Black and White Photography magazine

[Roger Hicks]

What nonsense!
If you don't like the gear you're reviewing and the pay is no good, maybe you should go back to writing cook-books.

Dear Pitxu,

Um... You're missing the point.

Before we go any further, a simple question, divided into two parts. First, what do you do/did you do for a living? Second, would you defend to the death every single aspect of how you do/did that job? If you do/did the perfect job, perfectly every time, I salute you. If you say do/did the best you can/could, I'd find your testiony easier to believe.

I request for review gear that I think might be interesting. No incentive to do the other sort.

Then, unless it's bloody awful, I review it fairly and honestly. If it's really bloody awful and I say so, the chances of finding an editor who will run the review are slender. I could run a bloody awful review on the web-site, but why bother? Why put myself to the labour of continuing to review a piece of rubbish, and then writing it up? The more so as I would immediately get a load of mail from people who had bought it and called me an idiot, a liar, etc., to say nothing of the manufacturers or their PR outfit.

How else do you think reviews work? Take a look at the old Which Magazine or Consumer Reports for examples of so-called unbiased reviews. Pseudo-objective tests are carried out by professional testers, not people who actually use the product. This was how the Austin Gypsy was found to be a better buy than a Land Rover, and how (as I recall) Pentax came out as the top SLR, trouncing Nikon and Canon. Both reviews are from decades ago, I hasten to add: I've not bothered to read either magazine since.

If you can't read between the lines; if you don't have some knowledge of the reviewer's preferences and prejudices; then there's no point whatsoever in reading any reviews.

The manufacturers' brochures will give you the raw specifications, usually accurately. If you're satisfied with that, fine. Otherwise, you may find reviews useful. If you don't; well, as I said earlier, you might be surprised at how popular they are with many readers. To say 'no-one reads reviews' is on a par with saying 'no-one needs fast lenses' or 'no-one needs ultrawides,' etc., when the true meaning is 'I don't read reviews or use fast lenses or ultrawides, so nobody is interested.'

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

(Edit: of the Nikon D70) a good example of what works for me/works for you. i used one for four years i think, and found it an awfully simple piece of machinery, not perfect but not with such a price tag either..

Indeed; which is why I made my point about your needs and mine.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked Pitxu, about what you do/did for a living, and whether it is/was always perfect and fully defensible.

I did finish the Fotoman review, and said pretty much what I've said in the above, and it was published.

Among professional reviewers, I'm better regarded than most, because I actually use the kit and (if it's not unusable) say what I think about it. The same is true of my wife Frances Schultz. My observations about amateur reviewers are summarized in the earlier post.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

He writes "Cook-books". Are we expected to read his recipes "between the lines?

Well, yes. If you don't know how much salt and pepper you like, or when something is cooked to your liking, then you can't cook. If I say, "This is delicious", and it contains lots of meat, and you're a vegetarian, you can form another opinion.

Reviews are even further from simple do-this, do-that lists. They are not lists of specifications: they are reviewers' opinions. What else can they be?

Reading between the lines is a basic skill. If you really don't have it, then presumably you believe everything you are told. As this appears not to be the caae, we may assume that you can, in fact, read between the lines. You just prefer to pretend, on occasion, that you cannot.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Roger,

I was a proffesional soldier in the British Army and had I not done my job perfectly I would indeed be dead.

I thank you for your salutation.

Dear Pitxu,

If you always did everything perfectly, then indeed, you deserve more salutations than I can bestow. Presumably you retired as a general?

You must also have been unique among soldiers I have known in always receiving orders that were perfectly thought out, and then executing them perfectly to the letter.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BillP]

Firstly Bill, All I know of Roger is what I've read on this forum and a little on his site, and from that knowledge I have no desire to "form a relationship" with him.
He admits to only reviewing gear that he likes and to not finishing reviews of gear he does not like. He then says we should read between the lines.

He writes "Cook-books". Are we expected to read his recipes "between the lines?

Pixtu, I fear you are being a little obtuse.

This doesn't relate specifically to Roger. For example, theatre critics tastes vary, but they are generally consistent. If I read a theatre critic often enough, I form a view of his views that enables me to know whether or not a particular play will appeal to me, based on whether or not it appealed to him. This, as I suspect you realise, is what I mean by "forming a relationship"

And yes, I would ALWAYS "read between the lines" in a cook book. I don't want to slavishly follow, I want to insert my own interpretation.

Regards,

Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Pitxu,

My commiserations. Clearly your talents were not recognized by your imperfect superiors. I rejoice, however, that you served Mrs. Thatcher perfectly.

Returning to the subject of reviews, it seems to me there are two possibilities.

One is that everyone stops writing reviews. The other is that those who do not like reviews need not read them.

On the basis of history, the latter seems much likelier to come to pass than the former.

Cheers,

R.

 

[BillP]

Bill, I'm perfectly capable of reading "between the lines", but having to do so while reading a technical review, insinuates that the reviewer is not to be taken at his word. Is this your meaning of the word "obtuse"?

Hi Pixtu. I hope my meaning is clear. The object of the review may be a machine, but the reviewer is by definition "only human", therefore most of what they say is open to interpretation.

They need not be trying to deceive, but they will see things differently to you. You may look at the same sky, but you may describe it as "blue", while they call it "azure".

Regards,

Bill

 

[Roger Hicks]

I didn't serve Mrs Thatcher, I served my (then) Queen and country. Thatcher was merely resident at No 10.

"Clearly your talents were not recognized by your imperfect superiors"

Whatever brings you to this conclusion?

I find it most strange and ignorant that you could "rejoice" at the horrors of war, death and injury, and then finish with "Cheers".

Dear Pitxu,

As Mrs. Thatcher was to a considerable extent responsible for the prosecution of the Falklands war, and as everything you did was by your own assertion perfect, her perfect orders (at the other end of a fairly long chain of command) must surely mean that you were serving her.

If your superiors had been aware of your perfection, surely you would have been promoted beyond sergeant. At least, if you define perfection in soldiering as winning just wars with the minimum of casualties. Though come to think of it, I am aware of the theory that sergeants are the Supreme Beings in any army. You no doubt know the old joke containing such lines as 'Can leap quite tall buildings at a single bound, talks to God on a regular basis' (captains, as I recall), which ends with the revelation that the Sergeant-Major is, in fact, God.

Do not be too hasty to project your own world-picture on others. I did not rejoice at the horrors of war, death and injury; rather, at your perfect Army service, which must (see para 1) have involved carrying out Mrs. T.'s perfect orders. If her orders were not perfect, then surely, your own service (in carrying them out) must have been less than perfect.

To date, you have accused me of calling Cartier-Bresson a liar [edit: in another thread, lest anyone think I have completely taken leave of my senses]; of glorying in war and its concomitant disasters; and of 'ignorance'. Any of these misconceptions might have been averted if you had taken the trouble to read what I had written, and to consider the possibility that there are others who do not think as you do. I hope you will forgive me if I end,

Cheers,

R.

 

[Photog9001]

this has become the weirdest of threads...

i apologize to the original poster for my part in hijacking it, and at the risk of doing so again (and in vague attempt to get back on topic); i stopped reading b&w because i lost interest in it. mike johnston (who was about the only constant attraction about the mag) runs a website on his own.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger,
1: I did read what you had written...
P.

Dear Pixtu,

Possibly (though I remain to be fully convinced). But you do not often seem to consider the possibility that there are others whose world-picture is not the same as yours. You read something; you assume yours is the only possible interpretation; you attack that interpretation...

Cheers,

R.

 

[rich815]

Roger....Pitxu......with all due respect, take it off list please.....

