View Camera Magazine's April Fool's Joke

[Rory_3532]

Yesterday, the editorial director of View Camera published a post on this forum under the title "Health Risk of Pyro" in which he said that his website was featuring, in relation to Pyro, "a rational and considered essay on its health aspects".

Here is the opening paragraph of this "rational and considered essay", by an author whose credentials are unstated, but whose utter inability to write in English is amply demonstrated from the outset of his "essay":

"Dunno if this is the best place but I figured this is the best place as I have a feeling many LF'ers develop their own. Recently read an article from an UK photo mag. Guy basically cannot figure why anyone would risk death?? to use PMK when the gains are so minimal? Opinions? You can get Material Safety Data Sheet from the internet. Try the SIRI site at http://hazard.com"

Pardon?

In response to people who have suggested that the above article is not exactly "a rational and considered essay", the editor of View Camera says "It is easy to be critical. It is more difficult to be constructive."

He is right. It is easier to be critical than to be constructive. But sometimes editorial decisions about what to write are so bad that there is nothing constructive that can be said, except that the editor should replace himself. Do the people who run View Camera really not understand how ridiculous this article is? Do they think that we are all both stupid and illiterate? Or are they prepared to publish absolutely any piece of trash that will give them an excuse to advertise View Camera on this forum? Where are the people who run this forum?

[QT Luong]

Rory, it is perfectly appropriate to refer to an article published on another site, commercial or not, for discussion on this forum. In fact that's just how slashdot.org (one of the most successful discussion sites on the internet) works. As a result of that posting, there has been an interesting discussion with some participants providing interesting facts and references. If you want to criticize this article, you are welcome to join that discussion rather than opening a new thread, especially when the criticism is more about style than substance.

[steve simmons]

Rory That first paragraph is a queston posed by someone who read another article and was afraid pyro could cause death. Knoppow's statement is in response to that question.

I guess the joke is on you for being wrong. No one else made this mistake.

sorry

steve simmons

[Brian McGuiness]

Not alone? I think not.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

He is not alone, I thought the opening line was also very bad, but decided not to be a hard ass about it. Perhaps it should have been stated this was a response to a question.

Rory, bubba, go over to the pyro thread.....you will see much of what you say being said by many others.

In all fairness, this is an example of the poor execution of a good idea....or at least an idea with good intentions.....I guess Simmons now knows why people say the road to hell is paved with good intentions....

[Brian Ellis]

The problem with the language quoted by Rory is a problem with the editing of the article, not a problem with Richard or with Rory. The problem is that the editor either failed to realize or didn't care that the language Rory quotes was a question posed by someone else, not something Richard wrote. It should have been deleted from Richard's article before it was posted on the web site or, at a minimum, it should have been made clear that someone else wrote it. In other words, the editor should have done his job and edited but he didn't. Richard Knoppow is extremely knowledgeable about many aspects of photography and is a generous and valuable contributor to several photography forums. He also writes very well. Publishing this garbled language in a manner such that it wasn't made clear someone else wrote it was IMHO an insult to Richard.