egrossman Posted August 11, 2013 Share #61 Posted August 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) He may get free samples (and if he does he should disclose it) but that doesn't mean that it's "pay for play", i.e.. that it guarantees a positive review. Erik It's a for profit site that accepts advertising revenue and free samples from companies who's products he reviews. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted August 11, 2013 Posted August 11, 2013 Hi egrossman, Take a look here NY Times Article About Leica Ms. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
StephenPatterson Posted August 11, 2013 Share #62 Posted August 11, 2013 He may get free samples (and if he does he should disclose it) but that doesn't mean that it's "pay for play", i.e.. that it guarantees a positive review. Erik Well that's certainly a possibility, that he could take money and free samples and write a negative review. I've never seen it at his website, but certainly it doesn't mean that it could not happen. But I think when you compare this practice to an organization like "Consumer Reports" that accept no advertising and purchase all the items they review it does present at least the possibility for a conflict of interest, don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egrossman Posted August 11, 2013 Share #63 Posted August 11, 2013 With respect Stephen, that's a poor comparison. Consumer Reports is a non-profit that is a subscription-based service. Steve takes no money from his subscribers. His website (together with his workshops) is his primary income source, based on my understanding. As they say, if you aren'y paying, you are the product, i.e. advertising pays for what you are reading for free. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that advertisers are guaranteed a favorable review. Erik Well that's certainly a possibility, that he could take money and free samples and write a negative review. I've never seen it at his website, but certainly it doesn't mean that it could not happen. But I think when you compare this practice to an organization like "Consumer Reports" that accept no advertising and purchase all the items they review it does present at least the possibility for a conflict of interest, don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted August 11, 2013 Share #64 Posted August 11, 2013 With respect Stephen, that's a poor comparison. Consumer Reports is a non-profit that is a subscription-based service. Steve takes no money from his subscribers. His website (together with his workshops) is his primary income source, based on my understanding. As they say, if you aren'y paying, you are the product, i.e. advertising pays for what you are reading for free. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that advertisers are guaranteed a favorable review. Erik Sorry Erik, but I believe it's an excellent comparison. Steve Huff's "products" are his reviews and articles, and as you correctly point out it's not a hobby but a business. He makes money from advertisers and visitors, from their click thru revenue and their increasing numbers who can be targeted by said advertisers. Writing negative reviews is simply biting the hand that feeds you, as they seldom return with more products and viewers don't click on the "buy it here" links for things that the masses don't like. It's not just a blog or impartial review site but rather a money generating business. And like all for profit businesses it is interested in growing revenues. Whether that is at the expense of impartiality I will let each decide on his own. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted August 11, 2013 Share #65 Posted August 11, 2013 Again, that doesn't necessarily mean that advertisers are guaranteed a favorable review. Erik Erik, come on, we aren't stupid. We conversely understand that an unfavorable review won't guarantee advertisers for Steve. You don't need to explain how life works. We get it. Like I've said many times. This is performance art. The reviews are a show for hobbyists like us and it is what drives the (now shrinking) camera industry. The creation of art is found somewhere else. But, most hobbyists aren't so much interested in producing anything with their cameras as much as they are interested in discussing dynamic range and such as well as feeling that they own the best camera equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egrossman Posted August 11, 2013 Share #66 Posted August 11, 2013 But Stephen, a positive article doesn't guarantee more "eyeballs" (I would think the contrary). I just had a look on Steve's website and I didn't see a single advertiser being one of his reviewed camera companies. I saw "Ken Hansen, B&H, Popflash, etc." Erik Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted August 11, 2013 Share #67 Posted August 11, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) But Stephen, a positive article doesn't guarantee more "eyeballs" (I would think the contrary). I just had a look on Steve's website and I didn't see a single advertiser being one of his reviewed camera companies. I saw "Ken Hansen, B&H, Popflash, etc." Erik Erik, I realize that you and I don't agree on this issue, and I respect your opinion, but you have only to look back on several products that have been reviewed to see that many have been featured on his site as advertisers and sponsors. I haven't frequented the site in many months so I cannot comment on what he is running as the blue plate special of the week. As for Ken Hansen I definitely do not believe that Steve is receiving any special discounts from him, but I also do not believe that Ken can be very happy with the way Steve flipped his first M240 for a sizeable profit. And now he has flipped his second M240. Steve also wrote a glowing review of the Canon 0.95 only to sell it for an outrageous premium to an unsuspecting buyer. This buyer later wrote to me upset that he hadn't done more research into the true value of the lens. He accepts responsibility for not doing his homework, but definitely feels he was taken in by all the hype. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted August 11, 2013 Share #68 Posted August 11, 2013 Nothing like having dinner with a man who stabs you in the back:cool: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted August 11, 2013 Share #69 Posted August 11, 2013 Nothing like having dinner with a man who stabs you in the back:cool: Yes, I feel the same way. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
