"A Reviewer's Responsibility" Michael Reichmann reflection on his M8 Review

[sean_reid]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sean, I'm not certain this sentence says what you mean---does it have an extra "not"?

 

It's hard to write an unambiguous sentence with a "No" and two "not"s. Even before msync has everyone well lubricated.

 

Cheers,

 

--clyde

 

Thank you for catching for catching the typo. I'm literally doing four things at once this morning.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[vic vic]

sean lets get to one of the questions ... as hofrench says......

 

1. is it ethical what was here ? and i will add.. in that landscape you was prabably the most ethical and the less TOY BOY, trying to give a WORKING PHOTOGRAGHER revies (even if there was many problems - ethical too that are presented now as inocense).

2. as we both love leica (i think it is clear to both of us)... do you think this BOY TOY game from leica side and marketing and product prepearation serves the leica by anyway ?? we can talk about this question later and in another place.. it is not directly related to this thread at the moment.

 

 

a matter of taste you say??

 

ok, my excusses, but a matter of taste is wether you prefer a macdonalds junk or a burgondi/dijoun kitchen... this is a matter of taste....

 

the first ethical problem is that in the name of marketing aggitation and boy toy games, some people evaluate things in the spirit of macdonalds even if they have burgondi cheff food on table. (be it m8, film leica camera, modern medium or old medium).

 

the second ethical problem is that some (and that inculdes you a little bit) turn the things otherwise now.. for example.. you call your clear aggitations a matter of taste.. no sean.. this is not the way it was presented originally, and BOY TOYS still belive in those aggitations.. others write a "reviewer responsibility" to clean themselves some how after much pressure and blame leica company as a kind of concpiration that they innocently were drawn inside.... this is ethical problem.....

 

sean.. you can call it taste or whatevr you want now....... no.... m8 is not like medium format film or medium format digital. but it is much better in my taste too than canon... that is really a matter of taste...

and no, film (from small leica) has more substance, more tangability and cohernace in its "look" that no digital has (not even m8).....

 

the ethical problem is that for some the m8 might be a more comfortable tool but instead of saying that directly and simply, they start to compare, mislead and aggitate (and not only on leica issues).

m8 is more convinient for some... that is ok.. of course, digital has its convinince and in many cases and aplications the unque qualities and virtues of film are lost somewhat in the process anyway.. so why to run after it, it is not that eassy, cheap and convineint to get the best out of film - darkroom, hand prints, or goood pro-labs that can do it for you etc.... agree.......

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hofrench]

I appreciate Sean's willingness to engage here.

Thanks again, Sean.

[ken_tanaka]

"I wish that one -- just one -- of the early M8 "reviewers" had the brass and maturity of ego to do such a job."

 

With these sorts of personal attacks, is it any wonder that this has not been a productive thread? "Brass" and "maturity of ego" have nothing to do with this, they're just cheap slings. Ken is suggesting that all of the early M8 reviewers saw problems but didn't write about them, which of course is not correct. If this thread ends up being shut down, its posts like Ken's that will likely have triggered it.

I tried to bring this thread into some kind of constructive direction but two posts later we're back in the sand box again. If this is the level of discussion this thread is destined for then I support having it shut down.

 

My comments were hardly meant as a "personal attack", Sean. As I do not subscribe to your site I have not read your review.

[wparsonsgisnet]

... I do not subscribe to your site I have not read your review.

 

Now, there you're missing something.

 

. . . . .

 

In reference to much of the foregoing: there is a great deal of suspicion regarding Leica's motives, reviewers lack of scruples, blah ....

 

I am waiting for a discounted lens, have already received one of 2 free filters, am amazed at (1) Leica's very clear willingness to make M8 users happy, and (2) their willingness to be flamed on the forum that they finance.

 

I read MR, I subscribe to ReidReviews, I wander to lots of sites to see what's going on. It does not appear to me that any of the reviewers mentioned has a secret agenda or acts either suspiciously or maliciously. I plan to continue to subscribe to ReidReviews, and to read MR, ongoing. Great info.

 

My take on MR is that he's been unhappy since he tailored his review in response to (some sort of) information from Leica. There is no road kill. M8 owners have been compensated. We're making pictures that we could not make in other ways.

 

The coin for web-based information flow is both good (1) we all get info quickly that we wouldn't get otherwise, and bad (2) many get their fingers singed.

 

Let's keep this forum as civil as it's been. I am a seeker of free information, I continue to distrust authority, and I think this particular thread is unfriendly.

 

If someone wants to attack MR, put some water in his cyber gas tank ( a virtual crime).

 

Lighten up people.

[AlanG]

first of all to alan...

oh man.. of course i have no problems with voigtlander.. in fact.. i think this is one of the sexiest cameras ever made, not only as tool but as the megical "look" that it gives to the photograph.

 

Well I'm glad about that but they really weren't shot with a Voigtlander. I've never used a Bessa II. You had suggested that my view of 35mm digital camparing to scanned medium format film must be based on lousy equipment or lack of skills. I was simply trying to show you that I may know a thing or two and can have a valid opinion when it comes to digital compared with scanned MF film. As do many others on this forum.

 

The interior posted was made with a 1Ds and the Miami photo was made on 6x12 Velvia ISO 50 film using a Linhof Technikardan 45 and a Rodenstock 65mm f 4.5 Grandagon. (A very modern lens.) The image was scanned on a Polaroid SprintScan 120 to about a 200 meg file. (If I recall.)

 

My point was that I know how to get this kind of quality from scanned film, but often my digital images look better. (For reasons other than just maximum resolution.) On my 24x36 inch prints they look comparable in detail but the digital images have no grain. However the precision I get shooting with tethered digital cameras allows me to be more accurate with lighting and exposure than I got using medium format and Polaroids. And the control I get in raw conversion is better than I got from scanning transparencies.

 

So when people compare an M8 to scanned MF, I know what they mean. I've seen it too.

 

As for the rest of this thread. Can't we agree that everyone has chastised various reviewers enough?

 

And some people love showing images and talking about photography and some like talking about their cameras. What is wrong with that? This is a camera forum. I like talking about cameras and learning trivial details about them sometimes too. And I consider myself a serious photographer.

 

I don't even see anything wrong with someone owning something and enjoying it for its own sake whether they use it as I think they should or not.

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry Vic.

 

I didn't mean it as a lie. That's why I told you what was really used. It was a little joke. I didn't think anyone (including you) would actually believe I would have taken those photos with a Bessa II. Sort of like saying I'm a professional race car driver and I race in my dad's old 1951 Plymouth. I simply took your Voigtlander reference and ran with it. I thought you'd surely say, come on Alan, what was really used for those shots?

 

As for seeing the quality of my scan, that's why I posted a 100% crop.

 

Without seeing any of my work or knowing me, you questioned whether I knew the difference between what could be produced from scanned MF film vs. digital.

 

But you know what. Maybe a Bessa II would take a nice picture too.

[Guest stnami]

Alan wrote this........

It was my dear Voigtlander. A Bessa II as a matter of fact. The best camera I ever used for architecture. What, you have a problem with me using this now?

............................ thus it puts him in the really stupid level................ never to be trusted with any comments again

[vic vic]

alan... suppose the apology is accapted.. i simply have no other way to communicate with you in this case, and good that it is that way........

 

 

you see....... you just examplified now what im talking about all the time......

BOY TOY TECH LITTLE TALKS.......

 

you say that you thought that i will ask you what camera is it????????????????????? why should i ask you that things???? do you think i trust interent files ?????????? i can make a pic from little dlux2 camera and make it look on the monitor and small interent file as good as the medium leaf. and i can make 4x5 junk scan and poor processing that will look more like phone-camera picure.....

why should i ask anything abourt that ??? interent is full of lies ..... you just examplified it.......

 

you made a joke...... you talk like a joke, and so michael richmans review is also equaly good example of jokes ......... interent small talks.........

 

the problem is that with some presure on you - the BOY TOYS ...... you are not even a good small talkers........ as one of the small talkers just exposed it.... and there are many like this........

 

the BOY TOYS live in the INTERENT small talks...... and they mainly show and compare their "art" on the interent ????????

for that purpose..... you really dont needd leica......

cause im telling you ...... majority of those BOY TOYS photographs are one big trash and junk.......

BOY TOYS .......

INTERNET SMALL TALKS ..............

WHAT CAMERA LENNS ......

you really dont need m8.... take some liitlle camerra... call it m8 photography...... on the interent it will be enough...... beyond it BOY TOYS dont go anyway..... it is not convinient enough to GET OUT OFF THE COMPUTER BOX anyway........

 

you make jokes........ pitty that on the same breathe you say leica word....

people can take it seriously, who knows maybe even leica takes it seriously ))

 

 

 

 

 

 

ah...... by the way........ i have enough of this lies and small talks.....

i have made my point and very clearly.... read again and you will see it, belive me it worth to understand it at least.......

everybody who is not blind can see it....

BOY TOYS??? i dont mind about it to be honest..... too childish )

[AlanG]

alan... suppose the apology is accapted.. i simply have no other way to communicate with you in this case, and good that it is that way........

 

 

 

Look VIc. You just don't seem to get my post. It is called sarcasm. Like "I took these shots with my old Bessa II. What do you think about that?" It struck me as too outragous to make sense to anyone if they look at the pictures and know what a Bessa II is. Heck, a Bessa II is not even a wide angle camera. I thought you knew what it was as you said your family had an old Voigtlander 6x9. In any case, my point had nothing to do with the camera used but to show that I could scan film with fairly decent results.

 

Transparencies from a 6x9 Bessa II probably would have worked for this scanning demo. And I'm sure I could do stunning work with a Bessa II if necessary. (But what professional architectural photographer is using one today? If any ever used one) And somehow I've found a way to support myself in this field for almost 30 years.

 

For those who don't know, a 6x9 Bessa II is quite an old folding roll film camera. I guess I should have said I made these with my old Brownie.

 

I'll just have to fire my writers and get some new ones.

 

You seem very serious and I am not. It's only a discussion about cameras and photography. Maybe you should think about lightening up.

 

As for whatever else you wrote, the part I think I understood was when you said that I and others here couldn't know anything about scanning MF film, nor could I have a vallid opinion in saying that I often prefered the images I made with my digital cameras. So I thought I'd show you evidence that I was making a pretty good scan for comparison. This leads back to one of your complaints about one reviewer saying the M8 made large prints comparable to those from scanned MF film. .

 

The rest of your points were not too clear to me due to my own limitations. I don't really know what you mean by all of the boy toys references or what you expect anyone to say in response.

 

I also posted in another thread that I was happy with all of the Ferraris I ever purchased. When someone said he felt poor in comparison I admitted that mine were all Matchbox cars. He thought it was funny. I wasn't lying or trying to hurt anyone. It was a joke. Get it?

 

Good grief, this is supposed to be fun. We don't have lives in the balance here. If I caused you or anyone else a problem, I'm sorry.

[scott kirkpatrick]

 

Transparencies from a 6x9 Bessa II probably would have worked for this scanning demo. And I'm sure I could do stunning work with a Bessa II if necessary. (But what professional architectural photographer is using one today? If any ever used one)

...

I also posted in another thread that I was happy with all of the Ferraris I ever purchased. When someone said he felt poor in comparison I admitted that mine were all Matchbox cars.

 

Mike Johnson at TheOnlinePhotographer recently highlighted a NY Times photographer who is making moving photoessays with his 6x9 folding Zeiss or Voigtlaender, one with a moderately wide angle. He has a lab to back him up, however.

 

And matchbox Ferraris are serious fun, but they can get expensive. My son and I share access to a small fleet of Ferrari-red 1/18 scale mounts, ranging from the first 166mm to the latest mid-engine road models. They are available in many European airports for about 20 EUR each. Someday when I am rich and successful, I hope to treat myself to a 1/12 scale Ferrari, but they cost almost 50 EUR and I will think long and hard before returning from a business trip with one of those extravagances in my carry-on.

 

cheers,

 

scott

[vic vic]

first of all - i adress this to the moderators or admistrators of this forum.....

 

at nite (israel time), i made a comment to AlanG as follewing about his lies to me..... my comment was placed inbetween the two comments of AlanG one after another on this page ...... the removed messege was as follows more or less :

 

"alan.... are you F****** lie to me" .... "you just lied and appologies for it etc etce etc"

 

suddenly i see that one of the moderators of admistrators decided to remove my comment...... this is at least the second time i know that my comment is removed without even warning me and informing me beforehand.....

 

who removed it ??? why??? because of the word F***** ..... are you little child ? or somebody here concidered as child....??? i was attacked in most ugliest way that some of the memebers lied to me..... and you remove my comment that expresses my dissapointemnt because of this ????????????

why the other previous comment was removed ????????? because i attacked somebody personally or said F***** - dont remember??? what is it??? real kindergarden ??? people cannot defend themselves and theor opinion ???? they need this ugly looking protection that looks like komunistic regime on the forum ?????????

 

and i have to mention.. that those "removings" of comments simply disturb the dialog between the sides , and make ones arguments ditorted

 

-------------------------------------

 

 

alan..... i will repeat it again.......... you lied......... keep you jokes for yourself....... what do you think i am??? a dating lady that you want to impress with stupid kitschy jokes ??? and im also not one of your school friends rite ??? so keep them for yourself..... and dont mess with me........ i really dont like liers..... and even less i like those who later try to play the game of inocense

and your later arguments about bessa, ferrari match boxes, making you money from photography are the same jokes and they have nothing to do with arguments...... you dont understand what is BOY TOY........ it seems that you are one of them... ) but self-conscousness has never been a strong part of BOY TOYS, surely not of those who are the interent small talkers as well......

 

 

 

---------------------------------

 

 

 

scot...... bessa is amazingly sexy camera.....

(moderator, please dont remove it becasue of "sexy".. scot doesnt seem to me little child, and this is the way i describe things that i like, so please be liberal enough to accapt it....)....

the negatives i have from it are probably of the camera around the WW2 production.... and indeed .. the lens seems to me very normal.. which is 100mm on 6x9 format (more or less 43mm on leica small format -film camera , so abnout 28??onM8??). i was a little boy then in georgia and dont remeber exactly.....

i dont know the history of bessa voigtlander cameras, but i understand they have lots of fans.. the more modern ones are produced much later but i dont know untill what date.... some pics i saw - they have their magic - unparallel..... the other megical camerra like this is a small 6x7 linhof camera (i think it is called press 220 - not the technika family). another megical camnera with somewhat modern look of picture mixed with vintage magic.... the much later linhofs (techinkas), some i saw (of decade and up to two decades of age i think), i can say that in some cases they may look almost indistiguishable in picture quality from the new current model systems outcomes...

and ferari is simply great.. by the way ... tried caterham ?? just for fun )

 

 

--------------------------------------

 

 

i have no more will and desire to talk here.. too many lies...... too many TOY BOYS........

 

ah, by the way...... i will be glad if the great represenatative of BOY TOYS called michel richman will join the conversation.........

 

common...... be brave..... it seems that BOY TOYS are really not partners for conversation.......

sean reid ... though not saint, far from being boy toy........ at least so it seems to me.....

 

michel richman....... it is about you a little bit...... promise to be as nice as possible ) im sure there are some other people who wil be glad to hear you personally .........

again.. promise to be nice )

[Guest stnami]

removing comments places other comments out of context.. pretty dumb thing to do by admin...

my comment...

Alan wrote this........

Quote:

It was my dear Voigtlander. A Bessa II as a matter of fact. The best camera I ever used for architecture. What, you have a problem with me using this now?

............................ thus it puts him in the really stupid level................ never to be trusted with any comments again

__________________

. it is totally useless as it requires the so called lost posts.... it sux this removal and catering to the wingers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stevez4]

What a great thread. At last a lack of fawning. Clearly the issue of lack of complete disclosure by reviewers especially those whom you must pay to read is key to this issue. For example, when my M8s died and Sean's died we received totally different manufacturer reception. Emails from Leica and my dealer state complete surprise not assistance.

The responsibility for journalistc truth andexellance is to the reader, not the supplier. I think thast Vic is saying just that.

[sean_reid]

What a great thread. At last a lack of fawning. Clearly the issue of lack of complete disclosure by reviewers especially those whom you must pay to read is key to this issue. For example, when my M8s died and Sean's died we received totally different manufacturer reception. Emails from Leica and my dealer state complete surprise not assistance.

The responsibility for journalistc truth andexellance is to the reader, not the supplier. I think thast Vic is saying just that.

 

Steve,

 

There was *no* lack of complete disclosure by me (the reviewer one pays to read) - none. Moreover, the weaknesses and problems with the M8 (as well as its strengths) have been covered more thoroughly on my site than in any other reviews I know of. Again, for the third or fourth time, I link this interview: Sean Reid - the interview extended | photostream

 

I'm used to taking potshots from people who wish I hadn't missed the IR problem at first - even though I published on that issue long before most people had published on the M8 *at all* - but lets keep the facts straight. I did not fail to disclose anything I knew about the production M8 when I knew it. Is that perfectly clear? I don't think that I can state it more simply. In fact, my first review of the production camera included pictures that showed the IR cast even though I hadn't yet recognized it as such. I was part of the thread where Pascal started to figure out that it was an IR cast he was seeing (I think Robsteve pointed us in that direction as well). People should do their homework before making accusations.

 

The only formal survey of M8's failing that I've seen in any review is on my site. In fact, if you want a list of what I've: A) written about the problems with the M8 and done to directly help photographers with those M8 problems, just ask. Its a long list.

 

The misinformation, and sometimes tone, of this thread is unfortunate. If I don't challenge some of that misinformation, it gets perpetuated. If I ignore the thread, some people might actually believe some of the nonsense here. History shifts when people aren't paying attention. Frustrated people are looking for a scapegoat and Michael isn't about to waste his time posting on this thread. People have e-mailed me and asked why I'm wasting my time posting to this thread. In this case, its to set the record straight so that people, who may not know otherwise, aren't under the impression that I hid certain problems with the M8, etc.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[hofrench]

Sean,

I personally have no problem with your website or of its treatment of the M8.

I am a happy, paying customer, and I'd recommend the site without hesitation to anyone seriously interested in photography, especially rangefinder photography.

I'd be happy if you wrote more there and less here. I genuinely look forward to your articles.

I've said my last word on the substance of Michael Reichmann's handling of his M8 reviews, for which he, by his own admission (and I actually applaud him for the admission part) consulted with Leica about problems he encountered and followed their suggestion not to detail them.

You are right about trying to keep the story straight, and I sympathize with your position as regards your reviews.

It is a distortion of the "history," as you call it, to throw out there that Michael has no time to waste on discussions like this.

What Michael did in substance was write a labored justification of his own handling of the M8 review which bears the same name as this thread.

There is no space on his website for people to weigh in, whether in agreement or disagreement. So having pronounced himself free of all blemish, and having nothing to reconsider or apologize for, he has moved on.

This thread may have declined in civility, and wandered beyond its initial terms. It may even have gone on far too long, although I don't support the idea of suppressing it.

But one can hardly fault people for taking Michael up on the very terms he proposed, and in fact, as in my case, disagreeing with him - strongly.

hf

[AGeoJO]

Very well handled and stated, Sean.

 

Howard, I concur with your opinion entirely.

[sdai]

In fact, Michael also hosts such a forum on his own web site so anybody can send in some direct feedback to his articles if he/she wants. I guess he is watching this thread too but only sees no need to respond.

[reven]

Yes because ther certainly is now need... sorry but Vic's posts are the worst stuff I ever read, but Ok that was always the case.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[AlanG]

removing comments places other comments out of context.. pretty dumb thing to do by admin...

my comment...

Alan wrote this........

Quote:

It was my dear Voigtlander. A Bessa II as a matter of fact. The best camera I ever used for architecture. What, you have a problem with me using this now?

............................ thus it puts him in the really stupid level................ never to be trusted with any comments again

 

And you can't see this as sarcasm either? Vic had previously said that I couldn't have a valid opinion comparing images from my digital camera and scanned medium format because the medium format camera I was using for reference must be something like an old Voigtlander rather than a modern camera with top quality optics.

 

So the sarcasms is along the lines of: I'll show you what I can do with that old Voigtlander - ("Voigtlander" representing the camera I actually was using for my comparison.)

 

Don't take it so litterally. Do you understand now?

 

The irony is that the Bessa II with 105 Apo Lanthar, under many circumstances, probably can produce as good a picture as pretty much any modern 6x9 camera and lens.

 

Boy this is a tough room. To anyone who ever has or will review a camera, you have my sympathy.

 

I guess MR's recent statement really didn't clear the air.