May/June View Camera

[Doug Dolde]

After I dropped my View Camera subscription a while back I eventually renewed. There just isn't much out there and I sort of missed it.

When I got the new issue today I realized again why I dropped it.

1) An article about An-My Le with some really dreadful washed out images. Pretty boring.

2) An article by Norm McGrath who, instead of stitching multiple shots together to form a larger image, has decided to cut up one image into 3, 4 or 5 segments. I don't get it.

3) A Brief Destription of the Wet Plate Process. Really get out of the 19th century. Whothe hell cares about this stuff? OK maybe a couple people.

4) The Skaneateles Experiment. An article intending to show that a Betterlight scan back is better than 4x5 film. Jesus who didn't know this already? Don't waste my time with this crap.

4) Four Photographs by John Anderson. OK they aren't bad but if I want to see stunning images, I'll just browse photo.net for the high rated ones.

5) Scanning Large Format Film. Didn't we just go over this? There is nothing new or revealing here. Anyway should have at least waited to report on the Epson 750. Boring and uninformative.

Hey but they got the Table of Contents right this time. Oh wait no they didn't. McGraths work starts on p14 but it says p13.

Am I the only one who sees it this way?

[Don Hutton]

No Doug - I stopped subscribing for similar reasons. If you follow the editor's posts on this forum, you'll understand why the publication turns out the way it does - about the only consistency I see with View Camera magazine... Anyway, I'm sure Steve will put up a response here to defend another issue by criticizing you, the customer!

[Frank Petronio]

I like this forum better than anything in print. Why kill trees unless you are going to make something well crafted and artful?

[Jim Grimes]

I am trying to remain objective about my criticism of the magazine. I e-mailed Steve after the last issue pointing out that I had noticed multiple errors in several stories (not enough proofreading, I guess). He e-mailed back asking for the list of errors. I didn't have time to do this - I was at work - so I just gave him two that I had remembered (I did not record all of them; the list would have been a long one). I did not hear from him again. I would have expected for that to have happened; some kind of notification that he was aware of it/that the errors were duly noted/a apology - something anyway.

To top this off, I did not get the magazine last time and had to call. To the staff's credit, they mailed one out immediately. I still have not gotten the current issue yet; it was mailed a week ago Friday. I guess I will have to call again. I am just wondering what it will take for them to srnd my magazine in a timely manner... Tney were fast enough to take my money though.

Anyhow...

[Michael Gordon]

I'm not a VC subscriber and only seldom do I look at it, so I have nothingto offer regarding your criticisms.

It may not always include LF work - and the portfolios may not always be to everybody's liking - but IMO the finest publication out there is LensWork (albeit pure b/w). LensWork quality is top notch, and I think I've only ever found one error. LW's quality of writing is always superb, and we non-engineer types don't have to wade through pages of uninspiring technical writing to find the good stuff.

Why bother with the throwaway publications when for a few dollars more you can have bookshelf quality (print quality and content) to archive and look at again and again?

[Jack Flesher]

Regretfully, I have to agree... I like most of the regular authors and intend no direct personal attack on any single individual, but...

One, the Skaneatlels experiment: First off, the BL scanning back needs an IR filter and not a UV filter as was mentioned several times in the article. Next, the person opperating the BL's "ViewFinder" software clearly did not know how to set a proper white-balance -- and most likely did not know how to structure a proper capture curve.

Two, the scanner (non) test: This was at best a review of some older scanners and offered nothing new of substance that I could discern -- unless I am somehow missing a critical page form the article.

I would rather see fewer quality issues per year than any more like this one...

Cheers,

[Brian Ellis]

I've been a subscriber to "View Camera" for about twelve years. Some issues I like a lot, some have only one or two things I like, others have nothing. That's the way it is with magazines, they can't please everyone all the time. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Simmons but you might stop and think how difficult it is to publish a magazine every month that's devoted to large format photography. How many new cameras, lenses, films, holders, dark cloths, etc. are introduced in the course of a year - one? None? Something like the Schneider L series of lenses comes along about once every ten years. When was the last new, important LF technique implemented - Scheimpflug around 1890 or maybe the Zone System around 1940? How many articles can be written about how to focus the view camera or how to use swings and tilts? Digital backs are new and might be interesting and exciting except that they go for $30,000 and up so how many subscribers really care?

Most specialty magazines can probably count on three or four issues a year just being devoted to new products, new equipment, new locations, new fashions, new techniques, etc. (the current issue of "Shutterbug" for example is devoted entirely to new products introduced at the PMA trade show and at least half of every issue is devoted to new equipment reviews). For the most part that can't be done with a magazine devoted to LF photography, there seldom are any new products being introduced, every technique used by LF photographers has been around forever, and we think a brown vest with a lot of pockets is the height of fashion. So what's an editor to do except occasionally devote an issue to topics that aren't going to please a lot of people? To me that's the price you pay for getting the good stuff and there occasionally is some very good stuff in "View Camera," at least enough to make me renew my subscription every year.

[Dean Tomasula]

I just received my issue but haven't opened it yet.

I too do not plan to renew my subscription for many of the reasons stated. I'm not sure when it runs out, but this may be my last issue. There was a thread on this very topic the past couple of months. Every time a new issue comes out, someone complains
about the photos, the bad proofreading and the general unreadability of the magazine. Then the "yeah, but it's the only LF magazine out there"
crowd comes out and makes excuses for it.

The Steve chimes in with how he's too busy to actually care about his subscribers, who after all, don't pay as much as the advertisers, so why should he worry about what they have to say anyway.

I think it's time we stop giving Steve the benefit of the doubt. He's proven month after month that he's either unwilling or unable (or worse, both) to produce a readable magazine. He's also proven that he does not care about the people who pay to read his magazine. He claims to have made an effort to fix the problems that have been pointed out to him in the past, but I fail to see any evidence of that. Month after month, we hear the same complaints about the magazine.

We should stop subscribing and stop reading View Camera. Then maybe he'll get the message. Then maybe he'll actually implement some of the changes he's been promising.

Don't get me wrong. VC used to be a great magazine. It had (and to my knowledge still does) has the large format market all to itself. It has the potential to be a great magazine. But Steve & Co. needs to seriously consider some major changes. They should listen to all the complaints here and take them to heart. I realize it's impossible to produce a perfect, error-free magazine. Typos will creep in no matter how many times you proofread a page. But we keep seeing the same mistakes over and over, month after month. It's time to get serious. And I would be seriously concerned if someone's main complaint about my photography magazine was that the photos looked like crap.

So, Steve, if you want people to continue reading your magazine and not bail out in droves, give some serious thought to tightening up your production techniques. Pay a little more attention to what your subscribers are complaining about. Make a good-faith effort to change things, rather than thumb your nose at your readers by either ignoring them, calling them idiots on this forum and continuing to produce a substandard magazine that costs a good bit of change.

