What do you think about this channel? Photography is hobby for me, so maybe I dont recognize mistakes, Im pissed of influensers on youtube, bit Ill be happy if you write some good photography channels[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2018:01:14 16:02:40Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width950Image Height770
>>3686435stop self advertising you fat fuck
>>3686435Go die in a fire.
For every bad photo he took, he lost one hair and gained 100g.
insufferable asshole, I’m honestly baffled as to why his channel is so popular. Any time I come into proximity with a person like him it’s a bad day. You ever have a coworker like this guy who thinks his opinions are all hidden truths and is pissed at everyone else who exists?
>>3686435Fuck you ken. You 5G fatty.
>>3686435>some good photography channelsThomas Heaton, Nigel Danson, Mark Denney, David Johnston, Photo Tom, First Man Photography, Henry Turner (all landscape-centric, since I'm a landscaper). For gear and news, Christopher Frost, Gordon Laing and JCristina.
>>3686518Probably the same audience that visits the dpreview forums and overedits their mundane flickr shots. Boomers and gearfags are autistic.
>>3686591pot meet kettle
>>3686435scam artist con man
>>3686615copehttps://archive.nyafuu.org/p/thread/3631611/#3631921that's a racist analogy in 2020 as well check your privilege
Holy shit I watched his last video about the DSLR doom.This guy has the nerves to say he doesn't respect any other Camera reviewers on YT because they are shills when he's probably the biggest one of them all.The worst thing is that his favorite brand Fuji won't even acknowledge the man and provide him with a X-T4 sample. I find this hilarious.
>>3690360He's a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Fuji won't give him a camera because his photos suck.
>>3686582>Christopher Frostbased priest gearfag
>>3690684He's actually an incredibly vengeful person. I know because I interact with him on SAR disqus.If you ever get into a heated argument with him, and prove him wrong in the end, he just gets pissed and ignores you.And then he blocks you if you ever replies to him again.And then he publicly asked SAR admin to shadow ban me.I just made a new account after that.
>>3690726Sony Alpha (ironic) RumorsGearfag done outed himself
>>3690727I'm still saying the truth though.I just remembered a little bit wrong, it wasn't me he aimed at, but someone else. But he blocked me all the same.
>>3686780Lmao you’re fat and bald
>>3686497That would mean he actually has taken a single good image and he is far to bad of a photographer for that. Remember he stole images and claimed he took them?
>>368643520 minute long videos where he doesnt show any photos and when you look up his IG it’s worse than mediocre. He is a gearfag
I’ve watched a lot of his videos about lenses, only very recently did I see some of his pics.Holy shit he’s amateur. Some of his settings were just WTF? 3200iso on a fucking sunny say lmao.
>>3690753Ladies and gentlemen, the self-acclaimed world leader in magnetism, dead languages, niche buddhism and photographic technology.Einstein BTFO.
>>3691190also his website link is just www.youtube.com
>>3691347can you link, I'm so curious. I just watched one of his 5G conspiracy videos and it was insufferable
>>3691347>>3691506oh nevermind, found his flickr. It's just like photos my dad would email me taken around the yard mixed with the worst of /RPT/https://www.flickr.com/photos/134746128@N05/with/48694317543/
>>3686435this guy's the manifestation of /p. gear drama but shoot dirt?
>>3691508His flickr always cracks me up. Can you imagine owning a GFX 50R and using it to take this shot?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>3691347>Some of his settings were just WTF? 3200iso on a fucking sunny say lmao.This is something all those camera review people seem to do. I have no idea how it's possible, whenever I'm shooting during the day at 200 ISO at normal aperture ranges my shutter speed is somewhere in the 1/500, yet this dude has 800 ISO - 1/100 SS
>>3692418Ken doesn't know what he's doing, but neither do you if you think everyone is always aiming for "lowest ISO"There are a load of reasons someone might choose 800 iso 1/100 SS over 200 iso and 1/500The ability to freeze movement works both ways. Sometimes you can freeze motion *too much* and sterilize the image. 1/100 is more exciting to look at in sports than 1/500 is. iso 800 vs iso 200 is an undetetectable difference on most modern cameras, and 800 is actually peak dynamic range if you happen to be shooting jpegsThis is something with youtube retards, content makers and content consumers, they think they know more than they do because all their knowledge is rooted in third person experiences.Just use your camera. Turn off the youtube. It's not that hard.
>>3690360>>3690365That's not the case, Fujifilm would never associate with a man who peddles conspiracy theories relating to 5G and magnetism on his channel.
>>3692614i saw that too and cringed
>>3692424Every camera can be different. I had a point in shoot and auto white balanced worked better then manual.
>>3692424>The YouTubeOk. Boomer.
>>3692424You absolutely should be going for the lowest ISO unless you have a reason not to.Taking a posed pic of a stationary model in daylight essentially frees you from shutter speed decisions. The limits being the steadiness of your hand and limits of your flash sync or max shutter speed.3200ISO, shutter at 1/900th, daylight and flash.That’s just bad form.
