B&H - So much smarter than Photog's Formulary (NOT!)

[William McEwen]

Here's a photo of the 8x10 contact printing frames from Photographer's Formulary, on their Web site:

http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopModules/StoreProductDetails.aspx?productID=177&tabid=9&tabindex=2&categoryid=16&selection=0&langId=0

And here is the same product, posted on B&H's! The smart guys who put together the product photos at B&H added their own touch, so we could learn how a contact printing frame is used! Ah, the folks at B&H... they have so much to teach us!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/209108-REG/Photographers_Formulary_07_2000_8x10_Contact_Print_Frame.html

[Bob Salomon]

Errors are not unusual on any dealer's web site. But did you see the link towards the bottom of B&H's page? It says:

"See any errors on this page? Let us know."

[Daniel_Buck]

"See any errors on this page? Let us know."

indeed, nobody's perfect! :)

[Gem Singer]

I deal with both of these vendors on a regular basis.

The Photo Formulary assumes that the people who order from them are knowledgeable about photography and don't need someone to explain how to use the item, or help them make a decision.

B&H makes the opposite supposition. Did you ever ask one of B&H's sales staff to help you make a decision?

I enjoy the ability to order online from both vendors. I can charge the purchase to my credit card, and avoid the need to talk directly to one of B&H's "friendly, knowledgeable sales staff"(that's a joke).

However, I do like talking to one of the nice ladies at the Formulary once in a while.

[William McEwen]

It looks like I wasn't clear.

B&H appears to think these are picture frames. They've put pictures in them.

[Bob Salomon]

It looks like I wasn't clear.

B&H appears to think these are picture frames. They've put pictures in them.

I am the contact person for B&H's web and catalog people who put the products on their web site and in their catalogs for our products. The people who buy product for B&H are very knowledgeable about the products they buy. But some of the people who actually put the images and the text on the web site and catalogs are not particularly knowledgeable about photography (some are). They are writers or graphics people, so they do make mistakes. But they also ask anyone who finds a mistake to tell them about it so they can correct it. Considering the size of the market for contact printing frames vs the market for picture frames it isn't that surprising an error. But note that their written description was very accurate and descriptive.

[Gem Singer]

They are listed under contact printing frames. I only see one picture of Rugby players.

Adds some color to the ad. It would have looked strange for them to photograph a B&W negative and a sheet of print paper inside of the frame.

I'm not defending B&H. However they do not infer that this item can be used as a picture frame.

[vinny]

I've got one of those frames and it didn't come with a picture. Who do I call?

[Frank Petronio]

I bet B&H fixes it within a week, they are pros.

[Turner Reich]

In reality these can be used for picture frames, you see it there in the ad, we know what it is designed for but what is a picture frame? It's like a contact print frame isn't it?

[Marko]

Other than Formulary's contact frame being $3 cheaper on B&H site than on the Formulary's own site, I don't get what all the consternation is about...

I mean, those who know what a contact frame is will save $3, those who don't think $56 is a wee bit too much for a picture frame will support the Formulary and make them supply these frames longer. ;)

[ic-racer]

Thats a good one! In fact with those extra knobs and gadgets on the back, maybe they were even showing it as an illuminated digital frame (thats a bright picture) :) .

[William McEwen]

Thats a good one! In fact with those extra knobs and gadgets on the back, maybe they were even showing it as an illuminated digital frame (thats a bright picture) :) .

I thought the same thing -- it looks like a rear-illuminated duratrans.

[SamReeves]

LOL, good find. :)

But really B&H has always been the best on price and delivery, so I wouldn't go hatin' on them.

[Brian Ellis]

I'm no fan of B&H - I don't buy from them at all any more because of a very bad experience years ago - but this seems like going way out of your way to find something to criticize. B&H sells everything from camcorders to TVs to audio gear to photo stuff. You could probably buy a refrigerator from them if you really wanted to. So the fact that they even bother selling something like a contact printing frame seems pretty admirable to me. And going to the trouble of starting a thread just to criticize them for how they display a contact printing frame on their web site seems petty to say the least.

[William McEwen]

I was simply posting something I found amusing.

I'm a customers of both companies and have always been happy with them.

[Vaughn]

No big deal...but the contact printing frames themselves leave much to be desired. I gave a workshop in which someone was using this type of contact printing frame (no rugby player's photo, btw) and every time she closed those clamps, everyone else jumped -- loud, ear-shattering noise! A potential for finger-smashing, also.

I question the ability to keep good contact between neg and photo material...especially with larger sizes -- with only edge clamps.

