I love your column. Agree completely with your analysis of
different types of "reviews". And agree completely that they're
just cameras. And disagree completely that Paul should put a sock
in it.
Personally if anyone needs to put a sock in it, it's MR. I can't
stand someone who puts up a half baked not very well thought out
"review" -- his term not anyone else's -- and then starts
name-calling when people call him on it.
His whole schtick about "pixel peepers" is ad hominem at its worst.
I read the review, thought it was goofy and filled with the usual
equal parts rubbish and insight which is the signature of his
commentary, and was ready to move on. But when I started reading
his attacks on those who would point out the rather obvious errors
in his opinions I flipped into a different camp.
The problems here seem to be: (1) he doesn't have an editor; and
(2) he's in love with his opinions; (3) he's short on technical
knowledge. I'll turn to each of the issues:
1. No editor -- if this were a print magazine this rank stuff would
get cleaned up by even the worst of editors. But since what he
thinks can get published without a review he and the rest of us
don't get the minimum filter we've come to expect in most mediums.
2. Opinions -- my sense is that MR is so enamored with his own
opinions that he's incapable of being his own editor. He simply
can't see when he's off the beam or when he's being terminally
inconsistent (His latest explanation of why he judges noise in the
Kodak differently than the nosie in the 828 is a good example. How
is the noise different? Can he explain it? Quantify it? What are
the standards? Is it anything more than an ex post fact
rationalization?). Compounding the problem is that he does an
absolute horrible job of making clear what is fact and what is
opinion. Now if there was an editor all this would get sorted out,
but there is no editor, so it doesn't.
3. Short on technical knowledge -- his contributions to the web
site reminds me of PC Magazine -- great if you don't know much
obviously flawed if you do. For instance, MR's printing discussions
-- which he puts forth as fact not opinion BTW -- are terminally
silly, bearing more of a resemblance to numerology than to the
technology. I mean who in their right mind would talk about DPI --
something meaningful only for digital halftones -- when discussing
ink jet printers that don't use digital halftones.
I've never mentioned any of this because in most instances it's
better to just leave things alone. But this entiire spate of
attacks on anyone who dares mention that the emperor has no
clothers irritates me out of my mind. If you want exhibit A as to
childish behaviors, you don't have to look any further than MR.
He's the guy claiming people are accuing him of taking drugs and
all sorts of other nonesense (apparently in his mind a humorous
post about LL being on crack is a serious accusation of drug abuse,
C'mon), falling into a "poor me I"ve been brutalized by the web
police" mode which is hardly flattering.
To me he just can't handle legitimate criticism. You want to put up
a commercial web site and pontificate, well, you had better be
prepared for a bit of flack once in a while. Comes with the
territory. I have friends in the news business who write columns,
and what he's seen is very mild by comparison with the nasty stuff
they get all the time. Which isn't to say that anyone likes nasty
grams or that some things aren't objectionable.
But no, I don't think Paul should put a sock in it. I think we
should all be thankful for the people who are filling the editorial
role which is not othewise filled on self-published web sites. Not
demean them by calling them "pixel peepers" (another name for
people who don't agree with me) or tell them to stiffle. Perhaps
while we're at it we can cool the jets on the name calling all
around
And finally, in closing let me say that your weekly columns are
absolutely terrific and I hope your new year finds you prosperous
and photographically blessed!
Todd Walker started a pretty funny thread elsewhere...he took
offense at being "insulted" by MR! I thought that was pretty rich,
considering what's been said of MR here. He's been called blind,
bribed, useless, all sorts of nasty things...then when he defends
himself he's accused of being insulting. Heh.
Heck, they're just cameras. The pictures most of us take will never
amount to a hill of beans in this world. We do this because it's
satisfying and interesting, and, hopefully, fun too.
--Mike
http://www.37thframe.com
NEW Links page!
