Fireman (Blog Notes)

There were some, er, misunderstandings and perhaps even a few hurt feelings here this past week, so, a few clarifications.

One reader said (rather rashly perhaps, as he is an excellent commenter): "I don't expect you to post this comment, as I have the impression you do not like dissent from your views." The sentence quoted was what I call a "kicker"—a parting shot at the end of a comment that doubles down more forcefully on the point the writer is trying to make. ("Kickers" are common in contentious comments—in fact, I've learned that when I find myself adding a kicker to one of my own comments, it's a good idea to wait a while and reconsider the comment.)

Do I really not brook dissent? Perhaps a little—I'm opinionated, and, like everyone else, I'll make a case for what I believe in. But in the main, I don't think so. In a great many posts, you'll find comments pro and con, sometimes right next to each other. For example (only an example, and yes, examples are not proof): in the Alt/Indie music post:

Commenter 1: "Huh. I've heard of Jeff Beck and Ray Davies (if it's the same Ray Davies I used to know), but none of the rest of them. I think they stopped writing good music around that time."

Next Comment: "Mike, thanks for that. I opened the Spotify playlist and it made my day. It's right up my alley."

So one reader who did not like the music and one who did. I think if you dig around a bit, you'll find that I very often feature opposing viewpoints in the Featured Comments. And that often includes comments that disagree with the post.

What I don't allow—and this may be the genesis of the reader's objection—is back-and-forth. Altercation.

"Altercation is the spoken part of a quarrel, the parties speaking alternately. An altercation is thus a quarrelsome dispute between two persons or two sides." [Century Dictionary]

So if someone makes a comment, and I reply, the original poster gathers his forces and girds for battle and weighs in with a second post defending his first post more strenuously—and then I disallow that. But it has little to do with the fact that the second post is a dissent; it has to do with the fact that it's the beginning of an altercation. This is enshrined in the Comment Guidelines thusly:

The goal is simply to keep the conversation pleasant, collegial, and helpful. I  don't like "flame wars" and I don't permit them to get going in TOP's comment section.

Why not? Simply because I've been online since before the word online came into common use—first on Xtalk at Dartmouth in the mid-1970s, later as Darkroom Photography magazine's official representative on CompuServe in the early '90s, and so on—and I know how it goes.

It goes like this. The missiles fly alternately, each side digs in, tempers grow hotter, ad hominem begins, and then the world spins on its axis as we continue our voyage 'round the sun, until presently Godwin's Law plays out and one accuses the other of being a Nazi, at which point (see the link) that person (the accuser) loses the war.

Don't tell me you've never seen it happen.

Ever seen real firemen put out a fire? I got to witness it once. I was awakened in the middle of the night by sirens. Looking out the window of my third-floor (the top floor) walkup in Georgetown D.C., I could see flames in a window of an apartment on the third and top floor of the building across the street. Several fire trucks screeched to a halt in front of the building and firemen scrambled all over. They moved fast. It was impressive. Within seconds there were firemen on the roof. In no time at all they had a ladder to the window where the flame was. One fireman bashed in the window and another followed close behind with a hose. They had the fire out in no time (a resident had fallen asleep while smoking in bed, and fortunately survived). They were impressively efficient. I had a panoramic front-row seat to the whole drama. It was very entertaining.

They didn't leave for a long time, and evidently felt no compunction to be at all quiet in the dead of night, so after a while I got dressed and went down to poke around. A fireman I talked to said it was only a little mattress fire that had scorched the room but hadn't spread beyond it, and I replied that they sure moved quickly even so. He told me that they always move fast, because fires can get out of control quickly.

Bingo.

I had one reader years ago who repeatedly made contentious comments and seemed always to be picking fights with other readers. It was a headache for me, as I had to spend time and effort repeatedly explaining to him why I was editing and disallowing his comments. Finally he said, "But I like to fight. That's the whole reason I get online and it's the reason I come here." And he issued a threat: "If you're not going to let me fight, I'm leaving!"