Vaughn

[D. Bryant]

No big deal...but the contact printing frames themselves leave much to be desired. I gave a workshop in which someone was using this type of contact printing frame (no rugby player's photo, btw) and every time she closed those clamps, everyone else jumped -- loud, ear-shattering noise! A potential for finger-smashing, also.

I question the ability to keep good contact between neg and photo material...especially with larger sizes -- with only edge clamps.

Vaughn

I'm not trying to bash anyone but the Formulary frames are a piece of junk, well to be avoided.

Don Bryant

[Gem Singer]

Perhaps that's why B&H disguised them as picture frames.

[Toyon]

I find Photographer's Formulary print frames to be well built and, more importantly, apply even, strong pressure. However, the heavily sprung snaps can be quite loud.

[Dennis]

2 sheets quarter inch plate glass. Industrial spring clamps. Life is good.

[William McEwen]

A potential for finger-smashing, also.


Vaughn

Jeez -- like our darkrooms aren't already dangerous enough with Acetic Acid fumes! :)

[W K Longcor]

When I retired from photography ( business wise ) -- my wife and I opened an antique business. We've been selling small contact fames as picture frames for years now. ---It all looks quite natural to me!:rolleyes:

[Jim Michael]

It's a transparency being used to make a contact print on ciba ;-)

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Jeez -- like our darkrooms aren't already dangerous enough with Acetic Acid fumes! :)

A few years back I watched as a B&H employee--who was showing me this very contact printing frame--seriously sliced his fingers on the sharp edges of the (unsanded) glass and ended up being taken to the emergency room.

Caveat emptor!

[BrianShaw]

When I retired from photography ( business wise ) -- my wife and I opened an antique business. We've been selling small contact fames as picture frames for years now. ---It all looks quite natural to me!:rolleyes:

You must be the guy in Maine that sold me a couple of "antique picture frames" that I've been using for contact printing. I'll never forget the detailed explanation of how the springs on the back make it easier to change the pictures! :D

[W K Longcor]

You must be the guy in Maine that sold me a couple of "antique picture frames" that I've been using for contact printing. I'll never forget the detailed explanation of how the springs on the back make it easier to change the pictures! :D

NOPE! Like I said -- I'm a retired photographer ( RIT educated) -- I know what these frames are for -- goodness knows - I've used enough of them over he years!!!!:D

Once, while in an antique shop - years back -- I saw a tin, candle powered safe-light with red glass and tin shade over the front. The tag said "Thief's lantern". I told the dealer that his price was just about right -but it was a photographer darkroom safelight. He was pleasant about it and corrected the tag -- then added " I worked for a photographer years ago when I was in school. Considering THAT GUY -- my first tag was correct!"

[henryp]

And here is the same product, posted on B&H's! The smart guys who put together the product photos at B&H added their own touch, so we could learn how a contact printing frame is used! Ah, the folks at B&H... they have so much to teach us!

Thanks for the tongue-in-cheek observations. :-) I'm happy to pass this on to the web dept product image crew. The pic is from 2002 and will be corrected shortly.

[William McEwen]

Thanks for the tongue-in-cheek observations. :-) I'm happy to pass this on to the web dept product image crew. The pic is from 2002 and will be corrected shortly.

Hiya, Henry: Thanks for being such a good sport about this! William.

[ghost]

yep. Good sport. I'm just glad someone at B&H must have a soft spot for traditional gear, otherwise they would just devote the space to more high volume items.

As far as badmouthing the staff, I'm sure thier staff are knowledgeable about the things that matter to profitability of the enterprise, lets be realistic here.

[Michael Alpert]

yep. Good sport. I'm just glad someone at B&H must have a soft spot for traditional gear, otherwise they would just devote the space to more high volume items.

As far as badmouthing the staff, I'm sure thier [their or, better, B&H's] staff are [is] knowledgeable about the things that matter to [the] profitability of the enterprise, lets [let's] be realistic here.


Your first paragraph is fine. Your second paragraph includes the same sort of unconscious or veiled anti-Semitism that lurks in the background too often when B&H is the subject of a post. Get a life; other people are not as simple-minded as you assume. People in business are not one-dimensional. Many people who sell photographic equipment actually care about the content of what they sell.

[Toyon]

Your first paragraph is fine. Your second paragraph includes the same sort of unconscious or veiled anti-Semitism that lurks in the background too often when B&H is the subject of a post. Get a life; other people are not as simple-minded as you assume. People in business are not one-dimensional. Many people who sell photographic equipment actually care about the content of what they sell.

Well said, Michael.

[henryp]

Many people who sell photographic equipment actually care about the content of what they sell.

Thank you. Much appreciated. BTW our web guys took the rugby players out. :-)

[ghost]

Your first paragraph is fine. Your second paragraph includes the same sort of unconscious or veiled anti-Semitism that lurks in the background too often when B&H is the subject of a post. Get a life; other people are not as simple-minded as you assume. People in business are not one-dimensional. Many people who sell photographic equipment actually care about the content of what they sell.


"anti-semitism" what does that have to do with it? I'm sorry, I just don't understand your post.

What I was trying to say is that I'm sure the staff at that store work very hard to stay up on the latest technology, and it might be a little unrealistic to assume every person would be familiar with something as "obscure" (these days) as a contact frame...

I have to ask, what on earth did you think I meant? I have never found thier site to be anti-semetic? (I mostly order from the catalog)

[Vlad Soare]

As far as badmouthing the staff, I'm sure thier [their or, better, B&H's] staff are [is] knowledgeable about the things that matter to [the] profitability of the enterprise, lets [let's] be realistic here.
Your first paragraph is fine. Your second paragraph includes the same sort of unconscious or veiled anti-Semitism that lurks in the background too often when B&H is the subject of a post. Get a life; other people are not as simple-minded as you assume. People in business are not one-dimensional. Many people who sell photographic equipment actually care about the content of what they sell.
Michael, I fail to see any anti-Semitism in the message you're quoting. The fact that some of us happen to know that B&H is run by Jewish people doesn't mean that any criticism to either B&H or to their business policies is necessarily anti-Semitic.
"Thier" looks like a simple typo to me, and the phrase "their staff are knowledgeable" is actually correct in the given context (see here (http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/ontarget/0712/Grammer_traps.htm)). I agree with your other two corrections, though I have some slight doubts about the last one - it could be a typo, too. ;)

[Doremus Scudder]

Michael,

I also think you are being a bit over-the-top with the comment about Antisemitism. Most of us think it is normal for a business to be concerned with profitability and efficiency, and see nothing amiss when a business concentrates it efforts and staff to maximize the bottom line and spends less time/effort on the less-profitable aspects of its dealings, even when they have a commitment to them. The farthest thing from my mind when reading the post you took umbrage to was the religion or ethnicity of the owners of B&H or any characteristics associated with them.

I bringing this up, you are actually evoking and promulgating a racial/ethnic stereotype that in all likelihood had not occurred to the original poster. Has your possible over-sensitivity and defensive attitude led you to read something into a post that was never intended? Certainly, there are enough rants on this and other forums about numerous companies (of which this thread is only one, and one with a humorous intent at that) to indicate that comments like the one to which you chose to take offense are made about all kinds of businesses/manufacturers/retailers and their staff without impunity and without prejudice.

I find it sad that this topic raised its ugly head on this forum, and would ask you to take another look at the post you found offensive and reconsider your position. Perhaps, after considering a while, you may find that a retraction or apology to the original poster is in order (labeling someone or their comments as Antisemitic without adequate proof or justification could be considered insulting by many).

Hoping that unpleasant exchanges like this can be avoided in the future,

Doremus Scudder

[Doug Howk]

In defense of M.A.'s comments, given that alot of the media especially TV faux news and talk radio are stoking the flames of intolerance in America, its only natural to be sensitive about any comments that could be perceived as biased (though in this case it was overly sensitive).

As for B&H, I've only called once but rather use their online store quite frequently. Very professional.

As to PF's contact printing frame, I have two; and they are adequate. The snaps do wear with alot of use and I'm ordering some replacements from Ludwig fasteners (http://www.ludwigracinewi.com/productspageone.html) . The 16X20 does seem to need some stiffening for any paper that has curled during sensitizing - I add a sheet of mat board behind the paper. I now need an 11X14 for a pt/pd workshop by Tillman Crane this Fall, and decided to go with Doug Kennedy's product since it appears to be a better design.

[Toyon]

Michael,

I also think you are being a bit over-the-top with the comment about Antisemitism. Most of us think it is normal for a business to be concerned with profitability and efficiency, and see nothing amiss when a business concentrates it efforts and staff to maximize the bottom line and spends less time/effort on the less-profitable aspects of its dealings, even when they have a commitment to them. The farthest thing from my mind when reading the post you took umbrage to was the religion or ethnicity of the owners of B&H or any characteristics associated with them.

I bringing this up, you are actually evoking and promulgating a racial/ethnic stereotype that in all likelihood had not occurred to the original poster. Has your possible over-sensitivity and defensive attitude led you to read something into a post that was never intended? Certainly, there are enough rants on this and other forums about numerous companies (of which this thread is only one, and one with a humorous intent at that) to indicate that comments like the one to which you chose to take offense are made about all kinds of businesses/manufacturers/retailers and their staff without impunity and without prejudice.

I find it sad that this topic raised its ugly head on this forum, and would ask you to take another look at the post you found offensive and reconsider your position. Perhaps, after considering a while, you may find that a retraction or apology to the original poster is in order (labeling someone or their comments as Antisemitic without adequate proof or justification could be considered insulting by many).

Hoping that unpleasant exchanges like this can be avoided in the future,

Doremus Scudder

Anti-semitism of the current variety usually consists of little nods and gestures that focus on the profit motives, honesty and business practices of the person(s) under scrutiny. While it is understandable that this is opaque to you - you are probably not an anti-semite - it is wrong for you to assume that it does not exist and disgraceful that you would take a high-handed, righteous attitude to Michael's comments. Michael, did not "raise this topic" to disturb your oblivious equanimity, but to respond to problems that occurs from time-to-time on this and any forum. First rule of response: know what you are talking about, and second, attempt to understand the other person's perspective and experience.

[Marko]

As far as badmouthing the staff, I'm sure thier [their or, better, B&H's] staff are [is] knowledgeable about the things that matter to [the] profitability of the enterprise, lets [let's] be realistic here.
Your first paragraph is fine. Your second paragraph includes the same sort of unconscious or veiled anti-Semitism that lurks in the background too often when B&H is the subject of a post. Get a life; other people are not as simple-minded as you assume. People in business are not one-dimensional. Many people who sell photographic equipment actually care about the content of what they sell.

Michael, I fail to see any anti-Semitism in the message you're quoting. The fact that some of us happen to know that B&H is run by Jewish people doesn't mean that any criticism to either B&H or to their business policies is necessarily anti-Semitic.
"Thier" looks like a simple typo to me, and the phrase "their staff are knowledgeable" is actually correct in the given context (see here (http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/ontarget/0712/Grammer_traps.htm)). I agree with your other two corrections, though I have some slight doubts about the last one - it could be a typo, too. ;)

What I really fail to understand was the need to inject grammar and/or spelling corrections into a post like that? It makes an already serious accusation look both petty and spurious at the same time. The last thing I would expect from someone genuinely and righteously enraged over a real anti-semitic slur is to even notice offender's faulty grammar, much less desire to correct it!

Grammar "corrections" like this are frequently used in online discussions simply to present the other party as uneducated and thus further disqualify anything they said or might say in the future. Besides being a fallacy, it is also petty and usually indicates lack of substance in the attacker's main argument.

Personally, I didn't see any anti-Semitism there, but I will leave that question to those who are more familiar with it than I am, both from the giving and from the receiving perspective.

Back to the topic: Now that the rugby players are out, the frame looks rather drab to me, so I am thinking - would it be a good compromise to insert some of Frank's girls? :D

[CG]

I'm missing the anti-Semitism thing too.

[Brian Ellis]

Anti-semitism of the current variety usually consists of little nods and gestures that focus on the profit motives, honesty and business practices of the person(s) under scrutiny. While it is understandable that this is opaque to you - you are probably not an anti-semite - it is wrong for you to assume that it does not exist and disgraceful that you would take a high-handed, righteous attitude to Michael's comments. Michael, did not "raise this topic" to disturb your oblivious equanimity, but to respond to problems that occurs from time-to-time on this and any forum. First rule of response: know what you are talking about, and second, attempt to understand the other person's perspective and experience.

I've seen hundreds, probably thousands, of posts here relating to profit motives, honesty, and business practices of numerous different companies and individuals. To take only two of hundreds of examples that could be given, just recently there was a thread relating to the honesty and business practices of Ken Hough. And Kodak is constantly criticized here for only looking at the bottom line, for taking products off the market that aren't profitable, or for paying too much attention to the bottom line and too little to the needs of photographers. How many times have I seen statements along the lines of "Kodak won't terminate film production, it's film that makes the money." Obviously (at least it's obvious to me, maybe it isn't to you) the Ken Hough thread and the hundreds of criticisms of Kodak and its profit motives weren't anti-semitic. But when something far milder than any of those sorts of criticisms is said about B&H it's anti-semitic?