skuromis Posted August 11, 2013 Share #70 Posted August 11, 2013 .. see that many have been featured on his site as advertisers and sponsors.... Always a good and a bad thing... Of course you'll be emotionally biased for a gift. That's human. On the other hand, I want to see the private individual who will test as much gear without donations. You need to be loaded.. BTW: the webspace for hosting a frequented webpage also cost some money. Steve also wrote a glowing review of the Canon 0.95 only to sell it for an outrageous premium to an unsuspecting buyer. This buyer later wrote to me upset that he hadn't done more research into the true value of the lens. I don't know exactly what the outrageous premium was, but: If you buy a 5k lens and you find it sucks, would you give it away for 1k just after 100 clicks? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted August 11, 2013 Share #71 Posted August 11, 2013 I think we've hijacked this thread with enough Steve Huff comments. A quick search of the forum will reveal plenty of threads and posts on this topic, and there is definitely divided opinion between his followers and non-believers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted August 11, 2013 Share #72 Posted August 11, 2013 mark me down as a non-believer ...in you:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
colonel Posted August 11, 2013 Share #73 Posted August 11, 2013 Thought some might like the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/08/technology/personaltech/leica-cameras-have-eye-popping-prices-with-photos-to-match.html?_r=0 Nice article, well written for the general readership (non-Leica users - which are 99.9% of the population). So called inaccuracuracies are mostly embellishment. This was not written for members of this forum, but that's obvious right ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted August 11, 2013 Share #74 Posted August 11, 2013 mark me down as a non-believer ...in you:D Just what I would expect from a minion... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iforum Posted August 11, 2013 Share #75 Posted August 11, 2013 a miion to you? surely you jest....... as for Mr Huff I rarely view his site a quick read here or there just take it with a grain of salt. His reviews are no worse nor better than what is around the traps nothing special. But I must admit your obsession with his antics is most impressive wow people write to you about his evil ways, you are that special? enjoy sunshine Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted August 11, 2013 Share #76 Posted August 11, 2013 But I must admit your obsession with his antics is most impressive wow people write to you about his evil ways, you are that special? enjoy sunshine I call 'em as I see 'em. People write to me with Leica questions and I try to help. I don't hide behind an alias or an avitar. What exactly is your purpose other than trolling? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
egrossman Posted August 11, 2013 Share #77 Posted August 11, 2013 That's why I always like reading Luminous-Landscape reviews. Reichmann made his fortune long before he started the website and never panders to the equipment suppliers. He always calls it as he sees it. I, personally, find Steve Huff's website, on occasion, entertaining. It's hard to take him too seriously though when one day he swears he's found a camera for life only to turn around and sell it the next. That doesn't mean he's lying in his reviews, I think he actually believes what he's writing while he's actually writing it. Then the next camera comes along and... Erik I want to see the private individual who will test as much gear without donations. You need to be loaded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 11, 2013 Share #78 Posted August 11, 2013 [...] But I think when you compare this practice to an organization like "Consumer Reports" [...] If you want Consumer Reports of cameras, please feel free to go there. No? Why not? . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted August 11, 2013 Share #79 Posted August 11, 2013 Pico, point taken. But, I think Stephen is trying to make the argument that CR doesn't take money, products or advertising from manufacturers and is somehow less biased. Personally, I don't find CR to represent my individual rating system at all. For example; dishwashers are graded on energy efficiency and repairs and complaints and how well the dishes are done and price. Great, but my Miele isn't even on the list tested. Why, because it cost a little more. And, even if they did rate it, it would be down the list because of expense. So, for me, consumer reports, as unbiased as they report to be, are always biased against the top models that I am interested in. Often, top models do not represent value to how consumer reports is biased. These biases run through all of their ratings. So, CR are biased as well. I don't trust or read their reviews. And, that is why I like Steve Huff and the rest of the performance artists. You read the reviews about some of the top gear you use yourself and get some facts, some bias and some opinions. Most of all you get a performance that if you let yourself go a little, is fun to read. I find it interesting that the most emotional verbiage spewed into the Internet-ether has to do with getting the technical portion of photography correct. You would think that the emotion would run deeper about the art itself. But, it rarely ever does as demonstrated by the comments about the guy from the NYT not knowing what he is talking about. These sorts of reviews of camera gear are the odd part of our Hobby. We are all hobbyists that are trying to master a craft. We have invested a lot of time and effort trying to understand the technical aspects of photography in order to produce great files. But, all of this technical writing found in reviews is fast approaching a point where it has nothing to do with creating a great technical image.. Technology is at the point that a RX1 set to "auto" can take a better technical picture than a $13,000 Leica system. This is the point that we risk losing our hobbyists' interest in photography. Most of the fun may well be gone for a lot of hobbyist at this point, when anyone can master the hobby to a high degree, and anyone can have the technology that the hobbyist worked so hard to understand and own. So, these sites have always been into the performance art like that of HiFi audiophile esoterica. This has been enjoyable for me. I freely admit to enjoying the mostly male perverted behavior of liking to understand how to get the most out of my hobby along with the enjoyment of having the equipment that is the best at doing this. Problem is: The RX1 ruined it for me. It made me realize that we have stepped across the threshold into the realm of - anyone-can-do-it now. It being, to make a technically "perfect" image without knowing anything with a relatively cheap camera. Something was lost for me the day I bought that camera. Expect more of this coming at you fast. What was gained? Maybe, I'll have to start putting even more time and energy into the creation of the product that the technology of this hobby was designed for. Art. In the meantime, there is still some time left for Internet hobbyists to get upset about reviewers not understanding and getting things wrong. That is what is still important on the Internet. At least for a while longer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted August 11, 2013 Share #80 Posted August 11, 2013 Thanks Rick, for one of the best posts I've read here in a long while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.