Pulling punches in the photography ‘review’ world

When I was a lad I enjoyed reading car magazines if for no other reason that I dreamed of actually owning one. So it never hurt to read about Stuttgart’s or Modena’s latest. What beauty! What performance!

Then reality, cynicism if you prefer, set in. Many years ago the Wall Street Journal ran a page one article about the shameful conflicts of interest in the car magazine world. As they simply explained it, the quid pro quo for a good ‘review’ of the latest car was a free one year loan of the vehicle to the crook passing as a reviewer. (A rule that did not apply to Ferraris because the factory could not spare a car, having sold next year’s production already). This cannot be, I reasoned, so I wrote to Road & Track, to which I had a subscription, asking for a copy of their Conflicts of Interest policy. Well, guess what I received by return mail? A refund check for the balance of my subscription and not so much as a world of explanation. I suppose they guessed that when they admitted they had no such policy that a refund would be due anyway.

Except for one or two quirky specialist magazines which take no advertising, I have not subscribed to a car magazine since depositing that R&T check in 1983. I now read this garbage, well I don’t read it, I look at the pictures, at the local barber’s once a month. Much the same approach I adopted with regard to Playboy back in the days when the barber could actually display such a thing in his store without risking a five year to life sentence. When I read a car magazine, I want the bad as well as the good. When I read a girlie magazine I sure as hell do not need an interview with Jimmy Carrter.

What prompts this tirade is the lack of disclosures of conflicts among the broad population of camera equipment ‘reviewers’ whether in magazine or web formats. The bottom line is that unless I see a clear statement that the writer gets no remuneration – cash or in kind – from the manufacturer or his agents, then I’m not going to believe a word of what I read. What I am reading, I realize, is nothing more than a paid version of the press release. Whether paid directly, through advertising, tickets to the Superbowl or by equipment loan, it’s paid. Write something bad, Mr. Reviewer, and we will pull the advertising from your magazine or web site. And you can forget next year’s all expenses paid trip to Wimbledon.

Indeed, what I would really like to see is a statement that all equipment reviewed was paid for by the reviewer, but given the price of some of the better gear out there today, I realize that’s impossible. So it’s a really tough situation. Were I a manufacturer I would not lend you my gear unless I knew you would write well about it. And you cannot afford it if you want to tell the truth.

That leaves the web with its feedback from users on some of the better equipment sites. Now it can rightly be argued that feedback fora are like hospitals. The only visitors are ill and in need of repairs. So that would tend to make the comments overwhelmingly negative. On the other hand, cheats posing as independent reviewers could also be posting laudatory comments where none are warranted. So it’s tough to come up with a system with a guaranteed standard of integrity. That’s why magazines like Consumer Reports, where all tests are of equipment they bought with subscribers’ money, are so valuable. The car guys will tell you that these people really don’t know how to drive, to which I reply “Well, then, Mr. Car Guy, what are you doing writing/flacking when you could be driving at Indianapolis?”. The Consumer Report model seems pretty valid to me.

What prompts this column is that I finally received my last copy of a monthly photography magazine after disregarding the fifteen or so renewal reminders. Boy, those advertising dollars must really be something. After all, does not magazine advertising cost vary directly in proportion to paid circulation? I had decided to drop my subscription after some twenty years realizing that I could get press releases every bit as easily on the web, free at that, and knowing that pearls of honest insight were not to be found in its pages. My eye chanced on the mention of an exotic new DSLR lens on the cover so before turning cynically to the review, I made a mental list of what I could expect from the writer, a flack of quite exceptional …. flackery. Here’s what I guesed:

1 – The photographs illustrating the article would be truly horrible.
2 – None would be taken at the lens’s very large full aperture, the only reason to buy this lens unless you have a Napoleon complex.
3 – The writer would gush about the ‘….superior quality of the manufacturer’s glass’.
4 – The lens would be tested on a small sensor camera, so the reader would get no idea of its covering power on full frame camera.

Well, guess what? I was four for four, though I was being kind on #1. The photographs were not horrible. They were nothing short of execrable.

But even this super-flack managed to surprise. It’s so nice to drop a subscription with that warm feeling of confirmation. Among the things he points out in his press-release-passing-for-a-review is that:

1 – The lens elements are coated to cut reflection. Fancy that. Just like every camera lens made since about 1942.
2 – It pays to keep a filter on the lens to protect the front element. Aw, go on.
3 – Oh! and there was almost a critical note thrown in, to salve this sap’s twinge of guilt that even he must feel when he deposits his check. The lens is heavy. Imagine that. A monster aperture medium telephoto that is heavy. Shame, really.

Now in case you think there’s rancor born from rejection in the above, forget it. I have never submitted work for publication to this magazine, having long ago concluded there are simply some things that are beyond redemption.

Googling (now officially a verb!) on ‘Camera Review Ethics’ your first hit will be to a site named Digitalcamerainfo.com, with its clearly set forth ethics policy here. Pretty straight if you ask me.

Another with a clearly stated ethics policy and a larger review database is DP Review. It has user feedback discussions, too.

Both sites seem worth a visit if you are looking for objective opinions about gear – a whole lot more than that magazine.

Lens aficionados – mostly Canon and Nikon – can do far worse than to check the reviews at Fred Miranda. All are written by users so get enough of these and it becomes statistically meaningful. Check the Canon section and you will learn that the very costly 14mm ‘L’ is only so-so optically whereas the Fisheye is a knockout. I know as I contributed one of the reviews of the latter and can testify to the veracity of opinions on the former!

[tags]Press fraud[/tags]