And before anyone chimes in with, why don't you just shut up because you have no idea what it takes to produce a magazine, well, you're wrong. I've been a journalist for more than 20 years and currently work as an editor for company that produces four magazines, four newsletters and web sites. So unlike many people on this and other forums, I actually do know what I'm talking about.

[Daniel Geiger]

If you don't like the articles, write one yourself. Then you can do all the proper proof reading, and make that "perfect" piece.

As an author and editor for a science journal, I have yet to write the perfect article, and the vast majority of science papers have some error/typo/inaccuracy in it. That's life! Lighten up folks. Yes, we strive for a perfectly written pieces (normative approach, if you want to get philosophical), but more often than not we do not reach that lofty goal.

And if you wonder whether I've written a ms for VC, yes I did, currently in editorial review may eventually end up on the VC website (response to Kerry Thalmann's canned photodatabases, arguing for making a custom database).

back to describing new species ...

[tim atherton]

"I'm not a big fan of Mr. Simmons but you might stop and think how difficult it is to publish a magazine every month that's devoted to large format photography. How many new cameras, lenses, films, holders, dark cloths, etc. are introduced in the course of a year - one? None? ... etc"

well, for one, it's only once every other month. But that aside a few times in rsponse to such threads as this, Steve has asked on here for suggestions of what sort of article/topics/photographers to cover. There have been dozens and dozens of good suggestions - yet only a handful of them have ever shown up as articles.

Yes, maybe there's not much new under the sun regarding LF technique in general. And yes, there much by way of new lenses. (though judging by certain topics that recur on here there is probably a few new takes on those that could be well written about)

BUT - there is tons of interesting, challenging, intriguing, exciting LF photography being done that we never ever see in View Camera - just the same of lame old stuff - McGrath's recycled client shots, another boring and badly reproduced set of panoramic shots, some more generic B&W photos of (take your pick) ancient scottish monoliths/irish hills and coastlines/canyons/anasazi ruins (Kirk's aside) etc etc.

Maybe I missed it - has there been an article on Soth? His work and/or equipment and technique? Basilico - ditto? Geoffrey James - ditto? Sugimoto? Szarkowski's recent book and exhibition? Burtynski? (I vaguely recall something?). That's just one strand - but there are plenty, plenty more.

Or when was the last time they looked back at Evans or Atget? Again - just two more examples - there's nearly always more to be said and perhaps readers who don't know as much about the tradition as they could.

Hell - even do something on Anne Geddes!

The Typos, mistakes and poor reproduction are annoying enough, but apart from some very rare exceptions, it's stale

(note: all typos are my own work...)

[QT Luong]

In defense to my countrywoman An-My (and of the publisher), I'd say that you might find her work boring, but apparently some in the art world find it interesting.

[Terence McDonagh]

The rehashing noted in the magazine is not any more tiring than the rehashing here of the magazine's short comings. To quote Mr. Atherton, "it's stale."

Everyone knows the issues (and I agree with most of them, but still read the darn thing anyway). Go discuss it on Steve's website. Or add a post to one of the previous thousand threads on this topic. Does anyone here REALLY think another new thread here will do anything? I beg of you, stop.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

OK, I am one of those who will come in and defend VC. I agree with all of you that there needs to be more quality control, but I still believe in what VC represents and what Steve is trying to do, which is support and promote LF photography. Like most of you , I enjoy a variety of photographic publications and none are without their problems ( even Lenswork, while I often enjoy the work - sometimes I feel like I am being sold something made by Lenswork on every other page).

One thing I will say about VC, if you have an idea for an article - write Steve, describe the idea and ask if you can write it. Chances are if he likes the idea he will ask you to contribute it. It is not the easiest of tasks to write an article and I am sure it is even more difficult to publish a magazine. Most VC contributors I know have a day job and write on the side ( while still trying to get a little time to photograph, work in the darkroom, play with the kiddies and kiss the wife on occasion).

At times I find ALL photographic magazines boring, and at other times I learn a great deal. It all depends on the issue. As I said, I agree that some quality improvements could be made, but if you really believe that there could be articles contributed with some new vision or idea or whatever, then go for it. I am sure VC would be a better publication and ,at worst, you would have a fun time getting to know photographers, getting your ideas published, teaching someone something new and contributing to the greater LF community ( much like this forum does).

Thanks everyone.

[Michael Gordon]

...even Lenswork, while I often enjoy the work - sometimes I feel like I am being sold something made by Lenswork on every other page

I'll take LensWork's few pages of advertising per issue over any other publication that drills me page after page month after month with annoying and article-breaking advertisements. LW's advertisements are always in the same place - following Bill Jay's column (and a single two-sided page up front). If you don't like the LW advertisements, simply close the issue after reading Jay's final word. If only it were this simple to avoid ads in other publications......

[Ron Marshall]

I find that View Camera has about the same percentage of interesting content as the other magazines I read. In some issues I read every article, in some I read none. But over the course of my subscription I have found it to be worthwhile. Its presentation could do with a bit of polish, but that isn't a deal breaker for me.

[Capocheny]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

.

This is a topic that has been beaten to death and, frankly, I KNEW I should have passed clicking on it!

Anyway... if I don't like a product, it's simple! I just don't buy it! My money does ALL the talking that's required.

And, if it's THAT horrendously bad... I might even send the company a note or email them concerning the issue.

But, posting it on here isn't something I'd personally do.

That's just me! :)

Cheers

[Harley Goldman]

I generally enjoy VC, but I find it to be much more hit or miss than other magazines. I am not at all impressed with the photography in this issue, something that happens all too often with VC. I have to agree with most of Doug's points, although I do like the reviews of the scanners. That An-My Le photography was not at all to my liking. I did not get it one bit.

I totally agree with Michael Gordon on Lenswork. It is by far my favorite magazine. Very well written, engaging and the photography is excellent far more often than it is mediocre. A superb periodical. And far, far less advertising that VC.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Steve's going to be surprised that I'm standing up for him, but here goes:

The last time I saw a copy of View Camera magazine (1997), I thought it was pretty good!

Best,

Christopher Nisperos,
Paris

[Patrick Quinn]

Maybe Steve should just do like Inked/Focus magazine and charge people for getting published in it? I've heard they charge $1500 to publish your work....

[RJ Hicks]

I disagree with most of Doug's points.

I thought the An-My Le article was engaging and the photos were different. I liked the story behind why she shoots what she does.

I'm not going to go spouting out why I like ViewCamera, but it is one of the magazines that I look forward to getting in the mail, I look forward to the articles. I also like to get LensWork, but it is much more expensive and the articles aren't as long, covers more than largeformat work too.

