Reputable, Reportable, Repeatable

The three R's of a commercial weblog column are encapsulated in that heading - everything that comes out on your screen at home should contain at least one of those attributes. The better events or products get more than one tick. And if they go in the bush they get lots of ticks... Not every product that you find in a shop can meet the criteria - not every event that occurs qualifies. And many things in the history of photography have been one-offs. In some cases that is sad, but in others, a blessing. a. The reputation of most major photographic manufacturing firms is good - the ones that survive decades of competition do so because they produce good, usable products. They may fall foul of changes in technology, incorrect accounting, and the fickleness of the public, but if they have enough capital and time, most can overcome this. If you see a big brand name still going after 75 or 100 years, it is generally deservedly big. Note that reputation can also run the other way - the gauge has a negative scale as well. Some of the firms from Eastern Europe that soldiered on making cameras during the Cold War had this sort of publicity - also some of the very early Hong Kong makers. Time has improved conditions in these places and the level of sophistication of their products has increased dramatically, but sometimes that old rep still sticks. Some names are best forgotten. b. Reporting is rife these days - you can get a half-baked opinion about nearly anything somewhere on the net. ( You can get it here five days a week..). The readers and viewers need their wits about them to sort out fact from fiction sometimes, but the general rule of advertising applies: If you read it and it is in correct English, it has been written by a human. Everything else is a mere bonus; if you are lucky the writer will be amusing and if you are very lucky, they will tell you the truth. You still need to know that it is the truth, so you need to go deeper and experiment for yourself. c. Repeatability is the whole crux of science. Whatever someone says must be capable of demonstration more than once, and preferably by people unconnected with the original theorem. Likewise photographic investigation and experimentation. If a thing might be possible, and someone says it has been done, someone else should be able to do it as well. Mere report is not enough. The earliest days of the silver image were notable for the number of people who claimed to be able to make colour pictures by automatic chemical means. The new wonder of the process at the time ( mid 1800's ) gave rise to fervent hopes that this would be true...but it never was. People got coloured pictures by hand-colouring the pictures themselves... So...next time you read something in a forum, or a review, or an advertisement, look at it through the three R lenses. It'll help you separate the facts from the fictions, and also help you spend your money wisely. Exercise a healthy scepticism. We all like to look at the sidebar of DP Review and see what new Kickstarter revery has been dreamed up ( Kinda like looking at the Facebook sidebar and trying to find real political news amongst the bias...) but let's be honest with ourselves - very few of us ever want to hear other people telling us their dreams.