Lenswork will no longer be found at newstands.

[Daniel Grenier]

An interesting stand taken by Lenswork: The currrent issue will be the last one offered at newstands. If, like me, you only buy every second or third one, you'll have to order it on line or take out a full subscription. Good initiative. A trend to become the norm?

http://www.lenswork.com/newsstand.html

[vinny]

I guess i'll never see it again. That'll be the case for many of us who don't subscribe.

[Jerry Flynn]

I suppose it eliminates the returns on unsold copies.

And if you order on line, why not get the CD instead of the printed version? Maybe th eprinted version eventually goes away?

[MIke Sherck]

I am curious how Brooks expects to find new subscribers.

[Eric Rose]

I agree Mike. I bought newstand copies for quite sometime before I actually ponied up and got a subscription.

[Doug Dolde]

Pretty dumb. But I discontinued my subscription anyway,

[Robert Brummitt]

Brooks has said that growth for Lenswork has always been word of mouth. Only time will tell how much of this is true. Brooks also state that he will post a list of photo retailers who will continue to sell copies in their stores. I only hope ProPhoto Supply of Portland, Oregon is one of them. If not then I will have to visit the Lenwork e-store on a monthly or semi monthly basis. A cleaver-way for Brooks to sell other Lenswork items.
Either-way how this plan works. It will either be a boom or a bust. I just hope that other photo journals don't follow suit because then I will only see Outdoor photographer, Shutterbug and other magazine of the like. That will truly spoil my visits to my favorite bookstore.

[steve simmons]

This is an interesting approach. I know people are lamenting that they won't be able to get the magazine but this is not true. It is called subscribing. It is cheaper and easier than taking the time to drive down to the store, park and go in and pay the retail price for the magazine.

All magazine publishers have learned that there are people who will go into to a bookstore, pay 5-10 buck for a double expresso latte' with a touch of mint, just the right rouch mind you, read a magazine, put it back stained and dog eared and walk out without ever buying or subscribing. The next customer won't want to read a used copy so he/she will pick a fresh one and do the same thing. I wish Brooks well and I will be watching how this works.

steve simmons

[David Luttmann]

This is an interesting approach. I know people are lamenting that they won't be able to get the magazine but this is not true. It is called subscribing. It is cheaper and easier than taking the time to drive down to the store, park and go in and pay the retail price for the magazine.

All magazine publishers have learned that there are people who will go into to a bookstore, pay 5-10 buck for a double expresso latte' with a touch of mint, just the right rouch mind you, read a magazine, put it back stained and dog eared and walk out without ever buying or subscribing. The next customer won't want to read a used copy so he/she will pick a fresh one and do the same thing. I wish Brooks well and I will be watching how this works.

steve simmons

And there are those that venture into the store, don't see the magazine on the shelf, don't know about it, and don't subscribe.

No subscribers = No magazine.

I know that may be extreme, but I subscribe to Lenswork because I saw it on the shelf.....and I buy View Camera in the store because it's cheaper for me to do that than subscribe here in Canada.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

An interesting stand taken by Lenswork: The currrent issue will be the last one offered at newstands. If, like me, you only buy every second or third one, you'll have to order it on line or take out a full subscription. Good initiative. A trend to become the norm?

http://www.lenswork.com/newsstand.html

Brooks has reached, what I believe to be, the holy grail of magazines; to have a 100% sell through rate by being subscription only and not have to spend the time and trouble for advertising... which, believe me I know, can be a headache. Lack of advertising also can diminish a magazine's role on newsstands and overall, because no one would get to feature their latest exhibition or product. Somehow, Brooks pulled that off.

If I could boast a circulation of 100,000 and be by subscription only... well, a man can dream.

Obviously Brooks thought about this decision for a long while before deciding to do it. There are an incredible amount of pros and cons factored into this decision. He knows his business model better than anyone else out there. I'm sure he'll see a very large spike in subscriptions pretty soon. I wish him the best, I'm a huge fan and I will continue to look forward to every single issue I'm sent.

One shoe size, however; does not fit all. Fine art photography is an excellent category on newsstands and has done very well on newsstands over the years. It is income I and several other magazines could not operate without. And unforuntately, on newsstands, size does matter. When you're that small, being put in the back or bottom of the shelf is fatal. But LW wouldn't be what it is on a larger size. So, he has managed to do what all magazines wish they could do... have a great income, with no advertising and be subscription only. Bravo!

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

And there are those that venture into the store, don't see the magazine on the shelf, don't know about it, and don't subscribe.

No subscribers = No magazine.



If you're talking about a generalized market, sure. However, I'd venture to say if you polled people on traditionalphotographer, APUG, here, filmwasters, and any other photography forum, EVERYONE would know about LensWork. Whereas, if you polled them about B&W, Focus, and most of the other magazines out there, I'd bet 50-60% know about those magazines. LensWork is known for their quality and that's why people subscribe. Brooks is probably hoping that the very idea of you not being able to sit down with your latte and reading LW at your favorite B&N or Borders, is enough to make you subscribe. And, for the most part, he's probably right.

[David Luttmann]

If you're talking about a generalized market, sure. However, I'd venture to say if you polled people on traditionalphotographer, APUG, here, filmwasters, and any other photography forum, EVERYONE would know about LensWork. Whereas, if you polled them about B&W, Focus, and most of the other magazines out there, I'd bet 50-60% know about those magazines. LensWork is known for their quality and that's why people subscribe. Brooks is probably hoping that the very idea of you not being able to sit down with your latte and reading LW at your favorite B&N or Borders, is enough to make you subscribe. And, for the most part, he's probably right.

They may know about it....but seeing the quality of it in print is what sold me.

[jetcode]

It says Lenswork will still be found in camera stores

[Dave Parker]

The rack space business, is ruthless and difficult to navigate, when your dealing with the racks in book stores as well as the other outlets, publisher really don't make much money off rack sales, and I have to agree, with Focus if your a smaller magazine your chances of getting good rack space is nil to none! I know when I did my magazines in another business, the negotiations for rack space were brutal...expensive and often times not very productive...

[Robert Brummitt]

As Steve stated it maybe far cheaper to subscribe to your favorite magazines. Only if you drive for that latest issue and not for anything else. I tend to multitask my trips. But I also tend to walk to my local bookstore and I don't buy coffee.
What you lose if you subscribe is your freedom of choice. I tend to notice that some magazines tend to cover the same issues over and over again. Same articles of techniques, same articles of certain format of photography, of photographers, of B&W and color. If I subscribe to a magzine that I don't want to know about this photo technique, this format, this photographer. Then I have given up my choice and my money for that issue.
Freedom of choice of what I buy.
When I go to my local bookstore, I look for VC, Focus, Lensworks, B&W and Photoshop Users magazine. These give me a broad range of subject matters. Now, I don't buy every issue. Couldn't afford that! But I can choose what interests me at that time.
I have the freedom of choice that saves me money in two ways. First if I was to subscribe to all the magazine mentioned above I wouldn't have funds for anything much else. One magazine above costs $99 for a years subscription and many of its articles are based solely on PS creations but I gleam few tips here and there. After a while I can pick and choose if an issue of that magazine is worth the $10 at the bookstore and skip the rest.
I can only speak for myself but I rather buy a issue here and there. I may pay a little more at the bookstore. But I'm not locked in a subscription and thats where I save in the second way.

[Capocheny]

My biggest annoyance with subscriptions is that, often times, they come either bent and crumpled, or soaking wet (since we do get a bit of rain here in Vancouver, BC.)

