View Camera Magazine

For the last few years I've been purchasing View Camera Magazine. Well, much of the latest issue on digital equipment reads like a running non-stop advertisement. The articles seem aligned with the digital-equipment companies (one article is immediately followed by an full-page ad), without much evidence of independent judgement. I know that at least one of the people involved in the magazine is a "test sight" for Epson printers, and I cannot help thinking that others are also receiving free equipment in exchange for their endorsements. There is no declaimer in the magazine that I can find. I, of course, may be absolutely wrong in my suspicions, but the line between article and advertisement seems very much blurred in this issue. I appreciate this periodical. I'd like to see it continue to be published, but I am wondering if others also feel that the publisher needs to be told in public that the magazine would serve photographers better as an honest forum, with criticism as well as praise, with well-reasoned doubts as well as hopes, as new technologies enter into the field.

Have always looked forward to View camera and Camera Arts mags, but

their latest issues may be the end.Digital lobbyist have invaded

their offices.They both have always had (mostly) true forms of

photography but now its all so artificial.Have to start my own mag I

suppose.Oh,Black and White mag is still about 95% non digital.

I understand your concerns in your post. Even though the digital

process won't affect my work for some time, I appreciated the real-

life product names and their opinions on how they were used. The

large format digital marketplace isn't exactly the easiest place to

find out about all of the available tools and toys, due to a small

group of people who can afford them.

 

<p>

 

Although I look forward to more and more articles on silver-based

printing processes, this issue was a welcomed 'new look' at the

state of digital for large format. Could there be a more independent

view? I suppose so. However, I seriously doubt Steve Simmons would

accept any products for article space.

Ignoring for a moment whether there is quid pro quo affecting

articles and ads in View Camera, I think the most disturbing thing

I saw in the issue was the article on "View Cameras in a Digital

World". The images used in the article are fine when viewed from a

distance of 3 or 4 feet, but if you look at them from a normal

reading distance, all but one are unacceptably unsharp. I'm talking

about resolution, not focus. Five years ago this would have been

fine, but when you are using a Sinar camera for product photography,

and proclaiming ours to be a "digital world", I expect the final

image to rival film, and this doesn't come close. The article is not

of great length, it does point out some of the limitations of the

digital medium, and it underscored the ease of use of the images

after they are made as a big plus. However, as an "advertisement"

that might attract film users to ditch their film and go over the

wall, it fails. This is where I find fault with the magazine: I

would not expect them to devote space to less than the best examples

of traditional film images, either from an artistic or technical

standpoint, so this should apply to digital as well. I don't think

that if they are going to feature digital I should have to back up a

ways to make it look right.

I belong to a Portland organization that hosted a View Camera Festival

last year. It was a neat event, and we had some excellent

photographers who presented. One of them was Charles Cramer, an LF

photographer who scans 4x5 transparencies to a 250 megabyte file,

manipulates them in Photoshop, and then prints them on a Laserlite

(sic?) printer. As I understand it, the Laserlite exposes silver

based papers that are developed in the characteristic fashion.

 

<p>

 

His images were stunning. The color was beautiful, with intense reds,

oranges, etc., given the particular photograph being reproduced. They

were also large, some of them measuring 20x24 and larger. (See

www.anseladamsgallery.com.)

 

<p>

 

We also had a commercial photographer, Gregory Ross, who uses the same

approach in his work, and they both agreed that they liked having the

control that Photoshop provides, but that digital capture could not

provide the "zing" which could be obtained from silver transparencies.

The point being made is that "digital" can work well with traditional

silver to perhaps provide more than either of these mediums is capable

of providing alone.

 

<p>

 

When digital was first introduced, I was critical of Shutterbug for

placing so much emphasis on this new form of photography. But as

Monterey photographer Richard Newman points out, the photographer

provides that insite into what makes a unique and interesting image.

Thereafter, he/she should use those tools that best help him to

realize that image in a photographic form.

There's a symbiotic relationship between sellers of photography

equipment on the one hand and photography publications on the other.