>>3692403>spergs out on gear>can't shootyep it checks out[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution96 dpiVertical Resolution96 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width401Image Height600Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>3693516Not necessarily. You may have lower DR at higher ISO, but the range of DR changes too. You have more dynamic range for highlights at high ISO, and more dynamic range for shadows at low ISO.So there is sense for using higher ISO in bright light during the day.Not that Ken would know because he's a fucking spastic.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>3691508Fuck. That looks like the kind of shit I’d do when I first started.
>>3693933is this real? why does nobody talk about it?
>>3693933I never knew. Thanks !
>>3694030Does .4 stops of DR only affecting the highlights and in a narrow window of iso range affect your photos at all? Do you even own a camera?
>>3694053Not him but in the image it’s 1.3 stops from ISO 320 - 800.Makes me wonder how this differs between sensors, how it is affected by sensors with dual base iso. Also, why do video cameras like the black magic pocket have a native base ISO of 800?
Ken is a pedophile, one of the worst photographers I’ve ever seen and has shit opinions about lenses. He eats so much fucking cheese whizz you can hear it gurgling in his stomach into his esophagus from his microphone. He’s awful at everything he does and you should stop giving him attention like this because that’s the only reason he clings to his miserable existence.
>>3694192Everyone is a paedophile these days aren't they
>>3694192“ If humanity evolved from primordial slime pools, who gets to declare that the pedophile is a criminal and the croc is just functioning according to his evolved DNA?”- Ken
>>3694194I mean just look at him and tell me he isn’t one.
>>3694196That doesn't in and of itself prove that he is a paedophile. That just proves he's stupid and making an edgy boomer point.Paedophiles probably watch him to find out which is the best camera to aim out of the window with a 300mm to take snapshots of the kiddies thanks to that little comment though.
“The great lord Kenneth hungers. Squire, bring me another Doritos Locos Taco.”
>>3694214I read that in his fucking voice
The guy can't take pictures for shit, but he put me onto some good vintage lenses so I'm grateful for that.
He's very knowledgeable and knows tons of tricks, his problem is presentation, he has horrible social skills and doesn't know how to organize his thoughts and video formatting (presentation skills). His channel was just a way to cope for the death of his wife very shortly after his quick retirement and the subsequent mid-life crisis that did (he was a buddhist who read languages, cycled and ran as a hobby and who worked as a protog for himself and a couple of agencies to pay bills)But the majority of what he says holds truth for someone who made himself in an environment around quick photo shoots and camera maintenance, but he lives in a constant paradigm of defending all that makes photography art (microtonality in lenses, flawless cameras in terms of functionality, signal-to-noise sensor performance) but he himself always did stone cold stock photography (sports, events, business portraits) and never the former.Strange guy but i can trust what he says regarding lenses and technical quirks around gear. I don't know about magnetism and languages, and he rarely posts personal images. He strikes me as a very clinical and highly technical photographer (based on prints he flexed a couple of times) but who rarely dares to compose anything interesting, so basically what everyone here would like to be sans dead swedish wife. Certainly not a person for homo, sensible people.
>>3694030Isi has mentioned it in the past
>>3691508He's clearly just walking around, never stepping off the path, just panning each way looking at things and snapping pictures. No picture ever composed.
>>3699209i see you have bought into his bullshit. there's too much to address here, so i'll be brief and just say even what he says about technical quirks is generally completely breathtakingly wrong.as for lenses, a few years ago when he "talked about and reviewed" vintage lenses was the same time he was selling them on ebay to turn a quick buck. moreover the lenses he claims to recommend are 20 years+ in age, long enough for the shit to be forgotten about, so there's nothing special about them. also note they're almost always native lenses. notice he has almost nothing to say about contemporary lenses: you won't find a single good thing said about canon/pentax/sony/sigma/etc lenses, except gagging on fujis cock and sleeping with his boomer nikon lenses.he's a garbage person.
>>3699252>completely breathtakingly wrong.Weaver stance shooting with a left-hand index finger closed posture is a very sturdy position he claimed once and that's true enough. IR light on hotbox for IR cameras sounds obvious but he seems to be the only one mentioning that.>as for lenses>20 years+ in age, long enough for the shit to be forgotten about, so there's nothing special about them.That doesn't make sense other than saying he's repeating stuff people forgot about. In that case he does remind people of seemingly good stuff instead of pulling his pants and trying them for himself, but that doesn't make them "nothing worth noting">you won't find a single good thing said about canon/pentax/sony/sigma/etc lensesHe did use a couple of shit if YT recommendation section is reliable. I recall he praised Tamron's new 35mm and i recall also he said Canon FD stuff is usually great, which doesn't seem like a revelation but there's that. Old Pentax stuff appeared in some of those old vids and i suppose he doesn't say anything good about Sigma due to their build quality and "resolution in spite of microcontrast" oil he keeps feeding people. Fat bastard doesn't own new Sony and Canon cameras, no wonder he doesn't touch them.>his boomer nikon lenses.lol go to sleep timmy, never said he was a good lad