The Latest View Camera Issue (March/April)

[Merg Ross]

Attacks? I haven't seen any "attacks." I've seen complaints from contributors who were supposed to have been paid for their efforts but haven't been and I've seen complaints from subscribers who haven't received their magazines on time. You think those are "attacks?" Seems to me they're legitimate complaints and serve the very valid purpose of giving fair warning to anyone here who's thinking of writing an article or who's thinking of subscribing. Why should the moderators "protect Simmons and his magazine" from those kinds of complaints?

By definition, an "attack" is: "to speak or write against with vigor; criticize".

I stand by my usage. You prefer "complaint"; that is also valid.

[Michael Mutmansky]

I suppose as long as Steve can find 'friends' who are willing to work for free, he no longer has to worry about paying for an article.

I consider that terribly unfortunate for you and others who think that writing an article isn't worth the value of being paid. It demeans your effort and the effort of others who put many hours and sometimes a considerable investment of expenses into an article.

When I write an article on a test of a camera or a lens, I will spend (depending on the size of the camera) hundreds of dollars of film on the article, and those costs are not expensed. They are covered in the article payment, so I don't consider the articles to be an avenue to make a living, either, but a payment (even if it is small) is a fair and honorable measure of the value that I bring to the magazine.

I have no issue with Steve, other than this. I wasn't part of the Foto3 debacle, and I don't know the history of what happened between Steve and Ted at the end, although it's clear that Ted got the short end of the deal. There are others that I know of as well.

I have defended him in the past because I believed that he was trying to be a positive contributor on this form and others, and I feel that he had a good magazine that provides a worthy contribution to the industry. As such, I was pleased to contribute to the magazine over the years.

I do think that potential contributors should know the state of the operation before they spend the effort on an article. If you have no expectation for payment then there will be no issue. Otherwise, be warned.



---Michael

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Thanks Michael,

I don't feel demeaned and enjoy contributing the little that I do. If you have costs that need to be covered, then I am sure the amount was agreed to up front and you and Steve can work that out in private.

While I am sure your intentions were honest, sometimes public "warnings" are just a way for the person who provides it to embarrass and belittle others. To allow bashing and then be able to step back and say to others " I was only trying to be helpful".

As I say, I am sure that was not your intention, but it sort of comes across that way. It was what took a small, simple thread about a delay in someones subscription to become another VC bashing thread. I think anyone who would write an article for any magazine would know enough to ask about payment and get any agreement in writing. Correct?

I hope you and VC work out the payment issue and it is done so in a professional manner. I enjoy your photography as well as your writing.

[Brian Ellis]

Let me re-iterate - I don't know Steve. I've heard some awful stories about him. I followed the Foto3 debacle with a mild interest, for my own reasons of one day launching a photography art fair. It does seem that Mr. Simmon has had a lot of trouble and has made a lot of trouble for himself on this and other forums. I don't know the level or degree of effort he puts into VC, so to say that he is passionate about it is purely an assumption. Perhaps I am projecting my own passion of this craft of photography and for photography magazines unfairly onto Steve.

All I am saying is that using a public forum to bash View Camera can have consequences for other people who do enjoy the magazine and there have to be some people who do enjoy it - otherwise it wouldn't be around today. Subscribe to VC, don't subscribe to it - it's your choice. But by airing your frustrations with VC in public, you are deciding for other people that this is a publication they should stay away from.

I don't see anything posted here as "deciding for other people that this is a publication they should stay away from." I also haven't seen any "bashing," unless you think that all complaints about any product or seller of a product are "bashing."

I do see this thread as providing information that a potential subscriber or contributor can consider in deciding for themselves whether to subscribe or to contribute, i.e. to let potential subscribers or authors know that they may encounter problems in receiving the magazine on time (or at all, in some cases) or in being paid for their efforts if they're thinking of contributing (assuming of course that they had an agreement that they would be paid).

So I have no problem at all with the content of this thread to the extent it relates to complaints about timeliness of delivery and/or not being paid for contributions and I'm surprised you and a couple others do have problems. You can call VC magazine a "labor love" but the fact is it's a business - it charges for advertising, it charges for subscriptions, it charges for news stand purchases. I see no reason why it should be any different from any other business related to large format photography when it comes to legitimate criticism here. The notion that the moderators should for some reason be "protecting" this particular product from criticism is, to me, an appalling idea. I'd hate to think that the moderators were picking and choosing which products were to be "protected" from criticism and which weren't.

[EdWorkman]

See message above
You impugn Michael by your comment/characterization
Simmons has not shown the least degree of professionalism nor even common courtesy, nor even bothered a F-Y- in response to requests. He is, a complete and utter [ fill in here when the children have left the room]

[Gem Singer]

I find it amazing that every time Steve Simmons' name is mentioned on this forum, and a comment is made about View Camera Magazine, it seems to set off a diatribe regarding the integrity of the man and the quality and value of his publication.

Nobody is forcing others to read or approve of View Camera. It's as simple as this, if you don't like it, don't subscribe and don't read it. I happen to be a long time subscriber.

As I said in the past, I would miss View camera if it was no longer being published.

[GPS]

Thanks Kirk! That's what is needed.

[kev curry]

As a consumer of LF photography related products, I think it right and proper that fellow consumers openly and publicly share there experience's. Why would anyone think otherwise?

[Sal Santamaura]

...He has fired back to personal attacks in the past on this forum, and he has also contributed a few, but he is trying to stay out of it and he will not come in and respond...

I don't think he can respond on this forum. Here's a single post (selected at random) of Steve's:

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...65&postcount=1

If one clicks on his name, no options to contact him via email or PM are presented. I suspect this means he's been banned. Don't know whether it's temporary or permanent.

[Michael_4514]

Let me re-iterate - I don't know Steve. I've heard some awful stories about him. I followed the Foto3 debacle with a mild interest, for my own reasons of one day launching a photography art fair. It does seem that Mr. Simmon has had a lot of trouble and has made a lot of trouble for himself on this and other forums. I don't know the level or degree of effort he puts into VC, so to say that he is passionate about it is purely an assumption. Perhaps I am projecting my own passion of this craft of photography and for photography magazines unfairly onto Steve.

All I am saying is that using a public forum to bash View Camera can have consequences for other people who do enjoy the magazine and there have to be some people who do enjoy it - otherwise it wouldn't be around today. Subscribe to VC, don't subscribe to it - it's your choice. But by airing your frustrations with VC in public, you are deciding for other people that this is a publication they should stay away from.

David, I am at a loss to understand your objection to this discussion. Mr. Simmons produces a product, and I think it's fair game for people to criticize or praise it. We do this all the time with cameras, film, and other businesses that touch on LF. Why not a magazine? If the criticism is all true -- lousy and erratic delivery, rude employees, shallow content, then people have a right to know before they subscribe. If the criticism is not true, I would expect others to rise to the defense. I don't see how an honest and open discussion is anything other than a benefit to our community.

The failure to pay contributors is especially troublesome as far as I am concerned. If he can't afford to pay, or doesn't intend to, he ought not to make the promise. I doubt very much that he sends the magazine out to subscribers who don't pay their bill. (In fact, he appears not to send the magazine to at least a few who DO pay their bill).

I have no dog in this fight. I have never subscribed to the magazine nor have I ever had dealings with Mr. Simmons. I just think the discussion has merit.