Of course, neither of the two magazines I mentioned above are LF magazines, but out here in the sticks you have to make do with what you find. Any source of inspiration does count. And a lot of the photos showed in photo magazines could be taken with LF gear.
"Be still and allow the mud to settle."
Thanks for the suggestions. I was mostly curious about other peoples 'behaviors'. Although it is neither LF or strictly photography I have been a great fan of DoubleTake since it came out, so I guess rather than technical periodicals, I was interested in the 'larger picture'. For instance, last weeks New York Review of Books had a great article on Irving Penn's "earthy nudes" (or was it "Earthly", or--more likely--doughy?). This article, as well as a numb er of DoubleTake's articles really makes me think. Through the 1980s "Aperture" was really my favorite and had some really interesting ideas and articles. However "Aperture" has become, over the past 10 years or so, really become irrelevant to my interests, and I don't even bother looking at the library any longer. What are your experiences?
Jason; "View Camera' deals witha lot of hose "bigger picture'' issues. CIt's sister publication "Camera Arts' is also a fine publication.
Two books that are a great help to me are Why People Photograph by Robert Adams,<B> The Nature of Photographs</U> by Stephen Shore, and Ansel Adams; A Biography by Mary Street Alinder
Just killing a bad HTML tag </B></B></U>
B&W is excellent and there are always LF photogs in there. There are no technical details though unless the photog explicitly mentions something in their interview. Many people (I among them) have asked that they include a couple of pages at the back that gives some technicals but they insist that their audience is art collectors who are not interested in that stuff. Also, if you are selling your B&W work they have a reasonably priced display advert section at the back.
ED (zeke@idirect.com) - how do you know that the Playboy centerfold is shot with an 8x10 (or am I being gullible here-?
In one of the recent photomagazines there was na article on this and it actually showed the setup withthe lights and the 8x10, I know that in the 50's and 60's they used a deardorf 8x10, I was surprised too but was also glad to see the old 8x10 is still the favourite.I think the magazine has four different covers and says "what men really want"
I am interested in editorial photography, and will study almost anything that's on the rack. Even if the photographs were not made with an LF camera, the techniques are often the same and may give me ideas of things that I can do with camera movements.
Yesterday I bought Elle Decor and T&L Golf, "preread," for dirt cheap. I can use so many of the techniques that I've found in those, and I probably will.
In short, I have found that "non-LF" magazines can sometimes be as- or more useful for my purposes than those that are dedicated to LF photography or photography in general.
The fashion mags are great source material and they are very cheap (around $12-$15 for a 1 year subscription). Want to see what Annie Liebowitz, Herb Ritts, Irving Penn, and other big names are doing lately? Check out Vogue, Vanity Fair, Elle, etc.
Elle is actually run by a superb photographer (Gilles Bensimon) and he usually has a couple of spreads in every issue.
For a long time I was studying Annie Liebowitz' group portraits which I have always greatly admired. I was able to see her latest almost every month in these mags.
They are also a great source if you are interested in portrait lighting and composition. This is generally not LF work (usually MF) but I have learned a lot of portrait technique from them.
View Camera used to have really a fine layout. An A+. That all changed when they moved the headquarters to New Mexico. Now the layout is just an A-. If this were a government bond, the downgrading would merit a headline in the business section. New Mexico--so far from Heaven and so near to Texas. Who said that--I don't recall. Jack Dykinga has started as a regular contributor. That's great. I hear View Camera will be getting articles by David Muench soon and I look forward to that. I miss some of the former California contributors -- Gene Kennedy, St. John of Carmel, Gordon Hutchings, and Charles Farmer. View Camera reminds me of Olympic coverage: the event, the biography, and the advertising. View Camera is more about people than tools. Steve Simmons is introducing us to an extended family related by common interest rather than place name or surname. They're his kin: people with a passion, commitment, and challenge. The contributors interact with with their subject. You get a sense of what jump started, lit up, and juiced them. The magazine has a personality totally lacking in PDN, Shutterbug, or Phototechniques. There is a fair amount of creativity and original art among the contributors. Do you remember the edition where the photographer wrote about putting lilies in water, partially freezing the container, them backlighting the petals? Wow. The pluses and minuses of alternatives in solving everyday problems are well presented. A good example was the recent article comparing various color transparency films in capturing greens and oranges. The editor seems to know his readership well--the format has been basically the same since the beginning, and I assume, enjoys an ever expanding readership.
Photo-Techniques has long been my favorite. Less quasi-spiritual bullshit and more useful and enjoyable info. They've started the inevitable slide towards digital though. The kids bought me View Camera and Camera Arts for Christmas. View Camera has just (barely) enough redeeming info that it may get renewed. I doubt if Camera Arts will come 2 years in a row. Black and White is challenging for number 1 position in enjoyment. It is a feast to the idea mill. Perhaps that's because it's new to me and me to it. We're all a little fickle, and needs and interests do change.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks