David Jay: Ken Rockwell's Prodigy

[Waxed]

I have not seen where Browncoat attacked Ken Rockwell personally. Some of Rockwell's opinion is right and some is wrong. What has been pointed out is the way in which Rockwell goes about offering that questionable advice, paying to have his website rated at the top of Google so he appears as a highly regarded source, and then asking for people's money "donations" in return for that advice and making it appear as though that is how he feeds his growing children.

It is not Ken Rockwell, it is Ken Rockwell's methods.

I won't do him justice by linking to it, so you'll have to do some searching for yourself. On KR's site, you'll find a gallery of his mobile phone images. Most of it's just pics of his kids eating ice cream and stuff like that. Eventually, you'll stumble upon an innocent photo of Ken's wristwatch.

Do a Google search on that watch and get back to me on how you feel about his lost revenue.

For a guy who uses link clicks and donation requests to "support his growing family", ole Kenny is doing pretty well for himself.

Read more: http://nikonites.com/photography-business/16210-david-jay-ken-rockwells-prodigy-2.html#ixzz2sykIarCy
​

I have, by now, a well-documented disdain for Kenny. I believe the man is a vampire, preying on the photography community. He's a snake oil salesman, looking only to line his own pockets by peddling donations from hapless newbies who don't know good advice from bad.

The above are "personal attacks" - they do not really tell much either. What I want to know is his poor advice.

Some of Rockwell's opinion is right and some is wrong.

True - but that is case with just about everyone.

What has been pointed out is the way in which Rockwell goes about offering that questionable advice, paying to have his website rated at the top of Google so he appears as a highly regarded source, and then asking for people's money "donations" in return for that advice and making it appear as though that is how he feeds his growing children.

Sorry - but I fail to see a problem with this. His website is quite amateurish and heard to search [I am a competent web developer]. I doubt anyone is going to regard him as professional regarded source.

There is nothing wrong to "pay" to advertise your website.

There is nothing wrong with asking donations. After all - it is a donation.

Well - to me there isn't.

 

[Waxed]

I'd say most people disliking him more for his runaway hubris than his actual opinions. There are many other "celebrities" on the web, like Thom Hogan or Nasim Mansurov who will offer far more insightful advice without the need to exalt his own self worth. This, more than anything else is behind much of the criticism out there.

No offense - but this is exactly what I was talking about - attacking the person rather than what he has to say. So, basically it seems to boil down to what? jealousy? he has website that ranks high on the net? He is opinionated? He is successful? That just seems to be really low and petty.

 

[Mike D90]

Ok, so you don't see a problem with Ken Rockwell. Others do. There were no personal attacks. No one called him stupid, asshole or any other name. They stated an opinion on his methods and knowledge and you took offense to it. Your opinion means about as much to this thread as anyone else' opinion so that means you can be just as wrong as anyone else as well. And I think you are wrong.

 

[Rick M]

I dislike Ken's contradictions, if you read closely, he's not consistent. He mixes fact, fiction and humor which may be confusing to those new to photography.

 

[Mike D90]

I dislike Ken's contradictions, if you read closely, he's not even consistent with his own opinion. Some of his insight is false and that can be expensive for folks new to photography.

Rick is absolutely right about that and that is not personal against Rockwell. It is exactly the truth. Rockwell sells his words for profit. Misleading words to the ears of people that are newbies, newbies are Ken's target audience, and they are susceptible to his advice. That is wrong in any way possible.

 

[Waxed]

Ok, so you don't see a problem with Ken Rockwell. Others do. There were no personal attacks. No one called him stupid, asshole or any other name. They stated an opinion on his methods and knowledge and you took offense to it. Your opinion means about as much to this thread as anyone else' opinion so that means you can be just as wrong as anyone else as well. And I think you are wrong.

I really do not want to have spat with anyone - but - what exactly am I wrong about? It is not clear from above. Actually there are personal attack - I have highlighted them. Personal attacks are not just about swearing at someone. I just don't find it very useful having a go at someone with out saying why. See, saying what exactly is Rockwell is so wrong on would be useful to me and others - what isn't useful is attacking the person.

 

[Waxed]

Rick is absolutely right about that and that is not personal against Rockwell. It is exactly the truth. Rockwell sells his words for profit. Misleading words to the ears of people that are newbies, newbies are Ken's target audience, and they are susceptible to his advice. That is wrong in any way possible.

What Rick said isn't a personal attack - but what I highlighted above are.

But I have problem with this:

It is exactly the truth.

It is simply his opinion with which you agree with!

Rockwell sells his words for profit.

And? So do many writers!

Misleading words to the ears of people that are newbies, newbies are Ken's target audience, and they are susceptible to his advice.

But this is what I am getting at. This EXACTLY what I want to know. Which advice is wrong? That would be useful. Like I said, I am new to photography and I do read his reviews - then again I read reviews of others too. And I have not spotted any major glaring errors - though I cannot tell otherwise.

And most bad reviews of Ken Rockwell seem to be in general terms or about his person.

