Traditional Black and White / View Camera Magazine / Kerfuffle

[steve simmons]

There is currently a discussion on the APUG forum about the lack of a good magazine for the traditional photographer in the US and why one does not/may not exist.
http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8266

Do people here agree or disagree?

If you agree what would you like to see?

steve simmons

[Bill_1856]

It's more of a diatribe than a discussion.

[steve simmons]

Try

http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=8266

steve simmons

[MIke Sherck]

I don't know that it's important to have a magazine which *only* does traditional B&W. Lenswork is a fabulous magazine, from the perspective of both articles and images, and their portfolios mix digital and darkroom work. Since the articles aren't about equipment (no Photoshop tutorials or reviews!) I don't find myself bothered by the inclusion of some digital images -- a beautiful image is a beautiful image, regardless of how it got there.

View Camera is one I'm fairly happy with. Steve does tend to run more articles about digital equipment and photoshop technique than I'm happy with, but I'm willing to ignore them because there's still enough content I am interested in to make it worth my while to buy. And many of the images are quite good.

B&W is a fine magazine, once you understand that it's market is collectors of B&W photography, not photographers. Lots of great pictures in it, well worth reading to see what's happening in the world of collectors and photographer's portfolios. I'm not into the whole 'photography collector' and gallery things myself, but I like to look at photographs and this one is loaded with them and regularly adds the names of photographers to my list of folks I'd like to see more of.

That's pretty much it for the magazines I regularly buy and read. There was another one I bought a couple of issues of from Barnes and Noble, an Australian one if I recall correctly, but the last issue I bought contained an announcement that they were going subscription only, so I haven't even been looking for it lately. It was a decent magazine but I only read a couple of issues and don't even remember the name any more. If I had to chose one to live with for the rest of my life, Lenswork would win hands down but that's a matter of personal taste, I realize, and not everyone else would agree, I'm sure. Being a traditional sort of guy who enjoys the fiddling perfectionism of large format and the sheer glee of watching a print come up in the developer I'm not likely to change to digital anything in the foreseeable future: I've spent the past 25 years as a computer programmer and after spending all day slaving over a hot keyboard the last thing I want to do is come home and boot up another box so I can participate in my 'reason for living', as my long-suffering wife calls my addition to photography. (Yeah, I do get a little grief about that... :))

I tend to avoid magazines which carry what I consider to be 'too much' emphasis on digital things, but I realize that I'm a small minority of a small minority to begin with and hard as I try I can't seem to make myself indignant about the rising digital tide. Publishers have to sell stuff or the magazines go away. Nevertheless, while I'm happier with magazines that place more emphasis (and devote more space to) darkroom-based photography, some small digital content doesn't bother me too much and I don't really feel a lack of a photography magazine which ignores it.

Mike

[steve simmons]

We've received alot of vague suggestions and to be honest when I have gone back to the people making suggestions we've frequently found that they have not looked at View Camra recently and were not really able to be very specific. One of them even told us he was unemployed and wanted to know if we would hire him.

The one worthwhile and specific comment was about proof reading and we have made a significant change. We have added an employee and her task, among many, is to proofread everything and then to send a PDF of the article back to the author before the issue goes to press as an additinal layer of proof reading. This began about 2 issues ago for each magazine - View Camera and CameraArts.

If there are more specific suggestions or article ideas please list them here in this forum or on our web site forum - www.viewcamera.com.

steve simmons

[Michael Jones]

I have to mirror the [other] Mike's comments. And if Steve now has a proof reader, all the better. Thanks.

Mike

[Diane Maher]

Although it's a UK publication, Black and White Photography is pretty good. It's not totally traditional, but there's a fair share of traditional stuff in there.

[Andrew_3677]

Steve..i've been enjoying the alternative process articles you've been running recently..please keep that series of articles going.

regards -andrew

[Robert C. McColloch]

I'm pleased to hear that a proof reader has been hired. While that is an improvement, better editing would enhance your magazine. However, choice of writers that have the capability of editing their own work could be a way to go (if they exist?). An example would the poorly written article by Bruce Barlow. I wrote you a letter about this article but got no reply.

[Bruce Watson]

I specifically don't want a magazine that limits itself to just darkroom work. I think I can learn from both sides. I like the current View Camera, for example, which covers all of photography, both "traditional" and "digital" if you will. The full range of photography is interesting, and all the players can learn from each other, I think. But maybe that's just me.

[Kirk Gittings]

While the idea of an exclusively traditonal b&w magazine is attractive. I doubt that it could survive economically. As I understand it most of the big national advertising dollars are in digital without which no photo magazine could survive. Subscriptions and small VC manufacturers alone are not enough. And you can't advertise digital without talking about it editorially too.

For myself I am more interested in traditional articles and digital articles when they deal with subjects that uphold "traditional" large format artistic and technical values. I know in the current political invironment that sounds a bit silly. What I mean is like Burkholder's work with digitally enlarged negatives printing on silver or platinum. As Newman called it at the VC Conference "tradigital" work.

[Keith Fleming]

Everyone here should re-read the reply by Robert McColloch. Too many of us gripe about "problems' with View Camera Magazine that really are not Steve's fault. Robert correctly identifies poor writing by authors as a factor. I've grumbled to myself about articles that discuss photographs that do not appear as illustrations. I stop grumbling when I recall my own experience of three years editing a magazine-format historical newsletter. Too many authors lacked the skill or discipline to "write to length." Please understand that if Steve allocates four pages to a piece, he's in a bind if the author provides too long an article. An editor just can't just add one page to an issue; it has to be four. Adding four pages to 16,000 magazine copies is a big chunk of change. That's one side of vise facing an editor--the other is the frequent demand from authors of "Don't touch MY wonderful material with your editing pencil!" Also, don't overlook the fact that adding that recent additional layer of proof-reading surely came at a cost that inevitably affected the bottom line for View Camera. Finally, the clear example for View Camera authors to follow is Kerry Thalmann--he never wastes a word, he writes clearly, he surely edits his own copy before submission, and he obviously writes exactly to length. Steve's job would be much easier if more authors did the same.

[steve simmons]

With an evident paucity of imagination at the heart of the thing, there is little that outsiders can suggest that will improve View Camera. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

This is typical of the cheap shots that are often fired our way. There is nothing that we could do to respond to this comment.

I you have something specific to say say it. If you want to fire vacuous comments such as this I will no longer respond. As I stated I periodically do contact privately our critics and more often than not the response is that they have not really looked at the magazine for awhile or can not be specific as to what they would like improved. We have responded to the concerns about proof reading. Visually I think the last issue of each magazine are the best we have done.The quality of work is outstanding and we are adding more specific tech info in many of the portfolios.

If there are photographers we should be contacting tell us. If there are tech articles you would like tell us. If there are how-to articles you would ike to see say so.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think there are a few misconceptions about this post. The magazine is not the American B&W magazine nor is it the british B&W photography. It is an Australian magazine named The Black and White enthusiast. As such it appears at one time it had a policy of presenting only non digital photography, thus the appeal to many at APUG. From what I understand the publisher has now bowed to advertizing pressures and will beguin to feature B&W digital.



As an entirely B&W magazine without regard to format (and now process as well) it is a magazine with a very different publishing and editing policy than Simmon's.

