Conspiricy Theory

[dehk]

Have you guys notice a lot of articles online, when it comes to comparing digital and analogue photographs, they purposely makes the analogue one looks very bad. Do you guys notice that too?

 

[MDR]

Have you guys notice a lot of articles online, when it comes to comparing digital and analogue photographs, they purposely makes the analogue one looks very bad. Do you guys notice that too?

Not only online articles but also print articles and supposedly neutral test say inkjet vs analogue color print which aren't neutral at all.
Articles, test etc are marketing tools nothing more.

Dominik

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Gosh, I thought when I saw digital and analog comparison photos here on APUG, the digital photos were always made to look bad.... ;-)


Seriously though, I REALLY doubt there is any conspiracy involved in either case.

 

[cliveh]

Holgas don't help.

 

[MDR]

Gosh, I thought when I saw digital and analog comparison photos here on APUG, the digital photos were always made to look bad.... ;-)


Seriously though, I REALLY doubt there is any conspiracy involved in either case.

Conspirancy it is not, they are only writing and saying what the money men tell them to say or write. No different than the comparisons in mag and articles between certain brands during the analogue era.

Dominik

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Conspirancy it is not, they are only writing and saying what the money men tell them to say or write. No different than the comparisons in mag and articles between certain brands during the analogue era.

Having written for many photo publications during the past 19 years I can state I was NEVER told what to say or write!! I once asked what to do about products I didn't like, and was told "we have plenty of good products to write about, we don't need to waste time writing about bad products".

 

[MDR]

Having written for many photo publications during the past 19 years I can state I was NEVER told what to say or write!! I once asked what to do about products I didn't like, and was told "we have plenty of good products to write about, we don't need to waste time writing about bad products".

I didn't like, and was told "we have plenty of good products to write about, we don't need to waste time writing about bad products.

So basically you only wrote about good products because you were told that you don't need to waste time writing about bad products.

Stupid question but how did you define a bad product and isn't the goal of a review or comparison to show a products shortcoming and which products are inferior or great

Dominik

 

[Worker 11811]

I don't think it's conspiracy but a natural bias to "prove" one's own belief that one thing is better than another.

There are many good reasons to use digital: convenience, immediacy and ease of transmission through electronic media.
There are just as many good reasons to use film: overall image quality, dynamic range and permanence.

When a person makes a comparison between any two things he should set a standard for comparison and judge his results based on those standards but, too many times, all people really want to do is to prove that their view is right and they will bias their tests in order to get the results they want to see.

Maybe it's an advertiser who is trying to make his product look better in order to generate sales. Maybe it's a consumer who has jumped on the digital bandwagon and wants to convince himself that he has made a good purchase.

In either case, I don't think most people cheat on purpose. I think it's more likely that people just want to bolster their own self-image.

 

[MDR]

First I want to apologize to prof_pixel if my post has come across a little harsh but the post I've quoted made little sense to me.

Second I believe Worker 11811 has hit the nail on the head for 95% but I also believe that at least 5% are bought reviews.

Dominik

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Stupid question but how did you define a bad product and isn't the goal of a review or comparison to show a products shortcoming and which products are inferior or great

A 'bad' product could have been defined by ME for many reasons; I was never told by anyone else a product was 'bad'. If I didn't like a product, I just never wrote about it. My point being, I was NEVER told by anyone else how to judge a product; there is absolutely NO conspiracy.

Keep in mind that reviews ARE VERY subjective - just because I liked or didn't like something is no guarantee that you will like it or not.


There is no conspiracy.

 

[BrianShaw]

IDK about the photo mags, but for electronics trade mags there is a big difference between independent reviews, reviews by staff writers, and reviews written by advertisers.

For the last category there is no conspiracy... just business (and often rather unethical business)

 

[MDR]

A 'bad' product could have been defined by ME for many reasons; I was never told by anyone else a product was 'bad'. If I didn't like a product, I just never wrote about it. My point being, I was NEVER told by anyone else how to judge a product; there is absolutely NO conspiracy.

Keep in mind that reviews ARE VERY subjective - just because I liked or didn't like something is no guarantee that you will like it or not.


There is no conspiracy.

Thank you for the clarification. BTW I don't believe in a conspirancy either.

Dominik

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Have you guys notice a lot of articles online, when it comes to comparing digital and analogue photographs, they purposely makes the analogue one looks very bad. Do you guys notice that too?

Yes, I've noticed that. They're not conspirators though, just halfwits.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

IDK about the photo mags, but for electronics trade mags there is a big difference between independent reviews, reviews by staff writers, and reviews written by advertisers.

Like I said, reviews are subjective. You should always consider the author, but most importantly, they should ALWAYS only be a starting point in YOUR evaluation of a product.

BTW, in my opinion, 'reviews written by advertisers' would come under the heading of 'press release' and NOT 'product review'.

 

[Klainmeister]

For some ungodly reason, I somehow became subscribed with Outdoor Photography which had some reviews including things like "With 12mp full sensor, even the best 35mm cannot compete..." and "clearly, Ansel Adams would have used an iMac with an iPad to get the most out his tools."

