Digital BW, The Print

Dear Larry,

  Thank you for your candor and for your humor. The line about 'road
kill' was simply hilarious. You touched upon an area I thought of but
was reluctant to post; namely, 'financial support'. 
  This issue is rampant everywhere especially in medicine where the
docs are often given 'financial incentives' (AKA bribes) in order to
use/promote a product. The Editor in Chief of the New England Journal
of Medicine recently resigned and then wrote an expose about the
pharmaceutical industry and their close financial ties to the docs and
most of the studies the supposedly neutral journals publish. Some
jopurnals have actually refused negative articles about a product that
they receive huge ads for! The result is that a killer drug like Vioxx
could be marketed and remain on  the market 4 years after MSD had
received numerous reports of cardiac deaths due to the product. You
don't want to get me started on this one. Virtually ALL the drug
companies keep killer-drugs on the market as long as they possibly
can. You would not believe how unethical their decisions can be and
how many people die annually as a result. (JAMA says 137,000)
  Heck, the 'lobbying' system, AKA bribery, is a legal part of our
govenment.
  Sorry for the rant. Being a physician, this whole area is infuriating.

  Again, your tone and tempered,candid post are refreshing.

   Regards
    Howard


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "kraazy_larry"
<lwangelin@...> wrote:
>
> I am of the same opinion as you are Howard. Sometimes I re-read the
review of the 2200 
> and ask myself just what was he looking at to say that there was no
gloss differential? If I 
> cross my eyes enough I don't see any either.
> Most of the reviews that I have read of the past few years though
have made me feel like 
> most of them should be approached as you would road kill. With a
very long stick and 
> upwind of it.
> I think also that product reviewers be required by law to disclose
any financial support or 
> other arrangements they have with the manufacturers they are writing
about. Something 
> like what what people pushing stocks are now required to reveal. I
think that it could lead 
> to a little more transparency maybe? That is a big maybe though.
> Of course then you have to deal with the sock puppets and hired guns. 
> 
> Larry
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "how786"
<how786@> wrote:
> >
> >   I used to visit Luminous Landscape a great deal. I  respected
> > Michael's opinions and reviews a lot. Then I really got burned. I read
> > his glowing review of the 2200 and how stunning the prints were for
> > both B&W and color. At the time, I was doing a lot of color printing
> > for people who wanted the prints on high gloss paper.
> >  I bought the printer based on his review, set it up and made a few
> > color prints on various high gloss papers. Wow! What awful bronzing!
> > It was terrible. Embarrassing. I could not understand just how the
> > heck Michael's review made no mention whatsoever of the obviously
> > visible bronzing on glossy paper. How could he possible miss it?
> >  The unit went for sale on Ebay and sold immediately since it was in
> > high demand and truly 'like new'. I went back to making gorgeous high
> > gloss prints on my old printer.
> >   Sorry, but I'll never again trust the guy as a reviewer. He missed
> > something that was easy and obvious for anyone at all to notice in
> > minutes. Admittedly, I might be harsh, but this was not a subtle
> > matter or something hard to catch. 
> >   Also, his review stated "metamerism---NOT" for the 2200 which was
> > untrue as well.
> >   (still grumbling)
> >   Howard
>