"Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >You can't write a review without actually handling the camera. It's >dishonest at best. I never actually heard of Ken Rockwell before and >now I think I can safely ignore anything I hear about him in the future.
I'd read a few of his articles in the past and they struck me as pretty superficial. He seems like a pretty good photographer but not a good writer or *thinker* about photography. I was kind of ambivalent about him until his JPEG vs RAW article. He prefers shooting JPEG and has his reasons for doing so. A photographer named Petteri Sulonen wrote a counter-article (http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/o_RAW_workflow/_RAW_workflow.html) pointing out the (perfectly valid) reasons for shooting RAW instead of JPEG. No big deal; everyone's entitled to his/her own opinion and Ken can disagree if he wishes. What tipped it for me was that he referred to Sulonen's article as a "hate website". No kidding. In case you haven't read it, the pro-RAW article contains not a whiff of what any rational person could call hate. It's simply a rational summation of the good reasons for preferring RAW files in some situations *and* a list of circumstances in which JPEG is a good or better choice. (Oh yes, and it's better written than anything Ken Rockwell's ever done and on a much better designed web page.) With his unwarranted slur on someone who simply had the temerity to disagree with him clearly and convincingly, Ken Rockwell earned a spot on my list of people I have no time for. The Ken Rockwell article is here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
