Custom Search
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 3.4K All Categories
- 34 Nikon Z lenses
- 77 Nikon Z cameras
- 1.4K Nikon DSLR cameras
- 11 Df
- 237 D6x0/D7x0/D8x0
- 27 D300/D300s/D500
- 29 D3x00
- 45 D3/D4/D5
- 31 D5x00
- 94 D90/D7x00
- 387 Nikon Lenses
- 9 Videos, Nikon et. al.
- 52 Nikon 1
- 18 Nikon Film Cameras
- 56 Nikon Flashes
- 25 Nikon Compact Cameras
- 48 Nikon Software
- 26 Nikon Deals
- 767 General Discussions
- 49 Gear Reviews
- 182 Other Manufacturers
- 105 Fun & Weird
- 128 Photo-a-day
In this Discussion
Who's Online (0)
Disclaimer: This site has no affiliation with Nikon Corporation or any of its subsidiary.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Disclosure: [NR] is sponsored by displaying advertising banners and links.
All trademarks and brands belong to their respective owners.
Want to advertise on NikonRumors.com? Contact [NR].
Copyright © 2008-2017 NikonRumors.com.
See our Privacy Policy.
Comments
Negative press is indeed a form of advertising but at some point enough people will gather around, flag his videos, report him for libel, etc. and YouTube will have to ban him.
I'm less concerned about the money he makes and more concerned with the innocent people he brain washes.
I don't really care if a reviewer is a good photographer if their claims are accurate. They don't need a certain style to say the wifi module for a Canon camera is ridiculously expensive. TAP could be the worlds worst photographer, and if his claims about micro-contrast were correct, he would have given something to the photographic community. Good formula 1 racing car drivers aren't necessarily good engineers, and if I wanted to know something about an engine, I might prefer to ask the driver's team instead of the driver himself. Someone could say TAP is neither a driver nor an engineer, but my original post isn't about hating him, it's not about loving who you like. It is objective information that you can produce and so far I've yet to see a valid response from him. I simply cannot fathom why people still believe his claims and it's effecting the industry.
I must admit though that I did buy a low element 60 year old 58mm Helios lens just to experiment with the swirly bokeh effect it produces and a low element 60 year old 135mm f4 Jupiter-11 lens just to see what type of portraits it can produce, both from Russia. http://stores.ebay.com/Vintage-photo-equipment-and-other/_i.html?rt=nc&_sid=264729025&_sop=10 I was surprised how easy it is to use old screw mount lenses with modern Nikon digital bodies by using Manual mode and auto ISO. Fun, but MF is too slow for my "normal" use. I still want AF lenses. It is true though that you surely don't need any more sharpness than was available 60 years ago to make pleasing photos.
Regarding the "objective information", you quite clearly took that out of context (I was obviously referring to the images and methodology regarding my argument that his lens review showed misleading information) and are now effectively using a strawman fallacy rather than attacking my original argument.
However, I do believe a certain number of people will be swayed from buying specific hardware he says is bad and will also be swayed towards buying specific hardware he recommends. His videos have enough "likes" and his channel has enough followers for me to believe at least one person is swayed by him.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/134746128@N05/29862664812/in/dateposted/
In this link above, which I have proven to be misleading, the comments are quite complimentary of his findings and comments like this "At first glance, the f 1.4 appears brighter and with greater edge sharpness, but upon more critical examination, the f2 delineates more shades of gray than the 1.4 before attaining 255 level density. You have an uncommonly keen eye to discern this" would suggest said user(s) will avoid said equipment based on said "results."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ-TiX25ixQ&lc=z12cynsi4qruutdd1222f3l4trj1x54rs04
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JuqgS5KC2E&lc=z121shqa3ruytn2ew22wcz3qrpqhsffte
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-myKrhrPVA&lc=z13zv3spyrixy35xg04chhwgzozdyrbolpw0k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-myKrhrPVA&lc=z12jxbvbmuyxdtsei23iwx2iurzhv1ol5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dLH3VYSphE&lc=z12vsbu5hxajwpi0r22gfbxiwtrkvpqen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dLH3VYSphE&lc=z12bthl4spq0xxxrf04cgbpaqnvastuagm40k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dLH3VYSphE&lc=z12dfrprazaiy3ik122linqqstfzenkik04
These people look influenced by his verbal diarrhoea.