Anyone who stands to make money from sales of photography equipment

loves digital because, unlike traditional equipment that was

relatively inexpensive and lasted a lifetime, a lot of digital stuff

is very expensive and becomes obsolete quickly. Historically sellers

of photography equipment had a problem - the equipment was too good,

it lasted too long. Digital has solved that problem. Instead of

buying one or two cameras, one set of lenses, one enlarger, one set

of enlarger lenses, etc. etc. in a lifetime, many digital consumers

are in a state of almost constant discard of old equipment and

purchase of new equipment. This new equipment has to be promoted and

advertising is the principal way of promoting it. Magazines love that

for obvious reasons and so magazines love digital. The better digital

does, the better the magazines will do. Hence there is an inherent

conflict of interest between a magazine's efforts, no matter how

sincere, to be objective and its financial well being. This conflict

of interest is exactly the same as the conflict of interest that

exists when a life insurance salesman sells life insurance or a car

salesman sells a car, it's just not quite so obvious. This isn't to

suggest that there is a direct payoff in the sense of a publication

saying "if you'll advertise here, we'll promote your equipment in our

editorial content." I don't know whether that kind of thing goes on

or not. I'm optimistic enough to think that it doesn't. However, even

without this kind of direct payoff, a photography magazine still has

a vested interest in promoting digital equipment.Of course this

situation didn't begin when digital appeared on the scene, it existed

with traditional photography equipment as well. But digital happens

to be the current big new thing that needs promoting and it also has

upped the stakes because the profits in promoting and selling digital

stuff are so much greater than they ever were with traditional

equipment.

I recently visited View Camera's web site to see read their

submission policies. Low and behold they do NOT except digital

submissions in any form. You have to send duplicate trannies. Now

this seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. They talk about how

useful digital is, but refuse to view conventional portfolios in a

digital format?? I wonder why this is.. afterall it is so much more

convenient to burn a CD, and cheaper than having say a dozen dupes

made.

It may be more convenient to send a CD, but it is much easier to view

prints or slides, and I can understand their wanting all submissions

in the same format for their convenience (and since they are the

publisher, they can put their own convenience first).

The publishing industry is very conservative about what they will

accept for submission, it seems. While they may be using computer

publishing tools internally (ie. scanners, QuarkXPress), they do not

accept digital source material.

 

<p>

 

This is mainly because they have built a "closed loop" system. They

know that from their scanners through to their presses (or whatever

output device), they have control over colorspace, resolution, etc.

 

<p>

 

This was essential when color management was a "black art". If you

didn't build a closed loop, you could not maintain quality and work

efficiently.

 

<p>

 

Nowadays, color management is far better (profiles in PS 6.0,

ColorSync, etc.). However, a publisher with a proven, money making

closed loop system doesn't want to invite potential hassles by

accepting your profiled PS file. If you send them a trannie or a

print, they can send you back a proof and say "this matches the

trannie you sent". If they work from a PS file, what happens when you

say "That proof doesn't match what I see on my monitor"? Do you ship

your computer to them so they can see the evidence? (Of course, it

could be possible to send a trannie or print, and the PS file.)

 

<p>

 

While it may seem ridiculous to "film out" your digital file for

publication, the publishers are 1) covering their asses, 2) avoiding

the potential labor and cost of profiling your file into their closed

loop.

I to was disapionted with the recent seemingly all digital edition of

View Camera. The point on the advertising is that those advertisers

who can afford the space in major magazines are going digital, the

emphasis in the growth of their business is in the highly competetive

digital area, The traditional film is not the competetive playing

field, How long has it been since you saw an ad from the film

companies that said their film was lowere grain or had more shadow

detail or was easier to develope in accordance with zone system

discipline, or how their film reacted to pyro? So the world is

changing, Maqybe I am not changing but the world is, The magazines

need to attract he readers who buy the materials the companies sell,

That is who there are so many digital photo magazines out there, I do

npot see any magazines for the anacronistic(??) photographer. ther is

a revolution in technique and the mixing of film and digital at the

levels of image capture, image development and printing is being

experimented upon. That is interesting and scary at the same time,

The traditional film , paper and wet darkroom photographer is going

to become marginalized, In fact that has happened in the commercial

environment, No magazine is going to ignore this revolution and

survive. I mayself am looking foward to winning a lotery so I can

afford the state of the art digital capture equipment, or before that

happens the hot stuff today will become obsolete to the commercial

high output studio nad will be discounted off to me.

 

<p>

 

I do believe that there will be a demand for the very traditional

chemical approach to photography and that is and will continue to be

appreciated by a limited number of photographers and PATRONS of

photography, but it will become marginalized as a fine art.

 

<p>

 

There are trends that black and white is strong and there are british

publications and austrailian photo phublications dealing with just

that in all formats, But the advertisers are different in mix than

View Camera.

 

<p>

 

I do hope that View Camera has a strong and permanent policy that the

chemistry based photography will be addressed and promoted.

