Lex, your response is an ad hominem attack on me:
> That many of us believe we are as talented as some well-known photographers
> - - but nobody's heard of us.
>
> The fact is that we can safely potshot from our anonymous foxholes at those
> who have taken the risk of making themselves accessible targets by putting
> their work before the public where it succeeds or fails on its merits, or
> lack thereof.
[and several screenfuls more in the same vein]
How good or bad a photographer I might be is beside the point. I'm
not asking anyone to accept my unsupported opinion of filters based
on my reputation - in fact, I haven't even expressed an opinion on
filters here. You, OTOH, are suggesting that Hick's reputation
is such that we should all accept what he says. Then his reputation
becomes a valid subject for discussion, together with any links he
might have with publications that get advertising revenue from filter
manufacturers. BTW, you call him "Roger". Do you know him, and do
you by chance write for magazines?
I happen to think it's easier to finesse the whole question by replacing
celebrity endorsement with objective tests and the scientific method. I
can imagine that someone whose income was gained from the existing
system might not like the idea of individuals publishing such tests
in an uncontrollable medium like a mailing list or newsgroup, and
might want to hamper that by bombarding the list over a period
of weeks with megabytes of off-topic ramblings and by rubbishing
the testers. Surely this isn't you, but it would be wise not to
get mistaken for such a person... they do exist on the net.
> Roger has forgotten more about photography than I'll ever know.
If you say so.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|