A person can sit outside of an Apple store and scream at all the potential customers not to buy an iPhone because iPhone's are made with the parts of crushed rabbit skulls. It's defamation regardless of the exact statistics. I'm sorry, I don't follow. What does that have to do with the discussion? Unless you are suggesting you bought it based upon his recommendation, in which case you're getting close to refuting your own argument.
If you're interested in old lenses, this blog is good in my opinion.
By all means, make a thread countering Ken Rockwell's 3,000+ videos where he berates other photographers, misleads the audience with erroneous tests, calls others "idiots", "cockroaches", etc. But this is not the thread for that. Are you going to continue to bring up Ken Rockwell or discuss what I have said? If not, there's little reason to respond to you further. I hope you understand.
https://youtu.be/zQ-TiX25ixQ?t=304 http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/add_aqa_pre_2011/atomic/differentsubrev1.shtml
-- Interesting.
Policing can exist in the form of, 1. The companies and individuals attacked should stop keep ignoring the problem and file legal notices with YouTube (it is illegal not to announce you are sponsored by a company/get free products, but it is also illegal to do what The Angry Photographer does and claim people are sponsored, corporate shills, puppets, etc. when they are not) 2. A petition can be signed wherein internet photographers or just people a part of the photographic community stick together. 3. Flagging videos. 4. Disproving some of the nonsense in a civil way so that those who blindly follow him will be educated. It has to be civil as followers will just assume the person points are invalid otherwise.
You keep bringing up Ken Rockwell, Fro Knows Photo, etc. but (and please accept this is a genuine question, I am not being rhetorical), have they made 3,000+ videos attacking other photographers in an unlawful (this is my key point here, I don't care whether someone likes or dislikes him; his behaviour is unlawful) manner and have they mislead the audience with erroneous testing you can prove is erroneous in a similar fashion to what I have shown? You might suggest someone buys a Canon 6D Mk 2 and I think it's a ridiculous suggestion, but that's not necessarily misleading people in a cruel way. Telling people you should buy the Canon 6D Mk 2 because the Nikon equivalent will self destruct as the magnesium body will oxidise and short the main board, when magnesium oxide does not conduct electricity, is different. Do said other photographers also attack others using thinly veiled descriptions, "I cannot remember his name, but the guy with the big hair who sniffs cameras, you know the guy I'm talking about, RIGHT!?" I believe The Angry Photographer knows what he is doing is wrong so he tries to hide some of names who is defames/slanders but I haven't seen the photographers you've mentioned do that. Admittedly, I haven't watched all of their videos (this has already taken up too much of my time, haha) but I've seen quite a few of Jason Laniers. This is entirely subjective, of course, but there's something I don't like about a lot of his videos (there's lots I like about them too). I'm certainly not his biggest fan and obviously I'm not going to like everyone on YouTube, but I have not heard him endlessly abuse other photographers. He does tend to push Sony a lot, I think he sees them as the underdog, plus he's sponsored by them and he's very quick to announce this. You kind of know what you're getting with him; it's less shady and his behaviour is not illegal. I also think people can and have learned a lot from him as a photographer but even if they didn't, my argument isn't about policing bad content; it's about policing illegal and fraudulent content.
We can all ignore The Angry Photographer, that's fair enough. We can leave only the people easily influenced to listen to his videos and swallow up the nonsense (which seems to be a lot by the way; I watched one of his new videos and within a short period of time after it was uploaded, several people were all agreeing with his nonsense, in the comment section) i.e. we show our asses. But at some point, I believe it's going to bite us in the proverbial behind. It might not be at 100k followers, it might not be at 200k followers, but I believe it will happen.
