Search for the most stupid photography quote

[jyc860923]

Yeah, I'm not ashamed to make nonsense speech anymore since someone has clearly gone way further!!!

This one stood out for me whilst recently visiting Ken Rockwell's site:-

"With a digital camera with Image Stabilization or VR, there's no need for a tripod"

 

[tuanies]

From a newspaper editors perspective, that's not an unreasonable statement.

(Assuming that he really meant "good light", as opposed to any light at all. :smile

This is true. Photojournalism is about capturing the moment, it can be technically poor, but as long as it captures the spirit of whats going on, that is all that matters. You are appealing to the audience, and the good majority of the audience probably couldn't care less about the technicalities.

 

[pharaviel]

Not a quote, but if you want to laugh, it's gold: strip | What The Duck

 

[addieleman]

NEW: Canon EOS M: The world's first serious mirrorless camera.

So I'm taking pictures with a non-serious camera, huh? That's just as well, I'm a non-serious photographer.

 

[mister_roboto]

in regards to the 75mm f1.8

"nice... slowly, but surely, lenses are coming along, better late, than never.
i'm sure every new combination of faster Xmm f/x.x is welcome, prime or zoom.

meanwhile, still waiting for a m43 12mm f/0.7... flat prime

f/2.0 is 'okay', so, why not f/0.7? (and compact too?)

or a m43 12-35mm f/1.4... compact zoom

f/2.8 is 'okay', so, why not f/1.4? (and compact too?)

still... waiting... (before i celebrate m43 'arriving'...)"


AH- nothing like DPR Trolls

 

[blue]

the most stupid photography quote ... whilst recently visiting Ken Rockwell's site

Well that's just shooting fish in a barrel. You do know he is "stupid" on purpose to get the publicity ? He has no real credibiltity as a reviewer.

 

[goldenlight]

"nice... slowly, but surely, lenses are coming along, better late, than never.
i'm sure every new combination of faster Xmm f/x.x is welcome, prime or zoom.

meanwhile, still waiting for a m43 12mm f/0.7... flat prime

f/2.0 is 'okay', so, why not f/0.7? (and compact too?)

or a m43 12-35mm f/1.4... compact zoom

f/2.8 is 'okay', so, why not f/1.4? (and compact too?)

still... waiting... (before i celebrate m43 'arriving'...)"


AH- nothing like DPR Trolls

Haha, now there's a guy who knows all about physics!

 

[RT_Panther]

Looks like quite a LOT of people here and on the internet have been duped by Ken Rockwell's post about the new Canon mirrorless!

Before insulting Ken Rockwell, one should have a more careful read of his site. The quote below is from his "About Me and My Site" section.

I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here — even on this page.

Yep, looks like Ken got a lot of you....

 

[jeffryscott]

This is true. Photojournalism is about capturing the moment, it can be technically poor, but as long as it captures the spirit of whats going on, that is all that matters. You are appealing to the audience, and the good majority of the audience probably couldn't care less about the technicalities.

Aaah, but this wasn't about a moment or a news photo. This was a feature photo. Obviously news is about more than light, and if this particular quote had been about that I wouldn't have disagreed.

Think of golden hour light versus mid-day light for a pretty picture, this is what the "Light does not make a photo" quote referenced, which is why I was flabbergasted by it.

 

[CUB]

I am sure we all say stupid things from time to time. I don't get much from what Mr. Rockwell writes, but it seems extreme to start a thread devoted to making him look stupid.

This is only a thread. Ken Rockwell has an entire web site dedicated to making him look stupid.

 

[tuanies]

Aaah, but this wasn't about a moment or a news photo. This was a feature photo. Obviously news is about more than light, and if this particular quote had been about that I wouldn't have disagreed.

Think of golden hour light versus mid-day light for a pretty picture, this is what the "Light does not make a photo" quote referenced, which is why I was flabbergasted by it.

Then they were a moron

 

[goldenlight]

Looks like quite a LOT of people here and on the internet have been duped by Ken Rockwell's post about the new Canon mirrorless!

Before insulting Ken Rockwell, one should have a more careful read of his site. The quote below is from his "About Me and My Site" section.



Yep, looks like Ken got a lot of you....

That's all very well, but he does also promote himself as some sort of expert and makes specific recommendations about which cameras people should buy, as if speaking with authority. It may be a "personal website" but he makes it clear that he wants/needs to make money from it and heavilly promotes links to buy his recommendations, earning him commission.

Some might say he is a joker who likes to have a bit of fun, whilst others might regard him as a manipulative charlatan. I think his site straddles the line between personal and commercial. If you make money from recommending products on your site then surely you have a duty to your readership for veracity and responsible journalism.

 

[RT_Panther]

If you make money from recommending products on your site then surely you have a duty to your readership for veracity and responsible journalism.

And what about all the other personal sites that make money by recommendations however some perspectives are based on opinions that aren't necessarily factual?

 

[RT_Panther]

That's all very well, but he does also promote himself as some sort of expert and makes specific recommendations about which cameras people should buy, as if speaking with authority. It may be a "personal website" but he makes it clear that he wants/needs to make money from it and heavilly promotes links to buy his recommendations, earning him commission.

Some might say he is a joker who likes to have a bit of fun, whilst others might regard him as a manipulative charlatan. I think his site straddles the line between personal and commercial. If you make money from recommending products on your site then surely you have a duty to your readership for veracity and responsible journalism.

Oh and one last thing,
You should also read the below section from Rockwell's "About Me and My Site" section too. :smile:

This website is my way of giving back to our community. It is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination. This website is my personal opinion. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact."

 

[goldenlight]

Oh and one last thing,
You should also read the below section from Rockwell's "About Me and My Site" section too. :smile:

You're right, it's worse than I thought! This guy shouldn't be recommending anything to the camera-buying public!

Thanks for flagging this up. :smile:

 

[RT_Panther]

You're right, it's worse than I thought! This guy shouldn't be recommending anything to the camera-buying public!

Thanks for flagging this up. :smile:

It's not a question of me being "right or wrong".

But what's happening in some cases is that some individuals are quick to flame KR without truly understanding what he & his website are about. All I did was point out "the fine print" on his website.

 

[goldenlight]

It's not a question of me being "right or wrong".

But what's happening in some cases is that some individuals are quick to flame KR without truly understanding what he & his website are about. All I did was point out "the fine print" on his website.

Which was useful - it kind of puts his comments into perspective. We could all play that game, making controversial statements for fun. Let me see, what can I come up with on the spot? How about "I can't see the point in using ISO 200 in any situation now that ISO 3200 is so good. Too bright? - just use an ND filter." Might use that in my blog - a bit of controversy may help get a few more visitors!

I've nothing against the guy, he's a good enough photographer, but I do have reservations about a self-confessed hoaxer and joker making recommendations on which gear to buy. He's not likely to influence me or you, but a novice may be deceived (although I appreciate that is not the intention) into regarding KR as some sort of guru and end up making a purchase decision based on a recommendation that might not be quite what it seems.

 

[jeffryscott]

Then they were a moron

Yes, yes he was.

 

[RT_Panther]

but a novice may be deceived

Fair point.