I don't think one special all-digital issue a sign that Steve Simmons

is giving up on traditional and chemistry-based alternative processes.

After all, there was recently an all-Polaroid issue, and there has

always been a mix of traditional and digital processes in the

magazine. If it's a magazine about large-format photography, LF

includes a variety of processes, then the magazine ought to reflect

those.

 

<p>

 

Meanwhile, _Photovision_, I believe, has stated a commitment to focus

on non-digital processes.

Mitch: "I can't help but thinking that others are also receiving

free equipment in exchange for their endorsements." You clearly

imply, with no disclosed factual basis, that equipment is exchanged

for endorsements. I am sorry to hear that you "can't help but

thinking" that someone else is on the take. Have you called up the

magazine to ask if what you can't help but thinking is the case?

Might this not be a nice idea before making the left handed

accusation? You do follow the charge with a disclaimer -- sort of --

that you might be wrong, but I think getting some facts before

stating that the publisher needs to be told not to do something (that

you don't know it is doing) in public doesn't seem fair or

appropriate.

The sad fact is that digital is increasingly where the money is in

photography. And that goes tripple for so-called "high-end" digital,

which is so expensive that even Linhoff, Sinar et al are positively

cheap by comparison. As far as View Camera is concerned, "there's

gold in them thar hills."

I thank everyone for their responses. I was too accusatory in my

original statement. My concern is not that View Camera is publishing

articles on digital technology, but that the articles in the current

issue do not seem to give a balanced view. I work in publishing; and

at work I usually have my nose in a computer, using Photoshop or one of

various publishing programs. I know that sometimes in very specific

ways everything does not go smoothly when one uses complex tools. And I

find that often it is nearly impossible to uncover truly unbiased and

well-researched information on equipment in the digital world. View

Camera Magazine is fine and worthwhile, but in the current issue it

fails to provide the kind of substantial, balanced information that

would benefit many photographers. My original question was meant to

encourage the publisher of View Camera Magazine to strengthen the

editorial policies of his periodical. I suppose I could have simply

written to the publisher, but this forum seems to me to be a better

place for a discussion in that it involves other contributors who also

care about large format photography.

Greetings,

 

<p>

 

I too subscribe/read View Camera Magazine and this current issue is

largely devoted to digital. The publisher�s note clearly states that

at the risk of putting off some readers, this was done purposely to

report on the industry. I can�t say that I made the connection

between the articles and the advertisements, but that�s because I

have no intention of buying those products, so in effect haven�t read

the advertisements and don�t care.

 

<p>

 

After reading the article on Sinar�s digital back, I can�t help but

think, who is their target audience? At USD $31,500 for a digital

back, $9,995 for a Macro Scan Adapter and $1795 for a PrePress

CeMagYK module, who (both View Camera & Sinar) do they figure will be

buying this stuff? Perhaps that�s the reason the advert�s follow the

articles and the reviewers get free equipment. Very few people can

afford this stuff! Any readers of this forum plan on dropping

$31,500 for a digital back?

 

<p>

 

There�s no question digital is here to stay. It definitely has a

place, but this falls into the category of �one size fits all.� In

reality, one size rarely fits all, nor does digital fit all

situations. When PC�s came out in the late 70�s/early 80�s, everyone

touted the paperless society. In reality, paper consumption has

probably doubled (I haven�t researched the statistics on paper

consumption, so this is merely my personal observation.) I believe

film will be around for at least the next several decades and

probably beyond, however things will change. Products will be

dropped and perhaps even a few added. I like the medium and will

stay with it until something significantly better comes along.

Significantly better IMHO means not only quality, but cost as well.

I�m prepared to coat glass plates if I have to.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

"After reading the article on Sinar�s digital back, I can�t help but

think, who is their target audience? At USD $31,500 for a digital

back, $9,995 for a Macro Scan Adapter and $1795 for a PrePress

CeMagYK module, who (both View Camera & Sinar) do they figure will be

buying this stuff? Perhaps that�s the reason the advert�s follow the

articles and the reviewers get free equipment. Very few people can

afford this stuff! Any readers of this forum plan on dropping $31,500

for a digital

back?"

 

<p>

 

Pros shooting corporate/commercial

 

<p>

 

Tim A

I would like a chance to respond to some of the comments made here

about View Camera magazine.

 

<p>

 

Any suggestion that I took equipment in return for providing space

for the articles on digital capture is absurd. It would be nice if

the writer had the ****** to call and ask before making such a

comment but all too often in these forums 'experts' come on and make

comments/charges that have no basis in truth. These forums would be a

friendly and more worthwhile place if people did their homeowrk

before spouting off.

 

<p>

 

The Nov/Dec issue was not all digital. For example, there were

articles on the following

- a listing of all of the sheet films and their sizes that are

standard stock items

- a discussion of the currently available film holder styles and a

very consumer orinted comment that the Polaroid holder may be the

universal holder fore the pre-loaded films which could svae people

the expense of buying a Polaroid holder and an addtiional Kodak and

Fuji holder as well

- a discussion of the use of filters with black and white films

including a failed example of one of my efforts and a discussion of

what I should have done. How many photo writers/publishers would do

this type of article?

- an article on Fuji lenses and what to look for on the used market.

How many other publications run article like this?

- an article on a very large and unusual film based camera

- an article on a photographer using film to photograph sacred sites

- an article, actually part of a series, on how to use the Sekonic L-

608 meter. I have had countless students in my workshops show up with

these meters not knowing how to use them.

 

<p>

 

My publisher's statement at the beginning of the issue explained

exactly what I was doing. Digital capture is her to stay and we

selected three photographers using different systems to tell us how

they integrated the equipment into their work.

 

<p>

 

If you count the number of film based versus digital capture articles

you would see where the balance really is.

 

<p>

 

Other items

 

<p>

 

Submissions

 

<p>

 

We do not review work on a CD becasue that means looking at images

one at a time on a computer screen. This is painfully slow. We prefer

being able to lay several images out at once on a table or light

table to get a better overall view of the photographer's work. Once a

photographer is selected for publication we do accept digital

submissions along with a press quality proof as a check as long as we

feel the photographer either has had professional scans done or is

capable of doing good scans themselves. We make this decision on an

individual basis. If you want to sent a digital something as a

submission make them digital printouts so we can lay them on a table.

 

<p>

 

Brian Ellis

 

<p>

 

Thanks for the comparison between used car salesman and magazine

publishers. You have used every forum I can find to disparage my

efforts and informaion. This problem began 3 years ago when you took

a workshop and were unhappy with it. You were a beginner with 4

months of experience and you fancied yourself as an expert and

resented being in a group of beginners. I did make an effort to spend

individual time with you during the class and you resisted everything

I suggested. You complained about the lack of black nd white darkroom

facilities when no such thing was ever promised. We did talk

extensively about black and white films, exposure and development

considerations, filters, etc. We had Polaroid material available for

testing and using to understand these black and white issues. I do

not remember you taking advantage of this opportunity. I have also

seen you give incomplete information about bellows length and the use

of telephoto lenses on another forum and then challenge me when I

come on and provide additional information to fill the holes in your

explanations.

 

<p>

 

If you are going to come on these forums I think you owe the readers

a complete explanation on the topic and not just one that supports

how you do things (which would not work for everyone as you make

several compromises that you do not explain) and an explanation

acknowledging that you have an ax to grind with me and therefore may

not be completly without a personal agenda.

 

<p>

 

 

Criticism

 

<p>

 

Am I beyond constructive criticism. Absolutley not. I would

appreciate hearing directly from my readers about every issue. I put

myself out there 12 times a year. I simply will ask the following

- please give a balanced view of each issue. Yes we do digital but

to call the Nov/Dec issue as all digital or View Camera has gone

digital is not a fair or accurate comment.

- if there are articles about particular types of equipment,

photographers whose work should be featured, etc. please feel free to

contact me directly. The risk of posting comments on a forum such as

this is that I may never see it (I was referred to this site this

morning as part of another conversation) and your comments may be

wasted in terms of having any infuence on the magazine.

 

<p>

 

Steve Simmons

largformat@aol.com

 

Ok, this really chaps my hide and I would like to answer Simmons

critizism of this forum. I, like many others have had heated

discussions and arguments with other participants in this forum, but

in the end all has been worthwhile and informative, this is the first

time I see Simmons contributing. So in that spirit I would like to

examine his response.

 

<p>

 

Simmons:

 

<p>

 

"Any suggestion that I took equipment in return for providing space

for the articles on digital capture is absurd. It would be nice if

the writer had the ****** to call and ask before making such a

comment but all too often in these forums 'experts' come on and make

comments/charges that have no basis in truth. These forums would be a

friendly and more worthwhile place if people did their homeowrk

before spouting off."

