oh good a ken rockwell thread

What's your point here?

>>914870

I agree, I use a d40 + 35mm 1.8 and make great images

Rockwell is ridiculous, but he's basically right in this case. If you understand photography at all, then you will be able to shoot well with a disposable camera, especially since tweaking in post is very much part of photography.

Once you understand composition and lighting, the tools matter less.

THAT SAID, it is not to say that pros don't need pro equipment. Pros pay for RELIABLE equipment of consistent quality.

But that's different than pointing out that, yeah, if you're a good photographer, you should be able to shoot with pretty much anything that produces an at-all predictable image.

"...daddy will stick his pee-pee in mommy's mouth or in mommy's poo-poo hole."

-ken rockwell

>>914864

Okay then, go in the dark and take good portraits with a disposable. They can't be overexposed in the center, or underexposed in the background. Can we get some nice bokeh too?

>>914889

That's not the point. A disposable is not a substitute for a Nikon D300. A disposable is, however, a predictable little camera that can produce beautiful images if you're a talented photographer. You just have to understand the limitations of the camera.

>>914886

sauce here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/ri/WhereDoBabiesComeFrom.htm

>>914899

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS

>>914889

you won't be able to take pics that look like pro portraits, but you could still take an award winning photo with a disposable.

this photo was shot during the kent state riots in 1970 and won a pulitzer. You could have easily taken an image like this with a 5$ disposable or iphone these days.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/random.php

I found most of his weird stuff by this link.

>>914904
>this photo was shot during the kent state riots in 1970 and won a pulitzer. You could have easily taken an image like this with a 5$ disposable or iphone these days.
>1970
>these days

once upon a time an image like this would be worthy.
now... fuck no.
if this shot was taken yesterday, it would be trash today.

An abortion is when the mommy changes her mind and decides to poop out the baby early. The baby just goes down the toilet. Actually many miscarriages happen this way. A miscarriage is when a baby dies inside the mommy.

>>914912

It's still considered a classic, pivotal image in photojournalism today.

>>914905
Stuff like this?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/best/10/img_2886.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/best/07/pr/butt/index.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/best/07/pr/gelato/4240dscn0390_117.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/best/07/pr/nudity/index.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/florida/pages/MVC-122S_JPG.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/best/07/img_1982.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/best/07/img_2236.htm

>>914918
that may be, but only because things were different back then.
this shot actually is a sign of the times... but if this happened today.. right now.. that shot wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on.

>>914927

you guys are acting as if photography was not mature at 1970. It had been around for over 100 years already.

Here is another pivotal image. Why is it important? Because it was shot 3 hours before john lennon died.. Does anyone care what camera it was taken on? What F-stop? what kind of film.. Hell no. (not to say annie Leibovitz doesn't know what she is doing, but the camera is not as important as the moment and meaning of the image).

>>914931
its actually a pretty shitty image and only retarded beatles fans like it

>>914932

lol, I forgot this board is only people who care about ricer camera stats and not artists.

>>914935
>baww, y u no like da beatles. dey so kewl

>>914932
i actually agree... and i'm a beatles fan.

if you didn't know who lennon was or what kent state was about.. you wouldn't give a shit about either of these shots.
theres nothing to them.
at kent state- i see a bunch of hipsters doing hipster stuff and some faggot laying on the ground.
at lennon/yoko- i see an interracial hipster couple trying to be artsy.

these shots are taken everyday by teens and you guys tear em apart - yet if its something historic or someone that helped define an era, suddenly its fabulous & iconic.

>>914932

You don't understand photography. This does not have to be your favorite image, but if you don't understand why this is a valued, important photograph, then you're an idiot.

>>914941

You're immature. Much of photography is about capturing important moments, and not about glorifying the photographer or the graphic skills of the photographer.

The Kent State photograph and the John Lennon photograph are important in ways that mere talent/skill cannot measure up to.

>>914941

Ever go to a gallery? Most of the stuff that is put up has a paragraph description along with it.

"Why should I care about this painting? I've never seen or heard of this women, people paint women all the time. Plus, see all those cracks? It's so far from perfect"

>>914932
>>914941

>>914950
look man.. you're missing my point completely.
i DO understand why these photos are considered important.
that IS my point.
we all know WHAT these photos are and that is what makes them important.

but without the knowledge of the who/what - these photos are crap.

