Lenswork - what do you think?

[nelsonfotodotcom]

I'm a second year reader, and I love the mag. When the first sub expired, I re-up'd for two more years, though I did drop the extended version from my subscription. There have been great issues, and some mediocre ones, but it isn't about the short-haul, in my opinion; I think LW will persevere, and I'm willing to put my money on the line to help it along. If I wanted to spend money to have somebody do exactly what I wanted, every time, I'd give it the whorehouse and not Jensen.

[nelsonfotodotcom]

BTW, if you haven't yet seen No. 72, you're missing some fine work by Tom Baril (Collodion Platinum-Palladiam Portfolio, page 78) and a nicely done, inky set by Richard Murai, beginning page 55.

[nelsonfotodotcom]

And that was post 69... I felt slightly naughty. Good thing I got my dungarees on.

[Greg Lockrey]

No. 72 ??? Mine must still be in the mail.

[nelsonfotodotcom]

With luck. There's no postmark on my mailer, so I can't give you an idea when it shipped, but it arrived early last week, if that helps. Seems you shoulda had yours by now.

[Greg Lockrey]

Thanks Nelson, I live here in what my wife affectionatly calls the Tundra and it usually takes a day or two extra to get to me. I'll give it another week and drop Brooks an e-mail.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I am curious. Does any magazine actually ever have real prints in hand (inkjet or silver gelatin) before selecting them for publication? It seems to me that everything is done via a CD or transmitted file. For example when B&W magazine publishes one of its special editions all the submissions are on digital media. I guess i am old school, but it seems to make sense you would want to have an actual print in hand when making editorial decisions.

When we switched to a new printer, he made me an excellent deal on scanning. Most, if not all of the magazine, from August 2007 onwards is scanned from prints and then transfered into the magazine. There are times where we're running really tight on deadline and we can't do that, but I try to get as much as possible drum scanned. I cannot, however; speak for B&W and what their process is. I do know that the printer they use doesn't know the first thing about what makes a photograph look good.... there were many, many, many times we had to adjust their scans or have something re-scanned or even give a photographer their money back because the scans the printer did for us sucked. With our new printer, that isn't even an after thought anymore... he is an expert at knowing what makes a photograph look good. Many galleries and auction houses use him to reproduce their catalogues.

I've spoken to, on a few occasions, the printer that does the magazine for LW. As I've said in previous forums, LW's printer definitely knows what he's doing and that's why LW's quality is superior to almost every single other photography magazine on newsstands today. I believe after a photographer's work is submitted to LW, if they are chosen and his/her work is traditional, they send their prints in to be scanned. I could be wrong...

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

No. 72 ??? Mine must still be in the mail.

The USPS is HORRIBLE lately. Delivering magazines much, much later than normal. I don't know if they've laid people off, had major computer glitches or done anything like that, but I'm thinking about offering different subscription levels for subscribers so they can receive their magazines via FedEx or UPS instead of the USPS. People have to wait nearly 10 weeks to get a magazine...it's horrible.

[Greg Lockrey]

I got mine today...yeah!!!

[Wayne Lambert]

In the traditional vs. digital debate we often hear the comment that "all that matters is the final print." I believe even no less a luminary than Stieglitz said this, although not in the context of traditional vs. digital, of course. I do not believe this statement is true, because I believe something else also matters to many of us and that is the skill and experience of the photographer as revealed in the photograph. So when I hear the common current argument that those who value traditional photography are a bunch of old soreheads who probably would have said that only images on glass plates are art, I am chagrined. Some years ago when traditional photographers were concerned about the possibilities, perhaps even probablities, that photographs in the future would be massively digitally altered and shown with similar-looking traditional photographs, Popular Photography spent a lot of time and ink promoting the argument that because traditional negatives and prints could also be altered (retouched) there was really "no difference" between digital and traditional photography. This whole argument of "no difference" affects my view of digital prints, and I will explain why in a paraphrase of a letter I wrote to the editor of Popular Photography in May, 2002. I told him that I found his argument worrisome (and tiresome), and that he was missing a terribly important point. Consider for a moment those great traditional photographs that have impressed themselves on our memory. Few were manipulated beyond the traditional techniques of dodging, burning, etc. We have always held in high regard those photographers who were skilled in dramatically or artfully capturing real events in real time; for example Henri Cartier-Bresson, Ansel Adams, Garry Winogrand, and many others. (In fact, Popular Photography and similar magazines used to make much of the "decisive moment" in photography.) The oft-repeated statement that all that matters is the final image is not necessarily true. The real-time butterfly on the boy's nose will always be more highly valued than the digitally imported butterfly on the boy's nose---and rightly so. Think for a moment of Ansel in front of his computer and importing that incredible sky into the image, and then bringing in the moon and placing it just so, and then placing a few extra crosses here and there to fill in some gaps. Think of Cartier-Bresson digitally inserting the man leaping the puddle or the smiling boy with the bottles of wine. Yes they would be beautiful and intriguing images, but I don't think we would honor these made-up images like we honor real photographs. And I don't think Ansel's and Cartier-Bressons reputations would be what they are today if they had produced their images in this way. I believe we will always---should always---put a premium on real time, real subject photography, especially that which demonstrates exceptional skill, or perhaps luck. The heavily manipulated digital image (and that includes removal of poles, pesky clouds, non-regulation rocks and addition of water sheen, shadows, etc., so easily done with the computer) may be art, but to me it will be something more akin to illustration art and not very valued photography. And in summary, but not included in my original letter, that is why when I enter a photography show and see "digital pigment print" or "pigmented ink print" or "archival pigment print" or "digital photograph" on the label I generally just walk on by because I am interested in photography, and I don't know, from just the print, how much is photographer and how much is Photoshop.
Wayne Lambert
www.waynelambert.net