 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / September 2008WOW! Ken Rockwell Buys On eBay!!
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> Rita  SignatureI reject your stupidity and substitute my own! http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com > 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. I didn't know he's an eBayer; that's interesting. Neil > I didn't know he's an eBayer; that's interesting. I think of ebayers (including myself) as quite ordinary. It's just another stall in the marketplace. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Neil Just as long as you read *this* page: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm Where he states: > Caveat Lector! (reader beware!) > This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly. > This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around. > While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction. > This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. .. which explains a lot. > Just as long as you read *this* page: > http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > .. which explains a lot. About the fans as much as Ken "JPG is good enough" Rockwell. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > I didn't know he's an eBayer; that's interesting. I didn't either till I accidently stumbled on it looking at some other items. Rita SignatureI reject your stupidity and substitute my own! http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I didn't know he's an eBayer; that's interesting. Do you think that like some brainless Americans who buy things because they heard some celebrity does, more clods will go to Ebay just because he does? >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 > 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. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >> Right. Read his "about" page before you believe *anything* he's written. >> Remember, this is the guy who sees no value in shooting RAW... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. >>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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. Neil >>>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > 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? >>>>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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? I agree with you, but so far I just haven't had the need. If I get into a difficult lighting situation I'm sure I will use RAW -- and then have fun figuring out what to do with it. :-) Neil >>>>>> 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. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Neil RAW became popularized, even mandatory, due to the extremely poor RAW to JPG algorithms built into most DSLRs' firmware, even now. I sometimes suspect they even do it on purpose so the manufacturers can get even more money by selling 2nd-party software that would be required to fix the image problems the right way. Some cameras do the conversion better. You may not have to resort to RAW if your camera does it right in the first place. Those who bought piss-poor cameras where there is a vast difference between their JPG and RAW data *need* that RAW data so they can correct what their camera did wrong. If you have a camera where, no matter what you do to the RAW data it won't get better than the JPG output from the camera, then there is virtually no need to play with RAW. 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 sh.t like you already have." > 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 sh.t 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. >> Every time I see someone posting about how they *NEED* RAW, I only laugh >to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >12 to 16 bit sensor camera and then throw away 4 to 8 bits when saving the >file to an 8 bit Jpeg? 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? 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? >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. 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". Let me guess, Charles - Photoline32?? > 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.. > 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. > 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 :-) :-) :-) 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. It's no big deal, if imperfect. Raw allows you more latitude and conserves more dynamic resolution when imported as 16 bit/color into, say photoshop, for successive operations. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > > 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. >>> 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 :-) :-) :-) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Seems rather pointless to me. > Most people only do it because they don't know any better. Well, it's -really- not so bad if the issue is limited to HDR. In HDR much of the higher dynamic range of the 'lower' image will survive in the end product replacing the lower dynamic range info of the 'higher' image. So the main benefit of dipping down into raw is lost over a good chunk of the image. The user might have other issues such as storage space. 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. You could even just use gimp in these cases. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. > > 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. In rec.photo.digital Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote: >> 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 sh.t 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? SignatureChris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205 IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/] > > 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. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Böwser <b0wser@h0me.c0m> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >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. SignatureDave > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > He is a bit odd looking (or his usual facial expression is) but his site, > http://www.kenrockwell.com/, is interesting and informative. mouhahaha Rita Berkowitz wrote,on my timestamp of 2/09/2008 5:46 AM: > 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> Why is this so important? Last time I looked, tens of thousands of folks use epay. One more? Hardly newsworthy. Besides, he has openly said he does. >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > use epay. One more? Hardly newsworthy. > Besides, he has openly said he does. Because the other night I was eating peanuts and while shucking them I found one pod that had three peanuts inside. Yes, you read right, three peanuts. What great luck! Time to play the lottery. Rita SignatureI reject your stupidity and substitute my own! http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com Rita Berkowitz wrote,on my timestamp of 3/09/2008 11:06 PM: > Because the other night I was eating peanuts and while shucking them I > found > one pod that had three peanuts inside. Yes, you read right, three peanuts. > What great luck! Time to play the lottery. LOL! I'll buy a ticket tomorrow as well! > Because the other night I was eating peanuts and while shucking them I found > one pod that had three peanuts inside. Yes, you read right, three peanuts. > What great luck! Time to play the lottery. Nix, all bad. Aint'cha never heard of "three on a pod"? > <http://myworld.ebay.com/kenrockwell> I'm curious what he's going to do with those two copies of the Pronea S he bought. (I use mine as a "car camera."). SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification required) Legalize Updoc. > 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> > > Rita and he's still buying MF Nikon glass http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120293692577 !! now that is a lens I have lusted after for a while. rb >> 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > now that is a lens I have lusted after for a while. And it is a sweet lens for sure. With the introduction of the D3 and D700 we are going to be seeing an increase in popularity and pricing of old AIs, especially the classics. Rita SignatureHigh-performance Usenet! Reaching terminal stupidity in 3.25 nanoseconds. http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com Rita Berkowitz wrote,on my timestamp of 8/09/2008 11:58 AM: >> and he's still buying MF Nikon glass >> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=120293692577 !! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > we are going to be seeing an increase in popularity and pricing of old AIs, > especially the classics. funny how all of a sudden all those theories about "light not hitting the sensor at the right angle" with FX lenses have gone kinda cold... LOL! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.