[ghost]

Michael, I fail to see any anti-Semitism in the message you're quoting. The fact that some of us happen to know that B&H is run by Jewish people......

OK, well at least that's one mystery cleared up. I have been ordering from these folks for years and had no clue as to their religious preferences...
how would someone know that?...
... also, why would you care?

What a bizarre thing to keep track of. I can't think of a single other business I patronize that I am aware of the owner's religoius beliefs. And if you keep track of such things, even more bizarre to asume others would do so, or care to?

But the truely bizarre thing about this post...

is that my original post...was not critical of B&H! :confused:

To phrase it as simply as possible (carefully watching my spelling of course), what I said was...

"Isn't it NICE that someone at B&H cares about traditional photography supplies enough to keep devoting space to them, since I'm sure it would make business sense to devote that space to more high-volume modern items"..

AND

"sometimes we traditional workers can be a little unrealistic in our expectation that every employee of these large stores be familiar with our interests"...

Thats where Michael Alpert then takes a left turn into insults, nasty charged accustations, and....(gasp!) grammar lessons (:mad: ). Now that it has been explained to me regarding B&H, best thing to do with a post like that is report it to the moderators.

Anyway, I will continue to use B&H because they have what I need and do a good job regardless of anyone's theory about who the owners may or may not be.

[Toyon]

I've seen hundreds, probably thousands, of posts here relating to profit motives, honesty, and business practices of numerous different companies and individuals. To take only two of hundreds of examples that could be given, just recently there was a thread relating to the honesty and business practices of Ken Hough. And Kodak is constantly criticized here for only looking at the bottom line, for taking products off the market that aren't profitable, or for paying too much attention to the bottom line and too little to the needs of photographers. How many times have I seen statements along the lines of "Kodak won't terminate film production, it's film that makes the money." Obviously (at least it's obvious to me, maybe it isn't to you) the Ken Hough thread and the hundreds of criticisms of Kodak and its profit motives weren't anti-semitic. But when something far milder than any of those sorts of criticisms is said about B&H it's anti-semitic?

It's a pretty arrogant thing to accuse someone of inventing slights, or mis-perceiving them. It implies that you: A) know more than they do, B) are more sensitive and logical, C) that what you don't notice or fail to perceive cannot therefore exist. Of course, its a very familiar tactic, time-worn and disreputable.

[Toyon]

OK, well at least that's one mystery cleared up. I have been ordering from these folks for years and had no clue as to their religious preferences...
how would someone know that?...
... also, why would you care?

What a bizarre thing to keep track of. I can't think of a single other business I patronize that I am aware of the owner's religoius beliefs. And if you keep track of such things, even more bizarre to asume others would do so, or care to?

But the truely bizarre thing about this post...

is that my original post...was not critical of B&H! :confused:

To phrase it as simply as possible (carefully watching my spelling of course), what I said was...

"Isn't it NICE that someone at B&H cares about traditional photography supplies enough to keep devoting space to them, since I'm sure it would make business sense to devote that space to more high-volume modern items"..

AND

"sometimes we traditional workers can be a little unrealistic in our expectation that every employee of these large stores be familiar with our interests"...

Thats where Michael Alpert then takes a left turn into insults, nasty charged accustations, and....(gasp!) grammar lessons (:mad: ). Now that it has been explained to me regarding B&H, best thing to do with a post like that is report it to the moderators.

Anyway, I will continue to use B&H because they have what I need and do a good job regardless of anyone's theory about who the owners may or may not be.

Your explanation doesn't hold water. B&H has very prominent notices superimposed on their webpages about closure during particular Jewish holidays. You walked into it with your thoughtless statement and now you want to blame others. Take some personal responsibility.

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

I deal with both of these vendors on a regular basis.

The Photo Formulary assumes that the people who order from them are knowledgeable about photography and don't need someone to explain how to use the item, or help them make a decision.

B&H makes the opposite supposition. Did you ever ask one of B&H's sales staff to help you make a decision?

I enjoy the ability to order online from both vendors. I can charge the purchase to my credit card, and avoid the need to talk directly to one of B&H's "friendly, knowledgeable sales staff"(that's a joke).

However, I do like talking to one of the nice ladies at the Formulary once in a while.

Gem,

The sales staff at B&H have only one word to say, as you beguin questioning: "next!"
May be it's New York's life style....:)
But their operators of the toll free number to Brazil are good to deal with.