 

[BillP]

hmm... i don't know what vs of black and white you folks have been reading but i was browsing the latest issue (i have a subscription) and found it A/ quite informative in regards to b+w and B/ devoid of the masses of equipment reviews discussed at length here.
odd...

Emraphoto, the Black and White being referred to in this thread is the UK magazine. I believe there is an unconnected US one too.

Regards,

Bill

 

[pfoto]

Roger....Pitxu......with all due respect, take it off list please.....

Indeed. Very tedious.

I wonder if I'm being punished for my posts. I don't seem to have had a B&W Photography in the mail for quite a while. The last one I got was number 80, the Christmas issue. On top of the content sliding, the delivery seems to be kind of random too. 😕

 

[slm]

There was one month where the importer (I guess it was the importer) slapped a sticker with a higher price than the printed one on the magazine (the CAD price that is). I refused to buy it, as I thought the additional charge was someone trying to price gouge, and the magazine not knowing what was going on. I emailed the publisher letting them know, and never heard a word. Now the printed price on the January issue has simply been increased to above $9.00 (If I remember correctly). The content would have to be outstanding and not be available anywhere else to justify that price. I'm no longer buying it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Roger....Pitxu......with all due respect, take it off list please.....

Sorry.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

hey bill, i have a subscription to the one out of the uk and the last issue has a section on pushing/pulling film...

Was that the Frances Schultz piece? We've not received a voucher copy yet.

Cheers,

R.

 

[ath]

Was that the Frances Schultz piece? We've not received a voucher copy yet.

Cheers,

R.

Yes.
(and wasting space for the forum software)

 

[kram]

Finished reading this month's mag. It's got some good stuff in there, but I agree it has gone a little light weight under the new ed. I like equipment/film/developer etc. reviews - if they are indepth and not, what seems, the standard fair of 'its new, it replaces the old xyz, so its better' reports. Comments on Francis review of the new TMAX 400 - could be a little longer. What would have been great would have been a photo with the new and old TMAX - would the difence show up in the reproduction of the mag?

Yes, there does seem to be alot of article by Dave C -his editorial is fine, but I agree with others on the leica MP and farm article. I do enjoy reader gallery -some great photo and intersting observations (the Nikon D200 seems to struggle with the paddy fields photo, resolution/tone etc - but fine for the street trader🙂 ). Love printer's art, second hand cameras, Mike J's articles. and strangely classic cameras - would like these articles to be slightly longer. And yes the digital SLR camera listing needs to be off set with 35mm SLR and rangefinder (when a new digital rangefinder comes out they can put that in).
What about and indepth review of the Adox CMS 20 film (in two type of developers). I also agree there nothing really out there to compare to the mag. I have looked at Silvershotz, but it does nothing for me.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Comments on Francis review of the new TMAX 400 - could be a little longer. What would have been great would have been a photo with the new and old TMAX - would the difence show up in the reproduction of the mag?

Hard to tell, but when you make prints, the new stuff has far more 'sparkle'. It's also a lot more forgiving of exposure errors (over always better than under) and of developers/development regime.

We did submit one pair of TMY/400-2 TMY pics but presumably they were not used, whether for reasons of space or because they reckoned it wouldn't show. We've not seen a voucher copy yet.

Space is always a problem: one person's 'must read' is another's 'why bother?' and there is an obvious limit to the amount one can squeeze in.

Magazines always say (justly) 'pay more attention to what we say than to the illustrations' because it is impossible to run magazine illustrations to 'fine art' standards at a believable price across a large print run. The web is even more deceptive, of course.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kram]

Space is always a problem: one person's 'must read' is another's 'why bother?' and there is an obvious limit to the amount one can squeeze in.
.

Cheers Roger, its good to know you tried to get a photo of the old TMAX in. My personal opinion would be to... reduce the 'whats in the next issue' to half a page, or less (just have the type and no photo)😀

Do you know of any plans to test the Adox CMS 20 film in forth coming issues?