Imaging-resource also down?

To my mind, Imaging Resource is/was the only site that rivaled DPR for thoroughness, although lacking the capacity to cover as many subjects and lacking stuff like forums and the image comparison tool. I loved that they had their own weather sealing test (although it's beem a while since I've seen it feature in a review), and the piece they did on Fujifilms "film simulations" was a gold standard in Fuji-land.

If both end up going down, the availability of thorough information will become even more limited...
 
It's a shame to see IMHO. Both sites have an extensive repository of info and knowledge.

I've been arguing for years with people who see the internet as the end-all, be-all accumulation of knowledge. They claim all you need to know is on the net, don't need any books/ bookstores/ libraries, don't need to know how to write as print or cursive or even be able to read cursive. "Just google it", or "Go watch a Youtube", or "Check Wiki". And people take that info as 100% correct even when it is opinion or actually incorrect.

It's much easier to remove/ edit/ memory hole electronic-only info, than to track down every hard copy of a book for a book-burning.
 
It's interesting how these things are turning out. I mean there's just very little cost in maintaining a website, depending on specifications, of course. If we wish to just keep the data intact without new input from editors, then it's not going to be as expensive. I am thinking about the operational costs, but we all know that since the 90s, links and ads drive the revenue from those sites. If they are not profitable anymore, then they will shut them down.

The site owners may not be keen on running the servers for legacy/read-only purposes. I don't know. I am not sad but just a bit concerned.

gordo said:
It's a shame to see IMHO. Both sites have an extensive repository of info and knowledge.

I've been arguing for years with people who see the internet as the end-all, be-all accumulation of knowledge. They claim all you need to know is on the net, don't need any books/ bookstores/ libraries, don't need to know how to write as print or cursive or even be able to read cursive. "Just google it", or "Go watch a Youtube", or "Check Wiki". And people take that info as 100% correct even when it is opinion or actually incorrect.

It's much easier to remove/ edit/ memory hole electronic-only info, than to track down every hard copy of a book for a book-burning.
Click to expand...
Agree. Those sites drove a lot of info, good and bad, for the past few decades.

I grew up during the analog-digital to treat anything digital, as in viewed on a screen or stored in bits and bytes, as soft-copy/draft only, even my digital photos. When they are physical, they are real/alive.

Regarding information about cameras and other gear, oftentimes, online the articles/reviews are supposed to drive sales, hence the bias. Remember Honda Accord as the benchmark in the 1990s? This is why I even record my experiences with cameras/gear. It's something that specs sheets cannot replicate. I write them using pen and paper and I still believe they have a higher chance of survival vs bits and bytes on servers.

Writing is one of my favourite pastimes alongside photography, by the way.
 
Iron said:
It's interesting how these things are turning out. I mean there's just very little cost in maintaining a website, depending on specifications, of course. If we wish to just keep the data intact without new input from editors, then it's not going to be as expensive. I am thinking about the operational costs, but we all know that since the 90s, links and ads drive the revenue from those sites. If they are not profitable anymore, then they will shut them down.

The site owners may not be keen on running the servers for legacy/read-only purposes. I don't know. I am not sad but just a bit concerned.


Agree. Those sites drove a lot of info, good and bad, for the past few decades.

I grew up during the analog-digital to treat anything digital, as in viewed on a screen or stored in bits and bytes, as soft-copy/draft only, even my digital photos. When they are physical, they are real/alive.

Regarding information about cameras and other gear, oftentimes, online the articles/reviews are supposed to drive sales, hence the bias. Remember Honda Accord as the benchmark in the 1990s? This is why I even record my experiences with cameras/gear. It's something that specs sheets cannot replicate. I write them using pen and paper and I still believe they have a higher chance of survival vs bits and bytes on servers.

Writing is one of my favourite pastimes alongside photography, by the way.
Click to expand...

I was already in my 30s when that happened, and having analog backup saved the day more than a few times when the digital stuff decided to stop working.
 

Similar threads

John King
    • Informative
    • Like
Imaging Resource is back on line
Replies
2
Views
551
betamax
betamax
C
What type of Imaging did you used to do, but now not so much.....
Replies
0
Views
314
CountingGx85Gx8G9s
C
Irene McC
    • Like
    • Informative
Nikon Resource: list of all Z-mount third party lenses
Replies
2
Views
873
CraigC
CraigC
Back
Top