I also strongly believe that if Sony supporters (and this is just one silly example) didn't have to spend so much time defending themselves against ridiculous claims, there'd be a greater chance of them sticking together and getting some useful features in the cameras e.g. split focus view, EFCS auto disable (beyond 1/2000 sec this would disable banding), crop-mode stills/video independent, better menu system, etc.
You might essentially be in complete disagreement with me as to what impact he has on the community and the photographic industry, but my prediction is that people will begin to regret not doing something about him while they could.
If you would like to see more evidence of his influence, join his live chat sometime. You will see people say, "should I buy this or this?" and he'll obviously give a bad suggestion, and then the person will donate $20 and say "THANK YOU FOR THE SUGGESTION!!" It's sad.
Yes, others have engaged in personal attacks on Ken. Check this out starting at 47:18 and 53:28 www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ny3p7dx2-o And the response www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWFCgcaACOw There are other examples including Jason Lanier slamming TAP with personal comments and TAPs response. Of course, TAP has videos responding to them. Some people find this type of conflict entertaining. Compare Trump vs. Fake News CNN.
As to TAP's "illegal or unlawful" behavior, I have to say I am a lawyer, in fact a trial lawyer. I have spend about 50 years in the law and don't detect "illegal or unlawful" behavior in Ken's videos even though I do detect that many of the things he says are wrong and he should know better if he is half as smart as he thinks he is. Wrong isn't necessarily "illegal or unlawful." If you feel otherwise report him to youtube, to the police, or sue him. "Illegal or unlawful" behavior is behavior for which the law provides a mechanism for punishment or compensation. If you think "people should do something about him" you are free to "do something about him" such as your efforts to disprove his claims about the Nikon 105 f1.4 not having microcontrast.
Specifically as to the two photos he posted which he claims prove the 105 f1.4s lack of microcontrast I too noticed one seemed brighter than the other and wondered if that was due to different T-stops but I did not try to find the T-stop for each of the lenses to see if that was the reason for the difference in brightness. I too wondered if the added brightness masked some of the microcontrast. However, rather than try to disprove TAP I just searched for and watched other photographers reviews of the same lens.
If the lens has great sharpness that very sharpness should "see" microcontrast so TAP's opinions become "disproven" by the consistency of other reviews without a need to try to perform tests to show his examples are misleading. Check out
www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-105mm-F1.4E-ED-review-The-best-performing-lens-in-the-lineup-below-200mm
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKkEKy7nU-Q
www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5lUOY9qlxs&t=775s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUHbSVaUO9o
and many others.
The internet is like a buffet in which some of the food is good and some is terrible. Choose carefully and wisely. Personally, I am not going to buy the Nikon 105 f1.4 for two reasons: 1. I have the Nikon 105 f2 DC which is sufficient for me. F2 is good enough, I don't need to shoot at f1.4 when I can get the same effect by simply moving the subject further away from the background outdoors. 2. It is far too expensive. I would rather purchase the Sigma Art 135 f1.4 for less money.
Finally, even if TAP was correct that the 105 f1.4 lacks microcontrast a portrait lens is not supposed to show every imperfection on the skin. That is why we go to all the effort to use soft light for portraits, isn't it? Personally, I think an important factor in a portrait lens is if it can resolve individual eyelashes. If so, it is sharp enough and had enough microcontrast. As I mentioned in an earlier post even a 60 year old Jupiter 135mm f4 lens can do that.
You can keep ranting about Ken Rockwell ad nauseam; I'm not interested in fallacious nonsense like that. If you can link me to any evidence suggesting he behaves in the same manner as The Angry Photographer, I'll certainly check it out. I'm aware, and it's important we don't do that, in my opinion, because if we do the point is lost amongst the insults. I don't support their behaviour, not because it's mean (what isn't shown is the private emails of abuse The Angry Photographer sends), but because it doesn't counter arguments in a logical fashion. Someone can claim to be a rocket scientist (in real life or on the internet) but unless their argument(s) is(are) valid regarding the topic(s) they're discussing, then their self-proclaimed profession (true or otherwise) has little worth to me. Whether you've detected something has little relevance to me. The question was, "we don't want internet police, do we?" and I answered accordingly. You're now trying to refute one small portion of my argument using argumentum ad verecundiam.
I also believe he is aware his comments are in some cases unlawful which is why he goes to great lengths to "forget" the names of those he is attacking, but he gives his audience a great description of them so you know exactly who he is talking about. Occasionally he remembers names though. Not everyone is as sensible, and he does his job at convincing people other reviewers are not worth listening to because the authors are "cooperate shills", "puppets", "idiots", "cockroaches", etc.
From what I can tell, his strategy seems to consist of a few basic steps --
1. Inappropriate self-deprecating behaviour as a means to be liked by a few people
2. Insult people and discredit them so that they cannot be used as a source of information
3. Present misleading information
4. Insult people further i.e. dig a hole under them to elevate himself
5. Repeat himself^3
If you follow what he says, other reviews are of no use to you because they're influenced by money, the authors are "paid puppets" and the authors are too idiotic to know what they're doing.
Again, I haven't seen other YouTube photographers behave in this way, and even if they had, I don't think it changes my argument. All of which he discredits in some way as a means to influence his audience.
I hope you're right. I hope time will prove he has little influence on the community. I hope he hasn't harmed any businesses, etc. I really do.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4tQPFIkO8A
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aul7DLhqeS8
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOC-VRfCt0Y&t=74s
As to whether or not I have vast experience in the law you don't have to rely in my word for it, you can find a short version of my resume on-line here: http://www.joseandassociates.com/resume.html If you clink on the link to my detailed resume you will find 11 pages of material.
As to your penchant for "finding or detecting" arguments resting on logical fallacies, that is a key part of effective cross-examination so I have been alert to false arguments for more than 50 years. It's a trial lawyer's "bread and butter."
I could go on about the personality type Ken likely has and which accounts or much of his behavior but I won't. Just notice the difference between the person you see in one of his "normal" videos and the person you see when he interacts with Jason in the above videos.
I believe regular people are good at sitting by and doing nothing for a while. Hitler would never have been as successful as he was if people were wired differently, in my opinion. It's not like he tried to rule the world all in one night; he made many speeches.
Totally off topic but I'm curious... did you buy The Angry Photographer a watch? He mentioned a lawyer had bought him a watch.
I've seen the videos; they were both my favourite and most disgusting videos at the same time, lol. I agree, Jason Lanier handled it well.
Hitler made a few nice speeches and he paid his soldiers well, but that doesn't justify what he did. The Angry Photographer could be a real peach in real life, but it changes nothing.
I genuinely didn't notice a big difference with the videos. From what I can tell, both personality types of The Angry Photographer are fake; he dodged questions, interacted in an abnormal manner, showed a severe lack in knowledge regarding photography, deliberately raised his pitch when talking at specific moments, and used inappropriate self deprecating behaviour as a defensive manoeuvre. Admittedly the "get them before they get you" attitude wasn't presented, but he seemingly replaced that with amplified self deprecation. In my opinion, when someone self deprecates like that, it makes it hard for people like Jason Lanier to hammer points because they end up feeling sorry for the guy.
What I would have liked to have seen was for Jason Lanier to play back videos where The Angry Photographer has called Jason Lanier a corporate shill, defamed businesses and individuals, accused others of being dishonest, called people cockroaches, idiots, and at the end of it all said "if chromatic aberration is true rendered depth, then how come it exists when we photograph a flat plane e.g. a book?"