[Michael Jones]

Hoping not to start (or fan) flames that seem to be dying to erupt here, Steve asked for suggestions, not editorial direction. That any one person's desires for the direction of VC have not been addressed is ridiculous and presumptive. Assuming Steve has "an evident paucity of imagination," some people should remember that he has been publishing a niche market magazine for some 15 years that several thousand readers not only subscribe to and read, but choose to debate in public forums. Oh yes, and he put his money on the line to do that. Any other posters (myself included) doing the same for large format photography?

Lighten up and go make some photographs.

[Dean Lastoria]

Hi: I think that with View Camera, Camera Arts, and Lens Work one has a pretty good overview.

I think that View Camera lost its heart a while ago, and I stopped reading it, but it's back and better than ever. If anyone else gave up on it, they should come back. There are great articles on classic lenses that armatures like me could use, and that one on the new Cook to drool over (Boy I'd like to know what that puppy costs!). Anyhow, Mr. Simmons has put in some of the elements of the early photo magazines that I collect -- things like how to make a remote flash pistol using a Colt and twine from a 1912 magazine -- but for today of course. The article on how to use diopters was just what I want to see, and I'll read the digital junk just so I don't sound as ignorant as I am. The alternate process articles keep my eye on where I could go if I don’t fall down the digital abyss. It’s the right balance.

I really don't see why people have so many problems with View Camera -- last issue I almost subscribed! I buy it regularly but Canada Post and nice high-end magazines don't mix well. BTW, I never did see no typo’s and I’d rather have the content and nice photos than correct gerunds.

Keep up the good work, and thanks for a great magazine.

[Terence McDonagh]

I agree that the market is probably just too small. I get my fix of the traditional stuff on this site. I'm sure it's stretching the owner's/moderators' goals and time a little too far, but I'd love to see more and more content and articles added to this site. The recent articles have been great, and within reason, more could only be better. In addition to creating my own work, I'm extremely interested in older equipment and methods (both silver and alternative) and am always looking for information that I only seem to get answered here. After four years I still feel like a beginner because I keep expanding my methods (and equipment, and more equipment . . . ) so maybe some of the folks with 20 years experience can pass on their knowledge. Like how to stop or control the addiction.

To summarize: [1] Too small an audience [2] I'd love to see more info on older equipment (pre-1920's) and processes.

[Ralph Barker]

I haven't read the APUG thread, but here's what I think would make for a good magazine for "traditional" photographers. Within your context, Steve, this is somewhat split between VC and CA, but I think the concepts apply to both pubs, as the focus of each tends to split the market in a reasonable manner. (Note, too, this is essentially a summary of a pleasant phone conversation I had a few weeks ago with Tim Anderson. Note, too, this is based on years of experience as editor-in-chief and editorial director of several internationally-distributed magazines.)

1. The editorial focus of any magazine needs to be reasonably well defined, and clear to the readership. Specific editorial content (topic areas) is really best determined through a series of reader polls, designed in a fairly scientific manner, and augmented with general market research. Such surveys can be designed by the editorial staff, if they are familiar with the process, or by an editorial consultant.

Any magazine needs first to maintain the interest of subscribers, and then be attractive to the broader market it wants to attract. It is unlikely that general questions on forums of this nature will get to the level of detail that is actually helpful.

2. All members of a magazine's staff need to clearly understand general publishing and journalistic standards, the roles played by different positions in the masthead, and conform to those expectations. The "down-home" approach works for free church newsletters, but generally not for paid-subscription magazines (qualified-subscriber mags fall into a different category, but still need to conform to publishing and journalistic standards.)

3. Topics of interest to the readership (and those the magazine wishes to attract) should be published in an editorial calendar that demonstrates the depth and spread of the editorial plan. It's impossible to cover all areas of interest to the readership every month, but the calendar can show subsribers (and potential subscribers) that their areas of interest will be covered.

4. Authors, particularly those who are submitting articles at less than industry-standard pay (typically $1/word), need editorial guidance - both as to content, and as to style. Almost everyone gets edited, and authors should expect that. If what they submit doesn't pass muster, it gets rejected. Period. Only in the rarest of cases (Ansel Adams or Edward Weston coming back from the dead, for example) should a submission go unedited or unguided, and then only with a printed editorial caveat that the article is being published as-submitted due to the author's stature.

5. Product reviews should follow clear editorial guidelines and conform to published standards that will allow reader comparisons of different products reviewed at different times by different authors. The editorial guidelines can be somewhat general, but augmented by input from product-category experts, as needed. Again, the criteria should be published, so readers understand the metrics being used. Once the editorial standards have been met, the author can wax into (presumably "expert") personal opinion, but not before.

6. The content and layout needs to be reasonably predictable and "comfortable" to the readership, even though it is largely determined (unbeknownst to readers) at the last minute by ad sales. That requires a great deal of editorial pre-planning, and a lot of advance coordination with authors, along with having a flexible pool of content - both in terms of articles and house ads. (Hey, if it were easy, anyone with a few $million could start a magazine. ;-) )

Hope this helps.

[jantman]

Aside from the Internet as a whole, View Camera has done more for my interest in LF than any other resource. It is a great magazine, the only one that I've found which is dedicated to Large Format, and it does a lot, as far as I can tell, to keep the LF world together. I'm very happy with Steve's work, and read every issue of VC and CA, as well as keeping them around for reference. At the moment, I'm very interested to read more about masking and apply it in my darkroom (latest issue of VC).

I'm very thankful for Steve's work and generosity to the LF community. I am also very much looking forward to attending the next VC conference.

The only thing which I could mention as a downfall of VC is the proof reading, and this has been getting better. It's good that Steve addressed that.

Lastly, I would just like to say that Mr' Simmons' availability, here on the forums and via email, is very much appreciated, and enjoyed. I always enjoy hearing the off-the-cuff comments of someone who is not only a big name in the LF world, but also I generally only "hear" (read) in a magazine, where things are a bit more formal.

Thanks for everything, Steve.

[Brian Ellis]

"I am very thankful for Steve's . . . generosity to the large format community."

You are aware of the fact that Steve's magazines, workshops, and conference are commercial, not charitable, ventures right? Exactly what "generosity" did you have in mind?

Saying that Steve's various ventures are "commercial" isn't intended as a knock on them at all, there's certainly nothing wrong with making money from large format photography as Steve does. I like View Camera magazine, I've been a subscriber for many years, and if Steve is making profits from it more power to him. It's just that I don't see Sinar, Linhof, Jobo, or any other commercial ventures that sell products to the large format community being praised for their "generosity" and I don't know why Steve should be praised for his since AFAIK generosity isn't the guiding spirit behind any of them(nor should it be).

[John Kasaian]

IMHO, View amera, Camera Arts, B&W and Lenswork do a pretty good job covering traditional B&W though they are not 100% dedicated to traditional photography. While I honestly don't have a clue as to whether traditional B&W enthusiasts would support a 100% traditional B&W publication, I suspect such a magazine would be an annual or quarterly at the most and have to be of such quality as to be unforgettable between publication dates in order to survive (which as Mr Simmons pointed out, didn't work for Anchell!) OTOH, the excellent traditional B&W coverage in the mags we read goes a long way in promoting the genre among our digitized bros & sis's thus avoiding the "preaching to the choir" issue that tends to lead to forgettable reading. My 2-cents.

[Kirk Keyes]

While I know this is kind of hijacking the thread to be about View Camera Magazine, I would also like to add that I am glad to hear that steps have been taken to improve proof-reading. I have emailed Steve a couple of times over the years about it, usually when ever I see the word "Linhoff" on the cover.

