jaapv Posted June 19, 2007 Share #81 Posted June 19, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Victor,I don't doubt your photographic ability, nor do I dispute your right to an opinion, but I was trying to say that on this forum you might be able to put it over more forcefully were you to use another wrapping around the message. Attacking people personally does not come over too well... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 19, 2007 Posted June 19, 2007 Hi jaapv, Take a look here "A Reviewer's Responsibility" Michael Reichmann reflection on his M8 Review. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest stnami Posted June 20, 2007 Share #82 Posted June 20, 2007 I think you have not got the "feel" of the way we conduct ourselves on this forum. Read and learn.................Vic's tirade seems fairly legit,quite expressive for the net, I don't see any of you lot coming to any agreement with him ,yet you do expect him to write as you say.....what's with the control freak attitude yaap!!!!............ reviewers post stuff others post stuff that states that their reviews are stuffed! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted June 20, 2007 Share #83 Posted June 20, 2007 My post was meant as a dispassionate observation, followed by the point that reviewers do what reviewers do best, and it's up to the rest of us to interpret carefully. That was a lose-lose effort on my part. Now I have Victor backing me up and Sean unhappy (he's not especially "fond of the sound of his own voice" IMNSHO; I might have been better off lumping EP in the first point). I have spent some of the past week enjoying 15 seconds of fame talking to newspaper reporters to explain the details of a technical paper that will get press coverage, and frankly, I thought I was getting a little too fond of the sound of my own voice. I think I'll stay out of this discussion in the future. respectfully, scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hofrench Posted June 20, 2007 Share #84 Posted June 20, 2007 (1) I don't think anyone was hurt by Reichmann. By the time I read his review, I'd been on the wait list (with $1,000 down at Popflash) for six months. As far as I know, nobody who might have made a purchase decision based on Reichmann's review could have taken delivery of a camera before about February. By that time, all the problems had been public for three months. Quite a number of people on the rangefinder forum had announced that they'd cancelled their orders pending fixes. So Reichmann is guilty of a theoretical crime that didn't have any actual victims. (2) As he has explained in a number of different ways, on different issues -- not just this one -- he's not primarily a reviewer, as Sean Reid is. Reichmann seeks out cameras that he thinks he might use, and then reports on them in a limited way -- for example, a lot of the cameras he works with are mostly used by professionals in studios, but Reichmann doesn't talk about studios because he's a landscape guy. Nor does he seek out every camera in a category. He reports on what he uses, and since he's an expert user, I personally find his reports useful. (3) He was dealing with a weak, hurting camera company. When he discovered the issues, he went back to ask them about them. Their reply left the impression that the problems might be sample problems, as happen with all new digital cameras. So, uncertain, he didn't report them -- but as soon as the major issues came out, he reported what he'd seen, and also reported that he hadn't written about them, and why. Can't really expect much more than that in terms of honesty -- the New York Times still has written an equivalent admission in their coverage of the Duke rape case, in which they made far more and far graver errors. 4. I think people who have perpetuated these complaints about Reichmann are simply [searching for the right word that won't hurt too many feelings] naive. They want perfection? Are they perfect? Do they know anybody who is? If they are truly all that disappointed by the Luminous Landscape review of the M8, I'd say their lives are a little limited. This is like brooding over a punctuation error in the newspaper.. JC Slinging insults about other people and ad hominem attacks -- from whatever direction -- do nothing to advance this discussion or the quality of this forum. I've been careful in what I've said on this subject to repeatedly express my general admiration for what Michael Reichmann does. Being accused of having a limited life is an interesting first for me, but I don't think that's the problem - at all. The question is, and it was raised by MR himself, and not by people brooding over punctuation in the newspaper, where should the loyalties of a reviewer lie, principally with the reading public, whether paying or free, or principally with the manufacturer, or somehow, as MR seems to intimate, split down the middle? I personally take objection to the idea of allowing the manufacturer to exercise editorial control in any way over an article that purports to be a review from someone