Are we sometimes a bit too harsh towards camera manufacturers? I mean, look at the appearance of firmware version 2.20 for the Panasonic LX3. This caused all kinds of conspiracy theories to pop up, and really severe claims to be made.
For example, some claimed that the new firmware would force photographers to use chipped Panasonic batteries, although this would be technically next to impossible to accomplish with the LX3, not to speak of the badwill generated by such actions. Or that the firmware would deteriorate the image quality so that new LX5 would look good and force LX3 users to switch. Why would Panasonic shoot themselves in the foot?
One should perhaps note here that Panasonic has shipped firmware version 2.20 in the new LX3s for some time already, with no ill effects to anyone.
Of course, you could claim that Panasonic caused this by themselves by providing such a cryptic description of the firmware version. But I think there should be some responsibility for evidence if you are making such serious claims. And you should also note the cultural differences, especially the eastern tendency not to put blame on someone if things are not working perfectly. Instead, things are fixed without losing face.
This extreme criticality reminds me of the editor's letter in the July 2010 issue of Communications of the ACM, under the title "Hypercriticality". The topic is the review of scientific publications, but the comment about harshness rings a bell: 'I think this phenomenon, which I call "hypercriticality," deserves our collective attention. Other people recently commented on this issue. In the context of proposal reviewing, Ed Lazowska coined the phrase "circling the wagons and shooting inwards," and John L. King, in a recent CCC blog, referred to such verbal assaults as "Fratricide."'
Of course, reviewing scientific publications and commenting about cameras are two different things, but there is an underlying topic, and that is how we evaluate the work of others. As put forward by the editor, there should be a Golden Rule of Reviewing: "Write a review as if you are writing to yourself."
Posts
Men's room
8 hours ago
2 comments:
Juha, I think these observations just can be explained with the common phenomenon of "bad news is good news". The amount of attention you can get by commenting very harsh and negative for sure is bigger than with moderate and well-thought words. I just experience a similar thing in the bibble5 user forums - there is always a small number of individuals that lives from badmouthing, irrespective of the object. And you'll always find people seeing conspiracy against them, repeating even the most obscure theories. I'll never forget my barber, believing that bin Laden was directly paid by the Bush government... Unfortunately in a certain way the internet allows such persons to gain much more attention than they would ever deserve.
But your images of today, especially the Runner, I enjoy very much. And that's the other phenomenon: People elaborating on even invisible and not proven details find their audience, creators of work don't do to the same extent.
Well, I guess I was being a bit hypercritical. Your explanation has the benefit of being much simpler, and it does sound reasonable.
Sometimes you don't need to get far away to find subjects for photographs. The runner is about seven meters away from where is sit now.
I remember an interesting exercise for photographers: where you stand, throw a hula hoop to some direction. Where it lands, take photographs 1) standing (or sitting or crawling) outside, look inside the hula loop 2) standing inside the hula loop, look outside.
Post a Comment