"We are developing lists of lenses that are much more complete than anything else available anywhere. " --- not sure about more complete, but I am pretty sure it has more mistakes than anywhere.
"We are developing lists of lenses that are much more complete than anything else available anywhere. " --- not sure about more complete, but I am pretty sure it has more mistakes than anywhere.
Well, this is great ... between 5-6 dissatisfied subscribers, 2 unpaid creditors, and a forum establishment that bans the voice from the other side ... maybe we can finally destroy a 21-year-old publication that is the ONLY large format voice out there and give the alleged scalawag his proper comeuppance ... and just after I've renewed for 2 years.
And all this started again [for the umpteenth time ... and THAT is no exageration] with a simple question about whether VC magazine was late again or had changed its schedule due to the recession ... amazing.
Folks, let's put this to rest. Contact information for Steve Simmons is as follows.
505-899-8054
emailto:amiles@viewcamera.com
emailto:largformat@aol.com
I understand the frustration of subscribers (and have complained about it other threads), and know that creditors may be unhappy. However, it would be best for all, IMO, to try to work all of this out off the forum.
Sandy King
Originally Posted by Jim Graves
Steve,
I have never 'agreed' to your current nonpayment, other than to accept the fact that I cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. When you said it would be a while, I accepted that explanation because what am I supposed to do? Take you to court? Please...
As I now know that I was not the only person you have not paid, and some of the people you owe a lot more to than me, I feel it is only appropriate that people that write an article for you be aware that if they are expecting more than an in-kind exchange (trading an article for a 1/4 page advertisement, which I know you do regularly), then they need to know the truth about your ability or willingness to pay.
If you have paid for articles more recently than mine, than I can only suspect that it has to do with your decision to not pay mine for some specific reason; maybe because I was a friend of Ted's, I don't know. That may reflect money problems, or it may reflect a specific desire to not pay. Regardless, it doesn't look well.
Either way, I think the complete disrespect for Ted's memory and Amy is ultimately shocking and very disappointing, especially considering the absolutely great benefit you received from them over the past two years before Ted passed away. While you may not consider it to have been a benefit to you, it certainly was, and I as well as others whom I will not drag into this conversation know it as well.
Unfortunately, when Ted passed away, I had not been in close contact with him for a few months because of a cross-country move. So I don't really know too much about what happened other than a few last talks on the phone, but I have absolutely no doubt that Amy's representation is fair and accurate. Amy is certainly one thing, and that is that she is straightforward and true to the people she is affiliated with. She calls it as she see it.
Since you are monitoring this, please know that if I do receive payment, I will be the first to post to let people know that you have done right by your debt to me. Hopefully, you will do the same for others as well, but I really don't think it should take a public discourse to make it happen.
I've addressed this enough. I'm so sorry to Amy for bringing this back up near the anniversary of Ted's passing.
---Michael
A fitting episode for, "As The Stomach Turns"?
Makes religion and politics look tame ... maybe we should bring them back and exclude cheap shots and personal vendettas in the posting ban.
Yes we can.
I think you may be on to something.
On the other hand - Brian has good point also. Last night for example, I had a Netflix movie to watch; did I watch it? No. What did I do instead you may well ask (not that you should care)? I read this thread. And here I am again this morning.
I don't mean to belittle the concerns, points of view of anyone who posted. However, as someone has already pointed out, the thread asked a simple question about the delivery of the magazine.
Though it's not a "large format" magazine, LensWork manages to survive and seems to thrive without advertising, or even a news stand presence. It seems to do so, in spite of being a niche publication, because it sustains an extremely high standard of photographic reproduction, and writing. Brooks maintains contact with his audience with frequent blogs, and has never been accused of anything unethical or dishonest that I've ever been aware of. He has been innovative with "extended editions" on CD, and an up to date website. He even seems to have fun doing the job into the bargain.
Let's hope that Steve Simmons can learn something from the LensWork model that can keep the boat afloat with integrity, quality, and grace.
I have been a VC subscriber since the beginning, with some lapses when life got in the way of my LF habit. As I have been contemplating whether I will resubscribe, I have been looking over back issues. I think there is a different/additional lesson to learn from Lenswork.
There are a lot of tech articles in VC, the sort of article that I was very interested in reading 20 years ago. While I am still interested in such articles, I find that they better found online today. This forum is one example, and there are others. The Photoshop articles in VC are the best example of the problem. There are terrific books on PS, even for LF, and lots and lots of very polished magazine devoted to PS, as well as online resources. There is nothing VC can add.
Lenswork has stuck to pictures and non-technical articles and interviews. It is small, which makes really good reproduction less expensive. It is frustrating for a LF user to realize that a cheap digital camera picture looks as good in Lenswork as a 4x5, but so be it. VC is bigger, but the quality of reproduction is not very good. That would not matter, except that without great reproduction it does not matter that the images are LF.
I think time has left VC behind - it was a break through 20 years ago, but has not kept up with changes in the publishing world.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks