Vicious Rumors

I wanted to take this opportunity to address a vicious, slanderous rumor that has been circulating the Internet, perpetuated by two rival film photography bloggers.

In my time writing reviews, I have often been overwhelmed by the positive feedback and immense help shown in my quest to make this site as good as it can be, but apparently two bloggers on a recent popular podcast thought it would be funny to make the claim that after each and every one of my reviews, I smash each camera with a sledgehammer.

These completely false comments were made on February 26 by Hamish Gil of 35mmc and EM from EMULSIVE on their Hypersensitive Photographer’s Podcast starting around the 25:50 mark where they first start off with the controversial statement that I don’t save my negatives (this is true) and then, well, just listen to it for yourself…

These claims that I smash my cameras on the nice landscaping wall where I shoot beauty pictures of each camera is downright false.  The use of any sledgehammer around beautiful landscaping is not only egregious, but dangerous to the landscaping.  What would have happened if I missed, or had an especially hard swing of the sledgehammer and damaged one of those retaining wall bricks?!  Those things are expensive!

To set the record straight, after I am done reviewing each camera, I do not smash them with a sledgehammer, I put them on a bench vise and crush them.  Not only is this safer, but it doesn’t risk damaging the vise, and after I’m done, I have a nice eco-friendly cube of smashed camera bits that I can easily recycle.

Here are some pictures of two cameras that I recently finished reviews on, a Carena SRH 1001 and a Canonet rangefinder.  Thankfully these are pretty simple cameras and don’t have as many parts as more elaborate cameras.  You should have seen the mess the Xpan left…

Later in the podcast, Hamish and EM comment that you have to wear shoes while walking around my house due to all of the broken camera bits laying around, which is true.  I do clean up the broken pieces from time to time when we have company over, but here are a couple of quick shots of my cat’s feeding area, my kids’ bedroom, the living room, and our bathroom sink.

So let this be a warning to any other podcasts out there.  If you slander me or my site, I am going to respond…

Disclaimer: No cameras were harmed (at least that weren’t already in pieces) in the making of this post.

14 Comments

  1. I hope that most of these comments — by those podcasters and you — were just made in good fun! Those pictures of cameras in the vice are going to give me nightmares!!!! Did want to ask — why don’t you keep your negatives?

    1. Yes Dana, I am friends with Hamish and EM and their comments were all in fun, so I thought I’d have some fun with my own reply!

      In regards to the negatives, the vast majority of film I shoot is for camera reviews and I just don’t see a need to keep the negatives for images that were created for the purpose of testing.

    1. Ah, yes, the infamous radioactive rare earth salts in some 1950s and 1960s lenses. Amazingly, some “photographers” still go ballistic when they learn that their lens might be (Gasp! Horrors!) radioactive. And then a new crisis erupts on the blogosphere about whether it is dangerous, will it fog my film, should I put it in the toxic disposal landfill, etc., etc. Sigh……

Leave a Reply to Kurt Ingham Cancel reply