To which I had the satisfaction of replying: "Bye." (Made meself laugh, and that's half the battle  —Craig Ferguson.)

Seasons in the wrong
Another problem I have is when commenters make statements I know to be wrong or misleading. Sometimes I let these stand, sometimes I don't feel like it. I've been doing this job for so long that I can even recognize which particular misconceptions are popular at any given moment, and sometimes I know the source from which they emanated, even. Back in the film days, when someone stridently made a bunch of claims as if he knew it all, I could usually tell you what book he just read. Currently it's that a Micro 4/3 sensor "cuts off part of the image," sigh, not. The photographer chooses the lens for the subject and that's what determines whether the subject fits the angle of view. Occasionally I chase one all the way down, just so I really know what's what. But you can't do that with everything. Each misconception has its season, and then it subsides. Care to argue whether fixer sinks to the bottom of a print washer because it's heavier than water? (Because some washers drained from the top and some from the bottom, and people had to decide which is better.) Of course you don't. Just like we no longer care to argue hotly about whether up-rezzing a three-megapixel file is just as good for a medium-sized print as having an expensive 6-MP camera to start with. I've no doubt that some people who are happily arguing whether "equivalent apertures" exist (no, they do not) were at one time arguing, equally happily, the effects of added sodium sulfite on film grain. It's a fool's errand to try to correct every instance of every misconception as it arises; you'll spend your precious hours playing whack-a-mole. Each of us only has 4,000 weeks here on Earth, give or take, and you already stand to lose eight of them stuck in traffic.

It's always something. In discovering the basics of photo tech, everyone has to go through their not-quite-there-yet phase.

Cordial and mature
So a commenter can reply to a reply, but only if the tone is right. That's the way I do it. Because I really don't like flame wars, and fires are best put out early. If shutting down an argument before it starts means giving the appearance of not tolerating dissent, well, too bad, but so be it. At this point I have moderated some 298,000 comments, give or take 10,000, and have devoted many, many weeks of my life to the task. I might not know what I'm doing, but I know how I do it, you've got to give me that.

And by the way, fixer does not sink to the bottom of a print washer. So now we've got that settled, once and for all.

Mike

Products of the Week

Which one is best? Panasonic S1R (47.3 MP), Sony A7R IV (61 MP), Canon R5 (45 MP), or Nikon Z7 II (45.7 MP)? You know the answer.

The above are links to Amazon from TOP. Once you're at Amazon, anything you search and buy will be credited to TOP. The following logo is also a link if you click on it:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Rob de Loe: "I feel like arguing. You can pick the topic!  ;-) 

"P.S. For a period of a couple of months, the newspaper I read most often could not let readers make any comments on stories at its online site because the company was looking for a new comment service. It was a wonderful time, in hindsight. Unfortunately, they found another comment service, and now the comment section is just wretched. Despite the rules about 'civility,' it's just angry people sniping at each other. Blech."

Mike replies: I've always conceived of the Comments Section as a "Letters to the Editor." A curated and edited collection of thoughtful responses, objections, corrections, and added information. The "Featured Comments" started out as a minimized version of the comments as a whole, for the convenience of readers who did not have the time to read all the comments. But that was back in the days when I got 24,000 views a day (now more like 8–12k) and a post could get up to 200 comments (I think 274 was the all-time record? Something like that). That doesn't happen any more.

Robert Roaldi: "Holy crap, you just gave me a scare. I just went into my photo 'data base' and checked all my 4/3s images, but thankfully there's nothing missing from any of them."

D Glos: "Contentious thought for the day. It's nice to come to this spot on the internet where everyone appears to play nice and there is always something interesting to ponder. Whether the convivial appearance has been carefully cultivated by your erudite moderation, or more naturally, by the good nature of your audience, matters little to me."

Mike replies: Definitely both. I take half the credit, but no more than that.

Sharon: "I like your approach here and hate forums where people argue ad nauseam. Thank you!"

KeithB: "I thought for sure you were going to link to Monty Python's 'The Argument Clinic.'"

Bruce Bordner: "But I've paid for the full five minutes....

Mike replies: No you haven't.

RubyT: "This is one of the few sites where I will read the comments. I am never afraid of what I will encounter here, and I appreciate your work in this regard. I often learn things new things by reading the comments here, which I wouldn't if I were avoiding potential flame wars."

c.d.embrey: "Re 'Do I really not brook dissent? Perhaps a little—I'm opinionated, and, like everyone else, I'll make a case for what I believe in.' Mike, during the height of your veggie diet obsession you got very upset when people disagreed. The Mayo Clinic was wrong, so were all the U.S. Government nutrition guidelines. You said my doctors at Hoag Hospital Presbyterian in Newport Beach were incompetent."

Mike replies: But did I disallow your comments? I don't believe I did. So that's not suppressing your views. You got to express them. You don't get to demand, however, that I agree with everything you say.

And I doubt I said your doctors were incompetent. I might have claimed that doctors make poor authorities on nutrition generally, despite public perception, because a.) the majority of American medical schools don't teach nutrition; b.) the typical PCP (personal care physician) has never taken a single course in nutrition; and c.), by and large, medical students leave medical school with less interest in and curiosity about the science of nutrition than they had when they entered.

Rob L: "Your comments section is what makes your site so valuable. Your cultivation of that rich plot is deeply, deeply, appreciated—this is the web I fell in love with in 1993. This is the online community that we were promised in Wired magazine and long lost Omni, and a true jewel. I say that, having been edited here once, as I was being a twit and trying to raise an argument—and I deeply appreciated the effort you made to keep this community open, diverse, and tremendously informative, all while keeping a collegial tone in saying—'no, not that, here, thanks.' Thank you, Mike. I've been a web developer since there was a Web and have done so professionally nigh on mumble mumble years, and this site is a testament to what we built this world wide community to be."

Pak Wan: "This post makes me so happy as one of your readers. Your effort and leadership to curate your blog commentary and readership is missing so much in the online world. Thank you!"

Comments

[James]

* One reader said (rather rashly perhaps, as he is an excellent commenter): "I don't expect you to post this comment, as I have the impression you do not like dissent from your views." *

I think most of us are here because we DO agree with what you say, so most comments will be positive.

As for the music play-list, I thought it would be too modern for me, so I skipped it. (I still listen to mostly 50's and 60's music.)

[Keith Cartmell]

Your blog, your rules. Take no prisoners and never apologize.

[Nikhil Ramkarran]

It is oh soooo hard to figure out tone and context from a paragraph of text.

Who was it that said: we see things not as they are, but as we are. Anais Nin?

I will thank you (and every other moderator online) who has ever saved me from an internet battle.

I've been in many of them (I'm now old enough to refer to myself as a cantankerous fart) and I don't enjoy explaining to people on the internet why I am right.

[Jonathan Hall]

Are you familiar with Venkatesh Rao's essay "The Internet of Beefs"?

It is a pretty long read but well worth it and describes in depth the nature of online argument.

[Greg Heins]

Every time I drive up Rte. 30 through Newfane, VT (several times a year), I remind myself that however wrong the "fixer sinks" argument went, it was still a hell of a washer. RIP, Fred.

[SteveW]

Thank you Mike. I for one hope you continue editing and moderating comments as you have for all these years. The cordial spirit here at TOP is of great appeal to me, and I find it unique to pretty much all discussion forums. I appreciate your efforts to be sure.

And thank you for this post. Well put.

[Jimmy Reina]

A saying, attributed to Mark Twain, could apply to Flame Wars-"Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty and the pig enjoys it."

[Stan B.]

Never fell for 'equivalent f-stops,' perhaps because I was too lazy to do the erroneous math as much as that it just didn't seem to make sense.

Now, I never in my life thought I'd ever have occasion to mutter the following again, but: adding sodium sulfite does have a significant effect on reducing the size of grain! Distinctly remember that from briefly using Edwal's FG-7 developer.

[WJW]

Mike,

I must admit I find most of your music links not to my taste but you know what they say, opinions are like axxxxxxs, everyone has one.

I don't mind if you don't allow dissent/altercations as I come here to read what you have written, not see yet another flame war. I may not always agree with you, might even think you've lost your mind on occasion, but it is always interesting and worth reading.

[Zyni Moë]

Yes, fixer will of course not sink in water for same reason as CO2 (heavy gas) does not sink in air.

This is why you will at once be buying patent ZyniCo(TM) print washer. ZyniCo's highly-trained engineers. some of whom exist, have done careful studies in this area and realise that although yes, fixer does not sink to bottom of water, under suitable conditions is possible to arrange for concentration gradient such that fixer concentration does indeed vary detectably across volume. Extensive research programme then began: system is simple in principle but, as often, hard in practice.

Initial plan was to use small black hole to produce sufficiently strong gravitational field that desired concentration gradient could be achieved. This is sadly not practical: small black holes are expensive even by the standards of owners of very expensive cameras, and have certain stability problems well-known to physicists: evaporation, possible naked singularities, resulting failure of causality and so on. Even if these problems can be dealt with flux of X & gamma radiation from Hawking radiation of small black hole tends to fog paper and often set fire to it & require photographer to work behind 100cm lead shielding to reduce absorbed dose to levels which are merely extremely unsafe. Final problem that tidal forces almost always cause prints to tear. Regrettably not practical solution. Only one such 'Kerr-Newman' device was constructed, has now been decommissioned and disposed of safely in deep space. Well, we hope we are safe from it there.

Better solution fortunately was found: in fact was obvious. Certain other people also have had problem of separating fluids in similar way, and is often done by using high-speed centrifuges. Thus was ZyniCo print washer born. Is simple device: print is installed in centrifuge. Centrifuge spun up to working speed, and fixer extracted from outer edge while water fed from inside. Process takes no more than one week to complete, and is far more practical than black hole solution. Some problems remain. Power consumption is somewhat high: current system requires own substation (ZyniCo are happy to supply such at reasonable cost). Outer edge of centrifuge is supersonic, and noise levels are therefore sadly high: hearing protection must be worn within 100m. If print is not positioned carefully will inevitably tear. Some emulsions detach from backing under stresses involved. If print is positioned carelessly can also cause centrifuge to become unbalanced, resulting in catastrophic failure and ejecting parts of print, centrifuge etc at high velocity. System as provided comes with enough armour plate to contain it on failure but is heavy as a result: 500 to 2000 tonnes depending on desired print size. Safety interlock ensures photographer can not enter containment system while it is running.

System is currently is awaiting regulatory approval: annoying government people make claims that it is 'dual use technology' which ZyniCo engineers obviously deny: what other possible use could such a thing have, we ask ourselves?

Once suitable bribes and blackmail are arranged ZyniCo Centrifuge-O-Wash will be available to discerning photographers everywhere. Price we find is very reasonable. Well, reasonable for the sort of photographers ZyniCo is interested in supplying. Installation requirements on request: private island no longer required although advantageous. Demonstration model will shortly be available for viewing, and appointments are now being taken: please contact your sales representative.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Yeah, all cameras "cut off" part of the image, because the lenses project a circular image, and all the common camera formats are rectangular (including the degenerate case of square).

Well, except for full-circle fisheyes, which instead waste part of the film/sensor area :-).

And...ready for this?...the Estes Camroc. A camera payload for a model rocket, the 1970s version at least used a 1" circular piece of film. My darkroom could not handle that! I never bought a Camroc, despite photography being my well-established hobby by then, including darkroom work, precisely because I couldn't do anything with the pictures I might take in the darkroom. (My home enlarger didn't have interchangeable neg carriers, it was 35mm only, I think a Durst M35; the highschool darkroom didn't have any glassed neg carriers, only glassless ones for common sizes.)