I do think that people who do not want the magazine should just not get it, getting on an online forum and trashing the magazine is poor form and frankly overdone on this forum, get over it. You could always just read Steve's competition instead.

I would really like to see an article on somebody using speed or crown graphics as press cameras, I have seen and read the articles on modifying the cameras for field cameras, but haven't seen any on using it as they were intended, handheld.

[Neal Wydra]

Different strokes.....

I enjoyed the issue.

[Oren Grad]

Hmmm... maybe Tom can set up the new software to automatically launch a View Camera thread every two months, and send us all ticklers to come back and re-post our well-rehearsed positions...

[Dean Tomasula]

At the risk of prolonging an already well-traveled thread....

Doesn't the fact that people come here month after month to complain about VC say something about the publication? Isn't it obvious that the powers-that-be at VC are not listening, if people have the same complaints month-after-month?

Just something to ponder.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"Steve has asked on here for suggestions of what sort of article/topics/photographers to cover. There have been dozens and dozens of good suggestions - yet only a handful of them have ever shown up as articles."

And perhaps if he paid some of his contributing authors in a timely fashion, there would be more writers forthcoming with additional work?

[Frank Petronio]

Consistency. That's the key.

[Jack Flesher]

>> In defense to my countrywoman An-My (and of the publisher), I'd say that you might find her work boring, but apparently some in the art world find it interesting. <<

FTR, I enjoyed that story and An-My's images.

Again I am not suggesting VC is a horrible offering, just sharing an opinion in the hopes editing for content and accuracy might improve in future issues...

[Capocheny]

"Hmmm... maybe Tom can set up the new software to automatically launch a View Camera thread every two months, and send us all ticklers to come back and re-post our well-rehearsed positions..."

Oren,

LOL... that's just TOOOO funny! :)

Cheers

[Bill_1856]

The LF community is lucky to have ViewCamera Magazine, and, View Camera Magazine is very lucky not to have any competition.

[Steven Barall]

Well, you know what they say about opinions... Why all the hostility people? If you don't like the magazine, don't get the magazine. It's really that simple. People tend to look to sources of information not to learn something new but rather to validate their existing viewpoints. Some people will look to a magazine like VC to validate their own little world so when they see an article that dares to expose photography that doesn't look like the way they think all photography should look they get threatened and lash out.

No one cares about the typos, they just get angry when they see photos published that either aren't their own photos or don't atleast look like their own photos. These are people who think that all photos have to look a certain way and be made a certain way. We see that on this forum from time to time. People discussing if a photo can even be called a landscape if some of it is not in sharp focus. People debating if a photo can even be a photo if it's not printed in a darkroom. It's all about looking to a set of rules for guidance like a cult. Personally, I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member.

Long live magazines like VC.

[Andrew O'Neill]

While I was living in Japan I subscribed to VC. In all the years I was in Japan, there was no magazine that dealt with LF photography. VC was a lifeline for me. When I came back to Canada I continued buying VC but I no longer consider it a life line...this website is.
Of course not all articles I find interesting, but there is always one or two that I do. As for the typos....who cares.

[steve simmons]

Let's see if I can clarify a few things.

To Robert Zeichner. We have sent two letters to you in the last few weeks asking for your ss#, tax id number, etc. We are now required to have this. As soon as you respond with an invoice as we have asked that includes this information we will take care of things.

As to the comments that we don't listen to comments here that is incorrect. We have been asked to show the work of lesser known and younger photographers. The An-my and Janet Pritchard pieces are just that. You may or may like like the photos all the time but at least in the case of An-my she is now gettig a lot of attention in the art photo world for her work. You will be seeing and hearing a lot more about her in the coming months, and perhaps longer, and we are probebly one of the first magazines to show her work. We have received several e-mails on this article and all of them complimentary.We are always looking for photogrpahers who are not yet well known or just becoming known to show in View Camera. This is a constant search and we enjoy this process

We have been asked to show how photogrpahers are earning a living or making money with their work. The piece by McGrath on his panoramas is just that.

We have been asked to improve delivery to Canada. Last fall we found a company that takes magazines from the printer, trucks them to Canada, and then puts them directly into the Canadian postal system. Since we started this we rarely have a complaint from anyone in Canada not getting their magazine.

As for delivery in the US - well, if anyone here has control of the US postal system please help us. It is not possible for someone in California and Illinois to get their magazines on the same day. The are mailed from the printing company in Kentucky and we are dependent on the postal systyem to get them to our readers. We have worked consistently with our printer and the postal system to make this process as efficient as possible. The magazines are mailed periodical rate which is the old second class. It takes time.

We did an article just a few years ago on a photographer who used a speed graphic to cover the 2004 presidential compaign. Many of his images appeared in Time magazine using this camera.

We did not include the Epson product in the scanning article becasue Epson repeatedly promised to send one and did not do so. Becasue of the interest in scanning we decided to go ahead with the article and followup with the Epson prodct later if they make one available. The article clearly says this.

steve simmons

[Jay W]

I agree that if you don't like the current content of the magazine, then write an article...or at least give Steve a list of ideas you'd like to see in print. I write articles on occasion for a regional magazine, and it's very time consuming. Usually articles are not finished, they're abandonned...and you hope the editor finds the glaring mistakes. I really respect folks who write an article every month, and it's hard to imagine writing for a daily.

[Walt Calahan]

"You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself" Ricky Nelson

Having worked in newspapers and magazines all my life (other than being a janitor in the early years), it is a wonder publications come out at all, let alone with no mistakes. There are so many chefs in the kitchen, all claiming they have the real answer to what the readers "want", and so many steps in the process to ink on paper that can go wrong, it's amazing the darn fool bundles of pulp make it into readers' hands.

Complain complain complain - HEY, don't read it and move on. I don't like every issue of Aperture, but I still subscribe. I don't like every issue of Contact Sheet, but I keep sending money to Light Works. I don't always nail my eskimo roll, but I still subscribe to Paddler magazine.

Me, I've got pictures to make, when I'm not sea kayaking.

[David Luttmann]

Or Steve could just ignore the stuff coming up in these threads.....afterall, what is the loss of 30 or 40 readers already in love with large format compared to a readership of 12,000 or so just beginning their passion.

These threads are tired!

[Tim Hyde]

Whew.! Now that we have gone through that seasonal Shirley Jackson ritual, we can all get back to work. Thanks everybody.

[BrianShaw]

Why don't we start now and beat up the July/Aug 2006 ViewCamera. Why wait until it is published?

I'm being sarcastic, folks. Let's admit it... Steve might still make a few mistakes but he has been listening and is making efforts to improve upon the criticisms that are presented here and on other forums.

[Jim Jirka]

Doug :

Don't like the magazine, don't buy it. Don't understand the content, then educate yourself.

It isn't OP. Some of the content you have to think about.

[Richard Schlesinger]

Once again Brian Ellis can pretty much speak for me! I think I should arrnage just to have a kind of ditto added to his posts.

One addendum, however. I haven't renewed to the magazine, but probably will as there is no alternative. I certainly agree that I wouldn't want the job ofputting the thing together. But then again, I can't do much of anything very well but when I pay to have something (a magazine in this case) done I do expect they will supply a 'professional' product. PhotoTechniques for my money offers fairly often some usable information.

[Greg Miller]

To steal someone else's words: The definition of insanity: To repeat the same process over and over and expect a different result.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah, it's like a wife you should have divorced a long time ago... ain;t much point in picking at the putrid festering boil of the magazine world when the only result is more pus!

[tim atherton]

Steve,

I'll give you the An-My Le article - that's a good move

[Robert A. Zeichner]

"Let's see if I can clarify a few things.

To Robert Zeichner. We have sent two letters to you in the last few weeks asking for your ss#, tax id number, etc. We are now required to have this. As soon as you respond with an invoice as we have asked that includes this information we will take care of things.

steve simmons"

I have received no correspondence from you or View Camera over the last couple of weeks or the last five months for that matter regarding this requirement. Now that you inform me of this, I will be sending a 5th invoice to you tomorrow via certified mail. Is there any other information you will need while I'm at it? My invoices all have my name and mailing address. What do you mean by etc? Is there another bit of information you require that I'll find out about a few months from now or will my SS# be sufficient?

[Frank Bagbey]

At least some of you evidently have received their May/June issue of View Camera. My January/February issue arrived at the end of March. March/April issue has not even arrived yet. Maybe my postman reads them before he delivers them!

Frank Bagbey

[darr]

"At least some of you evidently have received their May/June issue of View Camera. My January/February issue arrived at the end of March. March/April issue has not even arrived yet. Maybe my postman reads them before he delivers them!"

I'm south of Miami Florida and VC usually arrives a couple of weeks after I begin reading posts here about it. I don't think my USPS delivery person reads it though since it seems he cannot speak English. He does laugh a lot when I've had to ask him questions he could not answer which was 100% of the time. I'm just happy when I get it.

[Ralph Barker]

FWIW, the USPS system for handling "periodical-rate" mail (aka bulk mail, or previously "second class") is substantially different than that used for regular first-class mail within the U.S.. The reduced postage rate reflects the fact that much of the sorting and organization work is done by the mailer (typically, the printer in the case of most magazines). Overall, the system is designed to be fairly efficient. But, because of regional and local post office variables, delivery service comparisons between destinations can be quite varied. My understanding is that each distribution point and final destination PO typically has a designated group of people who handle this type of mail. As such, the flow can be disrupted if that PO has staffing or illness issues. Additionally, some points of origin are better connected within the postal system than others.

So, while sending magazines by periodical rate remains the most practical and economical method, it also suffers from the unpredictability caused by variables within the postal system.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah, it's OK to blame Steve for bad editing and global warming, but not the USPS!

[darr]

Ralph: Thank you for the thoughtful response; it all makes sense to me.
Frank: I think with some of the hot air that is diffused through the VC threads from time-to-time, Steve just might get blamed for some of the global warming. ;o)

[Kirk Gittings]

Well I live 10 minutes from Steve and I just got mine today. What is the deal? If he really cared he could have just driven over and deliverd it himself.

[robert_4927]

On a lighter note......I would just like to meet Mr. Simmons. Because one thing I will say for the man is that he is one tough somabitch. He's taken more shots than Frazier did in Manila over his rag, whether they're deserved or not, he still gets up. Keep your left up Steve. P.S. By the way, where's my magazine?.....Just kidding.... got it today

[Christopher Nisperos]

Oh look! A cow!

[BrianShaw]

Where? where?

[Al D]

First off, I'm not a Steve Simmons basher and I think that "Using the View Camera" proved to be a useful introduction to LF photography for me. That being said, it betrays the same poor editing that plagues the magazine.

I do fine some useful information in View Camera but I find it suffers from one basic flaw:

Despite its incorporation of the work of some obviously very talented photographers it somehow fails to add inspiration.

Since I can get better quality technical info. off of this forum or APUG or the websites of Butzi, Thalmann, and many others while drawing inspiration from the presentations in "Lenswork" I have to ask myself why I bothered to renew my subscription.

[MJSfoto1956]

The article on the Skaneatles project is *FULL* of bizarre errors.

On page 38 he mentions that you need "a UV filter" over the lens when using a BetterLight. Simply not true. You need an *IR-blocking* filter over the lens if you want "normal" color. Otherwise, you end up with an infrared-infused image.

Later on the author mentions that a leather bellows would "transmit ultra-violet light" -- he should have said that a leather bellows would transmit infrared light. Again, poor reporting (perhaps this should have been caught by editorial since BetterLight is a big advertiser with ViewCamera).

What I find unfortunate about View Camera is the lack of any feedback in print. Contrast that with LensWork -- where comments are encouraged.

Ah well, I can only imagine that putting out any publication is hell.

J Michael Sullivan
www.jmichaelsullivan.com

[Rick Moore]

I was a subcriber for several years. Two or three years ago, an issue never arrived at my home, so I sent an email to VC. In the email, I praised the quality of the magazine, which I did very much enjoy. I never received a reply, so I repeated the email, which was also not answered. I also never received the missed issue. Ironically, VC did print an edited version of my praise a couple of issues later, so I am certain they received at least one of my messages. I let my subscription lapse and now read the magazine at my public library.

[Charles Carstensen]

Rick, glad to know this. I was ready to subscribe, now having second thoughts. I buy individual issues, every so often, as our library does not carry VC. It is best to just buy at the newstand when the opportunity arises.

[Bob Gentile]

"... I was ready to subscribe, now having second thoughts..."Same here.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

As I was reading through this thread I watched it grow, it started out at three pages and now at six. More fun that VC.

[Michael Kadillak]

I hate to say it but after being a subscriber for nearly 10 years, I am ready to toss in the towel and read it for free at the news stand. Ditto for the conferences. I would rather spend the time in instructional seminars because the agendas literally sound identical from year to year. All I can say is that the buck stops at the top and I will leave it at that.

I would like to see a business collaboration take place to shake things up a bit and make life more interesting for the readers. Here is what I would like to see. Assign several photo journalist to work with the professional staff at Freestyle to each kick out one or two articles a year. One on technique and/or materials and processes, the other on producing a book or some other visual project and the creativity that went into it. The articles are edited by the photographer and the journalist and with a specified block of space are published entirely as they are submitted - no editing. That would get me juiced up to stay a subscriber and anxiously wait for the next offering to hit my mail box.

