Pop Photo - Nikon F6 Review
Pop Photo arrived in the mail today. They do a full review of the new F6. Their reviews always have a quick synopsis, a "What's Hot", "What's Not" corner.
In the What's Not section one of the items is,
[COLOR=Red]"Recording medium requires chemical processing before it can be read."[/COLOR]
Isn't that the friggin' point?!?!
I'm really incensed by this. What a bunch of butt wipes!
Write to them and tell them:
Originally Posted by Tom Duffy
"chemically processed recording medium will last far longer than electronic recording media" That is HOT!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA God that is funny.
Technological society has succeeded in multiplying the opportunities for pleasure, but it has great difficulty in generating joy. Pope Paul VI
So, I think the "greats" were true to their visions, once their visions no longer sucked. Ralph Barker 12/2004
In NZ they had the pop photo issue with a big headline "Cannon MKII Shoots Down Film!", then in the magazine they had the MKII shooting in high res mode, and a similar Cannon shooting 200speed print film. They showed a percentage enlargement with the caption "Digital Wins!". They gave no information such as why they chose to use 200 speed print film, or how they scanned it, etc. Why not use velvia 50 and drum scan it? It was extremely ridiculous. Anyway, let's see the MKII beat Jorge's 12x20
Well if Pop Photo has gone the same direction as Popular Electronics / Science / Mechanics etc. did, then they've become less of a "hands on" experimenters/DIY rag and more of a "let's review the latest gadget" rag.
It's called catering to the "me - first - NOW!" generation.
I no longer read the ones I mentioned, and when I was younger I used to buy every issue.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Totally John. I think every single page in some of these rags should have in small print at the top "This is a Paid Advertisement"
So Tom, why bother buying the rag? If you ignore it, it WILL go away. And did you really expect an in-depth review from a magazine with a name like that?
The only reason to get "Pop Photo" is because it's so cheap by subscription. It's obvious that the magazine is supported solely by advertisements. They could give it away and still make money. To paraphrase Will Rogers, they never met an adverstising dollar they didn't like.
Originally Posted by Graeme Hird
I get Popular Photography for three reasons, primarily:
1. When they do a full test of hardware, particularly lenses, they are reasonably objective. For example, it allows me to drool over unobtainable lenses like the new Leica 50 Summilux ASPH.
2. I enjoy Herbert Keppler's monthly column on the SLR. He knows the history of the SLR (hell, he lived it!). Over the last year, he's had a lot to say about the advantages of film, pros reembracing film after moving to digital, and cautions against the follow the herd rush to digital. Considering the audience he reaches, he's a very influential voice of reason and deliberation.
3. Last Christmas, 5 people asked me which point and shoot digital camera they should buy. There was no dissuading them, based on the write ups in Pop Photo, I was able to give good recommendations based on the price range they were interested in. While they like the immediate feedback of digital, the day two second thoughts are predictable. The tiny digital sensor, combined with the harsh built in flash, make for very ugly people pictures.
Finally, it costs about a dollar a month.
I guess what burned me about the anti-film comment in the Nikon review (after searching for a tongue in check aspect to the comment (there was none)), was the unfairness of it. For every disadvantage that film has, digital certainly has offsetting problems. Nikon chose to do the R&D to produce a top of the line film camera for a dwindling niche market (remembering that photojournalism is now essentially digital). Nikon should be lauded for the decision, instead we get this pithy little put down from the photography magazine with the largest circulation in the world.
There was a comedy on TV here the other night called 'Nathan Barley'. It centred around a journalist who wrote a column called 'Rise Of The Idiots'. 'Idiots' being those in their twenties or thirties who work in publishing, who ride stupid little scooters or ridiculous miniature bicycles, say 'cool' a lot, work in an 'office' with no desks but with a 'chillout zone', who still ride skateboards, who promote their personal website with 'cool' little stickers they paste everywhere... it seems 'the idiots' now produce photography magazines.
Anáil nathrach, ortha bháis is beatha, do chéal déanaimh.