who promotes his work and his business on the basis, at least strongly implied, of impartiality, expertise and honesty. This is what MR did, by his own admission, with his M8 writing. Editorial control, mind you, is not about allowing the manufacturer a chance to correct errors about technical details. Michael has revealed to us his policies in this area, and I for one, will never read another review of his trustingly. I am happy to accept the label of naive for having trusted him more than is warranted in the past. Won't happen again, especially when he is gushing in booster mode about a product. I would love to hear a statement of policy on editorial independence from Sean, whose site I subscribe to and have enjoyed. Where do you draw the line in terms of allowing a manufacturer to affect the content and editorial shape of your work? Whether one agrees with him or not, and I most certainly don't, MR's act of disclosure was healthy. He has essentially said that he is not a journalist and should not be held to the standards of that profession, that he embraces bias and that he regularly submits an advance copy of his work to manufacturers for review. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2007 Share #85 Posted June 20, 2007 Hi Howard, That question is easy to answer. The manufacturers have no editorial control over what I write at all. They never have. That's one of the reasons my site has no advertisers. In fact, I'm sure that Leica is not thrilled about many of the things I've written about the performance of CV and Zeiss lenses, about the LT-M8 adapter, etc. I do respect NDAs with preproduction cameras, lenses, etc. and so I report on file quality, for example, based on production cameras. When I praise some aspect of a lens or camera, by Leica or anyone else, its because I myself see that strength. That doesn't mean that I won't ever miss something when I review a camera or lens - that's possible for anyone - but no one has editorial control over what I write. It's interesting that another M8 review was praised by some for its honesty when, in fact, it included some incorrect information about the M8's reported *weaknesses*. I don't think manufacturers have any editorial control, at all, over what Michael writes either. He makes those decisions himself. It might be interesting to read those two interviews I linked as they cover some of this ground. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2007 Share #86 Posted June 20, 2007 ...............Vic's tirade seems fairly legit,quite expressive for the net, I don't see any of you lot coming to any agreement with him ,yet you do expect him to write as you say.....what's with the control freak attitude yaap!!!!............ reviewers post stuff others post stuff that states that their reviews are stuffed! It's not legit but I've chosen to ignore many of Vic's rants. I'm well aware of when I'm being baited. Vic can rant away but I'm not biting. I don't believe he's actually read any of the M8 reviews in question. Vic has a general disagreement, expressed in many posts over many months, with David Adamson, myself and others who compared the M8 file quality to that of scanned MF film. He's battled with M8 owners generally almost since the camera was first released. I think the reason that a discussion of Michael Reichman's article drifted over to me is that some people love to provoke a reaction and most know that I read this forum while Michael has probably never seen this thread. I increasingly ignore various posts and threads that are not worth the time to respond to. It takes time to respond and if I were to respond to every nonsensical post on the web, it would be a 24 hour job. Like most of us, I have better things to do. Howard posted an actual question which I've just replied to. But its not worthwhile to respond to some of the other things said in this thread, despite the love some have for soap operas and tempests-in-teapots. Steady as she goes... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hofrench Posted June 20, 2007 Share #87 Posted June 20, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks for that reply, Sean. I guess we still differ pretty substantially on what "editorial control" means. Taking the manufacturer's suggestion not to mention a problem that one has encountered meets my definition of surrendering that control. Again, this is not to beat up on Michael, but rather to insist on a certain amount of clarity in this discussion. The crux of the matter is there. By the way, as poorly served as we were by some of the early reviews, I don't regret my purchase of the M8. It is a very capable camera that fits my preferred working style - overwhelmingly black and white documentary photography - nicely. It is nonetheless a camera with a host of significant "issues," many of which you have clinically documented over recent months. Howard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2007 Share #88 Posted June 20, 2007 Thanks for that reply, Sean.I guess we still differ pretty substantially on what "editorial