As others have pointed out, budgets are limited, and so I do limit my photo mag purchases. The only ones I subscribe to are Photo Techniques and View Camera. Occasionally I buy Camera Arts (2 or less per year) or rarely a Lenswork (1 every couple of years) on the newsstand.

I enjoy the technical articles most - not so much new gadgets like digital printers and cameras which seem to be here today - gone tomorrow, but ones about lenses, films, and darkroom techniques. Articles on other photographers are occasionally interesting, but not always.

I don't find articles on Photoshop techniques interesting at all these days - there are specialty magazines that are just loaded with that info as well as book, and many web sites for which to get this type of info.

I'm not interested in magazines like the American B&W - it is geared toward selling photos to and from galleries. The French Photo mag is old. My impression of the English mags are they do have lots of how-to's, but they are usually so basic that I'm not willing to pay for them. Especially when it cost $10 or so for 3 pages of info.

I do want to say that I find View Camera to be very readable - the layout is nice, things aren't too crammed together and there is space on the page, the printing quality is generally good. The only layout issue I can think of is the article where you were shooting in the trainyard and had the panoramic photos printed vertically on the page. It was OK for the photos, but I found it hard to read the text. But that was a special circumstance.

Steve - in reference to Ralph's suggestions above, you should put a reader survey page on your web site - maybe have pages for the last 3 issues and rotate out old ones with new issues. I know it is not scientific, but it would give both you and us a form to supply you with easily readable feeback. Do the "rank each article from 1-5" with a small field for comments on each article. I know you may not get many replies, but at least it give the readers some direction in the style or type of feeback you are looking for. Put a little blub in each issue reminding readers to fill it out. Also, put it in the "free" section so newsstand readers can access it too (or subscribers like myself that immediately throw the plastic cover in the garbage and loose their access code...)

Kirk

[steve simmons]

In the discussion forum on our web site we do have a section for commentary on our content. We have the same for CameraArts.

www.viewcamera.com

www.cameraarts.com

steve simmons

[steve simmons]

PS

I have printed out all of the comments from this thread and passed them around the office. I appreciate the time people are taking and we are listening and discussing.

thanks

steve

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

John, you ae correct, the B&W enthusiast magazine is a quaterly issue, but you missed the mark on the quality. The magazine has very good quality, at least IMO:

[QT Luong]

To echo Brian's comment about "generosity", note that the policy of View Camera is not to pay for published photographs. On the other hand, in the first contest they organized, although the prizes were sponsored, you had to pay a substantial fee to submit photographs, and were not guaranteed the return of your submissions (correct me if I remember wrong, it was several years ago). For reference, in this first half-year alone I've turned down two requests from magazines that wanted to do a full feature on me with unpaid image usage. View Camera is a good magazine, however it could be argued that its strength is more reflective of the strength of the Large Format community than from the strength of its editorial direction.

[steve simmons]

Mr. Luong;

If you would like to buy this magazine and run it correctly then please do so. You have benefitted greatly from my generosity in the last year or so and your attitude sucks. We did the article on you as a peace offering because of prior conflicts we've had. Yes Kerry wrote the article, as you reminded me more than once but I gave the approval for his doing so. Yes, it is our mission to run articles on photographers doing interesting work. However, we turn down many more people than we accept every year. We also listed your personal web site. We have not paid anyone for doing an article about them. You were treated the same as all previous and subsequent subjects. People far more notable than you have not had a problem with our policy but you seem to need to remind me privately every so often and now make a public issue out of it. I also invited you to the conference as a way of trying to include you. You again reminded me that you weren't given a free room for a one day trip down and back. I knew you would promote your site here and you did according to several people who reported to me about your activities during your talk. I have promoted this site at APUG and on the AOL large format rec group. Again all you can do is be sour. Well live sour and feel bitter and used.

As for the topic of my generosity if you think VC is a get rich quick scheme then buy it and get rich quick. Show me another mag publisher who spends time on these groups answering questions for people. Go ahead. Yes, I do refer people to free articles on my web site because the articles there are far more complete than a quick type answer that is given in this type of forum. If you have a problem with this then start providing the same range of complete answers as we do on our site. These are not just come ons but comlete articles that we think will be helpful to people interested in getting involved in lf photography.

The world is best when there is a give and take. I have tried to make you part of this give and take and you continue to be bitter - or so it seems.

steve simmons

[Kirk Gittings]

"it could be argued that its strength (View Camera Magazine) is more reflective of the strength of the Large Format community than from the strength of its editorial direction"

I also think that the opposite may be true-that the strength of the Large Format community may be due in part to the long term commitment that Steve has made to the promotion and education of LF. I know about this forum because of Steve and I am familiar with QT Luong's images only through VC magazine. There is great value potentially in the exposure of being published in VC. I personally have benefited from that exposure.

View Camera was the second magazine to publish a portfolio of mine (The Journal of American Photography was the first-remember that?), and I am very grateful for that. It helped my career alot. And the articles on my class at the Art Institute of Chicago have helped to recruit students and raised my stock as an instructor. View Camera is the only magazine that I have let use my images for free over the years (6 articles/portfolios, I think). I consider it something that I give back to the community and to VC and Steve, who I think has served this community pretty well. Steve does make a living doing this but he certainly is not getting rich off of our backs. he could make alot more money doing a different kind of magazine like a home or architecture magazine. Steve used to be an architectural photographer. I think Steve does this because he loves it and it provides an adequate living. I know the heads of many "non-profits" that make far more than Steve.

[QT Luong]

Mr Simmons, unlike you, I have not tried to bring out in the public personal gripes that I would have with you, and I prefer not do so, although I think what would come out would be vastly more damaging to you than to me (FYI, I have a complete record of my email correspondence, and there very little that I am ashamed of). I have just stated two facts that can be checked by everybody. The same cannot be said of your allegations. I could easily refute each of them since you didn't even try to reply to any of the points I made in the rebuttals I wrote to you in private. However, as I said, unless you continue to provoke me, I do not wish to engage in this kind of debate in public.

I appreciate and acknowledge the efforts you had made to "make peace", however, my perception from the emails you sent me is that, as a result, you seemed to expect some kind of special treatment which I don't think would be fair. If you find that participating in this forum is worthy of your time, then you have to accept the actions of the moderators.

[Paul Butzi]

This forum was created by Tuan, exists only because of Tuan's generous and completely unpaid efforts, and is now the only decent online community where LF stuff is discussed. Rec.photo.equipment.large-format used to be worthwhile, but when Steve Simmons found it and used it to spam for his magazine and other commercial ventures, it went into the rat-hole, just as the forum on compuserve did when Steve appeared.

It's ironic that Steve is using this forum to attack Tuan.

It's probably worth noting that Steve has done nothing to refute what Tuan says - he's leapt immediately to the ad hominem attack. I think we can safely conclude that Tuan is perfectly accurate, that it's his accuracy that pisses Steve off, and that if there's anyone who's engaging in 'being bitter' it's not Tuan.

Frankly, I'm amazed that Steve continues to be permitted to post here. Haven't we had enough of his petulant whining and abusive attacks like this one?

Steve has his own forum on the View Camera website. Let him go play there, and let the rest of us get on with discussing large format photography instead of the endless arguing about whatever topic Steve feels obliged to raise to produce yet another thread that will promote his magazine.

[Dean Lastoria]

I totally miss the point of attacking SS?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Oh brother, on request by QT I have tried to stay away from responding to Simmons, but this last post just takes the cake. I have no idea what transpired between QT and Simmons, all I can say here is my experience and what I have seen.

