I totally miss the point of attacking SS?
I totally miss the point of attacking SS?
Dean Lastoria
Oh brother, on request by QT I have tried to stay away from responding to Simmons, but this last post just takes the cake. I have no idea what transpired between QT and Simmons, all I can say here is my experience and what I have seen.
I sent my prints to the British B&W photography magazine, they published 3 prints and sent back to me my prints and a check for 100 pounds sterling.
Lenswork will pay $100 for submissions that are accepted. It is on their submissions guidelines.
The Australian magazine B&W Enthusiast also compensates the photographer, depending on the images published.
Granted, none of these are amounts that will make anybody rich, but is nice to know that SOME photography magazines appreciate the fact that their success is due in great part to the photographers that participate in it and that they make a token gesture to acknowledge this.
I was a moderator at APUG for one year, since then I am still very active in that forum and not once have seen Simmons promote the LF forum at APUG. I have seen, on the other hand, frequent promotions for his magazine and now his Forum. As a matter of fact it was QT and his gracious help in allowing me to post the creation of APUG in this site when I contacted and asked him if I could that it was of great help at the beginning of the site. At the beginning of APUG, Simmons had agreed to sponsor the site by paying $20 a month for a banner, after 6 months there was no payments for the banner citing "problems" with his credit card. Since then Simmons has stated that he has reached an agreement with the owner of the APUG site, since I am no longer intimately involved with APUG I have no idea if this is true or not, all I can recount is my first hand personal experience. Bottom line, QT was far more helpful to APUG ( a competing site as it were) than Simmons ever was, and I suspect it is the same for the LF site.
The wealth of articles contained in the LFinfo site is far greater, of greater depth and help to anybody than the few articles contained in the VC forum. Currently there are 66 articles in the LFinfo site to 10 in the VC site. Of the 10 articles presently in the VC site, many are of debatable use to anybody but the newest beginner in the LF community.
Recently QT asked Simmons to refrain from posting general links to his site and specially his forum, in spite of this Simmons chose to once more add his advertisement on this thread.
I might be wrong, but the only one profiting from VC, the workshops and conferences is Simmons, nobody else! Not only does he choose to ignore this but continues to abuse the generosity of QT and many others that allow him to post his advertisements in their forums for free.
Seems to me actions speak louder than words, and as such, I dont see why Simmons is offended.
Steve has his own forum on the View Camera website. Let him go play there
The problem is that nobody seems to want to go play with him. Cant say I blame them.
"I totally miss the point of attacking SS?"
Me too Dean - but then I read his outgrageous attack on QTL above and now I am beginning to wonder...
Methinks someone needs to take that shovel away from Mr Simmons before he digs himself so deep he disappears from sight entirely - and yes, I know some would consider that a consumation devoutly to be wish'd ;-) ...
Cheers,
For the record, there are more than 250 web pages on the static part of the site (not 60) and the forum in its current form exists mainly thanks to the efforts of Tom Westbrook (not me).
For the record, there are more than 250 web pages on the static part of the site (not 60)
Well, I just went to the main page and counted how many links you had there.....but heck, it reinforces my point even more...no?
I'm pretty happy with View Camera. Though my interest is mostly film, and mostly monochrome, I don't mind seeing a decent digital image. What I really want to see is anything and everything that people are doing with large format. Even if it isn't my cup of tea, you can't learn anything if you only look at things in your comfort zone. One thing that does bother me is that the last few times I've gone looking for the magazine at Borders (my only nearby large bookstore), they haven't had it.
from Butzi
"It's probably worth noting that Steve has done nothing to refute what Tuan says..."
from Mr. Luong
To echo Brian's comment about "generosity", note that the policy of View Camera is not to pay for published photographs
from my response
We have not paid anyone for doing an article about them. You were treated the same as all previous and subsequent subjects.
I responded this way because Mr. Luong has privately complaigned to me at our not paying him when we did the article on him. It was a direct response.
from Mr.l Luong
"pay a substantial fee to submit photographs"
Our usual contest fees have been $25 for the first entry and a sliding scale downwards for additional entries. Students paid less. In the case of the second contest we hired our intern for the Summer to handle the contest. We paid her from the money we collected fom the entrants. We asked people who wanted their material returned to send along return packging and postage. We even returned photographs to those who did not provide the packaging and postage. Many photo contests do not return the entries. We carefully told people in the earlier contest not to send one of a kind images and we judged many copy slides/prints/transparencies.
Jorge seems to feel the need to frequenty bring up the botched sponsorship of APUG. I have answered this many times by saying that the moderator and I have discussed this situation and are mutually comfortable with what happened. Jorge even admitted to not bothering to check this out . If he did he might lose this issue to bash me. CameraArts in the June 03 and April 04 issues gave a plug to APUG in the publisher's statement on page 2.
from Jorge "I might be wrong, but the only one profiting from VC, the workshops and conferences is Simmons, nobody else!"
Then why do people keep subcribing and coming? W received many complints about both of our conferences. Unless you have polled all of the attendees you have no basis for making ths remark.
