Artikel Core

You Do It

Since I've gotten many private responses to my post about comments, I'd like to invite you to try this yourself. Pretend you're me. You've just received the following comment in response to the "Strange Days" post. The writer, by the way, is someone who often contributes comments that are approved, so it's not some interloper. (And, we don't actually dislike Texans, even though we make fun of them sometimes. That's a joke, son, I say, a joke.) Bear in mind you can't edit. All you can do is pass it along as written, or axe it. Here's the comment: <blockquote> "Wow you're as warm as it was here in Central Texas today. I read with interest the global warming conversations. I wonder how much is real, how much is over-exaggerated, how much is caused by mankind and how much might be of a natural cycle. It's as warm as it been in a thousand years they say. (what caused it then?) Wasn't it in the 70's when they said we were headed for an ice age? Of my 3 winters in Maine 2 were colder than normal. Jan. and Feb. here in TX were colder than normal this year. What happened to acid rain? They said the fish would be dead by now. Does anyone know how much Al Gore has made off of his movie and lecture tour? Millions? I wonder how much of that money will be donated by Mr. Gore to the global warming cause or will it be used to purchase many thousands of gallons of jet fuel to fly in private jets? Ah that's right he has to heat his huge mansion too. Damn we all need to cut back so the elite can live like the upper class that they are. :0 My advice is enjoy that weather. You know it ain't gonna last. :0 Sorry about the rant."</blockquote> So what do you do? Does your own agreement or disagreement with the political-scientific opinions of the writer determine your response? Does the fact that it says nothing about photography count against it? Would you risk triggering a debate among readers about global warming? Would you be itching to join that debate yourself? So, leave your own comment and tell me what you'd do: allow or disallow? Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON FOLLOW-UP: I think y'all can see what I'm up against here. In the 35 comments left as of 11:30 p.m. Tuesday, there were 24 people who made it clear what they'd do. There were 10 "disallow" responses and 14 "allow" responses (at least as I interpret and tabulate the responses). So, although the "allows" win here, with this comment, as with many other "borderline" ones, the right thing to do isn't exactly cut-and-dried, at least not overwhelmingly so. Neither is the response I might provoke no matter which course I chose. As you can see for yourself, some people have expressed unhappiness that their comments have been rejected in the past, while others feel it's oppressive that rejection of the comments they might write is even a possibility. Others would prefer I be a bit more heavy-handed and keep impolite, off-point, or distracting topics out of the comments. Many simply endorse autocratic rule-by-Mike, which, I might point out, is very well-adjusted of them, since that's essentially what you're all getting here anyway, like it or not! My main goal is just to be to keep things friendly and polite, and be as fair to everyone as possible. All I can say is that I try. And I'll keep trying. I've picked on two commenters today, and perhaps that in itself violates my own principles. Of the two, special thanks to the person who wrote the comment featured in this post, for suffering their words to be used as a "guinea-pig" and get picked over by everybody. P.S. Just for the record, I didn't reject any of the comments to this post. At least not so far—! UPDATE: I'm sure everyone will be relieved to know that our temperatures are back very close to dead average—the high yesterday was 45°F, and the average high for the date is 46°F. Make of that what you will....

You Do It

Since I've gotten many private responses to my post about comments, I'd like to invite you to try this yourself. Pretend you're ...

2:40 PM

WTTW

Just a very brief reminder that I won't post comments that contain ad hominem. I've had to reject a number of comments today and yesterday in the Jonathan Greenwald thread. It's too bad, because many of those comments contained much that was thoughtful and illuminating; but a comment is rejected if it contains any direct personal insult aimed at another poster. Sorry, but I dislike flaming and I have a ".1-tolerance" policy (i.e., very close to zero) in effect to keep it suppressed. <div style="text-align: right;">—Mike </div> ADDENDUM: I hasten to add that I've seen no truly offensive and certainly no illegal behavior from visitors to this site. The comments I'm talking about are very similar to posted ones, but include some form of inconsiderateness, many of which can be quite mild. I just don't think that comments like "her picture sucks" or "that comment is absurd" do anything to further a discussion. True, this is censorship, but, as I've said before, this is not a forum. I think it goes without saying that almost all of the comments posted here are friendly, intelligent, and polite. Every day I'm impressed by the number and the quality of people who read T.O.P., and that extends to those of you who leave comments. The genesis of this post is simply that Blogger doesn't provide the email addresses of people who leave comments, so, when I reject one, I'm unable to contact the writer privately to explain to them why I've done so—something I would otherwise try to do. The most frustrating kind of comment is one that is polite and mature all the way through until the very end, when the writer just cannot help adding what you might call a "kick." The effect is somewhat like this: <blockquote>Reader X commented that combat boots are suitable footwear for photography. While I wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone what kind of shoes they should wear, combat boots are heavy and don't dry quickly, so, with all due respect, I would suggest that Reader X hasn't tried Adidaboks—if he had, he would know how superior they are. His mother is obviously a skinhead. </blockquote> The problem for me is that Blogger doesn't allow me to edit comments. If it did, I would just chop off that last line and publish the comment; but I can't. So, in many cases, that last kick means I have to reject the whole comment. You can see my dilemma. Oh, and "WTTW" stands for "word to the wise."

WTTW

Just a very brief reminder that I won't post comments that contain ad hominem. I've had to reject a number of comments today and yes...

7:11 AM

The Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 DA lens

by Carl Weese When Less Really Is More Recently I've been experimenting with a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPentax-Limited-Samsung-Digital-Cameras%2Fdp%2FB000INZRZW%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1175003481%26sr%3D8-1&amp;amp;tag=theonlinephot-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_new">Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 DA lens</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theonlinephot-20&amp;amp;amp;l=ur2&o=1" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" width="1" />, the longest of the Pentax compact "pancake trio" of lenses. Since its angle of view is equivalent to a 105mm on 35mm format, I was reminded that the first high quality accessory lens I ever bought, back in 1965, was a 105mm ƒ/2.8 Super Takumar for my Pentax H3 camera. Along with excellent optical quality, one feature of that lens was that it was significantly more compact than equivalent lenses from other manufacturers. But look at this comparison between the venerable 105 and its new descendent: <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj63bsFJX8hsXnsMblF5yHCf4aCksMiXLCUwB79LlmrzFngso16KuAAUM_DEfsmaK2Kgte9XU1BOlWQYkx5PlLnIJKhyO8EbfO-2eLEJ9aK7B5J8smNQLceNEghLYhQVzsQjz6fLf2DRyM/s1600-h/Weeseblog1.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5046599697966007058" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj63bsFJX8hsXnsMblF5yHCf4aCksMiXLCUwB79LlmrzFngso16KuAAUM_DEfsmaK2Kgte9XU1BOlWQYkx5PlLnIJKhyO8EbfO-2eLEJ9aK7B5J8smNQLceNEghLYhQVzsQjz6fLf2DRyM/s400/Weeseblog1.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a> Here it is mounted on a K10D camera: <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHjfxKbdrI56jMFGYp4usxfexHrES-KDWhpXIFC_cdFxdaV6MHGf_HgW0By21QlicolDE_mwKwKk0Ygdg3pOH50S5DTc3hepklbrd0RiBKiNZ0rEXket7QC9gNcw8UCNav-oGc178spSo/s1600-h/Weeseblog2.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5046599861174764322" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHjfxKbdrI56jMFGYp4usxfexHrES-KDWhpXIFC_cdFxdaV6MHGf_HgW0By21QlicolDE_mwKwKk0Ygdg3pOH50S5DTc3hepklbrd0RiBKiNZ0rEXket7QC9gNcw8UCNav-oGc178spSo/s400/Weeseblog2.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>That is amazingly compact for a telephoto lens! I'm also impressed with the picture quality. I don't use longer-than-normal lenses very much—shorter lenses suit me better in almost all situations—but here's something from yesterday that I like: <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ8QulPjiNM80DB1ZaJGMnTdXZzTE1yVed8coNMrRiORk8AusVmCE5lw_VgAa313iEYXmykM49YBQaBHNqENm9z2FknmwIKBhHE8k0C8lz3SpevknLFIAWe9Xx6zHnDebbG64TVpKUVy0/s1600-h/Weeseblog3.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5046600183297311538" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQ8QulPjiNM80DB1ZaJGMnTdXZzTE1yVed8coNMrRiORk8AusVmCE5lw_VgAa313iEYXmykM49YBQaBHNqENm9z2FknmwIKBhHE8k0C8lz3SpevknLFIAWe9Xx6zHnDebbG64TVpKUVy0/s400/Weeseblog3.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>The optical quality leaves nothing to be desired. If the designers have compromised anything to achieve the compact size, it isn't apparent in pictures I've made with the lens. Well, one compromise is obvious—the lens is quite pricey. So who might be interested in spending the money to have such a miniaturized lens? My first thought would be, someone for whom a moderately long lens feels "normal" (the way a moderately short lens feels normal to me). The camera/lens package, especially if you leave the grip at home, would make a great little "walkabout" kit if this angle of view fits your vision. Then I realized that someone like me is another obvious candidate, for one specific reason. Since I seldom use a long lens, I'm likely not to bother carrying one if it's big, heavy, and bulky. But there's practically no camera bag so small you can't slip the DA70 into it somewhere. This came in handy last Sunday when I happened on an unusual event while out looking for pictures. Pop over to <a href="http://workingpictures.blogspot.com/" target="_new">my web log</a> and see the DA70's results in my post for 3/26/07. The second and third pictures were made with the 70, literally because there was no place for me to stand where a shorter lens would have given an interesting view of the action. Even if I use a long lens for only 2% of my pictures, a lens compact enough to encourage me to carry it at all times means I won't miss out on that 2%. <div style="text-align: left;">Posted by: CARL WEESE <form method="LINK" action="http://www.carlweese.com"><div style="text-align: right;"><input value="Carl's Site" type="submit"> </div></form></div> Additional Comment from Mike: For those of you who may not be Pentaxians and may not know this, you see that old c. 1965 105mm Super Takumar in the top picture, on the left? You can actually use that lens on the K10D, Pentax's latest and most up-to-date digital SLR, albeit with some inevitable operational restrictions. Now that's back-compatibility for ya.

The Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 DA lens

by Carl Weese When Less Really Is More Recently I've been experimenting with a Pentax 70mm ƒ/2.4 DA lens , the longest of the Pentax com...

6:42 AM

Strange Days

<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf-h-EWSJucpljtHPk16GUdV3ifNWzUlAf4vOWVEsZCiccoFCbMlF_q7zI_lfrPRS05911A04seffPan7v3pC0pYHIriKob_XFGMVLtBCCLoEv6dx48XVha6zH8wtHnd9z8ZMkSW4CwdE/s1600-h/hoop1small.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5046591043606905586" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf-h-EWSJucpljtHPk16GUdV3ifNWzUlAf4vOWVEsZCiccoFCbMlF_q7zI_lfrPRS05911A04seffPan7v3pC0pYHIriKob_XFGMVLtBCCLoEv6dx48XVha6zH8wtHnd9z8ZMkSW4CwdE/s400/hoop1small.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>Apropos of nothing, I've got to say that this weather is freaking me out. I know, I know, the weather is supposed to be nothing but another partisan political debate (Dems: The sky is falling! The sky is falling!; Repubs: Don't know what you're talking about; our heads are securely encased in sand) and I know, it was virtually yesterday that I was complaining bitterly about the cold...but that's just the thing; it was virtually yesterday. Here in Wisconsin we had a very strange winter. December and January were extremely mild, with "winter" basically packed into five weeks, the four weeks of February and the first week of March. And it was some kinda serious winter, with weeks on end of sub-zero nights and copious amounts of snow. But now we've just had two eighty-degree days in a row. (That's 26°C, for those of you with no respect for illogical traditional measurement systems.) Eighty degrees. In March. In Wisconsin. Less than three weeks ago I was happily griping about the frigid cold, and there was so much snow heaped up every which-where in my alley I almost couldn't get the car out. Holy greenhouse effect, Batman. I don't know if you've noticed this, but it also freaks me out that they're suddenly pulling all sorts of giant squid out of the Southern Ocean, after millennia of giant squid being the most elusive of creatures. Something seems to be off, and every now and then it strikes me as ominous. I can't say I like it. The Republicans claim it's nothing but a natural cycle, and has nothing at all to do with us pumping trillions of tons of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere. It's not often that I find myself hoping the Republicans are right. <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJhe9-1t8zDnP65Q4hs0roYSkXipHgZ8KXxhhsFQFMLR_TcpQ2k93YN5MRlyiF1IwbDnVu5JaQ_udTHkOKLBpLz47niw7Egazla5J6QmvIJkvWJTzuebwbCnl9tfuS15n8ATJJSx-Mr08/s1600-h/wreath1small.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5046594118803489538" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJhe9-1t8zDnP65Q4hs0roYSkXipHgZ8KXxhhsFQFMLR_TcpQ2k93YN5MRlyiF1IwbDnVu5JaQ_udTHkOKLBpLz47niw7Egazla5J6QmvIJkvWJTzuebwbCnl9tfuS15n8ATJJSx-Mr08/s320/wreath1small.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>On the other hand, I can't say it isn't pleasant: the warm weather got my lazy butt out of the house with the camera for a loop around the neighborhood. That's something good, eh? Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON Featured Comment by Samik: Well, you're not alone wondering. We had extremely warm December and January too. And now it's +15C—all-time high. In Finland! We're almost on other side of the globe from you. It's freaky. But I kinda like warm weather.

