MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Stock Discussion => Topic started by: digiology on February 12, 2009, 22:53
-
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm
-
Well, that was a worthless read. ::)
-
I guess I'm 1 in 1,000,000 monkeys. On a related note, here are me and my friends celebrating a good download day:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44Y-_JAjAwE[/youtube]
-
really?? ??? who's Ken and who cares what he thinks?... in-depth.. give me a break and tell him to stop wasting our time..
Cheerio
-
Wow, what a bunch of uninformed tripe.
He even slags Rinder, whom I'm guessing wanted him to write about this in order to get some exposure for his CD.
-
I found that quite funny to read actually. Says at the end I know of stock photography well dont comment on it then and bad mouth it when you have never tried it yourself lol
-
I'll be candid here. Micro was definitely not my first choice, but economics here a few years ago dictated that I search more revenue streams. I did research first, then made my choice. It's been good.
As far as Ken, well whaddya want from a pompous a$$? I stopped looking at that site long ago. I did look at the article though, and he made quite the fool of himself. Not what I would call advice from a trusted business person.
Wouldn't it be funny if he was slumming in micro using an alias?
-
Read his disclaimer here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
It may make things bit less serious.
-
He even slags Rinder, whom I'm guessing wanted him to write about this in order to get some exposure for his CD.
I don't think he slags Laurin Rinder, he claims to be a pal of Rinder.
It's the quality of Laurin Rinders book that he slags, I can only imagine what he would have said about it if they weren't friends!
He states - "I've never researched anyplace else to learn about this, so Laurin's CD is the only source I know."
So his summary of the microstock industry is based on Laurin Rinder and his book, and then he has come to the conclusion that microstock is 'snapshots taken by monkeys'
Reading through some other forums it appears that Ken Rockwell is generally known to provide information that others respect, maybe he should have done some more research on this occassion from a better source.
-
This is how bloggers get rich...
-
that's right move along nothing to see here, all you can make is a measely 25c on Istock, not worth wasting your time with, do you want to be just another one of the monkeys.
-
Great pal of Rinder: he says the book is overpriced and 60% are photography tips you already know. Some pimper posted his link on SS too. I've seen better blogs ;D
-
He claims to be a pal of Rinders, but would a pal say what he said about his Microstock book? With friends like that, who needs enemies. If I was talking about something from a true pal, I would be trying to help him not beat him down.
-
Ken Rockwell is a tool. No one respects the guy - if you go over to the Fred Miranda forums, and post anything with a title - Ken Rockwell - you will get 50 replies in 20 minutes. Its hilarious and I don't take him seriously and in my opinion, everyone shouldn't either, or not at least without a giant cube of salt
-
I don't know if someone posted this before me, but it's on the subject:
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts
With this occassion I read a bit more from his blog, saw his photos, etc. I really have no idea why this guy is so popular. Perhaps because of the irony he provokes. Popular like.... don quijote. Or benny hill. People make fun of him and spread the word.
-
Whether you like or dislike Ken Rockwell doesn't get away from the fact that this Laurin Rinder guy has tried to use him to bump up his books profile, which then backfired.
The result is that this Ken Rockwell has based his opinions of everybody concerned in microstock and the stock industry in general on what some amatuer snapper has fed him.
At least his book review was honest!
-
I must admit that 'article' is embarrassingly poorly researched. Having said that, the more potential competitors that are dissuaded from selling their images through microstock, the better as far I'm concerned.
Ken first came to my attention back in 2005 with a well written argument in favour of shooting JPEG rather than RAW __ flying straight in the face of every other article on the subject of course. I suspect that alone would have been enough for many to have deemed him the 'Antichrist' of photography.
He appears to have updated the article since then but it is still a good read;
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
-
He claims to be a pal of Rinders, but would a pal say what he said about his Microstock book? With friends like that, who needs enemies. If I was talking about something from a true pal, I would be trying to help him not beat him down.
I'm surprised Rinder hasn't commented on all of this, no doubt he's trying to contact all the site owners to get the posts removed.
Failing that he'll fall back on his usual 'I don't have time for all the haters, too busy helping others' crap.
I think it's the funniest thing I've read in a long time.
-
I hate ignorant people ("LOL")
-
Let's read it the way it should be read...
Ken Rockwell traduction
Microstock photography is something I don't know about. You get paid whatever I never sold nothing myself. I write reviews about cameras before they get released. You know, no need to work making photographs.