Butzi took me to task a week or so ago for my discusion forum. If he had checked, maybe he did and did not admit doing so, he would have seen that we have a registration agreement that is very similar to that of APUG's site. He did not challenge them as far as I know. He then went on to say that I make a living, or charge money, by taking material about lf and then charging for it. We do not take anything. We either create it or make a arrangment with the creator. This was a cheap inuendo that he cannot substantiateand never responded to when challenged.
Inerestingly enough this thread was progressing nicely until Jason made his complimentary remark (no I am not blaming him for the downhill slide). There was a clean give and take. But as soon as he said something the predictable people came out of the woodwork and began their cheap shots.
If someone came on a forum I was moderating and took a cheap shot at a participant that had nothing to do with cameras, lenses, etc. I would delete it out of respect for the poster . I you want to call this censorship that is fine. There are any more people listening here than participate and one of the reasons is that they do not want to get dragged in to a war of abuse.
Since Mr Simmons keeps misrepresenting my writing in a way that questions my character, I must affirm that unlike what he would like you to believe, I did not "complain" about the the lack of payment. As I understood it, Mr Simmons point was that he had been generous with me and therefore expected reciprocity on my part. I simply pointed out that since the publication, as well as my participation to his conference were unpaid, this somehow undermined the claim of generosity.
Mr Simmons would like you to believe that I "seem to need to remind [him] privately every so often" of the payment issue, but I have make this remark privately only once.
His other allegations are equally baseless and would not pass close examination.
I am of course grateful for the exposure. Maybe he should be grateful for the material. It is my opinion that one of the reasons why VC magazine has been doing fine is that there are a number of very talented photographers like Kirk who were willing to do for VC magazine what they wouldn't have done for other publications. This illustrates what was meant by my remark about the community.
Take and give, indeed.
What Mr Simmons didn't realize is that by deleting his posting, instead of failing to "reciprocate", I was doing him a service, since this postings did not reflect positively on him, as evidenced by the several emails and replies I saw that complaned about this posting in this, and other forums.
Mr Simmons seems to complain about a "war of abuse" every so often, but he should note that my comment in this thread was done in a factual and professional tone, while he responded with an angry character assassination that I don't even wish to completely address in this reply.
I would have normally deleted such a comment and spared you this kerfuffle, but since it was directed towards me, I did not want to give the impression I would use moderator discretion to silence a critic. Since I did not
delete Mr Simmons comment although it is possibly the most offensive, fairness prevents me from deleting the follow-up. I am sorry for the uncomfort caused to all
Jorge seems to feel the need to frequenty bring up the botched sponsorship of APUG. I have answered this many times by saying that the moderator and I have discussed this situation and are mutually comfortable with what happened. Jorge even admitted to not bothering to check this out . If he did he might lose this issue to bash me. CameraArts in the June 03 and April 04 issues gave a plug to APUG in the publisher's statement on page 2.
Nope, I have never admited to that, I said I did not know what subsequently happened. Please do not put words in my mouth, you are not qualified. On the issue of giving a plug in Camera Arts, well, do you call your credit card company and tell them: "sorry I did not pay you, but I will put a plug for you in my magazines"? I am sure Sean decided that something was better than nothing. At the time you gave your plugs APUG was very well stablished and growing in popularity. I mention this so that people can make a judgement on your veracity. Also, if you go to APUG and click on your name, you will get a screen that searches for all the posts you have made there, would you please provide a link for us where you promoted the LF forum at APUG?
Then why do people keep subcribing and coming? W received many complints about both of our conferences. Unless you have polled all of the attendees you have no basis for making ths remark.
This has nothing to do with the fact that you are the only one profiting from the magazines, conferences and workshops you advertise here for free. Once again you fail to respond to the facts and make up a totally incoherent and unrelated response. What does a poll have to do with the fact YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE MAKING PROFIT FROM THIS ACTIVITIES?
By the way, I notice you very conveniently glossed over and ignored my comment about those magazines that do compensate photographers. You have gotten a free ride for many years, I hope those photographers and writers that participate in your magazine wake up and realize there are other magazines that appreciate their efforts and compensates them, even if it is a token amount.
If someone came on a forum I was moderating and took a cheap shot at a participant that had nothing to do with cameras, lenses, etc. I would delete it out of respect for the poster .
It is a credit to QT that he did not delete the cheap shot you took at him. You are quick to receive the fawning praise, but bridle at anybody that dares critize you or post a dissenting opinion. I am sure you would delete all those opinions that do not agree with you. Perhaps this is the reason for the utter failure of your forum and your need to come and advertise it here and at APUG. One would think that you would be greatful that you are still allowed to post questions about your magazine here, specially since the same question in your forum only elicited 2 responses.
Butzi took me to task a week or so ago for my discusion forum. If he had checked, maybe he did and did not admit doing so, he would have seen that we have a registration agreement that is very similar to that of APUG's site.
He does not have to check, he asked you a direct question in this forum and you were unable to answer it. He very clearly stated that he will not particpate in APUG because of the terms of use, what did you expect him to do? go to APUG and say: "I wont post here because I dont like your TOS"? I assure you Paul is not that dumb (not to imply that you are a little dumb Paul).
Once again, you have managed to come to this forum, and make this about you and your magazine. People at Usenet have woken up and ignore you, people at APUG no longer tolerate your incesant advertising and immediately jump on your case, perhaps it is time you ask yourself why is this?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks