1: As a heterosexual male I’m a big fan of booth babes. I can’t say I’ve ever made a purchase decision based on a booth babe or I could tell you what company actually uses them, but I do like looking at them. I’ve even taken photos and videos of them. http://bit.ly/pAwB60

2: As a business man they make absolutely zero sense. You attract bodies but the wrong motivation and you are definitely not “qualifying” your audience. Effort has to be made on engagement to actually interest the person. This is true for most technology, but I must say at events like E3 and Comic Con where a lot of the games have babes in them, then booth babes are perfectly appropriate.

I just got back from ITEXPO in Miami, FL. It’s an unbelievably dry tech show and I was surprised by the sheer number of booth babes. Definitely more than I’ve ever seen on average at any trade show in a very long time. This might be telling of the need to pump up a dry trade show, or it could be telling of the abundance of beautiful women in Miami.

Recall Campaign No. 11V-438: Lamps in Rear Quarter Panel

Speaking of the 70′s, I lusted after a 1600/2002, then a 320i. Couldn’t swing a BMW until a CPO creampuff 2004 325xi popped up – and the wife agreed.

It is now our first – and last BMW.

You wouldn’t even need to get an additional package with these companies. You’d save thousands in any situation (except a Lexus, made by Toyota would be on-par for purchase cost.)

http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?p=10331140

and

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275724

That is why this situation is even more disturbing. She went to BMW for a hassle free experience and is now getting hassled!

BMW’s are wonderful to drive. But the days when they were the only great-driving cars on the road are long gone (thankfully for us car lovers). There is ample competition from Japan, the U.S., and now Korea (rapidly coming up.) As for reliability, check Consumer Reports.

So unless one really wants to be seen driving a status brand, do some research and take some test drives and you’ll see that there’s a world beyond the fancy brands. Or even better, buy a 2 or 3 year old car and laugh at those spending thousands more for nothing.

Who wouldn’t give a second glance to a new Kodak Kodachrome Digital camera line. Truer color you expect from the Kodachrome brand… the marketing writes itself.

Their press release was an obituary vs a potential rebirth of Kodak’s image.

-josh

Rockwell is at the top of my favorites heap (along with Thom, McNally, Heller, Jarvis, and Jorgenson).

I too read his rants that digital is for machine gunners who shoot thousands of rounds hoping something will stick. Took it with a grain of salt but also realizing that every amateur I know did just that (there is a REASON amateurs are taking over the stock photo market). Then I was reading Moose Peterson one day, and stopped, reread, scratched my head, and read again, when he indicated that on a certain Alaskan photo trip, he had taken something like THREE OR SIX THOUSAND frames on one day. Did 6,000 frames make it to his website? No…10 did.

On top of that, Ken can be hilarious when you read his work as he intends it: photo sacrilege.

I got to this site through his. Now that I have marked this site as somewhere I will return, I’m hopping back over to Ken’s.

Being a minilab operator for a large corporation (four years experience now), I find it relatively trivial to test various formats against one another.

Properly exposed developed and scanned, good 35mm film (Kodak Ektar 100 or Fuji Velvia 50, for instance) beats digital like a red headed stepchild. Imagine the image a 19.5 megapixel full frame Foveon sensor could deliver, and that’s what most modern minilabs can pull from good 35mm film. That Nikon D3X isn’t quite there yet (despite the “extra” 4.5MP), and you can check Ken’s comparison to discover for yourself what any moron lab monkey would have told you if you weren’t so darned full of yourself (or so heavily invested in digital) you wouldn’t ask.

Medium format STARTS three times better.

Keep in mind that this is with lab equipment. An Epson V700 will pull a 50MP scan from 35mm film, and a 130MP scan from 6×4.5. Those wealthy enough to afford it will tell you that drum scanning delivers even more.

So let’s not hear any more ignorant nonsense about which format produces the superior image.

Most of the professional photographers I’ve dealt with are incapable of properly exposing film. This is going to be tough for some of you to accept, but you suck at photography. Luckily for you, digital is JUST GOOD ENOUGH for your clientele, and you can just keep banging away at it until you manage to satisfy their uninformed desires.

And that’s what makes digital great. Just as Henry Ford put out a cheap car that put dozens of overpriced craftsmen model businesses OUT of business, so Canon and Nikon have put out moderately inexpensive systems which let any twit make not quite repulsive images.

Ain’t it grand?

It sure makes my life easier to see someone roll up to the counter with a memory card instead of a bag of film, I’ll be the first to admit. The all-automated digital workflow of the modern minilab is is a source of constant joy, especially for those of us who have experienced it’s predecessor.

But I’ll still put my Nikon N80 with it’s kit lens and a few rolls of Ektar 100 up against any 35mm based DSLR out there, for certain types of photography. Landscapes, for instance. Low light people pictures without lighting gear? Not so much.

For that, even I still shoot digital, AS DOES KEN ROCKWELL.

And Nikon screwed it up big time, just in case anyone was wondering. Or maybe they’re evil geniuses that knew they’d get HUGE publicity from this stunt so the hype would be even higher in a bit when PMA opens up.

Who knows?

Too much photography “advice” on the Internet is mostly regurgitation from other sources, many of them dubious. Rockwell follows his own trends – these days he’s own a roll against the use of digital imaging as an end all, be all solution to photography even in a day when folks still shooting film who make more money than the 99% of folks giving advice advising folks against film. That Rockwell shoots film in certain cases with relatively cheap cameras and lenses, with little to no workflow, at affordable costs and producing fabulous images are an affront and challenge to digitally-bound shooters who dismiss film as an obsolete vestige of days gone by.

Having spent some time with Rockwell in the field, I find that he understands the art and craft of photography as much as any other (and I’ve spent time with others). He is not about the camera at all as much as he’s about shooting and turning out photos in the shortest amount of time with the least amount of hassle with the most affordable processes. While I don’t agree with Rockwell on everything, I agree with him mostly with the idea that many so-called “experts” are far too much into tools and methods than they are in the art and finished image.

For quite a while now, I have appreciated the freely-offered gift of Ken’s opinionated and witty writing. (yes, I’m a rank amateur!)

I’m also one of his readers who has been more than a little bothered by his recent turn towards his digital-is-great!-WAIT-no-it-sucks!-film-is-what-all-the-COOL-kids-are-doing rants.

However, I’ve come to believe that Ken is either still learning, or simply has changed his mind about some things from time to time. Anyone reading this ever have a change of opinion, or learned something new that overturned a previous belief? Does that make us hypocrites?

Ken may offend us now and then, but can we honestly fault him for having opinions and voicing them strongly?

Ken, thanks for all your research, analysis and rank opinions… Keep on keeping on.

One example: Among the general public (The great majority of the world’s photographers, probably 99%), I know hundreds of people who say they’ve never been so happy since decent digital cameras appeared on the market, simply because they can take as many pictures as they wish and easily erase them all if they don’t like what they see… AFTERWARDS. The thing is that only a handful of these people really care about their photos and try and compose them as carefully as possible like many used to do when they were shooting film.
The end result is a host of poorly composed useless pictures that I wouldn’t even show to my cat… And do they actually erase these mediocre pictures ? Nope ! They save them to their hard disc, “just in case”… and never look at them again…
This is just one point, among many others, that Ken is rightly making, and, whether you like it or not, he is spot on !

No I’m not going back to film, but I certainly keep on looking carefully in my viewfinder before I press the trigger.

Thanks Ken !

Fair enough but, let me add this;

I used to go to his site. Had it bookmarked and visited daily. However, the past few months he has lost me. His constant rants about the Dx3? Get over it Ken. Enough already. I don’t “hate” Ken but, he has resorted to insulting a majority of his visitors. I am “unskilled” because I shoot digital? How he is somehow making the case that going Leica is cheaper than digital is just plain insane. I’d love to have a Leica system but, it’s just not practical for me and I am sure, many others. This recent “HA-HA!” about Nikon’s pre-announcement non-event is juvenile and borders on infantile. So Ken, after buying, testing, using, touting and drooling over Nikon for years now hates them because the D3X is too expensive? I happen to be in the group that thinks even if the D3X went down to $5500 that is still too much for my budget. He lost respect and credibility with me over this faux divorce with Nikon.

I love Nikon. The D3X is expensive, yes. But, I fail to see how Rockwell has no problem with Leica charging $4000 for a 10MP digital camera body that is really, not that great a camera. Just go to Adorama and check out prices on ANY Leica product! It’s beyond the reach of most everyone I know.

From Luminous Landscape:

What is essentially the same camera as the Panasonic LX-3 is also available as the Leica D-Lux 4. The differences between them appear to be the Leica red button badge rather than the Lumix name on the top right hand corner of the body. And….

And, oh yes, almost $400 difference in price. At the time of this writing B&H, for example, is selling the LX-3 for $463 and the D-Lux 4 for $849. How is the remarkable price differential justified? I’m not sure.

UPDATE:

According to a source within Leica here are some salient advantages to the D-Lux 4…

– a provided wrist strap rather than a neck strap (wow – a saving of about $7)
– Phase One Capture One 4 raw software instead of Silkypix (a smart move, but not worth that much once other third party appears)
– A two year warranty, vs Panasonic’s 1 Year with 90 days labour (Humm. How about I just buy a second camera for the extra $400 if the first one fails? Seems like expensive insurance to me).