Freestyle would get their due in the form of optimal utilization of a marvelous staff interacting with the photographic community in a creative and entrepreunerial way that would be an inexpensive form of advertising for the company and the individual photographers and View Camera would re-invent itself for the benefit if the readership.

I can dream of a better world can't I?

Cheers!

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

A question and proposition for contributors to VC:

Wouldn't it be of more use for the LF community as a whole to write and publish your articles on http://www.largeformatphotography.info? I assume you are not writing articles for VC for the compensation, prestige, or academic promotion (it isn't exactly a peer review journal), so why not publish them where they can be of use to everybody?

I would love to see the technical articles published somewhere useful.

[Charles Carstensen]

Sounds like there is a need for a large format "excellence in quality" driven publication. I wonder if VC is an individual ownership just getting tired of the grind.

[steve simmons]

from MIchael Kadillak

“I hate to say it but after being a subscriber for nearly 10 years, I am ready to toss in the towel and read it for free at the news stand. Ditto for the conferences. I would rather spend the time in instructional seminars because the agendas literally sound identical from year to year.”

First of all the conference agenda/program has many changes this year. This statement shows the poster has not bothered to look at this year's program., At this year's conference we have added hands-on workshops on wet plate, a workshop on Ziatype, a portrait and figure workshop, a field trip to the State RR Museum. and a workshop on scanning. We also have new speakers – many of them appearing for the first time – Alan Ross,, JB Harlin, George Lambros, John Cone, Alan Lab, Joseph Kayne, Peter LeGrand, and more. We have new seminars titled inkjet printing, film testing/BTZS, tech talk, print masking, understanding and using staining developers, and advances in black and white digital printing. The conference is quite different this year.

As for Mr. Moore’s comment our records indicate that we sent two more copies to him. I am curious why he waited two or three years to complain??

And as for the this issue we have received a number of e-mails and phone calls complimenting this issue – both for its content and the quality of the reproductions.

As for the comment that one can get the same info on this forum and on APUG that is incorrect. I could quickly give a list of how-to and equipment reviews we have done in the last few issues that are unique to View Camera. The truth is the lf world needs all of the resources it ca have so people have a variety of resources to find information. In View Camera. and CameraArts what I owned it, we gave plugs to both this forum and to APUG. Why some people on this forum need to come on and constantly make negative, and frequently inaccurate remarks, about View Camera is puzzling!

Steve Simmons

[steve simmons]

The filter that should be used in the scanning back is indeed an IR filter not a UV. We apologize for the error. This article was reviewed by both the author and Tom Watson before going to press but mistakes do happen.

steve simmons

[BrianShaw]

Why some people on this forum need to come on and constantly make negative, and frequently inaccurate remarks, about View Camera is puzzling!

Steve Simmons
Steve,

Keep a thick hide! This is a really tough audience here and it seems like sometimes the goal is to destroy rather than improve. Not everybody is interested in destroying... you, VC, or anything else.

I was rather satisfied with this issue. The Vietnam photos weren't my cup of tea, but I enjoyed much of the other content. I'm still reading and learning.

Please don't let them grind you down. There's nothing out there comparable to VC. I appreciate your efforts over the past few months to improve the content/quality of VC. It shows. Sure, maybe it's still not perfect, but you've shown effort in a positive directions... and some of us are willing to give you credit for that!

[Don Wallace]

Well, I have to disagree with the cynics. I think this issue is the best one in a while. This doesn't mean that I like all of the photographs in it, but then, that is the nature of aesthetics. Ok, so some of you didn't like McGrath's approach. Whatever. Not something I would do, but I found it different and interesting. I personally find endless pictures of the Southwest by AA wannabes rather dull. Again, personal aesthetics. I liked the article on scanning and found it useful. In this digital age, if one were to wait until the "next best thing just around the corner," reviews would NEVER get written. As for the 19th century, please, give us more, Steve. If anyone is paying attention, Victorian style photography is a (small) growth industry. I could care less about digital backs, but wet plate collodion? THAT's interesting.

In general, I think this issue showed great breadth and probably met a wide range of tastes. I am really fed up with those who think that every article must meet their immediate needs (which are usually extremely narrow anyway). Loosen up a little.

[Ron Marshall]

I was pleased with the latest issue. I read every article, enjoyed most, improved my LF knowledge and liked most of the photos. In most issues I find something I enjoy. I feel very lucky to have a magazine that is directed specifically at my area of interest.

Many of the topics covered during the course of my subscription have broadened my knowledge and interest in LF and would never have come to my notice otherwise.

I also subscribe to Lenswork, which is a completely different style of publication.

I enjoy both subscriptions and get different things from each.

Keep up the good work Steve it is much appreciated.

[MJSfoto1956]

I think the problem is that large format users are by and large PERFECTIONISTS (perhaps overly so) and don't tolerate anything less in other fields of endeavors. Which, unfortunately, puts additional pressure on Steve Simmons as he scrambles to put out yet another issue 6 times a year. As I've said before, it must be hell producing a magazine this day and age -- I don't envy him.

However, being an ex Art Director, I present the following legitimate criticisms of the design and layout (this of course has NOTHING to do with the content!):

1.) columns of type often are too narrow as they run around what seem to be arbitrarily-placed photos and diagrams

2.) design of the pages is often primitive and/or haphazard (we in the graphic design business would call it "design 101")

3.) quality of printing is not as good as it should be given the subject matter

4.) quality of scans/separations is not as good as it should be given the subject matter

5.) typography and graphics are not "up to snuff" -- even the masthead logo has a design flaw in it! I doubt the layout is done using a modern tool like InDesign (but I could be wrong here -- after all it is not the tool but the user)

6.) the magazine lacks a cohesive "look" -- each issue is slightly different from the next

Ah well, this is not my magazine. But as a person who cares about the "look" of things the design and production quality are not quite there. I'm sure this is tremendous budgetary constraints on Steve, but I have to believe there are tens of dozens of VERY talented graphic designers in Albuquerque who could assist him without breaking the bank. In fact, given high-speed internet, they don't even need to be located in Albuquerque anymore!

In fact, I'd be willing to offer design consultation to "tighten up" the design -- whadda ya say Steve??

J Michael Sullivan

[Frank Petronio]

We've tried before. There are several good people that would help design and proof the thing for free.

[Charles Carstensen]

Now, you guys have me convinced, I am immediately subscribing to VC. Steve deserves all the support he can get.

[BrianShaw]

I have never seen an issue of VC.

If your cave has an address, PM me and I'll send you a couple of issues.

[David Luttmann]

I'd agree with Michael on item 4. The scans, expecially B&W, are often poor. I understand the output work is not desinged to be up to the grade of Lenswork, but I would prefer to see a bit better job on the press run.

Other than that, I thought it was a fine issue.

[Allen Quinn]

Hermit,
Your post is inane. You preface it by saying "I have never seen an issue of VC". How can you comment on this magazine, especially, if you work in large format, without having seen it? I subscribe and consider the money well spent.

[dtomasula]

I specifically stated that I have never seen it to emphasize I was not commenting about the magazine, but the "attitude" 'it MUST/SHOULD be supported' for no other reason than it deals with LF.

Hermit -

I am with you on this one. I could never understand that attitude either. I think that's part of the problem with the publication (which by the way I have seen and read. I have a subscription, which is ending soon and I don't plan to renew). Since most people have the attitude that VC is doing us a favor by being published at all and no one should complain about the major mistakes and lousy reproduction, Steve & Co. don't have to worry about ptoducing a quality product. The LF lemmings will arrive at the newsstand each month and plunk down their money for the issue nmo matter what.

As I've said before, VC has the potential to be a very good magazine. But I haven't seen an effort being made to correct any of the many problems that are pointed out here each month. If a publication doesn't care enough about its readers to try and get better, then why support it?

[BrianShaw]

Dean... Forgive me for being overly critical, but your post has several typos.

[steve simmons]

I have responded to View Camera's critics many times, including in this thread. Perhaps Dean might want to review the posts in this thread before making his comments.

But then to a certain extent I have felt that accuracy is not the goal of some of my critics. They simply want to come and be negative as if that is somehow adding to the world of large format.The amount of mis-information they put out is amazing to anyone who would take a balanced view.

Is View Camera perfect. No. Have we been listening to our critics and making changes. Yes. Read my post a few pages back.

As to the quality of reproductions I disagree. We use a glossy stock which gives us the opportunioty to be better than most of the other magazines. Those using a matte paper (which frequently is less expensive) can not produce the richness of color and the depth of black that can be obtained with a glossy paper.

This forum represents only a small part of the large format world. Is it worth listening to? Absolutely. But there is a larger world out there and we get a lot of private e-mails every month telling us how much they enjoy each issue. This current issue has been noted, positively, for its reproductions

steve simmons

[tim atherton]

Dean... Forgive me for being overly critical, but your post has several typos.

presumably Dean was looking for a job?

[dtomasula]

Apparently with the way I type, I'd be perfect for VC. :)

Steve, I understand that no one is perfect (and no publication can be perfect). But I have not seen a vast improvement in VC. The reproduction quality is hit and miss. Some months it's good, some it's lousy. And there are typos all the time.

I think for many people reading VC now it's a game. They read it just to try to pick out all the mistakes in the issue. Maybe that's your sales startegy. If so, it seems to be working.

[Juergen Sattler]

I really don't understand all these posts about VC - isn't it simple enough - if you like it you subscribe to it (or buy it at a newsstand) and if you are not happy with it, then don't! Instead we keep beating this dead horse. How someone like Hermit can have any opinion on this matter is a miracle to me - I guess if enough people said that jumping over the edge at the Grand Canyon is great fun, Hermit would do that as well. You can only have a valid opinion if you have read and seen at least ONE issue of VC.

[steve simmons]

No Dean. my sales startegy (your spelling) isn't to make a game.

The fact that you keep making the same post over and over in this thread makes me wonder what your startegy is. Is there a personal agenda here? You have already stated that you are not going to renew. Fine. You are in the minority. In fact, far more than 60% of our renewals are for two years.

As for the reproductions in this issue far more people feel that they were very good.

steve simmons

[dtomasula]

No Dean. my sales startegy (your spelling) isn't to make a game.


Jeez Steve. Lighten up. I was making a joke.

I'm glad you have such a high renewal rate.

Good luck.

[BrianShaw]

But, Hermit, the thread is about VC, not LF in general. If you want to express yourself about a LF "herd" mentality, then maybe you ought to consider starting a separate thread on this interesting phenomenon rather than burying your theory in a thread on VC.

I see two "herds" regarding VC: those who don't like it and opt to not read it and those who find enough good material to warrant reading/subscribing.

[edit: confession time... I once was of the former herd, but now I'm of the later herd and recently renewed for 2 years... not because I support all that is LF, but I actually find enough good reading in VC to find it enjoyable and educational. Fortunately I know enough about the topic to read around the occasional typo or erroneous statement and still get my money's worth.]

If you are refering to the gaggle of folks around here that think that LF is the ONLY photographic format(s) and nothing else is 'worthy', then that *would* be an interesting discussion.

Which herd are you referring to?

[BrianShaw]

I was posting a response to another post.

Sure, I know that. It seems that you read something into Chuck G's post that I didn't. He simply said that he intended to subscribe to VC, not that he's willing to give Steve Simmons undeserved funding. (That's what NEA grants are for.) ;-) I figure that Chuck read both opinions and decided that the nay-sayers weren't all that corrrect.


"Ask not what LF can do for you, ask what you can do for LF" is a wonderful philosophy, but you have to flip it around when applying it to vendors. We don't do the community a favor by supporting vendors that don't deliver the goods.

Okay... you've repeated yourself enough that I honestly hear what you are saying. In general, you are absolutely right. If I go to a butcher and buy a steak only to find that it's spoiled, I'll definitely not buy from there again. If enough people have that same experience and stop shopping there, that butcher eventually goes out of business. Same with photo processing labs; same with camera shops; same with magazines. One of my local labs under-developed my film and tried to deliver lousy proofs... I've never done business with him again; One of my local camera stores stopped stocking 120 film... same thing. As far as I am concerned, they aren't doing "the community" a service. See... I understand.

What's interesting to me, however, is how these folks seem to stay in business no matter how upset I was about their lousy service/products. Obviously, there are others who are either getting good service/products or who aren't as picky as I am. But I don't see why we should keep poking these guys in the eye with a stick... or calling the folks that feel they are getting their money's worth "lemmings" (you intend to imply that they are non-thinkers, aren't you?)


Again, I am NOT talking about VC here, but it is obvious that some feel that is the case with VC and that is the crux of the issue

The folks that demon-ize Steve Simmons and VC are loud and persistant. But he seems to have history on his side -- he's even more persistent... how long has VC been in publication? Just like the photo lab that I'll never go to again, there must be plenty of folks who are satisfied because "that lab" stays open week-after-week-after-week. I don't get it, and if you did business with them I bet you wouldn't get it either. They can't all be lemmings, can they; and if they are, why should I really care?

Heck... this just ain't worth it. I guess the only reason I responded to your last post is that I've sorta' taken a likin' to you. Take good care of yourself... and hopefully I'll see you in another thread someday!

p.s. you're not a dislikable as you seem to think you are!!

[Joe Forks]

I am a subscriber and I love the Magazine. I even bought a couple years worth of back issues which I refer to regurarly. I find VC a valuable resource. I'm not saying the critics don't have valid complaints. I'm saying I find value in the magazine despite those complaints (the valid ones anyway).

I'm only voicing my opinion because I think everyone that contributes to VC needs a pat on the back, and a thanks for putting out enjoyable material (IMO) :)


Forks

[Guy Tal]

Mr. Simmons may not like the analogy but after reading some of the above I can see him in the same boat as Howard Stern - if you don't like his stuff, don't read it. It's really not that complicated.

I don't subscribe to VC for the same reason I don't subscribe to Vibe - there's not much there to keep me interested. I guess I'm just not in the target audience and that's OK.

Yeah, Simmons solicited some opinions on this group. I even provided mine on a couple of occasions. In either case the recommendations I liked best never materialized.

And yes, I even submitted a portfolio to VC a while back and was rejected, so as far as I'm concerned - I've done everything I could to make the mag more relevant to me personally without much success, so when I dropped my subscription a couple of years ago it was with a clean conscious.

Guy

[ronald moravec]

Please send a list of subjects to Steve that would please you. He needs 4/5 per issue x6 per year. 30 every January should do it. Stay exactly on topic and no digital junk either.

[Guy Tal]

Ronald - A) Why should I? every other magazine I subscribe to seems able do it with the subscription fees it collects, and B) Your last sentence suggests making it a fringe publication for a bigotted minority. Either way - count me out.

Guy

[BrianShaw]

Okay... here's my idea: a Steve Simmons biography and portfolio of his important/interesting photographic works. Everyone else around here appear to know him much better than do I. For his own unique (albeit contraversial in some circles) contribution to LF photography, he probably deserves a feature article in one of the leading LF magazines. If Steve is too humble to self-publish his own biography, maybe Brooks will consider the idea for his rag.

[Emre Yildirim]

Although I've only been subscribing to VC as of recently, here is my impression:

- Given the quality of the magazine, 6 issues for $25 is a good deal. I don't even understand why some of you are complaining so much. You already spend thousands of dollars on LF equipment; if one or two VC issues turn out to be crap, you only lose $4 or $8.

- Some issues I find interesting, others I don't. Lately I haven't found anything in VC interesting, probably because I shoot different kind of photography. As many have said already, it's hard to satisfy everyone.

- Typos are not a big deal to me. As long as they aren't excessive to a point where the article becomes incoherent, I'm not bothered. I agree that the design is awkward sometimes, but I can handle it.

- Personally I'd like to see more pictures and less ads. In the last issues of VC I've only seen a handful of photos. I'd be willing to pay more money if VC was 140 pages but full of high quality images. Surely there are enough LF photographers out there that are willing to submit their photos to this magazine. It could be a sort of showcase for LF photographers.

- I think the past few issues of VC contained pretty dull images. I'd like to see more colorful stuff and less toned B&W images. Again, this is a matter of taste and a lot of people will probably argue that VC is not meant to be a calendar with colorful landscape photos. Some of those toned B&W images (as beautiful as they may be in person) give the magazine a depressing mood. That's how I feel anyway.

- I also subscribe to Aperture (http://www.aperture.org) and find it to be much higher quality than VC. The images are displayed on separate pages (without text cluttering them left and right) and they are very cleanly scanned and prepared. They look alive. You could probably cut them out, frame them and hang them up on the wall and they'd look nice. I can't say the same for images I see in VC. Like many people have said already, they are poorly scanned and often dull.

That said, I'm not an expert in matters that concern publishing. I'm sure there are reasons why Steve conducts business the way he does, and there are probably reasons as to why he can't satisfy everyone. The real issues for me are not the typos or the awkward layout, but rather the content itself. Some articles are interesting, but others are just plain boring. I will still continue to subscribe to VC, because I don't think it's all that expensive. I do wish however, that VC was more like Aperture or Lenswork.

Also, there are times where I simply get tired of all the technical mumbo jumbo. There needs to be more emphasis on photos rather than what filter to use or what scanning back to buy. For discussions concerning those types of topics we have this forum, right?

[steve simmons]

I would like to respond to some of the recent comments about View Camera.

Whan I began View Camera in 1988 the only other publication that dealt with large format was Fred Picker's Zone VI Newsletter. Early on I felt it was quite good but after a few years it evolved, IMHO, into too much about and from Fred and very little about anyone else. I did not want this to happen to View Camera so I decided to show very little of my own work and to make sure the publication was about large format photography and not about me. The only time, that I can remember anyway, I published a body of my work was in 1998 with a series of photographs of an old adobe house here in New Mexico. I have done some of my photos as how-to examples and I did put a photo on the cover of the current issue because I did not have a vertical photo from anyone being shown inside (they were all horizontal, which does not work well on the cover).

I will add a letters section to future issues - starting with the July/August 06 issue. As all magazines do I reserve the right to edit for length and content (nothing abusive, vulgar, insulting, etc.). Constructive criticism is fine.

I do not understand the criticisms of the reproductions. I have compared them over the years to all other mainstream photo magazines and feel that View Camera routinely does a better job. The reproductions in the current May/June 06 issue have gotten many compliments. We use a heavier paper stock than any other mainstream photo publication and this is to help us get good reproductions issue after issue. So, for those of you who are critical of our reproductions can you be more specific and compared to what?

We routinly give a full page, or more, to many of the images in each issue. Frequently, the only text we put on these pages is caption info. We have done this from the beginning of the magazine.

Contrary to what some like to say, we have cut down considerably on the typos in the last 3 issues. There were some hyphenated words in the John Anderson tech notes in the last issue because the spacing of the words changed at the printing stage. Otherwise the issue was pretty clean.

If anyone finds inaccurate info in any issue please notify me immediately and we will put a correctiion on our web site and in the next issue.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread we have worked to impliment many of the changes suggested on this forum.

steve simmons

[tim atherton]

I do not understand the criticisms of the reproductions. I have compared them over the years to all other mainstream photo magazines and feel that View Camera routinely does a better job. The reproductions in the current May/June 06 issue have gotten many compliments. We use a heavier paper stock than any other mainstream photo publication and this is to help us get good reproductions issue after issue. So, for those of you who are critical of our reproductions can you be more specific and compared to what?

Steve, (and I write this in direct response to you question) by chance I was looking through some other magazines for an article and came across a portfolio by An My-Le in Blindspot

Although they aren't the exact same images as the View Camera article , there are a number of similar ones and the difference is obvious even at first glance. The Blindspot photos are rich, smooth and full of depth. Close to photographic quality. The View Camera reproductions are of quite a lower quality (on at least a couple, I can easily see the screen pattern, just viewing from a normal reading distance on the Blindspot ones I need a loupe to do that). And of course there is a significant difference in paper quality.

Simply put, there is a very obvious difference in quality between the two when placed side by side

No doubt you might quibble over the definition of "mainstream photo publication" - though to find either publication you generally have to go to a more specialist newsstand - you wont find either at the supermarket. And both aim to present quality photographic images.

So while I applaud the inclusion of this article - as I said, good move - the quality, while decent, certainly isn't the best for a photo magazine. It's pretty much on par with the sort of regional/travel magazines you see around (and which I have often worked with in the past)

[Frank Petronio]

Here I am actually defending Steve and advocating for less than 100% super-duper repro. But really it is tough to expect a privately held, pay as you go, magazine to have the same budget for repro as a not-for-profit organization (Aperture) that gets grants or has wealthy benefactors (Blind Spot).

I can accept repro glitches in a magazine like VC because I understand the process and restraints. 90% of the time the repro is pretty good and I know that the actual prints are really very high quality.

I can also accept that editorial choices are never going to be exactly what I want. Some articles will resonate and others will be flat. That's life. I can accept this in a $4.95 niche publication.

What bugs me are the silly errors in design and editing, most of which would be free to fix and might add an extra day to the production cycle. Considering that it isn't a "news" magazine, I think most people wouldn't mind waiting a day or two to get a better crafted issue.

[steve simmons]

The An-My Li images were made from scans provided by her gallery - the same one's used by Aperture. To the best of my knowledge they are very close to her original prints. I could've increased the contrast but that felt artificial to me. That was my joice and I will accept the consequences. Aperture and Blindspot have funding sources that are unique and give them opportunities a publication such as mine does not have. They are both valuable publications and this is not a criticism. I do not, however, consider them to be mainstream publications. You can look at OP, AP, DT, etc. and I do not think their reproductions match ours. I asked a year or so ago if people would be willing to pay more for a copy or subscription to improve the reproductions and the answer was no, that people were generally happy with what we were doing.

I hear a lot about design mistakes but that usually boils down to an aesthetic decision where there are no right or wrong answers.

steve

[Marko]

Contrary to what some like to say, we have cut down considerably on the typos in the last 3 issues.
...
If anyone finds inaccurate info in any issue please notify me immediately and we will put a correctiion on our web site and in the next issue.


Sic.

Whan
Routinely
Correctiion
Impliment

Hey, this is good news, only one more considerable decrease and you'll be almost typo-free... :D

Besides not really being all that important in the context, the typos do give a certain trademark kind of feel, even character to the mag. If suddenly Steve started using a spell-checker (hint, hint), there wouldn't be much left for complaining and that would be a real problem. The target audience of the magazine are mostly grumpy aging men who more often than not complain as a matter of demographics, rather than principle and eliminating reasons for complaining would risk loosing audience.

C'mmon guys, it's not that bad at all - I buy it regularly for the last six months, and the only reason I don't subscribe is that it gives me yet another reason for the trip to the local bookstore. Like Steven and Emre said above, I don't buy it for technical perfection - it'd be nice to have a technically perfect magazine with less ads and more "meat", but I don't think it would be possible at this price.

Having worked for publishing companies of one type or the other for most of my working life, I think we are getting more than what we pay for even now. And if you still can't take it, it's simple, just don't buy it. If you still can't get over it and think that you could do it much better, well, there's always room for another LF magazine out there, right?

All that being said, I'd love to see Steve be less defensive and more receptive toward some of the remarks. I think it'd be a good idea to establish a regular VC topic here, not for criticism, but for suggestions. Steve would get free consulting and we would hopefully get even better VC.

[BrianShaw]

I think it'd be a good idea to establish a regular VC topic here, not for criticism, but for suggestions. Steve would get free consulting and we would hopefully get even better VC.

Steve can speak for himself, obviously, but let me mention that he has established a discussion forum at VC web site just for this kind of chatter. I think this kind of discussion is better placed there than here... but with 4,249 views and 96 replies I might be wrong.

[william linne]

This stuff always cracks me up. If I canceled a mag subscription just because of typos or occasionally crappy photos, I would never get a single issue of Hustler or Juggs. VC does have some pretty funny ongoing proofreading issues, and the photos are often kinda crummy. But most of my photos are crummy too, as are most of the photos I see every day.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

probably not just this thread, but also an ongoing one about the film vs. digital debate, as well as Ron Wisner and his cameras...

[MJSfoto1956]

I hear a lot about design mistakes but that usually boils down to an aesthetic decision where there are no right or wrong answers.

Steve, Steve.

First impressions are lasting ones. I *KNOW* you care about your publication, your audience, your authors (I can tell by your passion)!!!

But may I suggest that the above statement (taken together with ongoing typos, quality issues, and other oversights) could be mis-interpreted as "not caring" by certain people?

Just a thought...

J Michael Sullivan

[Kirk Gittings]

At the risk of sounding foolish........

No one who participates in this forum has even vaguely come close to making the contributions to large format that Steve Simmons has.

Sure Steve makes mistakes and gets cranky and defensive from time to time. Who doesn't? Criticize all you want, but do so in a respectful manner. The man deserves that and much much more.

[Capocheny]

Kirk,

No need to feel like you might sound foolish... I'm on-side with your points of view as well. :)

I've just picked up the latest issue and, although the An-My Le, Norman McGrath, Janet Pritchard, and Wet Plate Photography articles weren't exactly "my cup of tea," I can understand how they might appeal to other readers.

I quite enjoyed reading the John Anderson 4 Photographs (Tech Notes), Ted Harris's "Scanning Large Format Film" [I'm looking forward to your review of the Epson 750!], and Michael Mutmansky's review of the inexpensive Schneider 550XL lens.

So, subject matter is such a subjective thing and the preference of article(s) will depend much on what turns your crank! As for the other issues...

Steve,

Personally, I'd love to see more techniques introduced into the magazine... be they techniques out in the field or in the studio. For example, take a complicated scene and walk us through the "thoughts and processes" of making the picture. What was the inspiration behind the image? What's the main focus? In other words, what drove you, as a photographer, to take the shot. Describe the techniques that you used. Tell us about the equipment used.

Now, if you had someone like John Sexton, Jack Dykinga, or Per Volquartz write the article - that would be truly great! IMHO, it would be very relevant and interesting... and I'm sure a lot of new users would buy the magazine for such instructional and inspirational articles. All I can say is, "I know I would!" :)

Other than that, I do enjoy the magazine and will support it in spite of some of the issues swirling around it.

.

[BTW, I was being very facetious about the 550 XL lens being inexpensive! :) At $US7,215.00, my nose would have to freeze and fall of in the middle of a sweltering summer before I would even remotely consider buying such a gorgeous chunk of glass. However, it's sure nice to dream, isn't it? :)

Cheers