>>914963

And any photographer who gives a rats ass about their craft is familiar with these photos and understands why they are important.

>>914966

I get what he's saying. While these photographs are important and well known, it doesn't mean they're technical marvels.

On the other hand, it is precisely this that brings out an important consideration: Images aren't all about technique.

>>914957
the technique da vinci used to make it is incredibly advanced

>>914966
>derp, faymoos peeple = impoortint piktsure

>>914966
are you still not getting what i'm saying?
i know what these photos are.
but look at them.. just the photos.. with no bias on the historic value.
what do you really see?

here.. lets do this..
look at this pic in this thread.
>>914837

is it special?
does it mean anything to you?

now say in 15 years this kid is found to have left home to join a cult and was involved with some fantastic world shaking shit... and this was the day she left to go do.. whatever.

would this be an important shot then?
or would it still be crap?

I'm not the other guy, but I would say it would still be shit. It says nothing about the person, it doesn't show anything happening. It would be as intrascendental as the mugshot picture of Bill Gates after having been arrested for stealing a car or something. Even considering that scenario you mentioned, the pic would be shit. The John Lennon picture, however, speaks more about him as a person and his wife.

>>914897

To say that "all you need is a disposable" is fallacious, since he's totally ignoring the caveat of the camera's limits. He should've said "A disposable will do the trick in a lot of situations."

>>914971
Technique is just something that captures the essence of the situation. Just because something doesn't meet your yardsticks doesn't mean it is imperfect. Having a rigid definition of technique to mean 'rule of thirds', 'no noise', 'no blown highlights' whatever is not what photography is about. If you don't see this, you will miss the point of several photographs, especially in my favourite genres of street photography and photojournalism. You could call it a difference of taste, but that would be very immature. There is a reason why Eddie Adams's picture of a police inspector shooting a guerilla in vietnam is displayed in galleries while your technically perfect picture of a flower in your garden is not.
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2004:09:15 16:12:30
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1800
Image Height	1136

>>914927
You're pretty fucking stupid, bro.

>>915001
aaahhhh... now see... you are actually helping to confirm what i've been saying.
this shot is strong and can stand on its own.
this shot tells me a story and leaves me hanging at the same time.
this is a damn good shot. (no pun)

the other 2 don't tell me anything.
the kent state shot almost looks staged.
only one person is freaking out... everyone else just kinda looking on & wandering around.
for all i know (assuming i have no knowledge of this photo) the guy on the ground might have been knocked out by a jock & thats his gf crying about it.

and the lennon photo... i just hate it because it looks so.. i dunno.. retarded maybe?
i like to think that john was a rockstar & not some kinda artsy 'lets create an art' kinda guy.

>>914982
and you... yeah.. probably not the best example on my part... it would still be crap.
but do you get where i'm coming from with this?

its not about composition or technical excellence or any of that.
when i say 'kid standing in front of a tank' - you know exactly which photo i'm talking about.
it describes itself.
you see that photo & you know exactly what it is.
the kent state shot doesn't do that.
you need to know about kent state to get it.

>>915034

The subject of a photograph is a part of the photograph. It adds to the impact of the photograph. That photo of Lennon was take hours before his death, which makes it significant.

Your other complaint is about pictures needing a back-story and not standing their own ground. That is something involved in the appreciation of anything. Music (especially classical) is felt better if you know the composer's intentions and what was going on in his life then. It is appreciated even better if you know some music theory - you see all the 'in jokes' and 'gotchas' the composer creates for listeners. You appreciate Tintoretto's old age self-portrait painting better if you know that he had drawn another one one he was younger and you see the change in his outlook towards life, especially if you know about his competition with Titian. A more photographic example: The pulitzer winning photo of an african child crawling away with a bird sitting in a background is pretty much a bad picture of a malnourished child at first. If you know the background, you know that the child is crawling towards a food camp and the bird is a vulture following the child waiting for the child to die of hunger so that it can eat it, and knowing that the photographer committed suicide because of such sights, increases your appreciation of the picture.

Not all significant things are visually stunning; there is nothing wrong with needing a back-story to explain significance.