The bottom line on this is that while the Leica version might be worth an extra $100, to my mind it simply isn’t worth an almost $400 premium.

Nuff said. Rockwell’s barking up the wrong tree and his tantrum is sorely misguided.

Probably every single person who has commented on this thread about the problems with Ken Rockwell got to this page using the link on KEN’s site!

I’m in the same boat! I got here from Ken’s page but I’m not about to make myself into a hypocrite (or hate-stalker) by saying how stupid Ken Rockwell is after getting to THIS page from HIS site!!!

This is a testament to how stupid some people are. Everyone who said Ken has mostly bogus opinions, I agree, but I think each and every one of you is pretty stupid not to realize how much hypocrisy is involved in the very existence of your posts.

Best,
-Eric

Go to his site and read his recent rants.

“Digital is nice for kid pictures or unskilled people who “spray and pray” in the hope that God will help them find a decent picture out of the hundreds they mindlessly shot, but for both serious and silly work, the Mamiya 7 is it”.

Are you serious? Nice job insulting the majority of your visitors. I can’t believe what I am reading. So those that shoot digital are “unskilled”?

All this from a guy who states this:

“Cameras don’t take pictures, photographers do. Cameras are just another artist’s tool.

Maybe because it’s entirely an artist’s eye, patience and skill that makes an image and not his tools. Even Ansel said “The single most important component
of a camera is the twelve inches behind it.”

A camera catches your imagination. No imagination, no photo – just crap. The word “image” comes from the word “imagination.” It doesn’t come come from “lens sharpness” or “noise levels.” David LaChapelle’s work is all about his imagination, not his camera. Setting up these crazy shots is the hard part. Once set up, any camera could catch them.”

Without exception, he always maintains that it’s who is behind the lens not the camera they are using. He not only contradicts himself, he takes a cheap shot at budding photographers who take his advice seriously and get a decent digital cam and get out there and shoot.

If Nikon ever lowers the price of the D3x then Rockwell will tout that he alone is responsible for this. He says he’s a “cheapskate” yet, parades his toys for all to see on his site. I used to listen to this guy but, he’s certifiable now. Like Nikon cares what he says? Gimme’ a break!

He’d go away and nobody would miss him. His blog is devoted to trivial things and he’s asking for hand outs in exchange. That’s how he makes his living: hand outs, not selling pictures.

His photography: nothing of note except that he’s just a screaming colorist. Once the fade passes, he’ll be passe.

He reminds me of the teenager that never grew up to become an adult.

Ken talks about photography and gear. DPReview and Fred Miranda users just talk about gear.

I find he contradicts himself sometimes, but I guess he is trying to cover different points of view. What I find missing mostly, but you can’t really blame him as a one-man show who does it (mostly) for kicks, is that he reviews some products from only handful of manufacturers. So you don’t really know, even with his criteria, if something “better” is available.

And let us not forget, he advocates shooting rather than wasting energy on technical specifications…. For the record, he likes bold colours while I am more into monochrome.

He has always stated that he has put practical jokes and minor truth contradictions on the site to catch out those those who should know.

Even his main page image is a jape – he claims to have a left hand F100, but those who are aware have to know how that image has been manipulated. It was put there purposely so he could enjoy the notoriety.

Just go to [...] DPReview

lol wut?

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” — Winston Churchill.

Nevertheless, he saves me some money

He’s writing to the beginner and the accomplished amateur, mostly. This is what gets some purists rankled, I think.

For instance, the statement that “tripods are for wimps.” Yes, in most cases they are, and with the Nikon D3 and D700 even more so.

A pro knows when they need a tripod and they don’t need Rockwell to tell them when it is, but I’ve found Rockwell’s advice to amateurs is fairly spot on, although there are times when a tripod is needed, such as at night, and Rockwell acknowledges this.

Yes, he’s over the top sometimes, as with his recent pro-film crusade. Everything he says may be true if you live within five minutes of a Costco or Wal-Mart, but a lot of us don’t (I live in China).

Digital is not the only way to go here, but it is far and away the most convenient. Nothing involving film here or in East Texas where I hail from is easy.

But Rockwell’s advice on lenses, large format shooting, digital settings and so forth are very useful for beginners and people trying new things. He states his prejudices up front and any visitor to his website are perfectly free to accept them or switch to Moose, Thom, Scott or any of the other digital or film wizards found on the Web today.

Rockwell causes us to think about what we’re doing and why we’re doing it based on his point of view: what more could any reader expect?

Best,

Dukes

For the record – Ken Rockwell provides a lot more real, based on fact, information than do “people” who anonymously trash his views…

A Lieca fan are we, Josh?

Ken has saved me a lot of money, and I for one, appreciate his to-the-point demeanor.

best regards

mqqn