Herbert Keppler, 1925-2008

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...num=01060 7-1

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...1925-2008.html

ASAAR wrote:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...num=01060 7-1

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...1925-2008.html


That's a great loss to the photographic community.

Although honestly, last time I looked Popular Photography was filled
with bait-and-switch Brooklyn dealers, no matter what their code of
conduct says.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 06:57:33 -0500, Cynicor wrote:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...num=01060 7-1

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...1925-2008.html


That's a great loss to the photographic community.

Although honestly, last time I looked Popular Photography was filled
with bait-and-switch Brooklyn dealers, no matter what their code of
conduct says.

Somewhat mitigated by the shared wisdom of internet warnings. Way
back when, those new to photography had little reason to be wary of
ads from unethical camera dealers. For some reason, one short rhyme
from one of the photo magazines (probably from the early 1960's)
stuck in my mind:

"If you're worried or in doubt,
run in circles, scream and shout."

I don't remember who wrote it but it might have been Keppler. If
he did, it may not even have originated with him. Although I
couldn't realize it at the time, it provided a prescient crystal
ball glimpse of some of the future denizens of the not-yet internet.

Hint: RichA

Cynicor wrote:

ASAAR wrote:

http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...num=01060 7-1

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...1925-2008.html


That's a great loss to the photographic community.

Although honestly, last time I looked Popular Photography was filled
with bait-and-switch Brooklyn dealers, no matter what their code of
conduct says.


Rule #1 in publishing:

"Do not bite the (advertiser's) hand that feeds you."

Tony Polson wrote:
Cynicor wrote:

ASAAR wrote:
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...num=01060 7-1

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...1925-2008.html

That's a great loss to the photographic community.

Although honestly, last time I looked Popular Photography was filled
with bait-and-switch Brooklyn dealers, no matter what their code of
conduct says.


Rule #1 in publishing:

"Do not bite the (advertiser's) hand that feeds you."

Yeah, but sometimes you gotta bite the hand. Especially if an
advertiser's presence lowers trust and value for the publication and
other advertisers. I just left the magazine business after 12 years, and
we simply had certain acceptability guidelines for ads. And it was
easier for us, because we had a wide range of ad types. A magazine like
PopPhoto basically has one type - low-cost camera gear. If you're B&H
and an ad for BaitSwitch photo appears right next to yours on a folio
with half price deals, it makes B&H look expensive instead of honest.

Cynicor wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:
Cynicor wrote:

ASAAR wrote:
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...num=01060 7-1

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...1925-2008.html

That's a great loss to the photographic community.

Although honestly, last time I looked Popular Photography was filled
with bait-and-switch Brooklyn dealers, no matter what their code of
conduct says.


Rule #1 in publishing:

"Do not bite the (advertiser's) hand that feeds you."

Yeah, but sometimes you gotta bite the hand. Especially if an
advertiser's presence lowers trust and value for the publication and
other advertisers.

But "Bait and Switch Monthly" has never bitten the hands of
advertisers it should long ago have excluded from the magazine.

I just left the magazine business after 12 years, and
we simply had certain acceptability guidelines for ads. And it was
easier for us, because we had a wide range of ad types. A magazine like
PopPhoto basically has one type - low-cost camera gear. If you're B&H
and an ad for BaitSwitch photo appears right next to yours on a folio
with half price deals, it makes B&H look expensive instead of honest.

I think the only effort "Bait and Switch Monthly" made in this
direction was to make sure that shady ads were kept apart from B&H and
Adorama's where possible.

On Jan 8, 6:57 am, Cynicor wrote:
...
Although honestly, last time I looked Popular Photography was filled
with bait-and-switch Brooklyn dealers, no matter what their code of
conduct says.

I haven't got an issue of Pop Photo in front of me, but somewhere
at the front or back of the advertising section is a statement about
their "Check Rated" program for protecting readers. You identify
yourself to the seller as a Pop Photo reader who is buying on the
understanding that the merchant will live up to his PopPhoto
Check Rated committments.

I did that when ordering a camera from one of the companies that
has lots of complaints. My camera was delivered promptly, exactly
as advertised, at the advertised price. I got no call from a salesman
pushing a "kit" of accessories and telling me that the camera was out
of stock when I refused to buy.

Maybe I was lucky, or maybe Pop Photo's name really did the trick.

Alan

Alan Meyer wrote:
On Jan 8, 6:57 am, Cynicor wrote:
...
Although honestly, last time I looked Popular Photography was filled
with bait-and-switch Brooklyn dealers, no matter what their code of
conduct says.

I haven't got an issue of Pop Photo in front of me, but somewhere
at the front or back of the advertising section is a statement about
their "Check Rated" program for protecting readers. You identify
yourself to the seller as a Pop Photo reader who is buying on the
understanding that the merchant will live up to his PopPhoto
Check Rated committments.

I did that when ordering a camera from one of the companies that
has lots of complaints. My camera was delivered promptly, exactly
as advertised, at the advertised price. I got no call from a salesman
pushing a "kit" of accessories and telling me that the camera was out
of stock when I refused to buy.

Maybe I was lucky, or maybe Pop Photo's name really did the trick.

That's actually very interesting. Maybe I should try it sometime with a
shady dealer just to see if it works.

On Jan 8, 2:25 am, ASAAR wrote:
http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?o...&article_num=0...

http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto.../in-memoriam-h...

See also:
http://www.popphoto.com/popularphoto...t-keppler.html

I figure that Herbert Keppler spent his entire life doing what he
most loved doing - taking pictures, fooling around with photo
equipment, and talking and writing about it both to experts and
to ordinary enthusiasts.

What a great life he had. Lots of us work 5 days a week to
live 2. He lived 7 days a week. Lots of us take jobs we don't
like in order to earn money to live. He had a job that I think he
would have wanted to do even if nobody paid him. He was still
working and loving what he did at age 82 when age caught up
with him. What a great way to spend one's old age.

I loved his columns. I learned a lot from him. I always enjoyed
reading them even if I disagreed with something he said.

He will be well remembered and much missed.

Alan