New B&W Magazine

[steve simmons]

On the plus side, your site/blog has already better feel than the stubborn ViewCamera, which simply refuses to learn.


Another cheap shot that is completly out of context. It is amazing how many of these come from people who have no track record of positive contributions to the field at all. As far as our inability to learn please see this thread

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ad.php?t=30224

I encourage anything that will add to the interest in photography and I hope this effort goes well. It is not necessary to take cheap shots at anyone else in the process of this discussion. I have always had a policy of not getting involved in threads about other publications or criticizing other magazines in threads about View Camera.

steve simmons

[Marko]

Steve, you have great content, that's what makes your magazine great, first and foremost.

But in all honesty, your website is, well, underwhelming, to put it diplomatically. There is no sense in getting offended at someone's stating the fact.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

This thread should remain aboout David's new site and magazine and not about View Camera or any other publication (in my opinion). If we focus on providing David with positive ideas and suggestions on how to make his new effort a success then this thread will be a great resource for him, and for us.

But if we start pulling other publications into the thread then, as always, we will head off into directions that will not be of benefit to David. Lets try to remain positive and be mindful that publishers of other online and print publications also contribute to this site and to our community.

Thanks,

[vickersdc]

Hang on a moment! The last thing I want is for this thread to turn in to a magazine bashing (whoever it belongs to!).

If you've read the site at http://creativeimagemaker.blogspot.com then you'll have a feel for what has gone on, but here's a quick precis as to why we are where we are...

I was reading a thread on APUG about the UK B&W magazine and there were 12 pages of people who were unhappy about certain aspects of the magazine (and other magazines too). As I read these, I just thought - "I wonder if I set up something for the traditional photographer, whether there would any interest?".

I put a comment up on the thread and a couple of people replied and I just got ot started there and then. Now, I don't have bundles of money hanging around (especially with Xmas on the horizon!) and the quickest way to build something that was useful was through blogger.com - not the best way I agree and one day I'd like to have a dedicated site. The yahoo email was a quick way to avoid overloading my personal email box and there's another reason for it too - but more about that in a lter posting.

You can look at the 'news' aspect of it in a couple of ways - namely that there's very little that's truly new; but I prefer to think of the site as...

1. a framework for photographers to put up articles on a wide range of subjects for the community to view. Anyone is welcome and I don't mind if you are a subject matter expert on mixing chemicals for glass plate negatives, or a beginner who just wants to relay the excitement of producing your first set of 35mm negatives.
2. all that history - isn't that what makes it interesting? It is to me. Learning from the old-timers, finding out about what goes on in the world of photography.
3. a forum - bad choice of word - somewhere where you can learn about other photographers, what makes them tick, and so on.

This was a spur of the moment decision to do this, but I made a decision to do something about it. So, to that end we've a starting point for a website on which you can put your articles. Then, once a quarter, a paper version can be downloaded from lulu.com. You can email me directly at creativeimagemaker at yahoo.co.uk - so all the pieces are there. Just about! I'm just not in a position to create a glossy magazine, featuring top photographers and distribute paper copies worldwide.

From small acorns...

I hope the site doesn't just become 'my blog' as it were. Isn't that what editing is about? There has to be a range of subjects covered - some that interest me, may not interest you; and vice versa. I have to add that I've been amazed by the interest shown and offers of support, articles and images. I hope I can live up to that.

And as for Steve Simmons, FocusMag and the others - they are under a whole order of magnitude more pressure than I am and I think they do deserve a pat on the back for their dedication. As I'm finding out, it can be difficult to juggle all the little bits that make up a modern magazine.

Thanks and I really do value all these comments, whether they are for or against. It's nice to get others viewpoints.

David Vickers.

[steve simmons]

Steve, you have great content, that's what makes your magazine great, first and foremost.

But in all honesty, your website is, well, underwhelming, to put it diplomatically. There is no sense in getting offended at someone's stating the fact.

Thanks. I don't pretend or present myself as a web person. We put all of our effort into the magazine.

That said, I agree with Eric.

steve

[Marko]

This thread should remain aboout David's new site and magazine and not about View Camera or any other publication (in my opinion). If we focus on providing David with positive ideas and suggestions on how to make his new effort a success then this thread will be a great resource for him, and for us.

But if we start pulling other publications into the thread then, as always, we will head off into directions that will not be of benefit to David. Lets try to remain positive and be mindful that publishers of other online and print publications also contribute to this site and to our community.

Thanks,

Personally, I applaud David for having the enthusiasm to start something new. But since he is entering a field that is not exactly new, it is only fair to draw a quick comparison with the existing players, large and small in order to quickly highlight the good, the bad and the ugly, as the stereotype has it, of all the existing practices.

It is not about criticizing others (or bashing as some would see it), it is about the simple fact that one is best advised to learn upon other people's experiences, especially the not so good ones.

Since his presence is primarily, and for the moment only web-based, it is only fair and useful to point out what is it that he does good and even more so what are the mistakes he seems to be heading into. Pointing other publications' web ... missteps, shall we say?... could as well help David do it right from the beginning, especially since he does not have the budget for mistakes, as he pointed out himself.

As someone who's spent most of my working life in magazine publishing, in the roles of an author, editor, tech support and web developer, I'd rather state an unpleasant truth hoping that it will help at least the OP if not others who read it, than extend false compliments and shrug when the venture fails.

I normally get paid to analyze web ventures and say things like this and I take pride in my ability to do so effectively. I have no interest whatsoever - and this is a response for Steve - to bash anybody, especially not free of charge. I did it as a token of appreciation for your magazine and because I am hoping it would help you make it better.

Like with all things free, you are free to take it or leave it. Just don't call it something it's not.

[Marko]

Thanks. I don't pretend or present myself as a web person. We put all of our effort into the magazine.

I'm not pretending to be a photographer either, but I still try to make my images look their best.

It's not about being a web person, it is about presenting your magazine effectively. Your website is the web face of it, not just an appendix. As for the rest, please see my previous post.

[vickersdc]

@Marko: thanks for the comments.

What I find really exciting - other than providing this framework for others - is the possibilities of it all. The fact that I could even begin to conceive of doing this by putting together bits from various corners of the web is very liberating, challenging and exciting!

[Kirk Gittings]

On the plus side, your site/blog has already better feel than the stubborn ViewCamera, which simply refuses to learn.

Are you reading the same magazine I am? VC has made major strides in the last couple of years and has published some of its best issues ever.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Marko,

I understand, but when comments are made about other publications or websites, saying they are "underwhelming" without stating why you feel this way or providing examples on how it could be improved, then the comment is not constructive, no one learns from the statement, nothing can improve. The statement becomes a matter of opinion (others may feel different).

This happens all the time in these types of threads (not just in this one). Someone states a matter of opinion as a fact with no support, someone else reads it and gets offended, the origional intent of the thread is lost and a big flame war begins.

What is sad in these types of threads is that any opportunity for anyone to learn and possibly improve is lost. My intent with my post was to try and keep everyone on topic in support of David and his new project. Providing examples of "the good, the bad and the ugly" as you put it is fine, and a great way to learn. But, the questions become, why is one good, why is one bad and why is one ugly?

I agree with your response but the previous posts that brought VC into the mix were, in my opinion, not very constructive or educational which is why I posted what I did.

Now, I am being gulity of taking this thread off topic so I will stop and get back to work.

Have a great day everyone and David best of luck to you on your new magazine, I hope it is a success. This is a great forum for learning and insight, the members here are passionate about their photography and I never fail to learn something that is valuable and benefical to my own work.