 

<p>

 

I think the person who posted this was "speculating" wheter this

happened. I beleive we are all intelligent enough to know fact from

fiction and/or a purely speculative statement. On the other hand

there ARE many experts in this forum, for example I had a

disagreement with Kerry Thalman about camera prices, nevertheless I

consider him a very knowledgeable person who has always provided very

well researched, thoughtful responses. I have found most if not all

of the participants in this forum do attempt to provide factual

accurate information, and if any of us make a mistake or mistatement

there are inmediately many responses to point the mistake out.As

opposed to a magazine that might print a retraction 2 months later.

So to the last sentence I respond, yes we do provide factual

information, and this forum IS a friendly place.

 

<p>

 

Simmons:

 

<p>

 

"

a discussion of the currently available film holder styles and a very

consumer orinted comment that the Polaroid holder may be the

universal holder fore the pre-loaded films which could svae people

the expense of buying a Polaroid holder and an addtiional Kodak and

Fuji holder as well - a discussion of the use of filters with black

and white films including a failed example of one of my efforts and a

discussion of what I should have done. How many photo

writers/publishers would do this type of article? - an article on

Fuji lenses and what to look for on the used market. How many other

publications run article like this? - an article on a very large and

unusual film based camera - an article on a photographer using film

to photograph sacred sites - an article, actually part of a series,

on how to use the Sekonic L- 608 meter. I have had countless students

in my workshops show up with these meters not knowing how to use

them. "

 

<p>

 

I have seen countless articles on B&W filters on Shutterbug, Photo

Techniques, Photographic, etc.

Photo techniques does an annual report on film AND paper available in

the US market. Now since View Camera does not accept international

subscriptions and I cannot get it in Mexico I did not get the

opportunity to see if this article included every film under the sun,

but I for one am not interested to know about a film in Kuala Lumpur

that I am going to have to wait 6 months to get an use. So I am not

impressed by this, and it has been done before.

Now my favorite, the Sekonic L-608 meter, here I will also comment on

the response to Brian from Simmons.

If I went to a LF workshop and I have to spend an afternoon learning

how to use a meter because the rest of the morons did not bother to

READ the manual, I would be testy too! In my experience I bought a

Sekonic L-508 when it first came out, I went and saw it at a store

and from the beguining it was a really simple, intuitive meter to

use. Although I am experienced and have used many kinds of meters, I

still went home and READ the manual. So really, an article on how to

use a meter?? I find this laughable.

As to Brian, I beleive he was stating an opinion, he did not

disparage the magazine, nor have I seen him ever making a negative

comment about View Camera, methinks it is Simmons who has an ax to

grind.

As to the articles on the POlaroid holder, the holders, Fuji lenses.

Well I thought this was the business of the magazine? If I went and

told my boss, how many people do water analysis, emergency setups,

etc, for you? he would probably say, that is your job and what I pay

you for! As a previous purchaser of this magazine I say, that is your

job and what I buy the magazine for!

 

<p>

 

Simmons:

 

<p>

 

"I put myself out there 12 times a year. I simply will ask the

following - please give a balanced view of each issue."

 

<p>

 

I beleive tha magazine comes out 6 times a year......

 

<p>

 

 

Simmons:

 

<p>

 

"The risk of posting comments on a forum such as this is that I may

never see it (I was referred to this site this morning as part of

another conversation) and your comments may be wasted in terms of

having any infuence on the magazine. "

 

<p>

 

I feel we post our comments in this forum to expand our views and

discuss our opinions, I really don't think we want to "influence" the

editorial content of any magazine. Besides I feel we are prefectly

free to discuss any and all subjects in LF photography wether Simmons

likes it or not. I personally have no desire to influence the

magazine and all I ask from Simmons is that he refrains from

demmanding that we make comments here about his magazine because he

does not like it, TOUGH BUBBA!!!

 

<p>

 

As I said before I recently relocated to MExico and I am unable to

get View Camera, so I had refrained from commenting since I had not

seen the article nor will I see any in the future, but I deeply

resent this person who has never contribuited to this forum to come

and disparage the contribuition of all the people who take the time,

effort and genuine desire to help and exchange ideas just because he

did not like what was said.

 

<p>

 

Mr. Simmons, the same freedom that allows you to print your magazine

is the one we are using to post our comments, ideas and opinions, so

you bettr get used to it!

Let me give you some facts.

 

<p>

 

We do take subscriptions from Mexico.

 

<p>

 

Mr. Ellis was not upset about the workshop becasue people wanted to

know how to use their Sekonic L-608 meter. This is not what I said so

please re-read my comments.

 

<p>

 

I objected to the comments that the entire issue was digital . It was

not and I wanted to point out that fact. The bulk of the magazine was

devoted to non-digital photography.

