</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (docholliday @ Mar 1 2003, 03:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> MF ain&#39;t dyin&#39;&#33; Magazines print whatever garbage is going to pay them the most. You almost never hear a magazine say that &quot;So and so gave us this camera to test and ... we&#39;d like to say that it&#39;s a piece of sh*t...&quot; Many of the &quot;reviewers&quot; have to sign an agreement that says that they&#39;ll print *at least* a neutral comment about a product before they can get it...

So many people are not willing to enhance or further their education, but rather find a simpler solution...&quot;photoshop can fix it all...&quot;. With that same comment, that explains a lot of things...like the wedding hacks I mentioned in another thread.

MF and film in general, require the user to slow down and learn a bit. It also requires that one&#39;s discipline in their craft be honed, LF even more. With digital, all one has to do is pick up &quot;Photoshop in 24 hours&quot; and they think they can be just as good as the guy who spent years learning how his film behaves, the quality and &quot;defects&quot; of his lenses, darkroom tricks.

I&#39;m not gonna get too deep into this, but as with anything...&quot;to find the root of any evil (not saying that digital is evil), just follow the money&quot;. The money comes a lot from the consumer, so for magazines to make money and get readers, they have to show what the consumers want to hear...digital.

It&#39;s like that idiot Reichmann. He&#39;s overhyping the digital thing &quot;digital was more sharp and blah, blah, blah than a 6x7 chrome...&quot; Ok. Whatever. If all the digital users jumped from a bridge, he&#39;d be the second in line... </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Wouldn&#39;t it be neat if you found a magazine that did say...this product is crap&#33;?

So who do you think would be first in line to jump?