Even when they're delivered in plastic enclosures... they still arrived bent out of shape more often than not. The best magazine container I've ever received was one from a watch manufacturer that came out 4 times a year. Plastic on the inside and stiff cardboard on the out. Perfect.. not inexpensive, but never, ever an issue with the condition of the magazine!

Like Robert B., I also enjoy a walk over to the local magazine store and pick up a variety of magazines including VC, Lensworks, B&W, and a few other things.

And, 9.9 times out of 10... sans coffee!

Cheers

[Frank Bagbey]

I will sum it up: Goodby Lenswork.

[Merg Ross]

After reading some months ago about the profitability of newstand sales, I can understand the decision made by Lenswork. I first heard of the publication about ten years ago from a young photographer who had been featured. Soon after, I became a subscriber, and with a few lapses, am today. For sure, there have been issues that I would not have purchased from the newstand, but like so much in life, I take the good with the bad. It will be interesting to follow the future of Lenswork with this decision, and my guess is that it will survive as long as Brooks and Maureen have the energy and passion.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

They may know about it....but seeing the quality of it in print is what sold me.

I have ink envy. Brooks has most definitely gone out of his way to provide an extremely high quality magazine for us all. I, for one, definitely hope that he sees a spike in subscription sales as a result of this.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

The rack space business, is ruthless and difficult to navigate, when your dealing with the racks in book stores as well as the other outlets, publisher really don't make much money off rack sales, and I have to agree, with Focus if your a smaller magazine your chances of getting good rack space is nil to none! I know when I did my magazines in another business, the negotiations for rack space were brutal...expensive and often times not very productive...

The magazine business in itself is extremely difficult and very cut-throat. For Brooks to do what he's done and to be as successful as he's been in the timespan he's produced LW, well... I for one can only wish to attain a level of comparison by the time I'm that old. To do what B&W, ViewCamera, CamerArts, LW and the like have done... stating first hand I know how hard the business is, I have a tremendous level of respect for all of the publishers. I've found when the publisher/editor of a magazine has a passion for the topic of his publication, that the magazine tends to thrive. I hope that B&W chooses someone equally or even more passionate about photography when Henry decides to retire at the end of this year.

[D. Bryant]

I have ink envy. Brooks has most definitely gone out of his way to provide an extremely high quality magazine for us all. I, for one, definitely hope that he sees a spike in subscription sales as a result of this.
Last week I renewed my subscription to LW and LWE for 3 years. I look forward to seeing every issue.

Don Bryant

[Brooks Jensen]

You know, what works for us may not work for others - and vice versa. If LensWork were a traditional magazine - with advertising, full sized, printed on a web press, etc. - there would be no way I would be absent from the newsstands - at least not today. It's too crucial a component to the total business strategy. However, LensWork isn't your traditional magazine. In fact, we even resist the word "magazine" because that conjures up a vision of a type of publication that simply isn't what LensWork is. Unfortunately, after 15 years of publication, we've never found a suitable substitute term that better describes what LensWork is.

I've always lamented that LensWork cannot be over with the other photography books, but it can't. It must have an ISSN number (as opposed to an ISBN number) according to postal regulations so it can be mailed via our periodicals permit. Because it has an ISSN number, bookstores insist it is a magazine and refuse to allow it onto the same shelves as books. Your rock and your hard place. Oh, well. The place I've always really wanted LensWork is in the hands, hearts, and minds of readers who love it. Thanks!

The other factor that has so radically changed the world since we began LensWork is, obviously, the Internet. The newsstands used to be the only way to get exposure for one's publication and the only way to find new magazine subscribers. We've seen the impact of the newsstand continually diminish over the years as more and more people now use the Internet for information. For example, in the 1980s I was an avid photography magazine subscriber so I could read camera reviews and keep abreast of the latest equipment. Sometimes it would take months for a review to appear of a particular camera I was interested in. Who waits now? With the likes of dpreview.com and a thousand other websites, all such information is available 24/7, instantly, at our fingertips. Forums like this one are such a great resource for the information I used to look for in magazines. I used to look to magazines for buying things, too. How many people still read those ads from Adorama and the like with the tiny, tiny print in the back of the magazines like we used to way back when? Now, I can find virtually anything I want from ever-so-many resources online by simply typing it into Google. In the 1970s I lived for Shutterbug where I could find used LF gear. Now there's eBay with everything my heart could desire.

The bottom line is that the purpose and roll of magazines in today's culture is changing. They aren't what they used to be. Ergo, neither is the newsstand. Think about the very term - "newsstand." Do we go to the newsstand for news? Maybe some folks do, but in the age of media, the newsstand is no longer the newsstand, either.

Our thinking about this and our decision to leave the newsstand was motivated by the waste of resources, as I discussed in my comments in LensWork #75. However, the comfort level in making this decision was enhanced with the realization that consumer patterns are changing in this age of the Internet. We might be the first in the photography world to take this step, but I suspect the magazine business will undergo lots of changes in the next 5-10-20 years. This is not, BTW, anything unique to LensWork or the other photography magazines. Look at what's happening to newspaper and magazine circulations everywhere. It's a changing world!

So, we are still planning on growth. We have had an increase in subscriptions for 75 issues in a row and see no reason for that to diminish. I guess the proof in the pudding is that LensWork Extended has never been on the newsstands and it has more subscribers now than we had for the magazine alone on our 10th anniversary issue! Thanks, everyone!

Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

[David Luttmann]

Good to hear, Brooks.

Keep up the great work!

[Hector.Navarro]

Best wishes Brooks!
I look forward to each and every issue (and podcast btw).

[Jerzy Pawlowski]

Brooks, good to hear Lenswork business is up. However, I was convinced to subscribe Lenswork Extended (in addition to the standard version) by your free disk sent with printed issue last year. It is not that I was against, I was rather not interested in this form of Lenswork. Simply as a person working in front of the monitor entire day I do not enjoy reading from the computer screen too much (reason I prefer traditional wet darkroom). Now I have to admit your disk is worth the "effort", especially that quality is excellent. Still, if I would have to choose only one version, it would be the printed one.

[Ron McElroy]

I've always lamented that LensWork cannot be over with the other photography books, but it can't....

Brooks Jensen
Editor, LensWork Publishing

My wife and I have always refered to Lenswork as small books.
Good luck with the new direction.

[roteague]

I recently bought what, will probably be my last issue of Lenswork. It is a fine magazine, but there is just too much digital content in it for me to subscribe. But, I wish Brooks the best, regardless.

[Dirk Rösler]

I recently bought what, will probably be my last issue of Lenswork. It is a fine magazine, but there is just too much digital content in it for me to subscribe. But, I wish Brooks the best, regardless.

I thought LensWork is just about photography. You subscribe to the content, not the way it is produced.

As for doing away with newsstands, it seems pretty simple: you loose all your newsstand sales and are stuck with the subscribers. The publisher will easily know whether that's a problem or not (economically speaking).

[Greg Lockrey]

I recently bought what, will probably be my last issue of Lenswork. It is a fine magazine, but there is just too much digital content in it for me to subscribe. But, I wish Brooks the best, regardless.

You know that there was a time not long ago that the fine art community scoffed at photographs made in color. Pictures with sunsets... my god !!! ;)

[roteague]

I thought LensWork is just about photography. You subscribe to the content, not the way it is produced.

How it is produced, is inseparable from the content, for me.

[Don Hutton]

How it is produced, is inseparable from the content, for me.
I surely hope you avoid ever eating steak....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I surely hope you avoid ever eating steak....

I guess you must be eating soy burgers.....

[Don Hutton]

Not me Jorge - I like steak - the rarer the better - but I didn't make the statement:"How it is produced is, inseparable from the content, for me." Each to his own...

[neil poulsen]

. . . Our thinking about this and our decision to leave the newsstand was motivated by the waste of resources, as I discussed in my comments in LensWork #75. . . .

Pondering the waste, with all those magazines being thrown away, is daunting. I imagine it's recycled, though.

But, I think of the retail Egghead stores that sold computer equipment and software several years ago. They were doing well, at least in Portland. But, the home office decided to go all internet. It fit their model, and they thought that they would do well and avoid the trouble and costs of maintaining their retail stores.

They didn't.

Egghead no longer exists, except as a sub-category of Amazon.Com.

Somehow, I wonder if losing that retail presence doesn't change the way people think about the products being sold? Is there some way to test the model in an isolated market?

But, it sounds like the decision has been made, and I hope the magazine does well.

[roteague]

Pondering the waste, with all those magazines being thrown away, is daunting.

I didn't realize how much until Steve Simmons wrote about it. I now subscribe to View Camera, and I'm going to get a couple others as well. While I am disappointed that I will no longer get Lenswork, I only bought the occasional issue anyway, I applaud Brooks stand on this, and wish him the best.

[mrladewig]

How it is produced, is inseparable from the content, for me.

And this is the reason why photography continues to have trouble gaining traction in the art world.

Digital capture does not dictate that an image will have less care in its creation or less impact in its presentation.

Good luck to lenswork.

[roteague]

Digital capture does not dictate that an image will have less care in its creation or less impact in its presentation.

I disagree. Digital capture implies Photoshop, Photoshop implies the act of moving a mouse around on the screen - that doesn't imply craftsmanship to me.

And I too wish the best to Brooks and Lenswork.

[David Luttmann]

I disagree. Digital capture implies Photoshop, Photoshop implies the act of moving a mouse around on the screen - that doesn't imply craftsmanship to me.

And I too wish the best to Brooks and Lenswork.

Ya, moving around a piece of cardboard to dodge in the darkroom instead of using a mouse in a "lightroom" involves so much more craftsmanship...LOL.

Odd. I just printed a photo yesterday without Photoshop or a mouse. I hope you realize your Photoshop comment is about as ignorant as saying using film MUST involve the use of a darkroom.

Man some of the unintelligent film bias is hilarious here. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer with this narrow tunnel vision as the years go by.

[seawolf66]

Well I guess I am going to have to dip into the Piggy Bank and get Renewed and enjoy the book when it arrives : Keep them coming:

[seawolf66]

david Lutterman: Are you saying that we are a die-ing breed here and after we are gone they will be nobody complain about it:
[Man some of the unintelligent film bias is hilarious here. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer with this narrow tunnel vision as the years go by.] LOL

[David Luttmann]

david Lutterman: Are you saying that we are a die-ing breed here and after we are gone they will be nobody complain about it:
[Man some of the unintelligent film bias is hilarious here. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer with this narrow tunnel vision as the years go by.] LOL

No. That is not what I’m saying….although film is a dying breed regardless of how much I love HP5 in my rangefinder and FP4 in my view camera

The point I’m making is that it gets tiring to hear ignorant comments about how if a print is made in a darkroom, it’s art and craft….yet if an image is scanned and worked on using the same type of enhancements done in a darkroom (just on a computer instead), that somehow it’s magically NOT art and DOESN’T involves craftsmanship. This is of course, complete and utter nonsense. Even funnier is that no importance is given to the final result. If it's digital, they refuse to even accept it in any way. Talk about missing out on a huge segment of photography. I’ve seen incredible color enlargements done in the conventional darkroom…..none match up to what can be done digitally.

We’ve heard the same uninformed rubbish from people who spouted off the stuff about inkjet or any form of digital printing to be just “hitting the print button.” Of course, we know this is no more true than a silver print being just “chucked in a tray.”

Like I said, many….and I mean many of those posting this type of foolishness have now realized that their stereotypes of what digital capture, scanning, or printing were have been proven incorrect. Some though, refuse to listen and learn and thus spout off the same trash in a never ending fashion. Others have learned how to work with new materials and have found that not only is the output better, but it has improved their photography.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Man some of the unintelligent film bias is hilarious here. Fortunately, there are fewer and fewer with this narrow tunnel vision as the years go by.

Uh huh,as opposed to the unintelligent digital bias I guess...which keeps growing... :rolleyes:

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Others have learned how to work with new materials and have found that not only is the output better, but it has improved their photography.

Yeah, could not make a good photograph before photoshop...I do agree with that... LOL, as to the output being better...well, more ot that unintelligent digital bias I guess... :rolleyes:

[David Luttmann]

Yeah, could not make a good photograph before photoshop...I do agree with that... LOL, as to the output being better...well, more ot that unintelligent digital bias I guess... :rolleyes:

Or those that claim they don’t need a web site, but then get one….or those that claim digital prints are awful, but now sell them, or those that berate the foolishness of Brooks Jensen for lowering the value of art by selling those prints for $20, and then go and do the same thing. Or claiming that people couldn’t make a good photo before and thus have to return to Photoshop to make it good…..not realizing that in saying that, he just insulted some well known photographers on this site…..feel free to tell QT or Kirk Gittings their work sucked before Photoshop.

Yes Jorge, apparently you are learning a thing or two. You just don’t seem to be able to remember what you previously said, thus making a fool of yourself in the process. Thanks for the laugh.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Or those that claim they don’t need a web site, but then get one….or those that claim digital prints are awful, but now sell them, or those that berate the foolishness of Brooks Jensen for lowering the value of art by selling those prints for $20, and then go and do the same thing. Or claiming that people couldn’t make a good photo before and thus have to return to Photoshop to make it good…..not realizing that in saying that, he just insulted some well known photographers on this site…..feel free to tell QT or Kirk Gittings their work sucked before Photoshop.

Yes Jorge, apparently you are learning a thing or two. You just don’t seem to be able to remember what you previously said, thus making a fool of yourself in the process. Thanks for the laugh.

lol...I remember pretty well, I got a web site and it confirmed my opinion, I don't need one....Unlike you who claims to have a great web site that nobody can find.. :)

And yes, digital prints are awful, the reason why I sell them much cheaper, then again let me qualify, these are prints on color paper...not ink jets which are even worse. Jensen does dimisnish the value of a good photograph, but there is no surprise there, since I looked into making the shitty digital prints I found out how it easy it is...no wonder you like it! Of course I first have to make a good REAL print first to scan, something I do not need photoshop for since I could take a photograh and make a good print before.

Sure, some here could make good photographs before photoshop.... then again I am sure you are not in that cathegory and the reason you like photoshop so much and has "improved" your photography....

[David Luttmann]

lol...I remember pretty well, I got a web site and it confirmed my opinion, I don't need one....Unlike you who claims to have a great web site that nobody can find.. :)

And yes, digital prints are awful, the reason why I sell them much cheaper, then again let me qualify, these are prints on color paper...not ink jets which are even worse. Jensen does dimisnish the value of a good photograph, but there is no surprise there, since I looked into making the shitty digital prints I found out how it easy it is...no wonder you like it! Of course I first have to make a good REAL print first to scan, something I do not need photoshop for since I could take a photograh and make a good print before.

Sure, some here could make good photographs before photoshop.... then again I am sure you are not in that cathegory and the reason you like photoshop so much and has "improved" your photography....

Good to hear you're now selling awful prints. I guess Brooks wasn't so wrong afterall...And your high horse isn't as tall as you thought.

Ah, the ignore button....another great digital feature.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Good to hear you're now selling awful prints. I guess Brooks wasn't so wrong afterall...And your high horse isn't as tall as you thought.

Ah, the ignore button....another great digital feature.

You forgot to the awful DIGITAL prints, the pt/pd are selling like hot cakes...just sold 26 to guy in hong kong.... :)

Jensen is wrong, and the horse is even taller now...but what would you know? ink jets and photoshop have "improved" your photography..... :rolleyes:

[bigdog]

I’ve seen incredible color enlargements done in the conventional darkroom…..none match up to what can be done digitally.

"none" ? :eek:

[David Luttmann]

"none" ? :eek:

Not for color work. A drum scanned piece of film out put to a Lightjet can maintain sharpness far better than a conventional enlarger is able to. Because the RGB lasers are only mm from the surface of the paper, sharpness is maintained extremely well. Also, far greater color accuracy can be done through computer adjustments.

I use Lightjet output for my large output that exceeds the size limit of my inkjet setup.

But yes, I should have been more clear. I still like B&W output conventionally for some things, although in terms of sharpness, acutance, tonality and dMax, inkjet has surpassed silver....but with a different look and feel.

Regards,

[mrladewig]

I disagree. Digital capture implies Photoshop, Photoshop implies the act of moving a mouse around on the screen - that doesn't imply craftsmanship to me.

And I too wish the best to Brooks and Lenswork.

And so you only care about the craft, apparently not the art. If you care only about the craft, then spend your time at craft fairs with the knitters, weavers and cabinet makers.

I see waving a piece of cardboard around in front of a piece of paper as not much more than wiggling a mouse on the desk. The same principles apply. You have to know what you are doing in either case. The one advantage to photoshop is the undo button. You just get to grab a new sheet of paper.

[Dirk Rösler]

Yep. And once reproduced in a magazine the argument becomes even more pointless.

Actually, we should perhaps have more magazines and web sites that focus on HOW the image is made: Mac photography, PC photography, tall people's photography, Monopod Photographer's Monthly (yeah!)... so much opportunity to get even more frigging fragmentalised!

[roteague]

And so you only care about the craft, apparently not the art. If you care only about the craft, then spend your time at craft fairs with the knitters, weavers and cabinet makers.

I didn't say a word about art not being part of the process, you simply assumed that.


I see waving a piece of cardboard around in front of a piece of paper as not much more than wiggling a mouse on the desk. The same principles apply. You have to know what you are doing in either case. The one advantage to photoshop is the undo button. You just get to grab a new sheet of paper.

That is your opinion, and your right to have it, but I don't have to agree.

[David Luttmann]

And so you only care about the craft, apparently not the art. If you care only about the craft, then spend your time at craft fairs with the knitters, weavers and cabinet makers.

I see waving a piece of cardboard around in front of a piece of paper as not much more than wiggling a mouse on the desk. The same principles apply. You have to know what you are doing in either case. The one advantage to photoshop is the undo button. You just get to grab a new sheet of paper.

I agree completely. Most here do. You'll find the only ones who don't simply refuse to accept it regardless of whether or not is produces results that are better. To them, the actions involved in the craft (making the output) are more important than the output. These people don't care about improving the craft....just about maintaining their outdated biases.

[Daniel Grenier]

This thread's spiraling out of control (not to mention it's gone off topic...).

How about a truce and a return to the topic at hand, folks ?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

And so you only care about the craft, apparently not the art. If you care only about the craft, then spend your time at craft fairs with the knitters, weavers and cabinet makers.

I see waving a piece of cardboard around in front of a piece of paper as not much more than wiggling a mouse on the desk. The same principles apply. You have to know what you are doing in either case. The one advantage to photoshop is the undo button. You just get to grab a new sheet of paper.

This is the usual response, regardless of wether those using digital and making ink jet posters want to admit it or not, the process does affect the final print, since it is an integral part of it.

It is the unintelligent digital bias who would like us to dumb down and accpet an inferior process (in most cases, I am sure Kirk and Brian Ellis do wonderful work) out of their wishful thinking that it s better just because they invested on it and can get the results they want.

[David Luttmann]

This thread's spiraling out of control (not to mention it's gone off topic...).

How about a truce and a return to the topic at hand, folks ?

Hmmm...what was the topic? Ah yes, Lenswork....one of my favorite magazines!

A magazine concerned with the importance of the image....not with the importance of the capture and printing method :D

[mrladewig]

This is the usual response, regardless of wether those using digital and making ink jet posters want to admit it or not, the process does affect the final print, since it is an integral part of it.

It is the unintelligent digital bias who would like us to dumb down and accpet an inferior process (in most cases, I am sure Kirk and Brian Ellis do wonderful work) out of their wishful thinking that it s better just because they invested on it and can get the results they want.

Jorge,

Not that it would matter to you but here is another way of looking at it as you seem intent on disregarding any contribution counter to your own view. I've certainly learned that there are some who hold a will against persuasion or moderation and as such they cannot be moved. If that is the case with you, so be it.

The impressionists broke the rules of painting by using broad brushstrokes to emphasize light and shape. They broke ranks with those who use their fine sables to construct detail, and yet they are considered fine paintings.

The modernist broke the rules of painting often by foregoing the paintbrush altogether (ie Jackson Pollock with his paint stick). And their output is still considered fine painting.

An artist today may chose to paint with an airbrush, or by just pouring paint onto a canvas, and that is still considered a painting.

We are all still using cameras.

I hold no bias against traditional silver printing or those who practice that craft. I hold no bias against traditional color enlargement. I've never said that one format is superior to the other. There are differences.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge,

Not that it would matter to you but here is another way of looking at it as you seem intent on disregarding any contribution counter to your own view.

Well, if this is the way you feel why bother to respond? Seems to me the ones who cannot bear a disenting opinon are the ones who complain of this the most.

[roteague]

I recently bought what, will probably be my last issue of Lenswork. It is a fine magazine, but there is just too much digital content in it for me to subscribe. But, I wish Brooks the best, regardless.

This was my original post in this thread. No where was I intending to put down digital, just making a statement why I wasn't subscribing. It is too bad that some here seem to feel threatened by anyone who doesn't believe that digital is "fine art" B&W photography.

I have discussed this issue on another forum, and was actually considering subscribing to the magazine, but just couldn't get past the digital content, so this wasn't just a flippant remark. I respect Brooks, but he doesn't participate on the forum where I was discussing this issue, hence, my post here.

[Tyler Boley]

Brooks has to do what he thinks best to keep Lenswork viable, and I hope he odes do that. It's a cut above the rest. His efforts proof the point, as many other have over there years, that the line between art and craft is very soft. The finest craft only really rises highest when used to express the finest art, and the finest art generally generally makes use of the highest standards of craft, or perhaps better put, the most appropriate use of craft.
The publication always seemed to be about art, but presented using the highest standards in reproduction, even probably setting new standards.
I don't think things are so black and white, so compartmentalized, but that's just another opinion. Same goes for digital vs traditional, the either/or thing was never really a very productive conversation.
Tyler

[Bill_1856]

No great loss.

[davea1234]

I realize I'm coming late to this thread, but when I heard that Brooks was taking this step, I felt compelled to go to the Lenswork site and subscribe to support his efforts.

[Tomaas]

WHATEVER the reason for Lenswork being taken off the retail shelves I, for one, will miss being able to pick it up locally.

This just means I'll continue buying B&W Magazine, View Camera, Silvershotz without Lensworks!

Brooks, good luck anyhow.

Tomaas

[Kirk Keyes]

I just saw it at Borders in Portland 2 days ago.