[Brian Ellis]

It's a pretty arrogant thing to accuse someone of inventing slights, or mis-perceiving them. It implies that you: A) know more than they do, B) are more sensitive and logical, C) that what you don't notice or fail to perceive cannot therefore exist. Of course, its a very familiar tactic, time-worn and disreputable.

In other words, it's arrogant and disreputable to disagree with you.

So far you've called two people who disagreed with you "wrong," "disgraceful," "high-handed," "righteous," "arrogant," and "disreputable." Nobody has called you or Michael any names. Why don't you try to extend the same courtesy to others?

[Toyon]

In other words, it's arrogant and disreputable to disagree with you.

So far you've called two people who disagreed with you "wrong," "disgraceful," "high-handed," "righteous," "arrogant," and "disreputable." Nobody has called you or Michael any names. Why don't you try to extend the same courtesy to others?

Why don't you say what you mean - it hurts to be found wanting.

[Brian Ellis]

Why don't you say what you mean - it hurts to be found wanting.

Good grief.

[William McEwen]

Here's a photo of the 8x10 contact printing frames from Photographer's Formulary, on their Web site:

http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopModules/StoreProductDetails.aspx?productID=177&tabid=9&tabindex=2&categoryid=16&selection=0&langId=0

And here is the same product, posted on B&H's! The smart guys who put together the product photos at B&H added their own touch, so we could learn how a contact printing frame is used! Ah, the folks at B&H... they have so much to teach us!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/209108-REG/Photographers_Formulary_07_2000_8x10_Contact_Print_Frame.html

WOW. Where we started and where we ended up! :)

[Tom Keenan]

Many thanks to the folks at B&H for maintaining tens (hundreds?) of thousands of pages of product info with a very acceptable level of accuracy. I buy from B&H (and Adorama) all the time in my business and consider them excellent resources in addition to vendors. The fact that someone chooses to make a public issue of an error on a page is an incredible waste of time and bandwidth.
Tom Keenan

[poco]

It's a pretty arrogant thing to accuse someone of inventing slights,

It's even more arrogant to accuse someone of lying, as you did by dismissing ghost's explanation that he was unaware of any B&H/Jewish connection.

There's a lots of us who don't know or care whether others are Jewish or not. Deal with it.

[Jim Graves]

Your second paragraph includes the same sort of unconscious or veiled anti-Semitism that lurks in the background too often when B&H is the subject of a post.

You have GOT to be kidding me!

[William McEwen]

The fact that someone chooses to make a public issue of an error on a page is an incredible waste of time and bandwidth.
Tom Keenan

I'm the "someone" you refer to. A public issue? No. I was just sharing something I found amusing.

[Doremus Scudder]

I'll contribute again here, just to clarify (not defend) my position.

I abhor racism and unfounded bias of all kinds. I realize that there is a dark history of racism and Antisemitism worldwide, including in the United States, and that much of the discrimination and slurring is done through innuendo, ambiguous slights, and "insider" insults that are often "opaque" to the unitiated. Assaults of this type, which are intentional, should be identified as such and dealt with severely.

I am also aware that many well-intentioned and innocent comments can be offensive to certain groups since they unconsciously propagate stereotypes and/or prejudices. These latter fall into a middle ground of insensitivity and inconsiderateness and, while I, too, find them unfortunate, I fail to find malicious intent therein. In this case awareness-raising and education are the answer.

Blending into the other side of the spectrum are the heightened sensitivities of those who are the target of racism and prejudice to perceived slurs and insults. While people are justified in pointing out, confronting and decrying racial and ethnic affronts, and while I agree that this should and must be done, there sometimes exists an over-sensitivity, which, unfortunately, all too often results in cries of racism or prejudice when none exists at all. This can be damaging and hurtful to those unjustly accused, as well as injuring the cause of justice and the fight against prejudice and racism by raising false alarms and thereby inuring many to the justice of the cause.

If we believe that accusations should not be made without justification and probable cause, we should be cautious about jumping to conclusions. In a large number of cases, we need to be aware that our own oversensitivity can cause us to overreact and perpetrate the very thing we are combating. If there is no discernible malicious intent, we will often have to hold our peace, give someone the benefit of the doubt, or take another approach rather than crying "racism" when questionable comments are made.

Pointing out that something may be considered offensive to some, or that it possibly demonstrates insensitivity to a negative stereotype (which the commenter might not even be aware exists) is a far different, and much more constructive and tolerant, recourse than immediately branding someone's comment as racist or Antisemitic.