Strange Days

Apropos of nothing, I've got to say that this weather is freaking me out. I know, I know, the weather is supposed to be nothing but anot...

6:09 AM

We're All Famous Like

I'd like thank Nick Wright, of Independence, Kansas, for <a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=24290" target="_new">naming T.O.P. as one of his favorite blogs</a> (he named Carl's, too) over on Sportsshooter.com. It's always humbling to have one's virtual chicken-scratchings singled out for praise, especially on a forum that's only semi-related. I was also pleased to get my most recent issue of <a href="http://www.lenswork.com/" style="font-style: italic;" target="_new">LensWork</a> (no. 69, Mar.–Apr. 2007) in the mail, and, as I usually do, turn first to Bill Jay's "End Notes" column at the back of the magazine—there to read an item discussing one of T.O.P.'s very own posts. I've been an admirer of Bill's since I stumbled across his excellent 1992 Nazraeli Press book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FOccams-Razor-Outside-Contemporary-Photography%2Fdp%2F3923922132%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1174939884%26sr%3D1-4&amp;amp;amp;amp;tag=theonlinephot-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" style="font-style: italic;" target="_new">Occam's Razor</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theonlinephot-20&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;l=ur2&o=1" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; font-style: italic;" width="1" />, still a favorite (and, despite the philosophical title, all about photography). Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON

We're All Famous Like

I'd like thank Nick Wright, of Independence, Kansas, for naming T.O.P. as one of his favorite blogs (he named Carl's, too) over on ...

4:41 AM

'How Come No One Called? Seriously'

In response to Ctein's post, "Customer Support, Take 2," below, Player commented "Okay, I give up. How come no one called? Seriously." This is pure speculation, but over the years I've noticed that people have a tendency to blame themselves when something goes wrong with products. I've said before that I think that's how personal computers have made it this far as consumer products...for most of their history, computers have been very balky, buggy, complicated products, and very unreliable. The only reason people put up with them was a persistent tendency for each customer to place the primary blame for problems not on the product, not on the manufacturer, but on him- or herself. The reaction is easy to understand from a psycho-perceptual standpoint—nobody is perfectly expert in the use of personal computers—even computer professionals. And since we know we're not experts, ergo it's easy to blame problems on our own lack of expertise. Something is wrong = we must have screwed up, somehow. There's got to be a name for this in marketing theory, but I wouldn't know what it is. Over the years I've encountered many situations in photography in which relatively simple claims went unchallenged. In many of those cases it took an experienced researcher to simply say, "wait a minute, is this true?" and design an experiment to find out. I'll give you one example. For many years, Zone VI studios touted its print washers as being superior to others because they drained from the bottom, and "fixer is heavier than water, so it sinks to the bottom of the tank." This was repeated as "conventional wisdom" so frequently, and in so many places, that I asked PHOTO Techniques magazine's resident photochemistry expert, Bob Chapman, to put the silly myth to rest. Among Bob's array of commonsense proofs of the nonsense of the proposition was simply that if you put half fixer and half water in a jar and shook it up, then let it sit on a shelf for a year, the fixer would not come out of solution with the water and "sink to the bottom." So I promptly did just as he suggested. As luck would have it, our company had a chemistry lab as one of its divisions. After the jar had sat on the shelf for a year, more or less, I asked one of the chemists to sample the solution at the top of the jar and at the bottom. The concentration of fixer was the same in both places. Obviously, if fixer can't "sink to the bottom" of a still jar in a year's time, it's not going to "sink to the bottom" in a turbulent print washer. (A coda to this story is the amusing—and maddening—fact that some of our readers still refused to believe that fixer doesn't sink in the print washer. One photographer told me he still thought the old myth had to be true because he had just "read it in too many places" for it not to be. Argh! If you want to read more about our innate tendencies to error, I can recommend two excellent and very readable layman's books on the topic—<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FDont-Believe-Everything-You-Think%2Fdp%2F1591024080%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1174944774%26sr%3D8-1&tag=theonlinephot-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" style="font-style: italic;">Don't Believe Everything You Think: The 6 Basic Mistakes We Make in Thinking</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theonlinephot-20&amp;l=ur2&o=1" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important;" width="1" />, by Thomas E. Kida, and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FMind-its-Own-Distorts-Deceives%2Fdp%2F0393062139%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1174944774%26sr%3D8-1&tag=theonlinephot-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" style="font-style: italic;">A Mind of its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and Deceives</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=theonlinephot-20&amp;l=ur2&o=1" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; font-style: italic;" width="1" />, by Cordelia Fine. Both recommendations satisfy the Pinker Rule.*) But who, exactly, is most likely to test such a claim? Probably not casual home darkroom workers. I'm assuming that most photographers, if a particular batch of developer wasn't working, would simply presume it was operator error somehow and throw the batch out. It would take a relatively confident, informed individual to test the hypothesis that the developer was bad as it came packaged from the factory. To name one trivial experimental difficulty, the individual would need to have a second packet of the same batch of developer on hand, so they could mix it up again and insure that no stupid mistakes had been made in mixing up the first batch. Absent such careful testing for confirmation, I can understand that people would be reluctant to complain—they just didn't think that manufacturer error was a viable explanation, let alone the most likely one. Posted by: MIKE JOHNSTON *My brother and I have a rule between ourselves, named for author Stephen Pinker, that we're not allowed to recommend a book until we've actually finished reading it.

'How Come No One Called? Seriously'

In response to Ctein's post, "Customer Support, Take 2," below, Player commented "Okay, I give up. How come no one called...

2:13 PM

Customer Support, Take 2

by Ctein <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjczXCozc4KExZSU_3yVY8Yxg_qYYHMY2FAKcuFjCb9UQV52FfFUEnkDRn1YePyV1gO2n7lioMxPHkWlhejuGF_dFXcgVusJW9QGZATCXTPUI2eEfrH5Vnzr9FQ_9q-KEKAtdBQmLR8Xbs/s1600-h/blog21figure.jpg" onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5046224953479496386" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjczXCozc4KExZSU_3yVY8Yxg_qYYHMY2FAKcuFjCb9UQV52FfFUEnkDRn1YePyV1gO2n7lioMxPHkWlhejuGF_dFXcgVusJW9QGZATCXTPUI2eEfrH5Vnzr9FQ_9q-KEKAtdBQmLR8Xbs/s400/blog21figure.jpg" style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" /></a>What would you think if your film turned out looking like this? </div> As I said last time, customer support can be funny thing. Sometimes that's "funny" as in "weird and disturbing." As when customers' faith in the manufacturer's competence is misplaced. This is a true story. Got it from the horse's mouth, one of the Big Four photographic manufacturers. But I'm not even going to give you a hint as to who. Companies keep extensive quality control records to insure that their products performs just as they're supposed to. Nothing should leave the plant that isn't on spec. Unfortunately, humans are fallible creatures and sometimes the horse escapes before the barn door has been locked. It was a simple product; standard B&W film developer. These mixes can tolerate pretty large deviations from the standard recipe and still perform well; they have to, considering the manufacturer has little control over exactly how they're used. But there are limits. During a review of some QC logs, it was discovered that a batch of developer had been incorrectly prepared. One component had not merely been mismeasured but omitted entirely. As Murphy would have it, this was nothing trivial like a preservative. This developer was completely inactive; it was incapable of developing film. It got worse. Photofinishing labs buy chemicals in large lots that are traceable. In case of a problem, the manufacture can determine who got the chemicals. This batch of developer, though, was packaged up into small units (e.g., 1 gal.) for the individual user market. Those couldn't be tracked. The bum soup was long gone. It had been distributed and sold to individual B&W photographers all over. The Company was screwed. These were honorable people; they knew they had screwed up and they weren't going to try to stonewall it. They put customer support on alert and prepared to fall on their swords and make as much nice as they could to the angry customers whose film had been ruined. Operators were standing by. The phones never rang. No user contacted them to complain about bad developer—not one single unhappy photographer. That's when the company became very, very worried. A very weird and disturbing business, indeed. <div style="text-align: left;">Posted by: CTEIN <form method="LINK" action="http://www.ctein.com"><div style="text-align: right;"><input value="Ctein's Site" type="submit"> </div></form></div>

Customer Support, Take 2

by Ctein What would you think if your film turned out looking like this? As I said last time, customer support can be funny thing. Sometime...

6:23 AM