control" means. Taking the manufacturer's suggestion not to mention a problem that one has encountered meets my definition of surrendering that control. Again, this is not to beat up on Michael, but rather to insist on a certain amount of clarity in this discussion. The crux of the matter is there. By the way, as poorly served as we were by some of the early reviews, I don't regret my purchase of the M8. It is a very capable camera that fits my preferred working style - overwhelmingly black and white documentary photography - nicely. It is nonetheless a camera with a host of significant "issues," many of which you have clinically documented over recent months. Howard Hi Howard, It's not my place to speak for Michael but I don't think that he's controlled by any manufacturer at all. I'm not so sure that people were "poorly served" by all of the early reviews, there were just a lot of us who missed the IR problem at first. My articles about the M8 have covered not only every strength I've found in the camera but every weakness (that I'm aware of) as well. Reread them some time and see what you think. I published on the IR problem long before most people published anything on the M8 at all. The fact is that months after the M8 was released to the public, we (owners) are still discovering new strengths and weaknesses in the camera.That certainly doesn't mean that early adopters of the camera were "hiding" its weaknesses from prospective owners. Its just a very new camera and the more that we (collectively) use it, the more we discover about it. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hofrench Posted June 20, 2007 Share #89 Posted June 20, 2007 Sean, I know you are busy, and I am too, believe it or not. I have read everything you and MR wrote very carefully, and I know that hindsight is always 20/20. We're still running into definitional problems here, and I suspect that your friendship with Michael will prevent us from ever really disposing of this issue completely. Poorly served, to me, is very simple. You see a problem and you seek and accept the manufacturer's advice not to share that experience with your readers. That, too me, is a disservice, pure and simple. If you don't think that matters practically speaking, perhaps you can at least recognize a problem in terms of principles. Maybe it is because I am a journalist, maybe it is because I am naive. Who knows? I still find it offensive. Howard Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted June 20, 2007 Share #90 Posted June 20, 2007 Sean,I know you are busy, and I am too, believe it or not. I have read everything you and MR wrote very carefully, and I know that hindsight is always 20/20. We're still running into definitional problems here, and I suspect that your friendship with Michael will prevent us from ever really disposing of this issue completely. Poorly served, to me, is very simple. You see a problem and you seek and accept the manufacturer's advice not to share that experience with your readers. That, too me, is a disservice, pure and simple. If you don't think that matters practically speaking, perhaps you can at least recognize a problem in terms of principles. Maybe it is because I am a journalist, maybe it is because I am naive. Who knows? I still find it offensive. Howard Thank you Howard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 20, 2007 Share #91 Posted June 20, 2007 wait wait wait.......... one of my post has been removed?????????? whats that supposed to be ???????????? andreas - your removed it ??? why ??? i will repeate it again... any explanttions about m8 sound to me like this: bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla resolution bla bla bla bla bla bla firmwarebla bla bla bla bla bla production bla bla bla bla bla bla not production version bla bla bla bla bla bla lens performance bla bla bla bla bla bla i didnt know bla bla bla bla bla bla im inocent bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla techncal data bla bla bla bla bla bla tachnical aspects bla bla bla bla bla bla colour profile bla bla bla bla bla bla colour profile colour profile bla bla bla bla bla bla and i said that those bla bla bla talks is a very good and weel known method to wipe the real dirt underneath. nothing personal towards anybody. if somebody feels taht it was adressed to him/her, thats is up to him. i have enough contribution to this forum to have the rite and the legitimacy to talk in non-so-normative ways at times. and i also love leica very much - and photograph with it alot alot --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sean, not personal, but get this: a problem of IR etc is a well know probelem in didgital photography. in fact, scneider has offered the spcial digital filter (that now m8 owners use too) to solve some of the digital sensor problms that way. common - you want to tell me that no body knew about that. there was no experince as such at all??? michale reichman says at some of his reviews taht he used a kodak digi back that had those problems ... common-on. or you want to say that leica