it's a free market - I buy it when there is something interesting - Like Clay's industrial photos - and skip it when it's a bore. I gave up griping about design and writing long ago - it can't be making much money, so I'm glad it exists. It's quaint.
These opinions could/might be helpful. However, they should be expressed to Steve Simmons directly, not though this forum. I recently send Steve a letter making some suggestions and will send more if thought to be helpful (even thought I have not recieved a reply or acknowledgement).
Rory’s criticisms are fair and constructive. Obviously he DOES care about large-format photography, in order to learn and to grow, or he wouldn’t have presented his opinions, and this forum seems as valid as any in which to raise his views. As an editor with some 25 years’ experience in magazines, newspapers and books, I side with Rory. I, too, wish that Steve, a fine photographer in his own right, would employ more experienced editorial staff. I haven’t read his magazine for years (though I occasionally peek at an issue to see if anything materially has changed), primarily because of its low quality: Early magazines, as long-ago readers will recall, were embarrassing, with botched color and often fuzzy images; the editorial content itself--aside from Kerry Thalmann’s contributions, for instance--has consistently been lacking. Before I quit buying the magazine, I sent Steve an e-mail suggesting he introduce a problem-solving column, which, I’m happy to say, showed up months later, and I also offered to copy-edit or proof his content for a pittance (if not just for a subscription). Never heard back. I also offered the editor of LensWork, Brooks Jensen, my services (I could have been had for a subscription), since, as a subscriber for years, I, too, am embarrassed by the occasional but regular grammatical errors, typos, syntax problems and general wordiness. I marked up a few articles and sent them to Mr. Jensen to show him how I could help improve his otherwise fine product, but again, I never heard back. It’s their right to publish these products any way they deem. It’s our option not to purchase them. But darn it, because I care so much about photography, I wish they were better. Alas, such is life.
I too am very strongly for any constructive crtitcism on any subject matter. I used to subscribe to View Camera and Camera Arts, but no longer. Partly for reasons sighted by Rory. Yet, I still get a copy here and there if content is relevant to my own needs. I wish it improved to a subscribable level, but frankly see nothing like it coming any time soon. Same (even more so)applies to his web site which unfortunately stinks and, as others mentioned earlier, it can drive people away from the paper copy istelf.
All in all, we have a one of a kind publication that perhaps due to a complete lack of competition, feels no need for improvement. Yet it remains relevant to the LF at large, often helpful in making one's aesthetic or technical decisions.
Witold
simplest solutions are usually the most difficult ...
There are participants in this forum who seem to think that discussion about the quality of View Camera is either off limits or that discussion about the magazine should be conducted with kid gloves. There are people who complain about general criticisms, on the ground that they are not specific enough, and now there are people who complain about specific criticisms.
I don't get it. Some months ago, there was a discussion in this forum about a prominent Canadian photographer in which some people expressed their appreciation for his work and others made it clear that they have no time for what he is doing. Not a single person complained about the fact that the discussion about his work was vigorous and blunt. There have been similar discussions about other photographers. For the life of me, I do not understand why some people think that vigorous and blunt discussion about a photographer is fine, but that vigorous and blunt discussion about a magazine is off limits.
More imporantly, my comments were about the people who write for View Camera, or are thinking about it, rather than about the magazine itself. The people who write for the magazine deserve, and need, the services of a talented editor, and they are not getting it. If you think about it, the fact that this is what I have to say explains, in part, why I chose to post this in this forum rather than send Mr. Simmons a private e-mail message.
I want to expand on the foregoing. There are people in this world, such as athletes, musicians, politicians, actors, maybe even photographers, and certainly writers, who make their living by doing things that are subject to public scrutiny. These people, if they have any sense, have coaches. In the case of writers, the coach is called an editor. As someone who makes his living, in part, by writing, I'd like to comment on my relationship with my editors. I have a love/hate relationship with them. The "hate" part arises from the fact that an editor exercises a challenge function, and sometimes being subject to a challenge is not fun. The "love" part arises from the fact that the challenge function is indispensable. It ensures that I do not make a fool of myself, and with a little luck and a lot of hard work makes me look good.
Some participants in this thread have reacted to what I have to say by suggesting that I should submit an article to View Camera. This is the well-known put-up-or-shut-up position. It is a time-honoured, if tiresome, rhetorical device that unfortunately suffers from being substantively non-responsive.
That said, I have in fact considered writing for View Camera and I have decided that it is not going to happen. There are two reasons.
The first is that I will not write for a magazine that disguises advertising as editorial content. Due to an earlier thread, I am aware of the fact that some people who participate in this forum have no problem with this practice. That's fine. I am simply saying that I do have a problem with it, and I will not ever, for anyone, for any amount of money, write what purports to be an article that is in fact an exercise in advertising. I fully understand that others may make a different choice, but I have made my own choice on this issue, and I am quite comfortable living with it. In fact, I couldn't face myself in the mirror in the morning on any other basis.
The second reason is that I need, and insist on, a competent editor who will challenge what I do and who has my interests and reputation at heart. I have explained why in a previous paragraph, and therefore will not belabour the point. Based on what I have seen at View Camera, it is clear to me that nobody is exercising that function to the degree that I consider adequate. This means that I would have to prevail on a friend to fulfill that function before submitting my work to the magazine. I'm simply not prepared to prevail on friends in that manner.
There is a participant in this forum who apparently runs a university press. Recently, he made some suggestions about what View Camera needs to do to become credible. As someone who knows a fair amount about publishing, my reaction was that he was being extremely helpful. For his pains, he was attacked to the point where he withdrew from the discussion. When I started this thread, I fully expected that I would receive the same treatment. I'm grateful that so far, at least, I have not been drawn and quartered.
There are several magazines that I really, really look forward to. One of these is View Camera and others include LensWorks, Camera Arts, Black & White Magazine, and Digital Photo Pro.
Personally, I look for inspiration in some of the articles as well as the photographs contained therein. Sure, at times, the writing in VC Magazine may not be the best but, at the same time, I've witnessed dreadful writing in many of the more mainstream newspapers, books, and magazines to the point where I've thought, "Who wrote this dribble." Suffice to say, "There is no such thing as perfect perfection" even amongst so-called, "proper" mediums.
In this month's magazine I chose not to read Ellis Vener's article on the Sekonic L-558 (because I'm not in the market for another meter), or Bruce Barlow's article entitled, "The Great Paper/Developer Shootout" (because I don't do any printing).
I thoroughly enjoyed Althea Mock's article, "Sacred Spaces: The Photography of Robert Berger" and viewing Norman McGrath's images (but concur that his writing needs some help). The articles by Kerry Thalmann (Tessar Lenses: The Legend and the Legacy) and Steve Simmon (Setting Up the View Camera) were very informative.
So, I will continue to buy View Camera Magazine because I recognize that it does have the capacity to both inform and inspire.
In conclusion, I would encourage Steve to consider bringing Michael Derr onto his staff as a consultant. If Mr. Derr's qualifications are suitable and he's willing to accept a minimum stipend for his service (a year's subscription)... he may well be the best investment you'll make toward ensuring the ongoing success of the magazine. There's ALWAYS room for improvement(s).
Now... it's time to go and do some shooting!
Cheers
Life in the fast lane!
Umm, I'd provide graphic design and prepress production for a reduced fee (although a free subscription is abit thin...)
Wouldn't it be great if Lenswork, View Camera, and the other photo magazines all got together and produced a single magazine of the finest quality? Any wealthy foundations or philanthrophists looking to produce the next version of the "old" Aperture magazine with the addition a large format/technique/gearhead included?
"...a magazine that disguises advertising as editorial content."
With ever increasing corporate buyouts and monopolization of media, I suspect this is happening in many major publications that have financial corporate incest. Err, I mean conflicts of interest.
If VC had better editing, layout, and design, it would sell more--a great idea only partially carred out. I'm sure glad it exists, but I would be happier if it had a quality editor. And to you guys who think VC is above criticism for some really shaky reasons: tough. It is a product in a market and is open for criticism. Telling a critic that they should donat their time to the magazine is just plain foolish. Maybe, just maybe, some of that criticism will get through and it will become a better magazine for it.
S. Simmons brings himself much antagonism on USENET by not quoting in a consistent manner, confusing who said what, and generally being a tad whiny. In my OPINION he should skip the arguments in the newsgroups and focus that time and energy on the magazines. I also think that while he says he is open to suggestions, he doesn't capitalize on them. As pointed out, comparing VC to Lenswork and you will see a vast difference in quality. I want the magazines to stay aflot; I also want them to be better.
It is not above criticism. But it could have been said much more politely and civilized, particularly since quite a few people here are obviously reasonably articulate. I will admit it could also have been said much worse, but that -- in some sense -- just makes it worse. It is easy to write off the a****les, not so easy to write off the in-between guy. The exact same thing could have been said much more politely. The fact it wasn't reveals a lot of passion about the field, which is good, but also reveals more.
Sorry, I find no excuse for it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks