View Camera magazine

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, I think its a bit unfare to judge any magazine by a single issue(BTW, I haven't gotten my View Camera yet!)Over the past five years I've been a fairly consistent View Camera reader, either by subscription or from the newsstand and I've seen many inspiring (to me)portfolios published there. Those, coupled with the technical articles keep me coming back. There is stuff in View Camera that I have little or no interest in(reviews of $30K digi backs for Sinars, for example, or portfolios I just don't "connect" with) but hey, there is a large reading audience View Camera has to cater to---readers with tastes substantially different(and more frought with error) than mine. Sorry to hear the new issue didn't "spark" any creative circuits for you, but to paraphrase Pascal, if in your collective concious had never experienced View Camera's great stuff, you wouldn't be aware of View Camera's mediocre stuff.------Cheers!

[Louie Powell]

Different strokes for different folks.

View Camera and B+W are the two magazines that I really look forward to receiving. Sometimes there are great; sometimes they are fairly pedesterian - and the key point is that I make that determination, so the difference is as much my taste as it is the judgements of the editor. I generally don't keep the magazines, but I do cut out articles that I want to retain, and I clip pictures that I find expecially inspiring.

Lenswork is nice but overpriced. I still buy it from time to time, and I keep it (mainly cuz it fits neatly on a bookshelf). I like the pictures, and some of the writing is provocative.

PhotoTechniques is good for Vestal's editorial, but otherwise is pretty boring. Won't waste money on PopPhoto, Shutterbug, Petersens, American Photo, etc.

I also occasionally buy Black & White (the UK version) - it's trying to fill the very large void created by the demise of Camera & Darkroom (also from the UK) that was well written, beautifully printed, and with substantive content. I really miss that one.

Louie

[Mark Erickson]

This is probably irrelevant, but I've lurked in rec.photo.equipment.large-format recently and I've seen the publisher of View Camera get involved in some really ugly flame wars and come disconcertingly close to violating the newsgroup charter. Yes, there is some pretty poor behavior there, but I would hope that a senior member of the large format community would stay out of the back and forth name calling wars. I know it shouldn't, but all of that stuff has kind of turned me off to the whole enterprise.

On the other hand, the lens history articles are great (thanks Kerry!) and some of the portfolios are really worth studying. Anyone else have mixed feelings like mine?

Yours in ambivalence,

[Ralph Barker]

I subscribe to VC, too, but more as a means of doing my part in convincing the manufacturers that there is still a market for large format-related products. But, I find the quality of the content to be extremely variable from month to month, with no cohesive editorial vision. The magazine also frequently suffers from insufficient editing. The number of typos, grammatical errors, and editorial blunders would be an embarrassment to any conventional publishing house. Although Kerry Thalmann's lens articles are well done, most of the product reviews are far too superficial to be of real use. There's just not enough space allocated to the articles, and insufficient editorial guidance.

In short, it's obvious that VC is a magazine published by a large format photographer who saw an unfilled niche and filled it, notwithstanding his lack of editorial knowledge or experience. I also find VC's web approach to be amateurish, at best.

Pictorially, either of the B+Ws (one published in the U.S., and the other in Australia, as I recall) eclipse VC on a consistent basis, as do "Lens Work" and several other photo magazines. But, VC is probably still worth the price of the subscription.

[tim atherton]

Spot on Doug - my feelings exactly (I'd have added most issues of DoubleTake when it was still alive)

tim

[tim atherton]

B&W is really useful for collecting Michael Smith's adverts.... which are usually the best thing in it.

And occasional intersting piece - like Jock Sturges Irish portraits, but that was about two years or three ago - most of the rest - dull as ditchwater



tim

[Frank Petronio]

View Camera would better serve us an advertising supported and volunteer written FREE web publication rather than as an overpriced and barely viable publication... After all nobody is getting rich off the thing, and online it would serve a wider community. It obviously is an advocation so why not simplify life and avoid all the traps of producing print editions?

It's always amazes me that many photographers - VC's in particular - who can be so anal about photographic details, etc. can overlook broad areas of basic graphic design, typography, reproduction quality, and most importantly, writing!

[Paul Metcalf]

I look forward to sitting in my nice comfy chair on a "non-photo" morning and looking/reading VC with hot hard nosed-java in one of my several View Camera mugs. I can't image looking at my computer for this. And I accept paying for this pleasure. And I thank Steve for taking on this challenge. And being a "largeformatphotography" forum, VC is the only dedicated mag to large format. And, yes, although not associated with VC mag in any manner (except a subscriber), this was shameless plug.

[Ryan M]

I think that VC is doing pretty good at trying to reach its demographic. From what I understand, it is on the web as well as in real life, I can touch it and spill drinks all over it and use it to swat flies. I read enough over the puter that when I do want to relax, I want to read from paper, not a screen. this is probably why I still use an organizer instead of a palm pilot for scheduling.

[Witold Grabiec]

I've already given an overall positive mark to the VC magazine earlier on. However, I've just checked out its web presence and must say it's a plain shame. If there is anyone who's not sure about the magazine, the site will make it clear ... why ever bother?. Site's basic and rough looking layout aside, the images shown could have never come from anyone who values aesthetics, that includes reproduction of their own logo. And that's from a photographic magazine. I've seen superior sites on free hosting services.