engeeners, or at least some reviewer didnt know the m8 tech datas and the phenomena ????????????????? look sean, you ignore me cause you dont know how to "eat" what i say, and you dont feel secure enough to get in clash... no worries... i told you - nothing in personal.... and i can even tell that some of your reviews (many actually) are very very good, informative and helpful for people who are ready to spend alot money on lenses for example... but, i know too what is the best and the frontier digital photography very well, and so i know what is the best fully analog processes. and no, i dont beleive you when you say that, cause i see myself what is the differnace. but one thing is true, for people who dont know the differances, those poetic statements seem very impressive and it acts as fantastic aggitation.... again, compare best medium quality analog with best medium quality digital (not m8). you will see that at the botton line, wether it is ilfochrome print or FB black and white, fine analog has much more to it than fine digital prints.it has substance that no digital comes close. the overall impression is far better. now, tell me that high quality analog is not alwasy convinient for pro journalist or wedding photographer for example...... of course i agree with you. no problems. tell me that m8/cannon5d quality is probably enough even for best wedding photographers and journalists or editorial photographers.... yes, maybe, i can agree with you.... BUT.......... dont tell me that it is better than medium format, cause it is not even close. you agitate here. and your statement is not true.. and it is not about subjective/objective reaquirments about quality of the photograph. it is there and everybody who has oprtnuty can see. but as alwasy... everything that is related to boy toys (and cameras too in this category for many) can be eassily agitated and monipulated... cause the boys that want knew toys are masses of sheeeps........ mmmmmmmeeeeeeehhhhhhhhhh mehhhh meeehhhhhhhh ah, i dont mean analog to some junky scan on nikon or minlolta epson canoon scanners... and i aslo dont mean to junky 1 hour labs of course..... but it seems that it is you who refer to those junky things.... junky labs and scanners are not best analog photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2007 Share #92 Posted June 20, 2007 Poorly served, to me, is very simple. You see a problem and you seek and accept the manufacturer's advice not to share that experience with your readers. That, too me, is a disservice, pure and simple. Now there is the rub: Sean and MR saw -or even did not see- something and went back to Leica to inquire. Leica told them: firmware is still being worked on. That is not influencing the editorial process imo. So to publish or not to publish was a judgment call, which one in retrospect may or not may agree with, but it is certainly not a matter of journalistic principle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 20, 2007 Share #93 Posted June 20, 2007 jaap.. they said best camera in the world.. they said better than medium format... they said so many things.... i will be a little carcastic here, but, it sounds to me like those people who a day before they go to las-vegas casino, they sign on contracts of new houses and cars ) say that your are impressed with some aspects of m8. that is ok. m8 has alot of good sides, i know that (the camera)... but those aggitations of "best" "best" "best" "best""best" ????????????????????????????????? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic vic Posted June 20, 2007 Share #94 Posted June 20, 2007 and......... as i said previously..... you want to do something good and valuable with your m8, besides talking techs? take a look and contribute here with your cameras. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/other/26874-edward-burtynskys-photos.html it is more important and more "leica spirit" and more photographic than talking techs Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2007 Share #95 Posted June 20, 2007 Victor, you really must start reading my posts. I have published dozens of photographs in this forum - some even have drawn favorable comments... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted June 20, 2007 Share #96 Posted June 20, 2007 Now there is the rub: Sean and MR saw -or even did not see- something and went back to Leica to inquire. Leica told them: firmware is still being worked on. That is not influencing the editorial process imo. So to publish or not to publish was a judgment call, which one in retrospect may or not may agree with, but it is certainly not a matter of journalistic principle. I have no idea about Sean but MR saw the problems, asked Lieca about it, and Leica said don't mention it. It had nothing to do with firmware. The camera needed a hardware fix. I think in today world everyone with a digital camera understands that the first run of any camera is not the final product, at least as far as software for that camera goes. I have not seen any digital camera made that has not had a firmware update or