Digital BW, The Print

Austin:

No problem with me.  That is what makes the Internet a great place.  
There are plenty of other places to get information on products and 
see hands on reviews.  One should only place credibility where it is 
due.

FWIW:  I have been shooting professionally since 1989 when I 
graduated from Brooks out in Santa Barbara.  I have been shooting 
digitally since 1995 and was one of the first studios in southern 
California to go digital (Sinar Bron then Phase One).  My film/lab 
bill in 1999 was about $65,000, my film/lab bill for 2002 was 
approximately $3500 (mostly large format).  I am billing about 
$400,000 more in 2003/2004 than I was in 1999.  I can count the 
number of jobs I shoot on film in one year on two hands.  Clients 
just don't ask for a film deliverable any more.

Regards,
Duncan

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin 
Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Duncan,
> 
> > I know Michael and can state without a doubt that he has no agenda
> > and is not biased in any way by any of the equipment 
manufacturers or
> > other outside factors.
> 
> My experience has been entirely different.  My opinion of what I've 
read of
> his, is he is very biased (and specifically towards Canon, and they 
can do
> no wrong).  He proclaims, every time that a new Canon Digicam comes 
out,
> that it is far better than any film camera etc. etc....and the 
demise of
> film is at hand...when it simply was not true.  Eventually, it will 
be
> true...but he's been proclaiming the death of film, and trying to
> rationalize and justify his simply erroneous claims, for years now.
> 
> The first reviews I read of his were his touting of the D-30, and 
it was
> completely biased...I'd say no one but a paid PR person could have 
written
> the review I read, as it was completely at odds with just about 
every other
> review out there as to the realistic capabilities of the camera.  
IMO, his
> film/digital tests were flawed, as was his understanding of how the 
digital
> process worked.  He also wrote a highly biased (almost sycophantic, 
IMO)
> Hasselblad V-1 review...which, when challenged, pouted and took his 
marbles
> and went home.  That's why he writes a one sided web site, instead 
of
> allowing himself to be challenged in public.
> 
> > Granted you are reading his opinions, but his
> > opinions are experienced and educated and he will not hesitate to 
say
> > something is a piece of crap if it is.
> 
> I have not seen that in the reviews of his I've read.
> 
> > He will also correct himself
> > if he catches an error or omission of his or anyone else's doing.
> 
> My experience is that is true only if he agrees with it...
> 
> > He will give you his honest opinions and back them up with field
> > data...
> 
> Yes, and when shown his data *might* be wrong, especially if it 
challenges
> his (IMO at times erroneous) "understanding", he simply ignores it.
> 
> > You have to decide yourself
> > what emphasis to place on information coming from any 
publication...
> 
> Of course...
> 
> > but
> > I place a high degree of respect in Michael's opinions...
> 
> I am not the only one who has publicly said that he needs to be 
taken with a
> large grain of salt...it's been said many a time, by many very
> respected/knowledgeable people.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin