</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't dyin'! Magazines print whatever garbage is going to pay them the most. You almost never hear a magazine say that "So and so gave us this camera to test and ... we'd like to say that it's a piece of sh*t..." Many of the "reviewers" have to sign an agreement that says that they'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..."photoshop can fix it all...". 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's discipline in their craft be honed, LF even more. With digital, all one has to do is pick up "Photoshop in 24 hours" and they think they can be just as good as the guy who spent years learning how his film behaves, the quality and "defects" of his lenses, darkroom tricks.
I'm not gonna get too deep into this, but as with anything..."to find the root of any evil (not saying that digital is evil), just follow the money". 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's like that idiot Reichmann. He's overhyping the digital thing "digital was more sharp and blah, blah, blah than a 6x7 chrome..." Ok. Whatever. If all the digital users jumped from a bridge, he'd be the second in line... </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
Wouldn't it be neat if you found a magazine that did say...this product is crap!?
So who do you think would be first in line to jump?