multiples of them. Even if it was just a firmware fix don't you think it should of been mentioned in his review? So if you were a reviewer and you saw green blobs and stripes on some images you would do the same as MR? Lets just leave that part out. Yes it was a judgement call, a poor judgement call, and whoever chose not mention it made the wrong call. Where this thread started was about his recent diatribe to justify his actions in the M8 review and to make himself feel better. What it has turned into is some people expressing there views that MR did a diservice to all his readers, and to himself, and others trying to justify his actions. Sorry wrong is wrong and it always will be. You can spin it any way you like. It still doesn't make it right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted June 20, 2007 Share #97 Posted June 20, 2007 I think that at least we all could learn from this ... the Internet is an extremely dangerous marketing tool and Leica must admit that they don't know how to use it. Otherwise, the M8 could be a huge success! LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2007 Share #98 Posted June 20, 2007 Sean,I know you are busy, and I am too, believe it or not. I have read everything you and MR wrote very carefully, and I know that hindsight is always 20/20. We're still running into definitional problems here, and I suspect that your friendship with Michael will prevent us from ever really disposing of this issue completely. Poorly served, to me, is very simple. You see a problem and you seek and accept the manufacturer's advice not to share that experience with your readers. That, too me, is a disservice, pure and simple. If you don't think that matters practically speaking, perhaps you can at least recognize a problem in terms of principles. Maybe it is because I am a journalist, maybe it is because I am naive. Who knows? I still find it offensive. Howard Hi Howard, Just so we're clear, your concern is with Michael's review, correct? You do realize Leica had nothing to do with the fact that I didn't see the IR problem at first, right? Again, its not my place to speak for Michael and so you might want to e-mail him directly. He indeed is my friend and I appreciate his work. If you have questions about my reviews on the M8, however, I'm happy to answer them. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2007 Share #99 Posted June 20, 2007 I think that at least we all could learn from this ... the Internet is an extremely dangerous marketing tool and Leica must admit that they don't know how to use it. Otherwise, the M8 could be a huge success! LOL On that at least we can agree, it would have been so easy to turn a thing like the thin IR filter into a marketing advantage. Having said that, none of us early adopters were in any way influenced by any review, as the camera had to be ordered many months before to even recieve it before 2007.And speaking for myself, the hiccups were less than I expected. After all, even the biggies routinely get major teething troubles, let alone a company of limited resources like Leica. It is a miracle they did as well as they did, and I think the succes of the M8 reflects that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted June 20, 2007 Share #100 Posted June 20, 2007 Now there is the rub: Sean and MR saw -or even did not see- something and went back to Leica to inquire. Leica told them: firmware is still being worked on. That is not influencing the editorial process imo. So to publish or not to publish was a judgment call, which one in retrospect may or not may agree with, but it is certainly not a matter of journalistic principle. Let's keep this clear because several things are getting mixed up. I published about everything I had experienced with the M8 as I experienced it. I discuss that in some detail here: Sean Reid - the interview extended | photostream I simply did not see the IR problem at first and, again, I'm one of many (not only reviewers) who were in that boat. On the other hand, my M8 reviews also include discussions of some weaknesses that I have not seen discussed in any other review. As a set, I still feel that those M8 reviews are perhaps the most thorough review of the camera (looking at pros and cons) anywhere on the web. Are there other articles that surveyed a large group of people and then published about the M8s that failed completely? Are there many other reviews with extensive tests of IR filter effectiveness, cyan drift, firmware effectiveness, etc.? I was part of the thread where Pascal's color problems lead to the IR sensitivity discovery and, once I confirmed the problem, I both contacted Leica for a response *and* published about it. My comments on IR sensitivity and possible solutions were published long before most people had published on the M8 at all (several still have not published at all). Since then, I have done extensive testing and writing related to that topic. I've also been deeply involved with finding solutions to these various problems. Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.