You probably won’t believe me, but I fervently subscribe to the idea that I’ve received the most death threats of any journalist working in the photo-industry today. Anyone else that I’ve spoken to about this doesn’t really get them. One of the longest standing independant testers, Ken Rockwell, has never talked to me about them. And the only other colleagues of mine that I’ve ever heard about anything similar from are the Northrups. I started writing this article in October 2024, finished it in December of 2024, and am deciding to publish it in February of 2025 after my 38th birthday. It’s partially motivated by cults — especially after a man emailed me with threats after my Fujifilm GFX 100S II review.
Evangelism Over Evidence
Before I go on, know when I say the word cults, they refer to commercial communities. Sony, Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon, or Kodak wouldn’t consider you part of their community unless you paid money to them. These are commercial communities and are far different from most other communities that don’t require monetary transactions. In my eyes, it’s a corrpution of what a community actually is. And it’s also a big reason why I have long not had comments on the Phoblographer. Truly, I don’t care to build the Phoblographer into a community. We’re a publication made up of journalists. To that end, we should be looked at as such.
People within companies have told me that brands sometimes employ troll farms to comment on websites, forums, social media, YouTube videos, and Reddit threads to sway influence in a way that’s similar to what China does across the world with misinformation campaigns. We saw how that played out first-hand with the last US election after Russia’s interference. Beyond that, there are various cultists who preach the Evangelism of a brand over evidence. All of this is in an effort to ensure that sales do well.
It’s why we stopped having comments on the site. We had them. Then, I got rid of them. Then, we brought them back simply as a way to monetize our audience. Then we got rid of them again. This continued until late last year when I had just had enough.
To reiterate what I’ve stated in several other articles before, I’m a journalist. I don’t care what people have to say about my work because I come from a pedigree where I know that I’m doing good work. More importantly, I instill this value into our staff.
If you can name another publication or tester who has found that modern cameras can’t autofocus on people of color in low light yet can find a little black bird amongst trees easily, then I’ll be shocked. We’re the only ones who do. We’ve also got a massive framework of not using generative AI, creating original stories based on other sources, and not trying to do the methods that the two larger independant photo websites do. I refuse to have our staff create articles that mimic the titles of every single hot YouTube video while the owners move to Puerto Rico to avoid paying taxes. And I refuse to rip off stories and not credit my sources while insisting that we got the news ourselves. None of these acts are, in truth, plagiarism. But they’re a type of forgery, for sure.
What can I say? I’m a typical Aquarius, or at least that’s what the believers in my life tell me.
The Japanese have rarely ever spoken to me directly aside from designers, engineers, etc. But executives often never interfere with the American market. However, I often feel their influence and beliefs affect the journalism world. In a conversation with a long-time rep earlier this year, it was pretty much confirmed to me that brands pay YouTubers or purposely use their influence over them and social media profile holders to bedazzle them and make them loyal to them. This has been confirmed to me on various press trips and industry events by those same people. And it was even further confirmed to me late in 2024 when a brand emailed many outlets with a large standing offering to pay them for Youtube videos.
It’s one of the reasons why we don’t interview the heads of the Japanese brands: they don’t understand that the job of the media is to keep the industry honest.
Journalism in the Photo Industry
Brands often speak with us about ways to “Collaborate” and let’s agree that that doesn’t belong anywhere in a letter to the Editor in Chief of one of the last photography publications. Journalists aren’t collaborators; we’re reporters. For several years, we’ve been investigating a lead that has brought us to believe that the most influential and largest camera bag manufacturer is using child labor; but we’re figuring out a way to tell the story. In no way, is the brand “collaborating with us.” We’ve also been investigating another long-term story that has nothing to do with brands. But in no way, shape, or, form, are brands collaborating with us unless we specifically state that the articles are “sponsored” or “presented in partnership.”
This is a stance that I took a long time ago; and that I’m now very comfortable sharing. In the past 20 years, before many of you were in the photo industry, Resource Magazine was often a brand that hid the fact that things were sponsored. There was a point where that magazine was in every single photo studio throughout the United States until it started to fall apart. Eventually, it was sold to the folks over at Pro EDU. But I’m a former intern at Resource, and Phoblographer was partnered with them for several years. I refused to follow their same lack of ethics as I was brought up under the folks who run PCMag.com. The journalists who’ve worked there have gone on to work at other publications or have left the industry entirely — and their coverage often lacks on calling out brands on the things they should really be doing for our industry.
Luckily, the camera brands often do not ask to see an Editorial article before it’s published; but the art houses, museums, and galleries sometimes do. In the site’s 15 year history, we’ve only done so less than 10 times to ensure accuracy. But otherwise, brands of all sorts need to have a strict separation from our editorial articles.
Providing Editorial Balance
I’m also in an odd spot. Like the great former leader of Imaging Resource, I’m both the Editor in Chief and the Publisher. When we had advertising run by agencies (with less involvement from me), they took up to 40% of our sales. During the pandemic, it made financial sense for me to bring that all internally into the Phoblographer instead. If someone were garnishing 40% of your wages, wouldn’t you try to find a way to do the same thing?
Let me be frank here: journalism isn’t a publicity vehicle. It’s shocking how since the mid 2010s, so few brands have understood this. Years ago, we stopped working with Profoto as a result of this and we’ve had conflicts with other brands because of it. To top that off, we also closely monitor what brands have worked with Unsplash over the years and cut off working with those brands until they answer to us. Leica and Polaroid are the only brands that have ever given us any sort of response. Peak Design went as far as basically telling us to get over it. Moment tried to do some of the worst gaslighting I’ve ever seen in this industry.
The Phoblographer is, and always has been, a publication with actual journalists working here who are also photographers.