[Christer Almqvist]

When I was into Leicas, I followed the LUG (Leica Users Group) and learned a lot from the contributions. Sometimes the discussions got bit overheated. When somebody then wrote: “I will leave this group unless . . .” I did not read any further but did wonder why somebody would feel the need to communicate his reasons for leaving to a group that would not care if he left or not.

[Bill Tyler]

Completely tangential to your point, but 'a Micro 4/3 sensor "cuts off part of the image," sigh, not,' caught my eye. EVERY rectangular-format sensor cuts off part of the circular image that EVERY lens produces. So yeah - a Micro 4/3 sensor cuts off part of the image, but less in proportion than a "FF" sensor with a 3:2 aspect ratio. And who came up with this bizarre criticism anyhow? (And yes, an anamorphic lens will cast a non-circular image, but that's not really what this criticism is about, is it?)

[Bruce Bordner]

But I've paid for the full five minutes....

[No you haven't. --Mike]

[Larry Gebhardt]

I think you are doing a good job keeping your site a friendly place for all, despite some us getting a bit out of line at time. If you will humor me, could you please explain what you mean by there is no such thing as equivalent apertures? You say an advantage of 4/3 is the added depth of field. This is simultaneously one of my likes and dislikes about the format. It means I can shoot at a higher shutter speed to get the same depth of field since f/4 results in a fairly wide zone of focus compared to f/4 on full frame (assuming the same print size and field of view). It also means I can’t get as much subject separation at f/1.8 as I can on full frame. That’s the context I think of equivalent apertures at since I shoot with 1” sensors up to 5x7 and primarily think of aperture as a way to control the zone of focus. I’m assuming you must think of it as part of the exposure where it has the same effect no matter the format. Is that the disconnect? Or is it thinking of it in terms of focal length? I suspect it’s all terminology that’s creating the confusion, unlike the fixer issue of old which was just marketing.

[Lyle]

You mean that 11x14 Zone VI print washer (it drained from the bottom) wasn't worth the premium price?

[Peter Croft]

Hi Mike. I was commenter 1 with "Huh", but what it shows is that there are various strata to your readers. At 75 I'm in the upper strata, or is that the lower, and it's natural that my tastes are a bit antiquated compared to a generation younger, or two.

FYI, my latest CD purchase is ABBA's Voyage. I still like some of the young stuff.

[Not THAT Ross Cameron]

And my thanks.
I’ve probably had the odd comment cast into the digital void.
I won’t complain - I come here for the serenity.
This one always makes me chuckle.
https://xkcd.com/386/

[Thomas Mc Cann]

Your blog is a credit to you. You do an excellent job keeping it sane which probably accounts for its longevitey and popularity

[william giokas]

You have left off the Leica SL2 ! Why the over site? Is the Leica not worthy of mention? Bill

[Jon Maxim]

Do you want a 5 minute argument or a 10 minute argument?

- Monty Python

[Richard T]

Bit late, but let me add to what I guess is a large silent majority of readers who loves the curated comments (and may not realize the effort it takes on your side).

BTW not sure if the "4000 weeks" was a reference, but I'd never heard of that phrase before. A quick Google search brought up a book published just a few months ago in the UK, one that looks very promising. It's on time management, written by Oliver Burkeman.

[Bear.]

Works for me. This is the pretty much the only blog where I bother to read the comments at all, and then I tend to read all of them. It is certainly the only spot on the whole web I post. Kudos to your curation, and to all commentators.

[Martin D]

Hi Mike. Just to re-confirm what many have said here: you are a master curator of the forum, making it a genuine source of insight and commonality. I haven't been commenting much lately (life comes in waves), but when I did, I always felt supremely privileged to be part of this community. Your wisdom as editor makes it happen.

[Severian]

Mike writes: "I might not know what I'm doing, but I know how I do it, you've got to give me that."

Yes, yes, you do! Love that statement. I'll be looking for a way to use it.