 

<p>

 

Speculation about people taking some form of payoff is malicious

(SP?) and without any foundation is not fair. I have also been

accused of taking a bribe when I did another article earlier this

year. I am all for free speech. I simply ask that people check their

facts before putting out any conspiracy theories.

 

<p>

 

Yes, it is my job to provide information about lf photography to my

readers. The films we listed were all standard stock items for any

retailer carrying Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, or Bergger film. There were

two exceptions to this and we pointed them out in the article. We did

not list an obscure film from Kuala Lampur!!!!.

 

<p>

 

Once again I am interested in a well thought dialogue about the

contents of View Camera magazine. I just dislike inaccurate comments

and I take issue with people who make them.

 

<p>

 

steve simmons

I asked the original question, so I feel that I should respond. Heat is

not needed here, only light. I feel that View Camera Magazine's current

articles on digital technology do not give a balanced view, which would

necessarily include an account of the limitations and pitfalls of these

gismos, as well as the joys of using them. I never suggested that Steve

Simmons received any equipment from manufacturers (an associate of the

magazine is a "test site" for Epson, but he wrote nothing in the

current issue). I wondered (perhaps too openly) why the writers of the

articles would do what they did. I am not saying that these writers are

dishonest, but their articles are incomplete and misleading. I simply

cannot understand why a worthwhile periodical like View Camera would

allow articles that do not present a more comprehensive view. Whenever

film-based products come on the market, they are treated with scrutiny

and suspicion until proven to be fine. There is no reason for anyone to

be angry. Given the heat of his response, I am not about to call Steve

Simmons. (I now believe that a phone-call with these same concerns

would have led to an extremely short conversation.) As I have already

stated, I feel that my original question was too accusatory, and I am

doing my best not to make the same mistake again. The basic idea of

this forum is community, and I see View Camera Magazine as an important

part of this community. I assumed (I guess, wrongly) that the publisher

of View Camera Magazine would be a reader of this Large Format

Photography forum. So I assumed (as it turns out, rightly) that I was

in fact contacting Mr. Simmons about his current issue within a

community-based context. In the end I hope Mr. Simmons sees this

somewhat awkward process as useful.

There is no real objectivity in any magazine that accepts advertising

from vendors whose products they discuss in articles. This applies

to the subject matter of the article, as well as the content of the

article. This is a simple fact of life, and is in no way limited to

photography magazines. On the other hand, if Consumers Reports

started evaluating Large Format equipment and technologies, I don't

think we would be any better off.

Michael F:

 

<p>

 

How about Digital backs for LF, would we be better off? I am curious

to know if the backs are all that!! It would be an interesting thing

having CR report on LF digital backs...then we would really get an

uniased opinion.

My experience with Consumers Reports is that they try to

create "objective scientific" tests to do evaluations, even when no

objective test actually exists. For example, when they evaluate

stereo speakers, they run tests on frequency response and translate

that into a numerical score, and then "rank order" the speakers

accordingly. The evaluations are not based on how the speakers sound

to a person�s ear, or even based on other objective criteria such as

distortion measurements. Even the methodology for assigning a single

numerical score to a 3 dimensional frequency response graph (axis

position, decibels, and frequency) is highly subjective.

 

<p>

 

I think a website like http://www.steves-digicams.com/ does fairly

objective reviews in the digital arena because their primary

advertising sponsor is a retailer that sells multiple brands of

equipment.

Thanks Michael. I might just check the site you mention.

Michael Feldman and Jorge Gasteazoro, thank you for your responses. I

think the problem here is not about objectivity; the problem is about

the lack of any balanced accounting of experience. When I read the

articles in question, I did not find this kind of accounting, where the

process of setting up and using this complex equipment was described

fully. Nor were the limitations of the equipment described in any

meaningful (i.e., specific) sense. (For instance, one article mentioned

an upgrade. Based on actual user experience, how often do these things

need to be upgraded, and will the present backs be useful a few years

from now? What are the consequences of upgrading the backs? Recent

"upgrades" in computer software and hardware have not brought happiness

to everyone. How many computers and printers that are less than six

years old are now hard to use when you want to upgrade almost anything

anywhere in your system? But this is just one area that needs to be

articulated. The articles should have looked at a range of limitations,

as well as capabilities, in order to be accurate and fair.) I have no

objection to photographers liking digital backs; these back have

obvious virtues. It's the superficial and misleading content of the

articles that drove me to ask my initial question.