What a bunch of crap. Those types of reviews obviously are written with a bias not even close to being level headed.

 

[Ian Grant]

Gosh, I thought when I saw digital and analog comparison photos here on APUG, the digital photos were always made to look bad.... ;-)

Seriously though, I REALLY doubt there is any conspiracy involved in either case.

Having written for many photo publications during the past 19 years I can state I was NEVER told what to say or write!! I once asked what to do about products I didn't like, and was told "we have plenty of good products to write about, we don't need to waste time writing about bad products".

There's a few here who have written for photomagazines over the years and in recent years they've found that magazines don't want analog/film based articles. I can thinkl of two excellent UK writers who've been shunned by a magazine they contributed a lot to.

Is there a conspiracy ? Very possibly, the big players in the digital market place have stiffled analog content in most magazines, advertisers have a lot of pwer over editors/advertising departments.

This happened before digital where some advertisers had such big budgets they could influence equipment review. A classic case was Hoya who released a range of lenses for 35mm cameras with great reviews, only to fall flat because the lenses were truly awful, very poor Multicoating and excessive flare, despite actually being quite sharp !!! The complete range was pulled, the brand name dropped from the company's lenses, after a complete redesign they relaunched a higher quality range under their Tokina brand name.

Some magazine have no real bias, the BJP in the UK for instance, sure Digital equipment dominates but theyt do report on films, papers etc but we have to accept that what we want is now a small part of the market.

But when a magazine runs a B&W issue with no mention of B&W film (or paper) then yes we must question the editorial policy and ask why not. The magazine I have in mind has advertisers selling analog materials.

So please keep doing what you are, getting analog articles into anywhere you can.

Ian

 

[Prof_Pixel]

What a bunch of crap. Those types of reviews obviously are written with a bias not even close to being level headed

I don't know if it's bias (which I doubt) or just plain lack of real subject knowledge (my guess).

For many years as a member of the photographic press I attended photo and computer trade shows. In the press room, there was a fairly small group of people I knew well and respected; there were also many others who's photographic background was suspect IMO.

 

[cliveh]

Ansel Adams would have used an iMac with an iPad to get the most out his tools."

What a bunch of crap. Those types of reviews obviously are written with a bias not even close to being level headed.

How do you know that? If you feel creative (I won’t use the word artist), you use whatever medium suits what you are trying to create. Look at David Hockney’s iPad drawings. The image rules, not the medium.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I can think of two excellent UK writers who've been shunned by a magazine they contributed a lot to.

That's surprising, most mags are always looking for good fact based content. They don't write opinion based criticisms of digital imaging touting analog, do they? I doubt there is much market for that sort of article. I would think an up-beat article discussing the fun of shooting analog and telling people how to get involved would sell.

 

[Klainmeister]

I meant the idea that you can just start throwing names out there like that. He's dead, so we can start positing on what cameras he'd use now? What computers!? Hell, did he ever use a computer? I just didn't understand why bringing him into this article about how awesome the new iMac and iPad are is relevant.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Here's an example of a heinously poorly done and biased test. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml

:devil: This spawned a few threads over at LFPF.

 

[Worker 11811]

Like I said, reviews are subjective. You should always consider the author, but most importantly, they should ALWAYS only be a starting point in YOUR evaluation of a product.

Much like movie reviews, consider the reviewer. Agreed!

This is probably a good reason for the success of Ebert and Siskel. The viewer knows (knew) the tendencies of each of the men to like or dislike different kinds of movies. If Siskel liked a movie but Ebert didn't, or vice versa, you could use that information to decide whether you might like the movie. Maybe you like Gene Shalit. You would decide on whether you like a movie based on what you know about him. You might even decide that, because some reviewer doesn't like a movie, you will.

The same thing applies to on-line reviews at IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. You decide to watch a movie, not simply because it gets a good or bad review but you consider the source of that review in making a decision.

Why do people not take the same things into account when they read a review of some photo equipment in a magazine or on-line publication?

If people can read a review or a press release about a movie and say, "That's nothing but a puff piece," why don't they do the same when they read an article or an advertisement about photo gear?

 

[Ian Grant]

That's surprising, most mags are always looking for good fact based content. They don't write opinion based criticisms of digital imaging touting analog, do they? I doubt there is much market for that sort of article. I would think an up-beat article discussing the fun of shooting analog and telling people how to get involved would sell.

Analog is a small part of the market now but remember that the UK markets also smaller than the US. The magazine I'm alluding to is trying to have a more digital bias despite a high proportion of its readers using nanalog. So when an analog photographer is featured they run an article on how to get similar results using digital and no mention of film.

Ian

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Here's an example of a heinously poorly done and biased test.

It looked pretty fair to me; what it points out is the great difficulty in trying to pull off such a test. All you can really say about the results is that they apply to the two systems tested, but I didn't see any bias.

One quick though of mine was possible lack of film plane flatness on the 8x10. At Kodak, we would have used a vacuum film holder to assure film plane flatness.

 

[pbromaghin]

Scanning 8x10 negs at 745 dpi? Good lord.