Lenswork Magazine

[Kirk Gittings]

It seems to me (also) that the digital images are printed too dark.

I actually believe that he never learned to calibrate his monitors........

[Steve Gledhill]

For me it's the the best image magazine by far. I subscribed to the print version for some years then moved to the Extended CD/DVD version 35 issues ago. On a good monitor the Extended version is excellent - and you see many many more images. I also paid for all of the early versions when they became available in CD. So, I have the lot. I spend an occasional hour looking back through them and am heartened by the usually high quality of work selected. Whilst only a small portion of the presented material falls into my fields of interest, I find most have some elements which feed my imagination and are inspirational in some way. What a treat to have a magazine with no adverts. Worth every penny. Thanks to Mr Jensen.

I just wish they'd sort out a PayPal payment problem they have at present - I'm trying and failing to renew my overseas subscription. But, as other have said, they are unfailingly helpful in their customer service.

[D. Bryant]

So is anyone signed up for LensWork Online?

http://www.lensworkonline.com/

[h2oman]

I bought the big box of back issues (I think there were 23 of them), and those kept me entertained for a bit. I then took out a 2 year subscription that I am about halfway through.

First, concerning size: I have 28 print issues on my shelf, taking up just a little under 7" (horizontally). They're not that thick, and they are only about 8 1/2 inches high. I get the DVDs as well, so that adds a bit more storage space.

Otherwise, here are the pros and cons, for me.

Pros:

1. I like B&W photography.

2. The print quality is good. I agreed with the complaint about the prints being too dark and gloomy until I went back and looked more objectively. Now I don't agree with that in general. I can find a couple portfolios that are printed pretty dark, but for which that is appropriate for the subject matter, in my opinion. I did find one portfolio that I think was printed too darkly for the subject matter.

3. No advertisements.

4. Some of the audio interviews on the extended discs are good.

5. This reason is a bit thin, especially in these economic times, but I figure subscibing is supporting the art of B&W photography by supporting a forum for atists' work.

Cons:

1. The print sizes are a bit small in the magazine. I prefer to look at my book collection.

2. I'm not a great appreciator of all photographs and subject matters. In particular, I find myself not that interested in the cultural/people type things in Lenswork. I'm more drawn to architectural, landscape and abstract work, which might comprise only one of the four portfolios in each magazine.

3. Some of the audio interviews are long and unenlightening.

4. The writing is a bit one-dimensional, given that a very large part of it is by Brooks.

Neither a pro nor a con: Although the extended DVDs provide additional images, many of the photographers have web pages with all those images as well. In fact, I've found a very large number of web pages that I like to look at, with no help from lenswork at all.

Well, that's my 2 cents, worth exactly that!

[JeffKohn]

I didn't like his stance about inkjet work. (He can publish it in portfolios but not in the magazine? So its ok to sell but not worthy of his publication? Please...).

Why would it make sense to send an inkjet print that has to be scanned by Lenswork (with the inherent loss of quality that inevitably entails) when you can just send the digital image on disk? That policy doesn't seem at all unreasonable to me.

As to the original question I do subscribe and find the subscription to be worthwhile overall, although it seems that last year or so a fair amount of the work selected has been less to my liking than before (too much documentary/historical stuff, which I just can't get interested in). Hopefully that's a short-term trend though.

I also sometimes think the magazine would be better if the features were shorter. I know Brooks is a big fan of "project" work, but too many of the features seem to get repetitive due to having too many similar images. Cutting some of the features down by a couple images and using the extra pages to feature another photographer would be preferable to me.

[paulr]

Ok, a dissenting view. I got a free copy in the mail a couple of months ago, and I found the main essay to be terrifically simpleminded and indicative of the writer having slept through the last fifty years of art criticism. The photography was conservative and nap-inducing. I found a couple of images that had a bit of a pulse. Maybe. I feel guilty about recycling it because it's nicely produced, but doubt I'll ever pick it up again.

[jonreid]

I think I'll go with the CD version. Space is at a premium around here. Our favourable Aussie dollar makes it a little more worthwhile.
Thanks for your input everyone.
Renato, I agree that Aperture publishes some "out-there" stuff, but I try to read it to broaden my outlook.

Jon

[D. Bryant]

the features seem to get repetitive due to having too many similar images.

I frequently see this from other sources as well including galleries displaying portfolio work.

I agree with your comments about the past years issues being a bit boring.

[Brian Ellis]

Ok, a dissenting view. I got a free copy in the mail a couple of months ago, and I found the main essay to be terrifically simpleminded and indicative of the writer having slept through the last fifty years of art criticism. The photography was conservative and nap-inducing. I found a couple of images that had a bit of a pulse. Maybe. I feel guilty about recycling it because it's nicely produced, but doubt I'll ever pick it up again.

I don't think LensWork has ever pretended to be a cutting-edge fine art publication. It's always been geared towards traditional photography and does a good job in that niche. Faulting it for sleeping through the last 50 years of art criticism is about like faulting Aperture for not publishing more of Ansel Adams' work.

Obviously it's like any other publication, some like its content others don't. But
there's apparently plenty of room for the kind of photography it publishes as evidenced by the fact that it's survived and presumably prospered for something like 20 years, which is no mean achievement in an era when so many paper publications have disappeared.

[paulr]

I wouldn't expect it to be cutting edge, but I'd hope for something interesting within the type of work it chooses to show. Black and white, straight, formal-modernist and documentary work can be interesting. It's a challenge to work within those bounds that doesn't just remind you of everything else you've seen, but there are photographers who meet that challenge.

The essays I just find embarrassing.