 

[Waxed]

I dislike Ken's contradictions, if you read closely, he's not consistent. He mixes fact, fiction and humor which may be confusing to those new to photography.

Some contradictions I have spotted - but they seem to be time related - he would declare something as the best ever and then declare something else as best ever. As to what facts and fiction he is mixing up - that I cannot really tell apart.

 

[Mike D90]

I really do not want to have spat with anyone - but - what exactly am I wrong about? It is not clear from above. Actually there are personal attack - I have highlighted them. Personal attacks are not just about swearing at someone. I just don't find it very useful having a go at someone with out saying why. See, saying what exactly is Rockwell is so wrong on would be useful to me and others - what isn't useful is attacking the person.

It is not clear at all what you are trying to point out. I cannot understand how you do not see what people have pointed out about Ken's site.

So to be more clear, Ken Rockwell pays big money to have his site rated at the top of a search engine. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Ken Rockwell pushes his advice towards people that are new to photography. Nothing wrong with that.

Ken Rockwell is not consistent with his own advice/reviews of equipment that newbies are going to read and listen too because Ken Rockwell is the very first thing they see when they do a search for photo equipment reviews. This is misleading to newbies and Ken should know better but instead he just copies and pastes a lot of his reviews onto a new page and changes the name of the item in review.

Ken Rockwell encourages people to send donations and claims that is how he "feeds his growing family" when that is not all true. He gets a lot of his money from pushing Adorama and some other products on his site. He is also not making his living from his photography either.

 

[Marcel]

Some contradictions I have spotted - but they seem to be time related - he would declare something as the best ever and then declare something else as best ever. As to what facts and fiction he is mixing up - that I cannot really tell apart.

Now is there any particular reasons you want to spend your time and ours trying to defend Mr R? Forums are places where people express themselves and are allowed their opinions. Your posts only question other peoples opinions and are not bringing anything constructive to the group. Maybe you should just let it be.

 

[Don Kuykendall_RIP]

I agree with Marcel 100% Time to let it be.

 

[Rick M]

Some contradictions I have spotted - but they seem to be time related - he would declare something as the best ever and then declare something else as best ever. As to what facts and fiction he is mixing up - that I cannot really tell apart.

I agree, I think he would help himself a lot (and others) by just cleaning up old material, that's the confusing and contradictory part to me.

 

[Dave_W]

Now is there any particular reasons you want to spend your time and ours trying to defend Mr R? Forums are places where people express themselves and are allowed their opinions. Your posts only question other peoples opinions and are not bringing anything constructive to the group. Maybe you should just let it be.

I agree 100%, especially if you've not been in the world of photography to fully understand why so many people dislike him. Give it some time, Waxed, and you'll come to see exactly what we're all saying. But for now, feel free to enjoy NR all you can. It's a free and open world where everyone has an opinion...

 

[gqtuazon]

Amen! I want to see more snow shots!

Seriously, for those who have been around forums, we are beating another "Dead horse", que the monthy video.

 

[Rick M]

From Ken's site,

"The SB-400 is Nikon's best flash" -credit-- Ken Rockwell

So I'm a new guy and I can get Nikon's "best" flash for $129. Fact, fiction or humor??

 

[Rick M]

For the record, when I was a newbie, I bought the SB400 on his advice (I'm confessing here). When realized it wasn't that great, I could only get $40 for it a year later. Then I bought one of Nikon's "best" flashes after I lost $89.

 

[Waxed]

Now is there any particular reasons you want to spend your time and ours trying to defend Mr R? Forums are places where people express themselves and are allowed their opinions. Your posts only question other peoples opinions and are not bringing anything constructive to the group. Maybe you should just let it be.

Yes. Of course there is a particular reason. As I have been reading his site a lot as newbie. And then seeing the sheer amount of vitriolic against the guy and not understanding it . . . that has made me question why.

"Your posts only question other peoples opinions and are not bringing anything constructive to the group."

Are you trying to deny I do not have the right to question? I am surprised - if it such a unimportant matter to you - why did you choose to respond? I have asked a legitimate question - namely that exactly what part of advice of Rockwell should I ignore? You response has added nothing to that debate.

And that question is bringing something very constructive.

 

[Waxed]

I agree with Marcel 100% Time to let it be.

Hi Don,

The thing is - you have chosen to respond! If it was to "let it be" - then no response is/was required. It is like the old riddle: what can be broken by saying it - silence.

Really - I have one question. What is it about Rockwell's advice that is so wrong. I and many other people - those who are new read his site - Now, character assassination is not what I am interested in at all . . . and simply wish to know what is so wrong about his site.

 

[Waxed]

I agree 100%, especially if you've not been in the world of photography to fully understand why so many people dislike him.

For what reason? If his advice is wrong - then that is what I am interested in - character assassination - no way. You see - the failure to verbalise exactly what is wrong with Rockwell - that speak volumes!

 

[Dave_W]

Thread getting ridiculous, time to close