Microstock photographers upload tons of images just for the fun of it. I heard nobody getting paid in that industry. I live somewhere in the north pole where I can see nobody except santa claus when he want a cofee with me.
I talk about Istockphoto without ever notice that you can be paid up to 10 dollars for an image. Why would anyone would hire a pro again I asked myself a day. A little voice in my head say to me, Ken thats internet, the future we are in 2009. To forget about it, I put on my black and white television to see if we finally goes on the moon.
I tried myself to achieve microstock images quality and technics but I can hardly use what they call, the layers. Seriously what's that?? Also why all images are "isolated" on white. They have no creativity ?
I read a book about microstock. I can't hardly understand the meaning of the sentences. I'll try again with my animals story books tommorow.
-
I don't know if someone posted this before me, but it's on the subject:
[url]http://www.bahneman.com/liem/blog/article.php?story=Ken_Rockwell_Facts[/url]
With this occassion I read a bit more from his blog, saw his photos, etc. I really have no idea why this guy is so popular. Perhaps because of the irony he provokes. Popular like.... don quijote. Or benny hill. People make fun of him and spread the word.
Ah... methinks this link has something to do with the Chuck Norris post on SS front page last week.... I was curious about the connection but not that curious to read the post.
-
What a useless and confused piece of writing.
He starts off by referring to Microstock, a bit of its history and what it is. Then he switches to a review of Laurin's CD. Then he finishes off with:
Again, I know nothing of micrtostock and leave it to you to figure out if it makes sense for you. I hear there are plenty of full-time pros who do it.
So why write this rambling rubbish in the first place? A complete waste of screen space. And doesn't inspire confidence in the other stuff on his site.
-
What a useless and confused piece of writing.
He starts off by referring to Microstock, a bit of its history and what it is. Then he switches to a review of Laurin's CD. Then he finishes off with:
Again, I know nothing of micrtostock and leave it to you to figure out if it makes sense for you. I hear there are plenty of full-time pros who do it.
So why write this rambling rubbish in the first place? A complete waste of screen space. And doesn't inspire confidence in the other stuff on his site.
That is easy, his pal pressured him into it. The only bad press is NO press
-
The article is wildly inaccurate, but in its favor, at least it's short, and it has a tone that anyone with a modicum of sense will recognize as not caring enough to do proper research. But that's always been my impression of Ken Rockwell; where Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com) puts effort into both research and explaining and justifying his opinions, Rockwell seems to delight in expressing how little effort goes into his.
A photographer friend of mine met both Hogan and Rockwell. She listens to Rockwell, not because he's more knowledgeable, or more understandable, or more comprehensive. No, it's because Hogan was unapproachable in person, where Rockwell was a nice guy. Me, I'll take the crank with the reasoned opinions, thank you very much.
(Oh, and for the record, Mr. Rockwell, sometimes those $.25 sales aren't. Like that $28 extended license I got today from Shutterstock...)
-
I guess I'm 1 in 1,000,000 monkeys. On a related note, here are me and my friends celebrating a good download day:
I think we all need to relax and consider the source. He compares himself to The Onion and is just doing what he likes.
Watching one CD and calling "research" is already a contradiction and admission that he did nothing, and spent little effort, to look into Micro.
Although his wording isn't perfect, I doubt that he was calling anyone a monkey. His allusion was that if you had 1 million monkeys shooting photos, some would be good. It's an insult but I don't see him saying that people who do this are monkeys.
It's known as the infinite monkey theorem:
There are many versions, including a mathematical probability formula.
Eddington, 1929
... If I let my fingers wander idly over the keys of a typewriter it might happen that my screed made an intelligible sentence. If an army of monkeys were strumming on typewriters they might write all the books in the British Museum.
Also: Given enough time, a hypothetical chimpanzee typing at random would, as part of its output, almost surely produce one of Shakespeare's plays
Darn, just when I was going to ask for my personal Monkey Number ID. ;D
Even if he was referring to us, he's a bit high as the number of active contributors is probably closer to 30,000. The number of people who shoot microstock on a regular basis is even lower, and the percentage making their full time income is most likely 2-4%. (I think that's optimistic, but I wanted to be fair) That doesn't mean someone can't or that someone shouldn't, it's just looking at the facts. It's not an easy business and it's not the way to quick money with those "snapshots, sitting on your computer" ::)
His example using SS 25c for a $1 download, is the worst case, everything from there on and on other sites, is better. So much for fairness? So not only is his so called research nearly non-existent, he's chosen the lowest pay per image example. Nowhere does he consider that SS has more volume, while other MS sites pay more with less sales.