>>915061
>That photo of Lennon was take hours before his death, which makes it significant.

i agree with this
but only because:
>The subject of a photograph is a part of the photograph.

without the knowledge of the subject, that image isn't anything special.
BUT.. knowing who it is, when it was taken, who took it and what the following circumstances were... the shot means something.
if that was my wife & i and was taken today, that shot would suck.
but only because i'm not famous and dead.

and the part about needing a backstory.. thats not quite where i was going with all this.
and i'm not even debating the significance of the shots. they each have meaning and emotion that goes well beyond the actual photo.
the example you used of the kid & the vulture: in my opinion, that is another fantastic photo.
i look at that & i get it.
that birds just waitin for lunch.
i don't need to know where he was crawling to or what happened to the photographer... i see that shot & i get it.
sure, knowing the rest makes it even more powerful.. but even on its own it i can plainly see what it is.

i probably sound like a dick who doesn't appreciate the significance of the impact a subject can make in a photo.
but i do get it.
i just _really_ like a photo that tells its own story.

a picture is worth a thousand words.
i just hate it when those words don't tell me what i need to know.

>>915034
Ehm, Badasswhacks, you better go back to the zoo, OK?

>>915101 I agree that the subject is part of the photograph

and I agree that the sky is blue and grass is green. just wanted to throw it out there that I'm aware of completely fucking obvious shit like that.

Rockwell is a troll. Everything, literally everything he writes on his page is solely written for only one purpose: to generate traffic. That's why he writes all this funky bullshit on his website. People discuss the written content, say "ooh Rockwell said this, Rockwell said that..." but they never realize, they ve been tricked by Rockwell to visit his website and spread his fame. In fact he's very clever. For example this "WhereDoBabiesComeFrom" essay. Everybody think ooh, and WTF, but in reality the full intention is gain traffic, and it funktions pretty well.

what a bunch of faggots you are.

Ok guys, unless you photograph super famous people and/or MAJOR events, you have to accommodate every photo you take with a 1,000 word essay explaining it.

The rest is up to you, /p/.

>>914886

You are now thinking of Mrs Rockwell being throatfucked by Mr Rockwell.

imho, photography is a technical skill completely worthless on its own. Application of this skill is what gives the profession artistic value and meaning. It is what separates the artists (photographers) from the engineers/theorists. (Those who stride for technical perfection/those who like talking about the act of taking photos without actually taking any)

The point of photography is capturing moments. While other photographers can appreciate the technical perfection of a photograph, it is important not to forget why the photo was taken in the first place. To capture moments, and inspire thought.

That being said, I'm a decent photographer - though I admit sometimes the stills my 10 year old relatives can capture with their puny and inferior compacts rival my own. While most of their pictures are essentially shit - some of them... by angle... timing... lighting... luck... whatever - are more thought provoking then my best work.

So a good photo is a good photo depending on which camp you hail from. Are you an artist? Are you an engineer? Or a theorist?

>>914864
i agree with him on this one.

Is this thread full of trolls, or morons?

YOU DECIDE!

The whole idea that a photography MUST be considered important when viewed in a vacuum is insanity. When viewed in a vacuum NOTHING is worth looking at.

The best Renoir is just a bunch of brush strokes of a bunch of people sitting at a morning breakfast.

Who cares.

The importance comes from the fact that it IS a Renoir.

If you don't appreciate that... that's fine... but you CAN'T then go on to say you understand/appreciate fine art.

Context is... MORE... then *EVERY*thing when it comes to art. If you can't understand that, then you're just a NiCanon brandfag who doesn't understand why no one else appreciates your photographs, even though they're technically flawless.

You fucking suck, and no one likes you.

wat

>>914864
There is some real truth is this statement. The photo of Gore with the Holga, a bunch of photos with the Diana. Before the toy cameras were cliche, they were cool. All you /p/ faggots should quit being gearfags (like Ken Rockwell is) and go shoot pictures.

>>915144
"funky bullshit"

Awesome.

what the fuck am i looking at?

>>915390
?taw
EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:07:16 15:04:13
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	505
Image Height	406

>>915513

Hah!

EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2010:05:30 19:08:52
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	359
Image Height	571