quality. If you gave Edward Westin a disposable Kodak he would still produce good work within the limitations of the equipment. I had a look at Ken's Death Valley photos and they look pretty good to me. Neil.

Click to expand...

Here's a quote from the article:
"Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."
I'm sorry but that is total and utter rubbish and left me unable to take the article seriously.
I'd be interested if any of the excellent (some professional) photographers on this site could honestly say that they'd be able to get the same results with cheaper kit. Don't get me wrong I know that it's their talent that allows them to get the shot, but surely the 'quality' would be affect by using cheaper kit.

As for the tripod thing - it's for another article by the same guy and was used to illustrate the carzy statements that he makes about photography.

Reading about photography on the web scr*ws your head unless you read this site which is the best:
http://www.proshooter.homestead.com/
These pages changed my life when the pro tips helped me recently win a photographic competition : now I am someone who can say "I have won a photographic competition".

I'm not saying reading this will make you as good as me, but it will be a start and you will be less ignorant.

I have kit from Olympus Pen , half frame cameras to Leicas and Hasselblads. This photo is one of my favorites and was taken this year with a Panasonic Lumix digital camera, one of the cheapest cameras that I have. The light was the key and I expect that most cameras would have done a good job of this and many would have done better. Neil.

Tripods


I just howled reading your post. Calling Ken Rockwell a fool is too kind. What was it St. Thomas Aquinas once said, "It is better to be thought a fool then to open your mouth and remove all doubt". I sure have been a fool at times but it is something you try to learn from and get over.

I never used to use a tripod and as I look back at photos as far back as 1959, there are many that would have been better if I had. Now I almost NEVER shoot a nature shot without one. The dragonfly pix I posted today were all taken with a tripod as have been all those I have posted to date [only been on this Forum two days]. The difference with a tripod is tremendous. Of course, sometimes the subject moves and then even a tripod doesn't help, but with digital you don't worry about wasting film. The sharpness attained with a tripod is well worth the "trouble".

I just was looking for the Nikon related messages when I found yours.

Leif said:

An extract follows: "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image."

I usually try to be diplomatic, or kind, but in the case of Ken Rockwell, I throw caution to the wind. The man is a fool and a loud mouth. I would not be surprised if he wears a revolving bow tie, and long curly shoes. Every few months I check out his website to have a good laugh. There's a lot of interesting and good stuff, but there's also a large number of complete howlers that are plain wrong. He claims to be an expert, but he is not.

Elsewhere he says that real photographers should not use a tripod, despite the fact that numerous books I own, written by pro-photographers, make the explicit point that a tripod is an essential accessory. Then again, what do world class phoographers know? Elsewhere he 'reviews' products, and it's only at the end that you realise that he has NOT used the product in question. Hence his comments about image quality are pure supposition.

Here is King Ken's statement on cleaning lenses:

"To clean a lens or filter I prefer to breathe on it to coat the lens with a thin fog of pure disuntiled water. I then wipe it gently with a clean dry soft cotton T-shirt. "

Aaaaaahhhhhhh. It is painful to read. (I presume 'disuntiled' is Ken speak for 'distilled' ?)

The statement that: "Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image." is complete and total bull. Without the use of reflectors, fill flash, diffusers, a slow grain film, a tripod, my pictures of fungi would be rubbish. I like to kid myself that they are quite decent, and many people have been generous enough to make positive comments.

The man uses hyperbole in the same way as Jeremy Clarkson, except that Clarkson KNOWS that he is being absurd for humourous reasons.

Here some more gems:

"Don't use a tripod if you can help it. They are a pain and cripple creativity. Only use a tripod for still subjects either at night or when you need long "shutter speeds of about 1/60 or slower."

The next bit always makes me laugh out loud:

"It's a common misconception among photo teachers and amateurs that tripods are good, although no one really knows why. I guess some people just associate tripods with serious photography."

Marvelous.

As I've said, the man is a fool. Sadly people take him seriously and their photography will suffer. Buy a good book by a respected pro-photographer and ignore charlatans such as KR.

Leif

Click to expand...

Though much of the information he shares is correct and helpful this article is his opinions at their worst. I'm inclined to believe that, though not by much, camera and lens quality make more of a difference in picture quality than skill on the photographer's part.

What annoys me is that the article has two arguments mixed up, he is right that the equipment is not important to take interesting artistic photos but completely wrong about the technical quality and accuracy of image caught, witness the gallery on BF the best pictures from the best kit but best pics are not necessarily the most interesting, if you see what I mean.

Mick