In the particular comment in question, I find no hint of Antisemitism; neither do many others. If, however, someone does, the proper, and indeed, more tolerant, embracing and reconciliatory response would simply be to point out that the comment could be misconstrued by some, and that the poster should be aware of that. The great majority of people would react positively to such edification. Unfortunately, the response that mentioned Antisemitism was too aggressive and a lashing out at the perceived slur and contained no attempt at education, justification, or cooperation. Most people do not react favorably to unjustified attacks.

Unfortunately, there are those on both sides who simply see enemies wherever they turn. Their opinions are equally unconsidered and based in mistrust, falsehood and knee-jerk defensive reactionism.

It was my intention in my original response to point out to the person who took offense that, quite possibly, his reaction was unconsidered, unhelpful, and unconstructive. I had hoped that a short retraction/apology would simply negate the comment and remove the unneeded and unpleasant specter of ethnic and religious strife from an otherwise harmless thread. It seems only to have escalated, and, quite regrettably, resulted in more unpleasantness, largely from the side of those who could have avoided it all by simply giving someone the benefit of the doubt, being a little charitable or diplomatic, or more gently rebuking the perceived slight in the spirit of conciliation rather than confrontation.

How in the hell are we ever going to live together if we cannot be civil and abide by the values we ourselves wish to have applied to us?

Enough,

Doremus Scudder

[Peter De Smidt]

Very good post, Doremus!

[Doug Howk]

Doremus, very good post. However, in a climate of racial, ethnic & religious bigotry with increasing acts of violence towards "them", we need to be aware that seemingly innocent jokes or light-hearted comments can add to the climate of hatred. I don't recognize bias; but I'm one of those "innocent" white, anglo-saxon males that purveyors of bigotry in America, such as Rush, target for recruitment to their cause. For those who are a target of bigotry, their sensitivity may seem overly heightened; but that's not for me to judge given our poor track record in America's history.

[Doremus Scudder]

Doug,

That is precisely what I am trying to say, in a seemingly more verbose way. All I am hoping is that the same consideration for others' sensitivities can be had from all involved.

One thing you imply, however, I do not agree with. For me, the entire concept of collective guilt is fallacious. Just because you are an "innocent" white, anglo-saxon male does not make you responsible for the acts of others in that group, nor should it allow others to make unfounded presumptions about your character, preferences, political or religious views, etc. based solely on that. That is precisely the kind of stereotyping that gets us into trouble in the first place. I am advocating that exactly this be guarded against by thinking people on all sides of sensitive issues.

And, I don't include myself (and I think you should not either) in the nameless, amorphous "we" that you invoke, who have such a bad track record. I certainly don't, and I'm not about to accept responsibility or liability for others in my ethic, racial, or cultural group who are guilty. I will be in the forefront of those condemning reprehensible actions, but you'll hear no "mea culpa" from me unless I am the guilty party myself. Let those who perpetrate wrong on others take the blame and the responsibility. I'll not share it with them without having participated.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[Doug Howk]

Doremus, your reasoning is well-grounded; and in the past I would have totally agreed with you. However, we as a society, as an association of people with good intentions and unbiased viewpoints, can not remain silent when we hear hateful speech ( whether as jokes, asides, innuendos or outright bile). A couple of recent NY times editorials have argued this point better than I ( see Charles Blow (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/opinion/13blow.html) and Frank Rich (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/opinion/14rich.html) ). It is not some collective guilt over America's sorry history on tolerance that motivates me to speak out; but rather the fear that the recent spate of violence in America is an undercurrent that could drown us all.

[John Kasaian]

Good grief!

I am well aware that B and H is operated by Jews because they are closed for Jewish holidays and good for them! I find that simple truth quite reassuring as I dislike people who hide their beliefs.

Anyone who wouldn't know this simply isn't paying attention to B and H's website and for some reason I'd expect that anyone involved in LF photography is to some extent attentive to details (I mean if you can focus on a subject that's upside down and backwards then reading the store hours on a web page should be a piece of cake)

I have never had any complaints with B and H and if I did, I'd expect the issue to be quickly and fairly resolved because they are a very professional outfit IMHO.

As for Formulary contact printers, I've had one and mine was definately mil-spec. Vaughn's coments about jumping when the springs snap closed as oh so true!
On my cramped baseboard it was just to difficult (and painful) for me to work with. Even my preferred tool----a simple big thick honkin piece of heavy glass became dicey as I'd have to tilt it up against a slick tile back splash to remove the paper and I'd had enough close calls to warrant using a hinged Printfile proofer for 8x10 and smaller(which I've found works admirably well.)

Yes, I order stuff from Formulary, B and H, Freestyle, and Badger Graphic. I'll support them all as long as they continue to stock what I want.

[Daniel_Buck]

The people who buy product for B&H are very knowledgeable about the products they buy. But some of the people who actually put the images and the text on the web site and catalogs are not particularly knowledgeable about photography (some are). They are writers or graphics people, so they do make mistakes.

could very well be that the person putting the images into the website isn't even a writer or web guy, it may be an intern (unpaid, or little paid), since it's a fairly remedial task.

[BrianShaw]

could very well be that the person putting the images into the website isn't even a writer or web guy, it may be an intern (unpaid, or little paid), since it's a fairly remedial task.

It was an ADVERTISMENT, folks... not an INSTRUCTION MANUAL. :rolleyes:

The intention was to look good, not to look correct. :)

[William McEwen]

It was an ADVERTISMENT, folks... not an INSTRUCTION MANUAL. :rolleyes:

The intention was to look good, not to look correct. :)

So it's OK if an illustration is inaccurate and deceptive -- making it look good is paramount?

[Bob Salomon]

could very well be that the person putting the images into the website isn't even a writer or web guy, it may be an intern (unpaid, or little paid), since it's a fairly remedial task.

When you have a catalog and a web site the size of theirs it is not a remedial task. It is quite a large undertaking and for many people it would be quite onerous. The people that run it are not interns at all.

[Daniel_Buck]

It was an ADVERTISMENT, folks... not an INSTRUCTION MANUAL. :rolleyes:

The intention was to look good, not to look correct. :)

I work in advertising (national commercials), interns fairly often will get to do artist work, that's how they learn :)


When you have a catalog and a web site the size of theirs it is not a remedial task. It is quite a large undertaking and for many people it would be quite onerous. The people that run it are not interns at all.
was just a guess on my part :)

[BrianShaw]

So it's OK if an illustration is inaccurate and deceptive -- making it look good is paramount?

The way in which the product was "being used" in the ad was inaccurate, but what was "deceptive" about it?

[BrianShaw]

I work in advertising (national commercials), interns fairly often will get to do artist work, that's how they learn :)

I actually encourage the use of interns; I was an intern at one time too and appreciate the opportunities I was given to learn! (I do not work in advertizing of any type.)

My point is not about who made the "mistake". Interns should be supervised so bad mistakes don't get off of their desks. My point was that artistic license is OK for ads but not for instruction manuals... and that was an ad not an instruction manual.

[henryp]

could very well be that the person putting the images into the website isn't even a writer or web guy, it may be an intern (unpaid, or little paid), since it's a fairly remedial task.
Possible, but it happens not to be so. Our web image team is staffed by full-time employees who generally know their way around the website and (since several are former sales associates) know the merchandise too.


So it's OK if an illustration is inaccurate and deceptive -- making it look good is paramount?
Inaccurate, perhaps. Misleading, possibly. Unfortunate, certainly. Corrected, definitely.
Deceptive -- NOT AT ALL.

[Peter De Smidt]

Everybody makes mistakes. There's no reason to think this was deceptive. If anything, it'd cause problems for BH with returns. It is funny, though :)

[Michael Alpert]

Since last Friday, I've been on an island off the coast of northeastern Canada. I've enjoyed the lack of cell-phone or Internet availability. And I've enjoyed an incredibly wonderful landscape, with high cliffs, little fishing towns in the coves, and welcoming people. My remark on unconscious anti-Semitism was not meant to accuse anyone of being a monster. I used the word "unconscious" deliberately; on the Internet we are all expressing our biases as we are sharing technical and other information. Unconscious anti-Semitism is a half-hidden factor in contemporary life that sometimes leads to odd humor and sometimes to pigeonholing. The recent fire-storm of responses to my modest post seems overly defensive from my point of view, but we all have a lot to learn. I certainly do. My correction of typographical errors was out of line (people should not be publicly chastised for being somewhat less than perfect, which I hope is what the original contributor to this thread has learned); I apologize for my lapse in judgment.

[Tom Monego]

It is fixed, nice gray photoshopped square.

Tom

[lindsey21]

I actually encourage the use of interns; I was an intern at one time too and appreciate the opportunities I was given to learn! (I do not work in advertizing of any type.)

My point is not about who made the "mistake". Interns should be supervised so bad mistakes don't get off of their desks. My point was that artistic license is OK for ads but not for instruction manuals... and that was an ad not an instruction manual.

I really enjoyed this. where can I find more info about this.