Instead, Jason Lanier was too gentle, The Angry Photographer was a bit apologetic (to get out of a difficult situation) and he was given a platform to tell lies like "it was never personal." Amusingly, he preached about how arguments should not be personal and we're discussing cameras, not family members. Less than 24 hours before making that statement, he had emailed me a lot of personal abuse, telling me I was a retard, brain damaged, used racial slurs, etc.
I think Jason Lanier was extremely professional, extremely civil given the circumstance and my respect for him increased dramatically, so in that sense I was impressed and liked the videos.
At this point, I feel I have made my opinions clear and I don't think he's going to respond to what I said in a logical manner, someone is not going to directly counter my original argument and I'm certainly not going to get that game of chess. The offer is still open.
It's probably best I stop saying as much now, especially as it'll leave him room to attack a minutiae point and circumvent an objective discussion.
It's a bit disappointing you still don't get my point of view and I wonder if it's because you have an irrational hatred towards Ken Rockwell, so you assume I have one of the Angry Photographer i.e. you're projecting. It might also be my fault for using words like "sad" that suggest an emotional response. I could love him to death, but I would still want him silenced. I see him, his arguments and his videos as harmful to a community I care about, and I predict a future wherein he has effected the sales of items I buy and the knowledge of fellow photographers. One suggestion I have would be to read what I originally said as if artificial intelligence had written it i.e. information was provided, arguments were presented and a conclusion was given. That way, this touchy-feely ad hominem fallacious stuff you keep trying to bait me with can be laid to rest.
This kind of argumentation might work in an American courtroom but it would get thrown out in discovery here.
I have not tried to "bait" you. I have tried to talk reason and sense. We have been through this before many years ago with Ken Rockwell and he is still doing just fine with his website and photo tours no matter how many people bash him on photo sites and disagree with a lot of the things he says. I have not attacked you or even explained how many of your claimed "fallacies" are actually incorrect. There are a lot of errors in what you write; but I did not point those out and will not. It is not about you. You have expressed your anger with Ken Wheeler and we all have listened to what you said. I have just responded that the internet is a free "buffet" and anyone can post "a dish" in the "buffet."
Some hosts do "police" what they allow posted on their site. For example, I once posted some boudoir shots on facebook and someone reported me to facebook for posting "illegal content." I did not remove my photos because I wanted to see what the "rules" were. Facebook opened a case on my photos and ruled they did not violate facebook rules because they did not show nipples or pubic hair. I don't know what type of rules youtube has. Why don't you contact them and debate Ken's videos with them? Perhaps youtube will "silence" him.
Discussing it further here is not going to get anyone anywhere. I have made my comments and will no longer post in this thread. Good luck to you with Ken. Maybe you should meet him like Jason Lanier did? If so, please make a video of your discussion with him and post it on youtube.
I'm going to check his site because I'm not too familiar with the guy. There's a spaghetti monster behind you and he communicates with me. He's told me various things, but I won't provide any evidence... Back to planet earth...
Argumentum ad hominem; fabricated quote, and you've spelled fallacies incorrectly. Pardon me for finding irony in that. Then you've failed miserably because your arguments have been illogical, fallacious, off topic and nonsensical. I've not expressed any anger; you're imagining things or you've simply misunderstood something. Certain things I won't discuss publicly e.g. specific types of action I may or may not take. I can share that I've seen to it that he won't be posting amazon reviews any time soon, and his old reviews have been removed. In that sense, I've already won one battle. If that happens, I will most certainly post a video.
I have absolutely no qualms with comparisons between other types of YouTube photographers being made, but I'd love to see evidence showing they're indeed comparable. I hope this post doesn't seem like I'm trying to degenerate the thread further, I'm really not. This isn't a "hater" vs "fanboy" childish personal thing for me; it's a dislike for misleading disinformation, libellous comments and whatnot. I think it's important people recognise that, otherwise the argument soon generates into argumentum ad hominem.
donaldejose - if you would like to discuss any off topic stuff further, feel free to PM me. I've sent you a PM as I don't want there to be any hard feelings.