Setting The Record Straight

[sreidvt]

I understand there was some discussion here about my suing TOP. I wish people had checked facts before posting but there never was any such lawsuit or threat of one. Please see the clarification from Mike here:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

Please note the key sentence from Mike:

"It's true that he never said "I intend to proceed with a lawsuit against TOP.""

I don't need to discuss this further but the record should be set straight as many people seem to have believed that "news". I hope the truth will spread as fast as the rumor did.

Cheers,

Sean Reid

 

[Keith]

Once again ... a perfectly good rumor spoiled by the truth!

 

[Don Parsons]

Glad you guys were able to work out the misunderstanding. Thanks for being part of this forum too Sean.

 

[sreidvt]

My concern is that the truth will not spread like the rumor did. Some people much prefer scandal. Mike and I are sorted out but the damage from that rumor will run all over.

 

[sreidvt]

Glad you guys were able to work out the misunderstanding. Thanks for being part of this forum too Sean.

Thanks Don.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Thanks, Sean--glad this seems to be winding down.

 

[sreidvt]

BTW, some have asked why I didn't reply to all this sooner. I was away for most of Sunday and not near a computer until late Monday.

 

[Olsen]

Sean,

You have my full support in this. When reading The Online Photographer I get the impression that just a few guys were jealous on you and Michael Reichmann, that had been invited 'earlier', 'for three days' and 'at all', and so on. We hear from the Sour Grapes Duo that that 'independent reporting is a scarce element in the current internet information explosion'. The truth is the other way around; never has so many independent reporters reach the public as today... through internet.

You, Sean, regarding M8, were among the very first to warn us of the faulty black colours of certain fabrics and the magenta shift and report this back to Leica, duly documented, and asking questions. You are not recognized for this, which I find unfair. Your tests are a wealth of information costing a lot of work while just too many of the 'net camera testers' just produce verbal 'opinions'.

Keep up the good work!

 

[splitimageview]

Unfortunately there were no facts for anyone to check, other than the fact that Mike had posted that you had threatened a lawsuit. That post of Mike's has now been edited.

A quick google search shows this tempest has appeared on all the major forums...unfortunate but not surprising.

Glad that a tête-à-tête occurred, and all is resolved.

 

[sreidvt]

Sean,

You have my full support in this. When reading The Online Photographer I get the impression that just a few guys were jealous on you and Michael Reichmann, that had been invited 'earlier', 'for three days' and 'at all', and so on. We hear from the Sour Grapes Duo that that 'independent reporting is a scarce element in the current internet information explosion'. The truth is the other way around; never has so many independent reporters reach the public as today... through internet.

You, Sean, regarding M8, were among the very first to warn us of the faulty black colours of certain fabrics and the magenta shift and report this back to Leica, duly documented, and asking questions. You are not recognized for this, which I find unfair. Your tests are a wealth of information costing a lot of work while just too many of the 'net camera testers' just produce verbal 'opinions'.

Keep up the good work!

Thank you! So many people seem not to know that I had written about the IR problem extensively before most M8 reviews were even published. I did report it to Leica, asked for their statement, published the statement, tested the filters, etc.

Wow, it is so rare that anyone ever sets the record straight. I mostly just hear about how I initially published several pictures with IR shift without seeing the problem (for a few days). Many people don't seem to know how extensively the problem was covered on RR once I became aware of it.

Cheers,

Sean

 

[eia41]

Oh, what a pitty the roumour was not true...

I was so much looking forward to you two -with witnesses, of course- meeting at dawn and shooting each other with cameras of your choice...

 

[sreidvt]

Unfortunately there were no facts for anyone to check, other than the fact that Mike had posted that you had threatened a lawsuit. That post of Mike's has now been edited.

A quick google search shows this tempest has appeared on all the major forums...unfortunate but not surprising.

Glad that a tête-à-tête occurred, and all is resolved.

So now we'll see if the truth also now appears on the major forums. I wonder if people will be as diligent in spreading that as they were in spreading the rumor (and passing judgement without confirming the facts). I also wonder if some of the same people who were quick to believe that information will link people to Mike's announcement clarifying things. I fear they won't but we'll see.

 

[sreidvt]

Oh, what a pitty the roumour was not true...

I was so much looking forward to you two -with witnesses, of course- meeting at dawn and shooting each other with cameras of your choice...

M9 for me with an M8.2 for my second.

 

[splitimageview]

Perhaps setting the record straight on Mike's page would have been a much simpler/easier strategy, rather than mentioning attorneys to Mike, which resulted in his lawsuit post. Just a thought...

 

[sreidvt]

Unfortunately there were no facts for anyone to check, other than the fact that Mike had posted that you had threatened a lawsuit.

Not entirely true, some people chose to contact me to check facts. That's fairly simple to do. Now they can simply check facts by looking at Mike's clarification.

When I read something outlandish on the web, I always reserve a degree of skepticism.

 

[splitimageview]

Not entirely true, some people chose to contact me to check facts. That's fairly simple to do. Now they can simply check facts by looking at Mike's clarification.

When I read something outlandish on the web, I always reserve a degree of skepticism.

So you are saying Mike's post was outlandish?

 

[sreidvt]

Perhaps setting the record straight on Mike's page would have been a much simpler/easier strategy, rather than mentioning attorneys to Mike, which resulted in his lawsuit post. Just a thought...

I tried to set the record straight on Mike's page but he initially would not publish my posts on the topic (5 tries). He is now planning to post one since we seem to have worked things out.

In private e-mails I told Mike about asking my attorney if what Howard wrote was slander/libel and actionable. That's a long way from announcing a lawsuit of a third party like TOP. Mike and I seem to have cleared that up. There's a lot of stuff that goes back and forth between people in private e-mails that I would never consider publishing on my site. In fact I only publish reviews and essays about photography - never this debate stuff.

The thrust of my concern with Howard French's "featured comment" is that he painted the group of us with one brush even though he (by his own statement in an e-mail to me and confirmed to Mike) had never read my reviews. I don't know which of the other articles, if any, he actually read. That fact should be known to people who read his comment (given French's background as a journalist, etc.)

I think the first rule of criticizing something should be that one actually reads, sees, hears, it, etc. What French did reminds me of camera reviewers who write "reviews" of cameras they've never even held.

Anyway, Mike and I spent a lot of time trying to sort this out last night and it is now sorted between us. But the forums...

Make sense?

Sean

 

[sreidvt]

So you are saying Mike's post was outlandish?

Some of the comments that followed it were outlandish. I won't comment on Mike's initial post because he and I have already spent a lot of time sorting that out and moving forward.

 

[dcsang]

When I read something outlandish on the web, I always reserve a degree of skepticism.

Same here.

I always apply extremely large grains of salt (boulder size) regardless of what is published and by whom.

I do this for rumours about upcoming cameras as well as for things like camera reviews, "news", etc. etc. etc.

Ideally, the only way for one to "prove" that things were taken out of context (when there is a "he said/she said" type of scenario going on) or what was considered a truism versus a falsehood would be for both parties involved to publish a video, of both parties together, explaining the situation.

Of course, smiling and hugging at the end would be considered optional

In situations such as this; each camp has its supporters and detractors - that doesn't change - brand loyalty doesn't just apply to cameras

Cheers,
Dave

 

[splitimageview]

Make sense?

Yes, it does. A series of unfortunate events, it seems.

Just curious if you have spoken to French?

As an aside, initial forum comments about Mike's original post listing the reviews, was his 'uneven' comment about Jono Slack. Some readers and friends of Slack were not pleased with that bit of coloring. Since Slack is not a professional reviewer I suppose ultimately there was little to debate, everyone has a right to their opinion (even those who don't actually read what they are criticising.)