I suppose I'm not the only math wizard here, but he says half the CD is things we already knew and 40% is about how to make money with microstock. So what's the other 10 percent?
The best I can say about his snippet is is that it's short!
-
I suppose I'm not the only math wizard here, but he says half the CD is things we already knew and 40% is about how to make money with microstock. So what's the other 10 percent?
Probably Rinder telling how he's been in the industry for years and that he shoots like Photoshop doesn't exist, or some other fanatsy.
-
I suppose I'm not the only math wizard here, but he says half the CD is things we already knew and 40% is about how to make money with microstock. So what's the other 10 percent?
Probably Rinder telling how he's been in the industry for years and that he shoots like Photoshop doesn't exist, or some other fanatsy.
Hahaha... Richard, you surely have something with him. I wonder if you're the reason for which Laurin Rinder doesn't come around helping people here on msg too... ???
:D :D :D
-
Don't you hate it when one of the 1,000,000 monkey writers out there try their hand at some subject which they barely know and hype it as in-depth. He admits he doesn't know much about microstock at the end of the piece. WHAT??? Then why write about it at all if the monkey knows nothing about the industry.
Just another case of the stock boys looking back and not some hobbyist photographer looking forward. Look out, here we come, FAST!!!
-
Hahaha... Richard, you surely have something with him. I wonder if you're the reason for which Laurin Rinder doesn't come around helping people here on msg too... ???
:D :D :D
Oh I'm sure it is, I don't do anything to him other than ask him to provide proof of what he say's, if he chooses to avoid me that's his choice and we can guess what his reasons are.
I am quite surprised though that Shutterstock have allowed five pages of people personally insulting this Ken Rockwell guy just because he said what he did about Rinders book.
-
I don't think ss gives a * about rinders book, frankly. But the rockwell dude called all of us monkeys and so on. Now you can expect everyone to bash him in various ways :D - and the guy really deserves it.
Rinder's book - well, I'm not in the target audience, I don't know what's inside. I can only guess but... I suspect that I can't really add anything more valuable to what you can (and did) say about this matter ;)
-
Rockwell may not know anything about stock, but he knows a heckuva lot about photography in a technical sense. If he sounds puzzled about how stock works, or why anyone would do it - maybe that's because he thought about this logically for 5 minutes and realized that for all but a few dedicated pros, there couldn't possibly be any money in it. Is he wrong? I don't think so.
-
Rockwell may not know anything about stock, but he knows a heckuva lot about photography in a technical sense. If he sounds puzzled about how stock works, or why anyone would do it - maybe that's because he thought about this logically for 5 minutes and realized that for all but a few dedicated pros, there couldn't possibly be any money in it. Is he wrong? I don't think so.
You are right. No money to be made here...
-
Again, I know nothing of micrtostock [sic] and leave it to you to figure out if it makes sense for you.
The quote above from the post should have been at the beginning of the rant so that no one had to read it.
-
I guess I'm 1 in 1,000,000 monkeys.
See how this works? Nothing personal or really about MicroStock. It's got to be one of his catch phrases. One more comment from "Monkey Boy" ;D
March 2009 CES: Sony's $500 DSC-HX1's only clever new feature takes "spray and pray" photography to a new low. "Spray and pray" is how people who don't understand composition try to photograph, much like millions of monkeys banging away randomly on typewriters might hope to write like Vonnegut. Spray and pray is where you shoot everything at random, and hope that God helps you sort out what you got and maybe that there is one good photo by dumb luck.
-
The cold truth of the 2/12 blog post about Microstock is that is the reality of perception of this industry by most pros. I don't know anything about Ken Rockwell, never heard of him before I saw this thread but I have heard similar comments countless times by very well established professional photographers that won't even entertain the thought of submitting their work for such small money.
I worry the reality for all but a select few of them may be a bit grim in the future if they aren't willing to open their minds and at least listen, read or do any form of research. Photography is a constantly and rapidly evolving industry and if we don't work hard to keep up with the trends we'll all be dinosaurs some day.
That's my .02 for what it's worth.
Mat
-
The domain for sprayandpray.com is taken BTW.
Be on the lookout for a new micro site announcement any time now. ;D ;D