[Turner Reich]

It's half digital stuff anyway, good bye and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Imagine going to a gallery and seeing a Weston on a tv screen and not a framed print.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

It's half digital stuff anyway, good bye and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Imagine going to a gallery and seeing a Weston on a tv screen and not a framed print.

That's really disrespectful and as a fellow magazine publisher, I take offense to your comments. Everyone's allowed to have their personal preferences, as far as likes and dis-likes of magazines and their content. Don't be classless and come on here and act like that... wishing a business ill when it contributes greatly to the photographic community overall and not just a select few in the community is in poor taste. Irving Penn has been doing some gorgeous inkjet digital prints for the past couple of years, would you insult his photography just because of the methods used to create the overall work?

[Greg Lockrey]

This digital and the so called "analog" debate is the silliest one that I ever came across. It would be like arguing about what type of media, oil or watercolor, pencil or charcoal is best to make art. Real artists don't care about the method. Perhaps someday when photographers are considered artists, they won't either.

[roteague]

This digital and the so called "analog" debate is the silliest one that I ever came across. It would be like arguing about what type of media, oil or watercolor, pencil or charcoal is best to make art. Real artists don't care about the method. Perhaps someday when photographers are considered artists, they won't either.

Nonsense. Photography is unlike any other type of art, in that it is, and always has been bound to piece of equipment. You may only be interested in the final result, but I can guarantee there are many, many, photographers who don't feel the process can be separated from the result. Saying that darkroom work, or the actual picture taking process is akin to using oil or watercolors is insulting in that respect, to that group.

[jetcode]

It's half digital stuff anyway, good bye and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. Imagine going to a gallery and seeing a Weston on a tv screen and not a framed print.

Weston wasn't the only photographer who ever lived. One day the digital haters will begin to die off one by one like war vets and the period will be fondly remembered as one of great transition and animosity, mostly because process is more important to some people than the expression of art itself.

[jetcode]

but I can guarantee there are many, many, photographers who don't feel the process can be separated from the result.

Does this statement imply that digital processes are not processes at all? Digital has nearly eliminated film in commercial work. A significant share of fine art photographers use some form of digital process in their work. To imply that process is valid for analog photography only is a misstatement based on personal bias.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

My statement was not to start yet another digital vs. traditional debate, which will never be won and no side will ever understand the other's. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and their personal preferences, but a magazine like LW's has been around for 10 years and has published hundreds of photographers who might not have ever gotten a chance to be seen. If you don't want to buy LW because they publish photographers who use digital capture, fine, don't buy it (you won't be able to buy ANY of the magazines out there, because they ALL accept and publish digital) but don't come on here and act like a 12 year old about it. It added absolutely nothing valuable to the conversation whatsoever. Honestly, if photographers are spending thousands of dollars a year on film, chemicals, paper, cameras, etc. they have enough money to subscribe to ALL of the magazines that support their hobby or profession. That's Aperture, B&W, Blindspot, Camera Arts, Eyemazing, Focus, Lenswork, View Camera and so on. Help support the magazines that support your community. The magazine is extremely tough, but when you have people who you are supporting through your business endevour, come on here and act like Turner did, it's really disheartening.

[Don Hutton]

My statement was not to start yet another digital vs. traditional debate, which will never be won and no side will ever understand the other's. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and their personal preferences, but a magazine like LW's has been around for 10 years and has published hundreds of photographers who might not have ever gotten a chance to be seen. If you don't want to buy LW because they publish photographers who use digital capture, fine, don't buy it (you won't be able to buy ANY of the magazines out there, because they ALL accept and publish digital) but don't come on here and act like a 12 year old about it. It added absolutely nothing valuable to the conversation whatsoever. Honestly, if photographers are spending thousands of dollars a year on film, chemicals, paper, cameras, etc. they have enough money to subscribe to ALL of the magazines that support their hobby or profession. That's Aperture, B&W, Blindspot, Camera Arts, Eyemazing, Focus, Lenswork, View Camera and so on. Help support the magazines that support your community. The magazine is extremely tough, but when you have people who you are supporting through your business endevour, come on here and act like Turner did, it's really disheartening.Get a grip of your self David - it's a business - if it's so tough get out of it. This is a discussion forum where people are entitled to their opinions - especially when they pertain to large format photography. I personally don't agree with Turner's point of view, but he's entitled to it and should be allowed to express it. This is not the Focus Magazine editorial where David gets to decide what gets said.

I took the opportunity of this announcement to subscribe. I like the publication and think it's excellent quality.

BTW, magazines are in business to support their owners - they may go about that by appearing to support the "community" - they don't. They support their owners. Plain and simple - don't try so hard to be deceptive.

[Colin Graham]

Honestly, if photographers are spending thousands of dollars a year on film, chemicals, paper, cameras, etc. they have enough money to subscribe to ALL of the magazines that support their hobby or profession. That's Aperture, B&W, Blindspot, Camera Arts, Eyemazing, Focus, Lenswork, View Camera and so on. Help support the magazines that support your community. The magazine is extremely tough, but when you have people who you are supporting through your business endevour, come on here and act like Turner did, it's really disheartening.

I like the sentiment but it's your logic that's disheartening. 90% of my disposable income goes to buying film and printing supplies. I wish I could afford to subscribe to them.

[jetcode]

I took the opportunity of this announcement to subscribe. I like the publication and think it's excellent quality.


It's one of the best magazines on the subject IMO. I've seen some incredible work that I would have never seen without it.

[Robert Brummitt]

I just received notification of the next Lenswork #76, looked at who the photographers were, at the contents of articles and decided to pass. Just as I would do in a book retailer. I applaud Brooks and his marketing. I still have the choice to choose which issue I wish to read. When he does have a issue I want to read I will buy then.
As to having extra funds to support all photographic media. I don't have the funds and would rather buy paper, film and all the other items to support my photography.

[Michael Gordon]

I have discussed this issue on another forum, and was actually considering subscribing to the magazine, but just couldn't get past the digital content, so this wasn't just a flippant remark.

Robert: can you please divulge your printing process? Do you print optically on Fuji Crystal Archive? Thanks.

[Greg Lockrey]

Nonsense. Photography is unlike any other type of art, in that it is, and always has been bound to piece of equipment. You may only be interested in the final result, but I can guarantee there are many, many, photographers who don't feel the process can be separated from the result. Saying that darkroom work, or the actual picture taking process is akin to using oil or watercolors is insulting in that respect, to that group.

This is exactly what I mean. Here you have a technition that thinks the process of photography is art. This is a craft a manual craft no less that requires special tools and processes. Like painting a wall, some people can do it better than others, but it still is just a craft. Is the better wall painter an artist? Art is what others percieve it to be. It is an end result. The process is just craft.

I know that I'm jaded by owning a commercial a lab for over 30 years, but when I see some of this art that is displayed here, the first thing I look at is the craftsmenship of the piece. I know too that scanning and getting it to the web are issues too, but I have to say that most of this stuff wouldn't get a passing grade for the lab work in a beginning VCT class. This detracts from the piece, and then try to pass it off as art is what is insulting to both the craftsman and artist.

[domenico Foschi]

Artfully crafted?

[Greg Lockrey]

Artfully crafted?

What is this concept? Is this where you are processing a print in a tray and someone accidentaly turns on the light in the middle of the process and flashes the image and solarizes it and now we discovered something new and call this art?

[domenico Foschi]

What is this concept? Is this where you are processing a print in a tray and someone accidentaly turns on the light in the middle of the process and flashes the image and solarizes it and now we discovered something new and call this art?

No, that's merely Sabatier effect.

[Greg Lockrey]

No, that's merely Sabatier effect.

:) :) :)

[PViapiano]

There is a great article in the new B&W magazine, issue 59, regarding the digital/silver issue. It's worth a read and has opinions from John Sexton, Jay Dussard, JP Caponigro, and Mac Holbert of Nash Editions. It's probably the best balanced piece I've seen in a long time.

As for me, I've never printed color at home. I'd love to some day soon and have been looking into that, but the B+W wet darkroom keeps me busy as it is and it is such a passion. I've had lightjet color prints made and print color inkjet prints at home, and I gravitate to the inkjet prints. They feel, and that's a tough word for some people, feel, like more of a, dare I say, piece of art. They have a tactile quality to them and the choice of printing surfaces is boggling. Even some venerable photographers such as Irving Penn and Pete Turner prefer their inkjet color work in comparison to the older processes they've used.

But, silver prints, ahh...that's another story. There's no doubt that at this point in my printing career, I can make a much nicer-looking print of a so-so negative via PS and inkjet printing. The flattest, thinnest negatives are quickly brought into a beautiful bloom of contrast. USM can make the image as sharp as I want. But, then again, ultra-sharpness and uber-contrast aren't the holy grails all the time.

But when I make a good negative, nothing beats a silver print for sheer beauty, the way the light reflects off the surface, the feel of the paper, the gem-like quality of the object itself and the satisfaction that comes from knowing that I have learned and progressed on my journey to learn a venerable and respected art and craft.

I'm a musician by trade. I've studied and worked for years. I'm used to working hard to achieve what I want. That's the attitude I entered the darkroom with.

In this world of instant gratification and want-it-now, I step back into a slower world of introspection and reflection when I walk into my darkroom and it makes me happy.

[PViapiano]

One more thing I thought of...

The process probably doesn't matter to most people, however, I'd never think about buying a digital print of a platinum/palladium piece. I'd want the original. Pt/pd is all about process and the paper and those incredible tones.

I see silver prints the same way...

[domenico Foschi]

"I'm a musician by trade. I've studied and worked for years. I'm used to working hard to achieve what I want. That's the attitude I entered the darkroom with."

And that is a very important issue.
The learning of a craft, is not just an end to itself.
The process is a teacher which points fingers to our shortcomings and strengths.
It is about the work of art, about ourselves(other works of Art) and Life.
If you want to embrace Art with all your senses, you have to be open and ready not to take any unmovable position.

[Turner Reich]

If LensWork were a traditional magazine - with advertising, full sized, printed on a web press, etc. - there would be no way I would be absent from the newsstands - at least not today.

So put in some ad's, give a little, bend, give in, after all you aren't Howard Rourke are you?

[PViapiano]

Bravo, Domenico...

I'm going to print this out and hang it in the darkroom where I can see it every day.

[PViapiano]

Turner,

LensWork is a welcome respite from the bombardment we all suffer by living in an overtly consumerist society. Don't get me wrong, I love living in a country where I can get anything I want at any time of day, but God, can't they just leave us alone. Now I have to hear music and ads through a speaker when I pump my gas. I go to the supermarket and there are ads on the floor...

The next thing you know artists will be having exhibitions at airports!

[domenico Foschi]

Turner,

LensWork is a welcome respite from the bombardment we all suffer by living in an overtly consumerist society. Don't get me wrong, I love living in a country where I can get anything I want at any time of day, but God, can't they just leave us alone. Now I have to hear music and ads through a speaker when I pump my gas. I go to the supermarket and there are ads on the floor...

The next thing you know artists will be having exhibitions at airports!

:o

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

One more thing I thought of...

The process probably doesn't matter to most people, however, I'd never think about buying a digital print of a platinum/palladium piece. I'd want the original. Pt/pd is all about process and the paper and those incredible tones.

I see silver prints the same way...

Digital prints today can reproduce the same tonality, the same level of depth and emotion that film prints can. If we were having this discussion 5 year ago, this would be different. But today's technology has finally caught up with the level of quality a traditional film print can exhibit. The real debate is over which you personally prefer... and that's your own choice. It's amazing to see some other publications are still trying to have this debate.... it's like playing a game of "how many times can you beat a dead horse?"

[Dave Parker]

it's like playing a game of "how many times can you beat a dead horse?"

Well, I guess, not quite enough yet!

:eek:

[Turner Reich]

The next thing you know artists will be having exhibitions at airports!

ummmm, they are do.

[Turner Reich]

Dave, feeling any better? I can't help thinking about you from time to time. I hope you will have turn around soon.

[Don Hutton]

Digital prints today can reproduce the same tonality, the same level of depth and emotion that film prints can. If we were having this discussion 5 year ago, this would be different. But today's technology has finally caught up with the level of quality a traditional film print can exhibit.
I'd love to hear what your new partner, Mr. M A Smith thinks of this statement...

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I'd love to hear what your new partner, Mr. M A Smith thinks of this statement...

Why? Is it possible he would disagree with me? Of course! It's a free country -- no one's going to arrest him for having different opinions.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

If LensWork were a traditional magazine - with advertising, full sized, printed on a web press, etc. - there would be no way I would be absent from the newsstands - at least not today.

Agreed. Though they'd have to print is as only black and white as web press duotone looks terrible. The reproduction would also lack and well then, we'd have two full-sized black and white photography magazines with medicore reproduction.

[Don Hutton]

Why? Is it possible he would disagree with me? Of course! It's a free country -- no one's going to arrest him for having different opinions.
Strange you're suddenly so open minded - a couple of postings before you were sharing an amazing disdain when someone had an opinion which did not agree with yours.

[tim atherton]

I'd love to hear what your new partner, Mr. M A Smith thinks of this statement...


err... doesn't he make digital prints?

[gregstidham]

I left two Lenswork magazines and three BW magazines in a free pile outside my apartment in Toronto today and they were gone in 10 minutes. Maybe they will subscribe when they can't find it at Chapters or Indigo. :)

[Don Hutton]

err... doesn't he make digital prints?He does Tim - and I'd really like to know what he thinks of that statement given that experience. I don't believe for a moment he'd agree either, despite the fact that he has chosen to experiment in other mediums (haven't we all)....

[roteague]

Robert: can you please divulge your printing process? Do you print optically on Fuji Crystal Archive? Thanks.

I really don't understand what your problem is. I was simply making a statement as to what some people feel, nothing more, nothing less. If you can't accept it for that, then too bad.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

He does Tim - and I'd really like to know what he thinks of that statement given that experience. I don't believe for a moment he'd agree either, despite the fact that he has chosen to experiment in other mediums (haven't we all)....

Referring back to a thread I made regarding an editorial by Brooks Jensen in one of the previous issues of LW, with today's offset printing technology, a print can actually be superior than the traditional methods of printing photographs. Looking at what my printer can do and what Michael Smith's printer, who is superior to my printer, I will agree that in some instances a photograph printed from an offset printer with ink is asthetically superior than that same photograph printed in many of the traditional methods.

[PViapiano]

Referring back to a thread I made regarding an editorial by Brooks Jensen in one of the previous issues of LW, with today's offset printing technology, a print can actually be superior than the traditional methods of printing photographs. Looking at what my printer can do and what Michael Smith's printer, who is superior to my printer, I will agree that in some instances a photograph printed from an offset printer with ink is asthetically superior than that same photograph printed in many of the traditional methods.

You mean a reproduction of a photograph...but still, I can't see how anyone could say that a reproduction of any sort is superior to, say, a Pepper No. 30, printed by Weston himself. The artist is the decider, and until a photographer decides to use offset printing as his original form of expression, your argument doesn't hold water.

That's like saying, "...that cadmium red is so much brighter today, so let's pump up the saturation when we print the catalog, or better yet, let's just paint over that little spot in Vincent's self-portrait."

[jetcode]

IMO if it exists on paper (or electronically) it is a reproduction unless the paper is the negative and print. Pepper #30 is a printed reproduction. It was produced by hand during a transfer of light through the neg onto paper. The paper was uncommitted until reproduction took place.

[timbo10ca]

You mean a reproduction of a photograph...but still, I can't see how anyone could say that a reproduction of any sort is superior to, say, a Pepper No. 30, printed by Weston himself. The artist is the decider, and until a photographer decides to use offset printing as his original form of expression, your argument doesn't hold water.

That's like saying, "...that cadmium red is so much brighter today, so let's pump up the saturation when we print the catalog, or better yet, let's just paint over that little spot in Vincent's self-portrait."

I wonder if Weston and Adams if alive today would embrace digital technology like Photoshop and offset printing......

Tim

[windpointphoto]

I wonder if Weston and Adams if alive today would embrace digital technology like Photoshop and offset printing......

Tim


You don't have to wonder. Do a little research on Ansel's views and you'll know.

[timbo10ca]

You don't have to wonder. Do a little research on Ansel's views and you'll know.

I will do that. Seems to me that in reading his books, as well as Schaeffers, he was of the opinion it was a good thing. I will have to go back and see if I'm right.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Referring back to a thread I made regarding an editorial by Brooks Jensen in one of the previous issues of LW, with today's offset printing technology, a print can actually be superior than the traditional methods of printing photographs. Looking at what my printer can do and what Michael Smith's printer, who is superior to my printer, I will agree that in some instances a photograph printed from an offset printer with ink is asthetically superior than that same photograph printed in many of the traditional methods.

Sorry, but you don't get to decide. No one can decide if the reproduction is "better" or "worse" than the original artist. That you might have seen reproductions that you liked better than the original is a different matter.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I will do that. Seems to me that in reading his books, as well as Schaeffers, he was of the opinion it was a good thing. I will have to go back and see if I'm right.

Ansel Adams is often quoted that he was exited about the developments in electronic capture. Unfortunatelly, those doing digital assume that because of this statement he would have liked the results, and this is a mistaken assumption, or as I call them suppository. While he was exited about the new development, he might have loved the results or he might have hated them, this we will never know.

In Weston's case, we certainly will never know or be able to guess. He seemed to be a weird cat.. :)

[D. Bryant]

I wonder if Weston and Adams if alive today would embrace digital technology like Photoshop and offset printing......

Tim

Who really cares what Adams or Weston would think.

Don Bryant

[Mike Castles]

Who really cares what Adams or Weston would think.

Don Bryant

Isn't that the truth Don...not sure why anyone cares who uses what as long as 1 - they have mastered the process and 2 - it fits their vision.

[Michael Gordon]

I really don't understand what your problem is. I was simply making a statement as to what some people feel, nothing more, nothing less.


I just find it rather ironic that someone can be on an analog high horse while printing digitally.

[jetcode]

Isn't that the truth Don...not sure why anyone cares who uses what as long as 1 - they have mastered the process and 2 - it fits their vision.

I'm not even sure 1 and 2 are required, certainly if you choose to represent that in your work they are.

I am reminded of a female travel companion who knows no more than how to operate her Point and Shoot and just barely. Yet in her emails she will include several images from her travels and inevitably one of these images will be quite good. How can she do that if she has NO process whatsoever or perhaps should I say the most minimal process one could ever imagine?

Sometimes I see work from an artist with a LOT of experience and it does nothing for me. Does this mean I am daft or is art truly subjective, a personal interpretation unique to the individual?

[timbo10ca]

Who really cares what Adams or Weston would think.

Don Bryant

Sheesh- no need to be so hostile. I was just wondering. They do happen to be a couple of masters many people aspire towards. I think it would be interesting to see what they would do with modern techniques- regardless of whether the final outcome would be "better" or not. This is a "discussion" forum, after all.

[Mike Castles]

I'm not even sure 1 and 2 are required, certainly if you choose to represent that in your work they are.

I am reminded of a female travel companion who knows no more than how to operate her Point and Shoot and just barely. Yet in her emails she will include several images from her travels and inevitably one of these images will be quite good. How can she do that if she has NO process whatsoever or perhaps should I say the most minimal process one could ever imagine?

Sometimes I see work from an artist with a LOT of experience and it does nothing for me. Does this mean I am daft or is art truly subjective, a personal interpretation unique to the individual?

Would agree completely Joe. It's like one's choice in music or food. Some will go on forever about how great something is, and when given the chance we could wonder what all the noise is about. It's also, what makes it all so great - we don't have to like the same things and get to try new things just because we can - and of course trying something and liking it are two different things.

[PViapiano]

IMO if it exists on paper (or electronically) it is a reproduction unless the paper is the negative and print. Pepper #30 is a printed reproduction. It was produced by hand during a transfer of light through the neg onto paper. The paper was uncommitted until reproduction took place.

That's a bunch of bull...talk about nit-picking

[Ben R]

Selling work at airports is a great idea. People go into duty free bored and in the mind frame that they are saving money eventhough the old adage 'Duty free but not profit free' is so very very true. If you manage to get your work viewed for sale in an enviroment where thousands of people pass every day and not only during the day but 24 hours - personally I would kill for such an opportunity. Not that I could even begin to think of being able to afford the rent!

[roteague]

I just find it rather ironic that someone can be on an analog high horse while printing digitally.

Here is what I said: "Nonsense. Photography is unlike any other type of art, in that it is, and always has been bound to piece of equipment. You may only be interested in the final result, but I can guarantee there are many, many, photographers who don't feel the process can be separated from the result. Saying that darkroom work, or the actual picture taking process is akin to using oil or watercolors is insulting in that respect, to that group."

This was a generic statement, nothing more. That is why I suggested you don't read into things.

FWIW, this thread is about B&W. While I love B&W like the next man, I don't do B&W. In fact, I haven't shot B&W in years. I only do color. And .... I'm a landscape photographer, not a printer. I have NO interest whatsovever in the printing process. That does not presuppose that I don't have any understanding of what traditional photographers feel, which is what I was addressing.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Here is what I said: "Nonsense. Photography is unlike any other type of art, in that it is, and always has been bound to piece of equipment. You may only be interested in the final result, but I can guarantee there are many, many, photographers who don't feel the process can be separated from the result. Saying that darkroom work, or the actual picture taking process is akin to using oil or watercolors is insulting in that respect, to that group."

This was a generic statement, nothing more. That is why I suggested you don't read into things.

FWIW, this thread is about B&W. While I love B&W like the next man, I don't do B&W. In fact, I haven't shot B&W in years. I only do color. And .... I'm a landscape photographer, not a printer. I have NO interest whatsovever in the printing process. That does not presuppose that I don't have any understanding of what traditional photographers feel, which is what I was addressing.


Actually, this thread is about Lenswork... not B&W. ;)

...Sorry...

[Michael Gordon]

And .... I'm a landscape photographer, not a printer. I have NO interest whatsovever in the printing process. That does not presuppose that I don't have any understanding of what traditional photographers feel, which is what I was addressing.

Fine, Robert, but you still haven't answered the question.

Wasn't it you that said earlier in this thread "I recently bought what, will probably be my last issue of Lenswork. It is a fine magazine, but there is just too much digital content in it for me to subscribe."

Back to my point: why is it OK to print digitally while professing analog capture dogma? I don't get it :confused:

[David Luttmann]

Fine, Robert, but you still haven't answered the question.

Wasn't it you that said earlier in this thread "I recently bought what, will probably be my last issue of Lenswork. It is a fine magazine, but there is just too much digital content in it for me to subscribe."

Back to my point: why is it OK to print digitally while professing analog capture dogma? I don't get it :confused:

I hope you're not waiting for an answer to that one..... :rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

"You mean a reproduction of a photograph...but still, I can't see how anyone could say that a reproduction of any sort is superior to, say, a Pepper No. 30, printed by Weston himself. The artist is the decider, and until a photographer decides to use offset printing as his original form of expression, your argument doesn't hold water."

Paul,

Two points.....to confuse the point further......

Kim Weston sells platinum prints made from duplicate negatives (copies) of EWs classic image negatives. Are these originals?

As you probably know, many artists "books" are an artists complete definitive statement, a work of art in and of itself, different from the individual prints and different from an exhibit.

[Greg Lockrey]

Does not being on news stands mean that some of the photography stores that have the magazine displayed for sale will no longer get them? I know a number of folk who got a copy at a photography store and then subscribed. Getting the copies first was the key and it helped that I didn't have to loan mine out.

I learned of the magazine at forum site similar to this. Living here in the "Tundra" as my wife from St Louis likes to call it, we aren't privy to all these big city advantages. :)

[Ben R]

If a print from a digital file is merely a reproduction compared to an original work of art like a hand print I assume this is because the hand print is an original and unique piece of work, it will never be the same. This seems to extend the argument that photography by definition cannot be art as it is reproductable. With a hand print it might be possible to suggest that it is not so, each print will be unique. Of course the same could be said to be true with the digitally worked image while it is on the screen or if the work done on the computer would result in only one image. Every subsequent image would be the result of starting from scratch, rescanning, etc. If that were to be the case then the work would also be original and not a perfect reproduction. However if this is to be the definition of a work of art and not a reproduction then a negative exposed without any work being done, multiple contact prints or a negative exposed without any alteration multiple times would also fall under the same catagory. You will never dodge and burn exactly the same way but if all that is being done is a straight print then any copies of the same would be just that - a reproduction, not a work of art.

As such it has nothing to do with digital per se, possibly far more 'automisation' and the ease in which reproduction has become in a electronic world.

This does of course all depend on whether the differences between hand prints due to slight variations in method can elevate it to the level of a unique peice of art rather than reproduction, I have little doubt that the painting world would deny it vigorously.

It would have been an interesting addition to the debate on numbering prints and editions. If a photographer were to produce only one print per scan/dodge+burn then they could lay claim to an honest boast that their print is truly unique just as a hand printer would. Each print would be sold on its own merits as a unique vision, an edition of one. This does of course rely on whether photographers are willing to pander to such 'snobbery' or whether if it were percieved as such it would help the exclusivity of their sales.

Anyway it gave me an interesting 20 minutes of thought on the bus the other day.. :D

[PViapiano]

"You mean a reproduction of a photograph...but still, I can't see how anyone could say that a reproduction of any sort is superior to, say, a Pepper No. 30, printed by Weston himself. The artist is the decider, and until a photographer decides to use offset printing as his original form of expression, your argument doesn't hold water."

Paul,

Two points.....to confuse the point further......

Kim Weston sells platinum prints made from duplicate negatives (copies) of EWs classic image negatives. Are these originals?

As you probably know, many artists "books" are an artists complete definitive statement, a work of art in and of itself, different from the individual prints and different from an exhibit.


Kirk...

1. They're not original work, but an original interpretation of the Edward's original negatives. And I might be interested, mostly because it is Edward's direct descendant, who is also a respected photographer, printing a classic negative that he has exclusive access to. Either way, Kim would never make the statement that his is better or superior to Edward's.

2. If an artist did not make any prints at all, and just made digi-files for output to a press, and printed only books on offset, then yes, that book would be the original expression of the artist.

You know, we can nitpick and come up with every conceivable situation in these cases, but if you just try the test against most other art, such as painting, you'll find your answer...

[Ben R]

...that photography isn't art?

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

...that photography isn't art?

Please tell me you're kidding.

[Greg Lockrey]

Please tell me you're kidding.

He was asking a question, not making a statement.

[Ben R]

I think that if you apply the 'reproduction' argument from a traditional art world point of view then all photography falls under that heading. Trying to use an argument used against photography as a genre for one upmanship against certain types of photography seem to me like trying to beat a tiger up with a poisonous snake, if you use reproduction as an argument then you have to accept that it can just as justifiably be used against you!

If the aim is to produce unique work where one will never look the same as the other to somehow pander to a popular impression that photography is somehow cheapened by reproduction then there are ways to do that regardless of the medium. In my opinion it is strengthened by 1 print editions, every subsequent use of a negative will have a new interpretation or at least not a carbon copy. I do believe however that the drive for such hard work could only legitimately come from an ill informed buying public, for a photographer to adopt it as a position of artistic integrity seems to be to be hypocritical. Either reproduction is art or it isn't. If it isn't then I can't see how slight variations of dodging and burning in a darkroom change that fact. Making more than one print of a negative is reproduction period whatever the method.

Just my opinion.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

If we are to sit here and deem one method of reproduction art and eliminate the other because it does not require as much effort or labor as the other, we must think to ourselves "What is in charge of creating the wonderful works of art that Weston created?" You could give a man who has little to no talent for art the same equipment as Edward Weston had and the result wouldn't be anywhere close. So, what differentiates Edward Weston, the dozens of master photographers that so many of us have loved over the years and this man of no talent whatsoever? It is the soul of a human being that allows them to create wonderful masterpieces. History has proven that no matter what vehicle one chooses, whether oil, watercolor, or chicken noodle soup cans, it can be and most certainly IS considered art. In digital photography you are transferring a captured image onto paper with chemicals. If we were to take Pepper #30 and print it with inkjet inks onto paper, the work is still considered a work of art - it is just reproduced differently. Art is not judged by the device used to deliver the art, but rather how the artist uses that device to deliver the aesthetic, the intended emotion or message. I believe, that is how one should determine if the work is a work of art or just a work. I believe a photograph of the sunset is still just a photograph of the sunset unless there is some intended meaning behind it. If an artist has successfully done that, then that is art. Fine art, well that's different. And it's a shame we don't teach our children the differences between art and fine art.

I believe that even a reproduction of a work of art can still be, itself determined as a work of art so long as the aesthetic of the reproduction allows the intended meaning to still come across fully without obstruction from any imperfections a reproduction can produce.

We cannot and must not be prejudiced against our fellow brothers and sisters who choose to capture an image digitally and print it via inkjet and Photoshop. We must accept digital photography as an accepted form of art today.

[Robert Brummitt]

Boy, did the original thread change course or what! It was about Lenswork not on the news stands and now we're debating what Constitutes photography. Analog or digital?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Boy, did the original thread change course or what! It was about Lenswork not on the news stands and now we're debating what Constitutes photography. Analog or digital?

Yeah, as if this had not been discussed before... :rolleyes:

[Photojeep]

Who really cares what Adams or Weston would think.

Don Bryant

Well, I do. I greatly admire what they did so therefore, I would love to know their opinions. I also admire Danica Patrick's driving skills so I would love to know her opinion of racing.

This doesn't mean I will follow either of their opinions in slavish duplication. I just care about what they think.
So there...

rb

[Barry Trabitz]

For Focus Mag,

What is the difference between Art and Fine Art? I ask seeking information, not to be sarcastic.

Barry Trabitz.