View Camera Magazine - What Would You Like To See?

[steve simmons]

Now that some of the shouting is over I do have a sincere interest in hearing wh at people would like to see in future issues of View Camera magazine.

steve simmons

[Andre Noble]

Steve, in general, I enjoy technical articles relating to film, paper, and printing - which we large format photographers tend to be interested in. Don't be afraid to re-cover something, perhaps in a different shade. Andre

PS Also portraiture: any chance of getting Richard Avedon to submit an article? Or have I missed that one already?

[M.]

Articles and interviews (if living) in each issue of great and near- great LF photographers, with examples of their best work. Suggestions: Paul (not John Paul) Caponigro, Marie Cosindas, the Westons, the Muenchs, Saint Ansel, John Blakemore, Avadon, Meyerwitz, Sudek, Strand, George Tice.... Dig into their philosophy, give specific first-hand reviews of what they were doing and thinking for specific pictures (ala AA's "Examples"). The difference between LF and other photography is much more than the size of the cameras and film -- it is the attitude, which should be emphasized.

[Natha Congdon]

Some of your finest articles, including those that originally inspired me to pick up my first camera (a LF one as it happens), have been thoughtful interviews with photographers, usually featuring some of their work. It's fine to dwell on the brass tacks of equipment reviews and darkroom techniques, but at the end of the day it's presumably meant to be about the art itself. In addition to Avedon mentioned above, it would be great to hear (again?) from Sally Mann, Joel Peter Witken, Nicholas Nixon, just to touch on a few. Actually, now that I think about it, there has been more emphasis generally on landscape than portrait (in terms of artists, techniques, history, etc). I'd love to see more portrait photographers, both in terms of their work, but also their ideas and techniques. Not a criticism, and I'm sure these areas have been touched on in the 13 year life of the magazine, but they are what I'd like to see more of.

Still the first magazine I read despite a dozen professional journals in ophthalmology I'm supposed to get through every month!

Nathan

[Alan Barton]

More interviews/portfolios of current photographers.

More detailed "history of lens design" type articles.

Reviews/samples from current books (not how to stuff)

Workshop reviews/descriptions (part promotional from the people offering the workshop plus a couple of reviews from participants)

Articles by leaders of phot suppliers (eg Kodak, Ilford) on how they see the future of their business.

Bios of the greats with some insights from their "assistants" etc

Keepup the good work

Alan

[Daniel Taylor]

I read 'View Camera Magazine' in thirty mintues. rarely find value. I read 'Camera Arts' for days, constantly returning to relevant articles.

you'd never know they were related publishings.

[Chad Jarvis]

Better editing of articles, especially those submissions by readers.

[Sandy Sorlien]

I agree there should be lots of interviews/profiles of contemporary LF artists with generous reproductions of their work. You do a good job with those sorts of features. But more women please. You may have to beat the bushes a bit but they are out there.

Along the same lines, continue coverage of (and feature users of) smaller format view cameras, which some women (and men) prefer for ease of transport. One of my female students saw my 6x9 Arca and her jaw dropped: "That makes me want to work with the view camera! The 4x5s at school are so unwieldy..."

How about a whole issue on medium format view cameras and practitioners?

Cheers, Sandy

[Ken Burns]

I know that you are asking what we would like to see, but I will tell you what I don't want to see. I have no desire to see the number of articles concerning digital imaging that you have been running for the last couple years. That's why I haven't renewed. Get rid of all the digital articles and I might consider resubscribing.

[Dan Smith]

I would keep much of what you have as it is very good. Some of the articles I would push to make more technical with much more exploration and information in them. Much like the sorely missed Camera & Darkroom articles used to be, a lot of information and more depth than what we have generally available in the US market now. I have no problem with coverage of pixelography or photo output from scanning or inkjet/digital printers but do think you are right on in emphasizing what we know as traditional photography. Keep it up and let us know in print when the two can be merged or used together to improve our work, our control of the medium or just for information sake. In the digital realm I would like to see more in depth coverage of the realities of it... how fast fading occurs, real life expectance of the storage media, reality of using the digital backs in the field and direct comparisons of traditional & digital where they can both do the same job. Especially the comparisons of B&W inkjet high end and B&W high end printing. Profile a major historical name every few issues (as you have done often) as well as searching out the lesser known names of history that have made contributions to the craft. (as you have been doing)

As for the bricks some throw at your very large & public picture window on the world, let them throw them. No matter what you do you can't please everyone. Get even better printing & some bitch the quality isn't high enough. Accept an ad from a digital firm & some piss & moan about you quitting on 'real' photography. Feature landscape photos, architectural or portraits & those with other favorites feel slighted. You can't do it all in one issue, but then you know that. I have watched the magazine grow through the years & enjoy it. Just a bit more depth to many of the film, equipment and technique articles please. Other than that, keep up the good work.