I sent my prints to the British B&W photography magazine, they published 3 prints and sent back to me my prints and a check for 100 pounds sterling.

Lenswork will pay $100 for submissions that are accepted. It is on their submissions guidelines.

The Australian magazine B&W Enthusiast also compensates the photographer, depending on the images published.

Granted, none of these are amounts that will make anybody rich, but is nice to know that SOME photography magazines appreciate the fact that their success is due in great part to the photographers that participate in it and that they make a token gesture to acknowledge this.

I was a moderator at APUG for one year, since then I am still very active in that forum and not once have seen Simmons promote the LF forum at APUG. I have seen, on the other hand, frequent promotions for his magazine and now his Forum. As a matter of fact it was QT and his gracious help in allowing me to post the creation of APUG in this site when I contacted and asked him if I could that it was of great help at the beginning of the site. At the beginning of APUG, Simmons had agreed to sponsor the site by paying $20 a month for a banner, after 6 months there was no payments for the banner citing "problems" with his credit card. Since then Simmons has stated that he has reached an agreement with the owner of the APUG site, since I am no longer intimately involved with APUG I have no idea if this is true or not, all I can recount is my first hand personal experience. Bottom line, QT was far more helpful to APUG ( a competing site as it were) than Simmons ever was, and I suspect it is the same for the LF site.

The wealth of articles contained in the LFinfo site is far greater, of greater depth and help to anybody than the few articles contained in the VC forum. Currently there are 66 articles in the LFinfo site to 10 in the VC site. Of the 10 articles presently in the VC site, many are of debatable use to anybody but the newest beginner in the LF community.

Recently QT asked Simmons to refrain from posting general links to his site and specially his forum, in spite of this Simmons chose to once more add his advertisement on this thread.

I might be wrong, but the only one profiting from VC, the workshops and conferences is Simmons, nobody else! Not only does he choose to ignore this but continues to abuse the generosity of QT and many others that allow him to post his advertisements in their forums for free.

Seems to me actions speak louder than words, and as such, I dont see why Simmons is offended.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Steve has his own forum on the View Camera website. Let him go play there



The problem is that nobody seems to want to go play with him. Cant say I blame them.

[Bob._3483]

"I totally miss the point of attacking SS?"

Me too Dean - but then I read his outgrageous attack on QTL above and now I am beginning to wonder...

Methinks someone needs to take that shovel away from Mr Simmons before he digs himself so deep he disappears from sight entirely - and yes, I know some would consider that a consumation devoutly to be wish'd ;-) ...

Cheers,

[QT Luong]

For the record, there are more than 250 web pages on the static part of the site (not 60) and the forum in its current form exists mainly thanks to the efforts of Tom Westbrook (not me).

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

For the record, there are more than 250 web pages on the static part of the site (not 60)



Well, I just went to the main page and counted how many links you had there.....but heck, it reinforces my point even more...no?

[Conrad Hoffman]

I'm pretty happy with View Camera. Though my interest is mostly film, and mostly monochrome, I don't mind seeing a decent digital image. What I really want to see is anything and everything that people are doing with large format. Even if it isn't my cup of tea, you can't learn anything if you only look at things in your comfort zone. One thing that does bother me is that the last few times I've gone looking for the magazine at Borders (my only nearby large bookstore), they haven't had it.

[steve simmons]

from Butzi

"It's probably worth noting that Steve has done nothing to refute what Tuan says..."

from Mr. Luong

To echo Brian's comment about "generosity", note that the policy of View Camera is not to pay for published photographs

from my response

We have not paid anyone for doing an article about them. You were treated the same as all previous and subsequent subjects.

I responded this way because Mr. Luong has privately complaigned to me at our not paying him when we did the article on him. It was a direct response.

from Mr.l Luong

"pay a substantial fee to submit photographs"

Our usual contest fees have been $25 for the first entry and a sliding scale downwards for additional entries. Students paid less. In the case of the second contest we hired our intern for the Summer to handle the contest. We paid her from the money we collected fom the entrants. We asked people who wanted their material returned to send along return packging and postage. We even returned photographs to those who did not provide the packaging and postage. Many photo contests do not return the entries. We carefully told people in the earlier contest not to send one of a kind images and we judged many copy slides/prints/transparencies.

Jorge seems to feel the need to frequenty bring up the botched sponsorship of APUG. I have answered this many times by saying that the moderator and I have discussed this situation and are mutually comfortable with what happened. Jorge even admitted to not bothering to check this out . If he did he might lose this issue to bash me. CameraArts in the June 03 and April 04 issues gave a plug to APUG in the publisher's statement on page 2.

from Jorge "I might be wrong, but the only one profiting from VC, the workshops and conferences is Simmons, nobody else!"

Then why do people keep subcribing and coming? W received many complints about both of our conferences. Unless you have polled all of the attendees you have no basis for making ths remark.

Butzi took me to task a week or so ago for my discusion forum. If he had checked, maybe he did and did not admit doing so, he would have seen that we have a registration agreement that is very similar to that of APUG's site. He did not challenge them as far as I know. He then went on to say that I make a living, or charge money, by taking material about lf and then charging for it. We do not take anything. We either create it or make a arrangment with the creator. This was a cheap inuendo that he cannot substantiateand never responded to when challenged.

Inerestingly enough this thread was progressing nicely until Jason made his complimentary remark (no I am not blaming him for the downhill slide). There was a clean give and take. But as soon as he said something the predictable people came out of the woodwork and began their cheap shots.

If someone came on a forum I was moderating and took a cheap shot at a participant that had nothing to do with cameras, lenses, etc. I would delete it out of respect for the poster . I you want to call this censorship that is fine. There are any more people listening here than participate and one of the reasons is that they do not want to get dragged in to a war of abuse.

[QT Luong]

Since Mr Simmons keeps misrepresenting my writing in a way that questions my character, I must affirm that unlike what he would like you to believe, I did not "complain" about the the lack of payment. As I understood it, Mr Simmons point was that he had been generous with me and therefore expected reciprocity on my part. I simply pointed out that since the publication, as well as my participation to his conference were unpaid, this somehow undermined the claim of generosity.

Mr Simmons would like you to believe that I "seem to need to remind [him] privately every so often" of the payment issue, but I have make this remark privately only once.
His other allegations are equally baseless and would not pass close examination.

I am of course grateful for the exposure. Maybe he should be grateful for the material. It is my opinion that one of the reasons why VC magazine has been doing fine is that there are a number of very talented photographers like Kirk who were willing to do for VC magazine what they wouldn't have done for other publications. This illustrates what was meant by my remark about the community.
Take and give, indeed.

What Mr Simmons didn't realize is that by deleting his posting, instead of failing to "reciprocate", I was doing him a service, since this postings did not reflect positively on him, as evidenced by the several emails and replies I saw that complaned about this posting in this, and other forums.

Mr Simmons seems to complain about a "war of abuse" every so often, but he should note that my comment in this thread was done in a factual and professional tone, while he responded with an angry character assassination that I don't even wish to completely address in this reply.

I would have normally deleted such a comment and spared you this kerfuffle, but since it was directed towards me, I did not want to give the impression I would use moderator discretion to silence a critic. Since I did not
delete Mr Simmons comment although it is possibly the most offensive, fairness prevents me from deleting the follow-up. I am sorry for the uncomfort caused to all

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge seems to feel the need to frequenty bring up the botched sponsorship of APUG. I have answered this many times by saying that the moderator and I have discussed this situation and are mutually comfortable with what happened. Jorge even admitted to not bothering to check this out . If he did he might lose this issue to bash me. CameraArts in the June 03 and April 04 issues gave a plug to APUG in the publisher's statement on page 2.



Nope, I have never admited to that, I said I did not know what subsequently happened. Please do not put words in my mouth, you are not qualified. On the issue of giving a plug in Camera Arts, well, do you call your credit card company and tell them: "sorry I did not pay you, but I will put a plug for you in my magazines"? I am sure Sean decided that something was better than nothing. At the time you gave your plugs APUG was very well stablished and growing in popularity. I mention this so that people can make a judgement on your veracity. Also, if you go to APUG and click on your name, you will get a screen that searches for all the posts you have made there, would you please provide a link for us where you promoted the LF forum at APUG?



Then why do people keep subcribing and coming? W received many complints about both of our conferences. Unless you have polled all of the attendees you have no basis for making ths remark.



This has nothing to do with the fact that you are the only one profiting from the magazines, conferences and workshops you advertise here for free. Once again you fail to respond to the facts and make up a totally incoherent and unrelated response. What does a poll have to do with the fact YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE MAKING PROFIT FROM THIS ACTIVITIES?



By the way, I notice you very conveniently glossed over and ignored my comment about those magazines that do compensate photographers. You have gotten a free ride for many years, I hope those photographers and writers that participate in your magazine wake up and realize there are other magazines that appreciate their efforts and compensates them, even if it is a token amount.



If someone came on a forum I was moderating and took a cheap shot at a participant that had nothing to do with cameras, lenses, etc. I would delete it out of respect for the poster .



It is a credit to QT that he did not delete the cheap shot you took at him. You are quick to receive the fawning praise, but bridle at anybody that dares critize you or post a dissenting opinion. I am sure you would delete all those opinions that do not agree with you. Perhaps this is the reason for the utter failure of your forum and your need to come and advertise it here and at APUG. One would think that you would be greatful that you are still allowed to post questions about your magazine here, specially since the same question in your forum only elicited 2 responses.



Butzi took me to task a week or so ago for my discusion forum. If he had checked, maybe he did and did not admit doing so, he would have seen that we have a registration agreement that is very similar to that of APUG's site.



He does not have to check, he asked you a direct question in this forum and you were unable to answer it. He very clearly stated that he will not particpate in APUG because of the terms of use, what did you expect him to do? go to APUG and say: "I wont post here because I dont like your TOS"? I assure you Paul is not that dumb (not to imply that you are a little dumb Paul).



Once again, you have managed to come to this forum, and make this about you and your magazine. People at Usenet have woken up and ignore you, people at APUG no longer tolerate your incesant advertising and immediately jump on your case, perhaps it is time you ask yourself why is this?

[Michael Jones]

Gosh, this looks a lot like the times when someone asks a question about a Linhof camera, it get debated with various degrees of reality and then when Bob Solomon posts the correct answer, he gets jumped for advertising.

If people in commercial ventures in the large format niche do not make an adequate profit, they cease operations. They are several Agfa and Kodak products I miss; possibly others in this thread do, too. The point is, all this is give and take. Reread Kirk's post. Much of the promotion of photography is unpaid. Serve on the board of an arts council. You'll discover the bulk of your unpaid time is spent raising money, promoting your cause and finding some way, any way, to get your group before the public. The quid pro quo is that you get to meet other artists and learn from them.

By the way, Steve has offered to sell VC to QT; I'm sure he'd sell it to anyone else in this thread. Why not take it off his hands so you can control its editorial content and figure out how to make a living?

Vote with your pocketbook, not your mouth or fingers. As a protest, we can all go read the other large format magazine. Oh, I forgot, there isn't one...

Lighten up and go photograph, people.

Mike

[steve simmons]

from Jorge

"Since then Simmons has stated that he has reached an agreement with the owner of the APUG site, since I am no longer intimately involved with APUG I have no idea if this is true or not,..."

You could send an e-mail and find out. The only risk is that you would lose an issue to bash me.

steve

[Martin Patek-Strutsky]

In my opinion Bob Salomon has found a respectable way to have his business goals in mind and at the same time make real contributions to forums like this. Others could learn from this.

Just posting pseudo news and surveys every few days is maybe not the smartest way for gaining or keeping credibility...

[Ralph Barker]

Martin - I agree with your point. Bob is "THE Answer Guy" for Linhof- and Rodenstock-related questions, and contributes (dare I say) generously to various forums through his answers to those questions, quickly providing information that is tough to find elsewhere on the Net. Apparently, he has found that the best way to accomplish his marketing objectives is to respect the practices and customs, as well as the people, of the communities in which he participates. Thus, he contributes only where appropriate, and does so in the appropriate manner, allowing the marketing element to be subtle. Everyone knows who Bob is, what he does, and what he distributes. He recognizes that there is no need to trumpet that at every opportunity.

[Paul Butzi]

Simmons writes:

<a name="523629">



Butzi took me to task a week or so ago for my discusion forum. If he had
checked, maybe he did and did not admit doing so, he would have seen that we
have a registration agreement that is very similar to that of APUG's site.
He did not challenge them as far as I know.


</a>

This is tiresome.&nbsp;



What I actually said was that, unlike photo.net, apug.org, and this forum,
there was no document that explained the details of copyright ownership, etc. of
material that contributors post to your forum.&nbsp; I'm not discussing the
registration agreement, which (at least when I registered) did not discuss
intellectual property rights but instead had a lot of stuff about no personal
attacks, etc.&nbsp; I'd go and check it now, but your forum seems to be
inaccessible.



What I actually was discussing was quite clear, incidentally, since I quoted
directly from the terms of service agreements for photo.net, apug.org, and this
forum.&nbsp; I suggested that, until the terms of service regarding intellectual
property rights to material submitted to your forum are made both clear and
explicit. that people might want to refrain from participating in your forum,
and I stand by those words.&nbsp; I also suggested that you are placing yourself
at risk by not making those terms of service explicitly - and I stand by that as
well.&nbsp; Beyond that, I suggest that, of the forums I mentioned (this one,
apug.org, photo.net, and yours) only photo.net actually met the standards for
claiming the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA in the event of a dispute over
the ownership of material posted on the forum, and I suggest that you (and also
this forum and apug.org) ought to remedy that asap.



Your response was a vaguely worded statement in a posting on THIS forum&nbsp;
that you wouldn't take things without the writer's permission.&nbsp; Naturally,
this assurance has no legal standing, since there was nothing to link your
assurance here to anything on your website.&nbsp; My recollection was that you
also stated that you'd have your legal people check into what ought to go on the
website, or something to that effect.



And now you state that I did not 'challenge' them as far as you know.&nbsp;
It's not a matter of 'challenge', really.&nbsp; I that people might be holding
back from participating in your forum until such a time as the legal
arrangements are made clear - I've made it clear that this is my opinion, and
I've made it abundantly clear that I expect that people are capable of making
their own decisions.&nbsp; In any case, it's a trivial matter to clear up.&nbsp;
Just post a link to the relevant text on your website, and we can all read it
and judge for ourselves.&nbsp; The links to the agreements on this forum,
apug.org, and photo.net are:




http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/help.html#tou (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/help.html#tou)




http://www.apug.org/forums/faq.php?faq=legal#faq_new_faq_item (http://www.apug.org/forums/faq.php?faq=legal#faq_new_faq_item)



http://www.photo.net/terms-of-use



As for the legal liability and exposure to a lawsuit that you're risking by
not making the terms of service explicit and not meeting the requirements of the
DMCA safe harbor provisions - that's your problem, not mine.&nbsp; Any
responsibility I might have felt has long since been discharged when took the
time to point it out to you.&nbsp; What you do now is your own responsibility.&nbsp;
I'd like to say that I'd feel sad if you got sued, but I admit that an
embarrassingly broad schadenfreude experience is more likely.

<a name="523629">



He then went on to say that I make a living, or charge money, by taking
material about lf and then charging for it. We do not take anything. We
either create it or make a arrangment with the creator. This was a cheap
inuendo that he cannot substantiateand never responded to when challenged.


</a>

Actually, what I said was that you make a living turning text about large
format photography into money.&nbsp; That's basically the business model of a
magazine that focuses on large format photography, after all.&nbsp; I made this
statement in the context of pointing out that you, of all people, can be
expected to understand the importance explicit, carefully worded agreements on
intellectual property rights.&nbsp; After all, we might reasonably excuse a mere
amateur photographer if he is a bit vague on copyright law, but it's not
unreasonable to expect that the publisher of two magazines would be conversant
with the relevant intellectual property law.



To claim that this was a 'cheap inuendo' [sic] is so wide of the mark that it
borders on comedy.&nbsp; I never said you 'take' anything without compensation,
so it's interesting that you interpreted my words in that way.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I have yet to see Bob Solomon advertise anything on these forums. Sure, sometimes when he answers he will state he has the required parts/equipment/lens that the particular person is asking about. But this is usually done after he has taken the time to answer the question thoroughly. And in fact, this rarely happens. Post a question about a Linhof Technika III and you will get an answer, even thought they are not sold or made anymore.



In contrast, Simmons never fails to make a plug for his magazine without answering any questions. I have only seen him answer a question without plugging his magazine and forum once, the rest of the time goes something like this: "At VC web site we have a free article." or "Visit our web site and we have many articles that will answer...". The sad part is that the free articles are not very good.



As to buying the magazine, that is a cop out, if he does not want to hear crtizism then he should not invite it. Every 6 months we get a "poll" where to hold the conference, which result with him holding it wherever he wants. This is his prerrogative, but why ask then? Every two months we get the "what would you like to read in VC?" As long as there are praises and "good" opinions, he is happy, the moment someone makes a small critique, he responds in DEFCON 1 mode and bashes the post, and then he complaints of being harrased and bashed.



My question to you Michael is: Dont you ever wonder why, at any forum he particpates, he causes so much animosity? It used to be fun to goad him, not any longer, even I who got a kick out of this have grown tired. I beleive Paul had it right. Simmons has created a forum for his personal use, if he beleives that QT is unfair and his attitude "sucks" well then I suggest he limits his particpation in the web to his forum. I am sure he will find it a more pleasant environment for him and consequently for many of us. Those who wish to make an opinion or comment can contact him there, those of us who wish to have nothing to do with him and are tired of reading about how wonderful his magazine is, will not longer have to do so. IMO this is a win, win situation for everbody.

[Paul Butzi]

from Jorge

"Since then Simmons has stated that he has reached an agreement with the
owner of the APUG site, since I am no longer intimately involved with APUG I
have no idea if this is true or not,..."



You could send an e-mail and find out. The only risk is that you would
lose an issue to bash me.



steve


</a>

Actually, that's not the only risk.&nbsp; When I attempted&nbsp; to discuss a
disagreement with you via email with you,&nbsp; I got subjected to a stream of
harassing email which didn't stop until I contacted your ISP asking that they
force you to stop.

[Michael Jones]

Jorge:

“Dont [sic] you ever wonder why, at any forum he participates, he causes so much animosity? It used to be fun to goad him…”

Not really. Even a nice dog gets mean when you kick him enough.

If posters cannot remember the comments directed at Bob for his responding, they are showing their age (or lack thereof). I'm sure if we wait a few days, we can find a Ron-baiting thread. And frankly, those seem to be un-moderated, despite the venom. But what’s the point?

This little world we call large format has all sorts of personalities, but it’s still a very small world that we have chosen to participate in. Like other areas of life, not everyone gets along with everyone else. However, when it’s the circle you chosen to inhabit, you don’t goad people who have made, and continue to make, valuable contributions into a corner and attempt to force them out. Frankly, they may have been here first and have “squatter’s” rights (and I am not talking specifically about this forum, which is a small part of the small large format world) pre-dating your rights. Eventually you will decide that you don’t have enough time to goad behavior (remember, we want to photograph) and that this is a very small world we have chosen to inhabit. You will find that you come across these people again and you can decide whether you have grown or whether they may have something still to impart to you. What goes around comes around.

In America, you can speak your piece (and so can the other guy) and as I said earlier, vote with your wallet.

Mike

[Kirk Gittings]

Is anything ever accomplished by one of these exchanges? Does anyone benefit? Is anything resolved? Does anyone feel better? I think not.

What I do know is that some people, who have contacted me by private email, get very intimidated by these exchanges and hesitate to participate in this forum in any way shape or form for fear of being dumped on. They think we are all nuts! I will share a couple of these anonomously (sp?) if people want. How does this help anyone? Is this the image we want to project? What do you get out of it?

Frankly, I think this is a stain on the LF community and people should be ashamed.

Everyone back to their corners. The match is called for reasons of blatant incivility.

[Ralph Barker]

Is anything ever accomplished by one of these exchanges?

Not really, but I think everyone keeps hoping.

Does anyone benefit?

One individual might, if he paid attention.

Is anything resolved?

Apparently not, because the abuses of forum guidelines and/or social and professional standards that usually prompt these exchanges have been going on for years, and the individual for whom the comments and suggestions are intended doesn't seem to "get it".

Does anyone feel better?

Perhaps. Some of the frustration that people have built up over the years may be relieved. At least until the next flagrant violation of guidelines takes place and those who are attempting to provide useful input are accused of taking cheap shots.

I suspect most people recognize that the only time this, and various other LF-related forums lapse into incivility is in response to yet another ad or in response to a personal attack from this one individual. Strange, indeed.

[Brian Ellis]

"What I do know is that some people, who have contacted me by private email, get very intimidated by these exchanges and hesitate to participate in this forum in any way shape or form for fear of being dumped on."

What did you tell them? I hope you said something to the effect that nobody here will "dump" on them for asking anything about large format photography equipment, materials, or practice. I hope you also told them that the people who participate here are generous in sharing their knowledge and almost always respond politely to any question no matter how basic the question may be, even when the question has been asked many times before and when the answer could easily have been found in the archives. In fact it would have been a good idea for you to refer them to the archives so that they could see for themselves how legitimate questions get answered and could see that people who ask questions about large format photography almost never get "dumped on."

Having responded along those lines (I hope), you perhaps went on to tell them that this isn't a commercial forum where products are promoted by people in the business of selling them but rather is a forum for the discussion of large format photography. You could have explained that if their plan in participating here is to ask "questions" that relate to their own commercial ventures, or if they consistently respond to questions by others in a manner such that they are perceived as using the forum to promote their commercial ventures, they may very well hear some criticism.

[Sal Santamaura]

"...some people...get very intimidated by these exchanges and hesitate to participate in this forum in any way shape or form for fear of being dumped on."

They shouldn't be intimidated at all. I suggest they simply don't post in threads of this nature. Participating in other largeformatphotography.info forum threads -- that actually relate to large format photography instead of resembling bar brawls -- is an excellent way to learn and share. I can't recall when, during the course of discussion on *photography*, anyone has been 'dumped on.' In my opinion, the expertise this community offers is unavailable from any other Web forum or site.

[Kirk Gittings]

Brian,

Believe me, the level of knowlegde alone on this forum is intimidating to some people. If you add to it some person inadvertantly popping into one of the Steve/Jorge discussions initially. You can see the problem.

Here is a fragment of one such email "Thanks for your response in the Large Format Photography forum. I troll around there, Photo.net and now View Camera's forums, but usually stay out of the discussions. People can be kind of tough over the internet." He goes on to mention the SS postings and how vicious those threads can become.

But I usually try to tell them the obvious. That this is not representative of the forum as a whole or even the true nature (I actually believe this) of these individuals. There is some weird chemistry at times here (PYRO MAKES YOU CRAZY). But that if you ask an honest, even naive, or stupid question, people generally treat you with respect and try to help you out.

Brian, I have seen you give great, even brilliant, help to people (Jorge too)here but.............when it comes to Steve I think you should bite your lip and go for a walk. And also I have taught many workshops with Steve and have never experienced what you did. The same is true of others here. you try to provoke him because you know you can. But what is accomplished? Steve has made a huge and lasting contribution to LF that I doubt anyone can take away. Can he be difficult? Does the pope wear............

Look I have known Steve since VC started. He has all the flaws that most humans have, but I have never had a cross word with him. Disagreements yes, animated and profound yes. But I experience him completely differently than some of you do. To me he is a great guy, a lousy fly fisherman and opinionated but very knowledgeable and full of humor. To me he is one of the legendary people of this business that I have had the great pleasure to meet and get to know like Muench or Ansel (a little bit) or Robert Adams or Edward Abbey or Beaumont Newhall and many other people. To me he is a living legend.

I think that I have a great track record as an instructor, but at a party one time a young man came up to me a little drunk and started yelling at me that I was a terrible teacher and had unfairly given him a bad grade. I barely even remembered him and frankly I am an easy grader so if he got a bad grade he must have really deserved it. Anyway if that guy ever found this forum he would attempt to tear me to shreds publically. One guy out of maybe a thousand students from university classes and workshops and I could look like a complete jerk.

What is to be gained from all of this? Yeah let's destroy View Camera so that what? We can have no magazine. Lets destroy this forum too. There are two sides to this problem

[Paul Butzi]

Kirk writes:

<a name="523698">


Brian,

Believe me, the level of knowlegde alone on this forum is intimidating to
some people. If you add to it some person inadvertantly popping into one of
the Steve/Jorge discussions initially. You can see the problem.


</a>

Yes.&nbsp; Perhaps instead of trying to dissuade Brian (and Jorge, and QT
Luong, and me, and others) you should, instead, turn the thing around.&nbsp;
Who, exactly, is the common element in virtually EVERY such kerfuffle?&nbsp;
Steve Simmons.&nbsp; Does the fact that he, alone, is the common element in all
the acrimonious threads not even give you pause?



When a new large format photographer shows up here, and sees the editor of
View Camera engaging in the sort of vitriolic personal assaults we've seen from
Steve, what will he/she think?&nbsp; Perhaps he'll think "Jeez, if that's what
the Head Honcho in large format is all about, maybe I'll go digital instead."&nbsp;
For sure, he's not going to subscribe to View Camera.&nbsp; Is that a win or
loss for large format photography?



You can get me to shut up.&nbsp; You can get Brian to shut up.&nbsp; You can
probably even get Jorge and Tuan to shut up.&nbsp; But as long as Steve Simmons
continues to act the way he does, you're going to have the same problem.&nbsp;
And the reason is that every single time someone has the nerve to contradict
what Steve Simmons says, or even goes so far as to take him at his word when he
asks for suggestions, Simmons is going to pull out the flame thrower. And then
you'll find yourself asking yet another person to shut up, when they respond to
Steve's assault.&nbsp; How many times does this pattern have to repeat before
Steve Simmons and the people who support him wake up and see the pattern?



If you don't believe me, go back and read the (now multitudinous) threads in
the various forums where Steve has solicited opinions on how to improve View
Camera Magazine.&nbsp; See if you can find even one thread where Simmons doesn't
erupt into some sort of flame because someone actually had the nerve to offer
real, constructive suggestions?

<a name="523698">



Brian, I have seen you give great, even brilliant, help to people (Jorge
too)here but.............when it comes to Steve I think you should bite your
lip and go for a walk. And also I have taught many workshops with Steve and
have never experienced what you did. The same is true of others here. you
try to provoke him because you know you can. But what is accomplished? Steve
has made a huge and lasting contribution to LF that I doubt anyone can take
away. Can he be difficult? Does the pope wear............


</a>

Honestly, I think it would be far more appropriate for you to attempt to
teach Simmons to mind his manners and mend his ways.&nbsp; Let me explain why -
back when Steve first appeared on the rec.photo.equipment.large-format
newsgroup, I was one of the people who was enthusiastic about his presence
there.&nbsp; "Sure, he posts the occasional ad, but he's a valuable
contributor", I wrote in response to one of the people who complained about his
ads.&nbsp; And then, one day, I took a look at the entire set of posts Simmons
had made, and they were ALL ads.&nbsp; Every single damn one.&nbsp; There was no
'valuable contribution'.&nbsp; So I changed my mind, posted a note saying that I
thought that Steve would be a lot more welcome if he conformed to the charter
for the newsgroup.&nbsp; Steve's response was the most vituperative, most
vitriolic verbal assault I remember in my years of participation in that forum.&nbsp;
What's more, every time I made a contribution to the newsgroup, there was Steve,
slinging the insults my way.&nbsp; In no time at all, I went from one of Steve's
supporters to someone to whom he felt obliged to send harassing email.

<a name="523698">



What is to be gained from all of this? Yeah let's destroy View Camera so
that what? We can have no magazine.


</a>

I don't see anyone participating here who would like to see VC fold.&nbsp; I
do, on the other hand, see a lot of people who wish Steve Simmons would learn to
participate in the forums based on something other than the view that the forums
exist for him to promote his business concerns.

<a name="523698">



Lets destroy this forum too. There are two sides to this problem


</a>

You're absolutely right.&nbsp; And I'm quite confident you're not seeing one
of them.&nbsp; Take another look. Then maybe you can have a chat with your buddy Steve Simmons. Please. You'd be doing ALL of us a favor, and Mr. Simmons most of all.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

What is to be gained from all of this? Yeah let's destroy View Camera so that what? We can have no magazine. Lets destroy this forum too. There are two sides to this problem



It is commendable that you are such a good friend and willing to take some heat for him, but you are not being impartial or at least fair to the rest of us. Lets take for example this thread, everything was going fine until a couple of people posted a critical response not of Simmons or his magazines but of the person who offered such praise that seemed misguided. Simmons did not like this and actually chastised QT.



This boogles my mind. I think most anybody else would have let the two opinions go by and continue to get some good responses, but not Simmons, no way, he has to have his way and his opinion is the only one that matters. Now, dumping on QT was a bad move, it is like if I went to your house asked to borrow your lawnmower and then when I return it I start telling you it is a piece of crap and that you are careless taking care of it, to please make sure next time I borrow it you give it to me fully fueled, with the blades sharpen and ifs possible recently serviced.



Nobody here wants to destroy VC, I think most here only ask that he gives the respect to this site, and all the other sites he frequents, that he apparently wants for himself but is unable to extend to others.



Countless of times he has been asked to please refrain from constantly advertising his magazine, yet, nobody is able to write the word "meter" without having Simmons say, "In the VC site we have a free article on how to use a meter" even if the guy/gal was only asking how to change the battery. God forbid someone asks what view camera they should buy, inmediately the first post is, "In VC we have a free article on view cameras." Of course, the direct links to the articles are never provided, all you get is www.viewcamera.com. This is a very convenient way to slyly advetise his magazine.



Even worse, he starts a flame war and makes statements that are, and there is no other way to say this, not true. A good example on this thread is his statement that he "promoted" the LF forum at APUG. Sorry, but I kow for a fact he never did, as a matter of fact the LF forum did not need any promotion at APUG, it was the other way around, we needed QT's good will and his permission to announce the forum here.



You say he is a swell guy, as I said before, actions speak louder than words, and judging from his actions here and in many other forums, your opinion does not correlate with the facts. Simmons exudes arrogance by refusing to behave like any other member of this forum, by refusing to post responses in an inteligible manner without the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>, by refusing to refrain from adevertising his magazine at every possible opportunity, regardless of whether the reccomendation was on topic or not. You say he would be a person we would like to meet, sorry but in Mexico we have a saying, "you are better off by yourself than in bad company".

[Brian Ellis]

Kirk - I fail to see anything in either of my messages in this thread that would lead you to suggest I should "bite my lip and go for a walk." Exactly what is it in my two messages that causes you to make that suggestion?

Destroy View Camera magazine? My only statement about the magazine was that I was a long-time subscriber and liked it. A magazine publisher should be so lucky as to have more people destroying his magazine with statements like that.

[steve simmons]

Dear Paul,

The DCMA standards you refer to are not universally accepted and are the subject of much disageement. To pretend otherwise is either becasue you do not really undestand the suituation or you do and still want to try and use a flawed weapon.

I was suggesting Jorge send an e-mail to the moderator of APUG for clarification. I did not mean for him to send an e-mail to me.

You did use the word take in the concern about how I earn a living. I stated very clearly more than once that I would not use any material from the View Camera discussion forum without the author's written permision. This issue should be closed. If you can show an example when I have done so without permission then you have an issue. If you can't then this is just a red herring, another flawed weapon, for you to use to try and discredit me. As former commercial photographer and now a magazine publisher I undestand copyright. I have not violated it and will not do so.

As for my ability to take criticism or not this is another red herring. Prior to Jason's remark there were may suggestions/criticisms about View Camera. The dialoue was very civil and full of give and take. This was a great example of what can happen in a forum like this. The conversation went downhill after a remark was made about my generosity. Brian pedictably made a cheap shot and Tuan made a remark about our 'substantial' contest fees. As a matter of fact our substantial fees were well in line with those charged by other magazines and the highest fee was a 'substantial' $25.00. I even explained what he money ws used for. This was another criticism done just to try and start a fight. Another red herring by someone who either wanted to start a fight or who had not done his/her homework before posting a vacuous critcism. There are many valid criticisms that could be made. We'e had a problem with proof reading (I've acknowleged this and taken steps to correct the problem), we may not be techy enough for some people (I have addresed this as well), I have not addressed the vision question for a couple of reasons - it seems like it could be bait and I put out my vision every two months. However, I have been thinking about the question and I will address this on the View Camera forum. But to state that we are not following industry standards like DCMA is silly when they are not well accepted, to say state our fees are substantial is silly when they are in line with other publications, and to bring up again the intellectual property question is nothing but bait since I gave a straightforward answer more than once in the previous thread.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Frankly, I think this is a stain on the LF community and people should be ashamed.



You know what Kirk? I think the one who should be ashamed is your pal. I will let you in on a little secret, when I started using a LF camera, my dream was to be published in VC magazine. When Simmons offered to publish an article from me, I was somewhat weary of this, but thought "why not bury the hatchet?" After seeing his public behavior here and in other forums and after trying to deal with him in a professional manner, neither one was productive. My aversion is not to the magazine, but the person that runs it. And I think he has earned every bit of that despise. In the end I know I will be able to publish my prints somewhere else, I already have. I dont know how many people after seeing his behavior here and in other forums will want to participate in his magazine. Certainly his behavior and arrogant attitude in this forums have caused more damage to his reputation than mine and I am sure they have turned off many people who would otherwise would have gladly participated in VC magazine even if they did not get paid. Your pal has caused all this, and IMO it is he the one who should be ashamed.

[Brian Ellis]

"Brian predicatably made a cheap shot."

Which cheap shot do you have in mind? The one where I said I was a long time subscriber to your magazine and liked it? The one where I said more power to you if you were making money from your ventures? The one where I said charity quite properly wasn't the motivating force behind them? Or was it in the second thread, where I generally praised everyone who particpates here? The closest thing even to criticism, and hardly a "cheap shot," was my statement that people who promote commerical ventures here should expect criticism. I intentionally didn't refer to anyone specifically and in any event that statement was hardly a "cheap shot." So I'd appreciate it if you would let me know what "cheap shot" you have discovered in my messages.

[Paul Butzi]

Steve writes "The DCMA standards you refer to are not universally accepted and are the subject of much disageement. To pretend otherwise is either becasue you do not really undestand the suituation or you do and still want to try and use a flawed weapon. "

Look, Steve. I understand that in your world, all comments written by anyone about anything whatsoever are actually cleverly worded messages which either PRAISE you (which you consider good) or DEMEAN you (which you consider bad).

The real world, though, is more complex. My comments about your website not conforming to the requirements of the DMCA were intended to HELP you. Yes, actually, HELP you by pointing out that you are (needlessly) running a forum without doing everything you can to diminish the risk that you will become the target of a lawsuit.

Now, a reasonable person, learning that they were associated with a forum like that, might respond by checking things out, or even emailing me for more details. In fact, that's exactly what one of the people associated with one of the other forums I mentioned did, just today. And I was delighted to be able to point him in the right direction.

The DMCA (more properly, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998) was enacted by the United States Congress and was signed into law by Clinton on October 28, 1998. The US Copyright office summary states "The legislation implements two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties: the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty."

I understand that you feel that this is insufficient and that as a result "DCMA standards you refer to are not universally accepted and are the subject of much disageement" but I expect that when you get your magazine dragged into a court in any of the 180 WIPO member countries the courts will disagree with you.

But hey, as I said, I was just trying to help. Please excuse me for bothering. For those readers who are actually interested, a fairly good website summarizing the 'safe harbor' provisions of the DMCA and what it means to the operators of web forums can be found at http://www.keytlaw.com/Copyrights/dmca.htm

I understand that you think I'm an asshole, but even so, I urge you to go and read that page. You might be glad you did, although I hope you'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for your thanks, even if it saves your magazine from ruin.

[QT Luong]

I see that Mr Simmons is making some progress in "professionalism", since now at least he starts to address the ideas expressed instead of attacking the messenger, and for that he should be commended. However, to be really "professional" (I use his own term), he shouldn't try to read in other people's minds and attribute them intentions they might not have ("This was another criticism done just to try and start a fight"), state as facts conjectures that he doesn't know to be true or not ("had not done his/her homework"), and use derogatory and inaccurate language ("posting a vacuous critcism").

The $25/photo fee (charged back then) is in the high range of fees charged for a photo contest. Most of the contests by well known magazines such as National Geographic Traveler or Popular Photography have no entry fees. Photopoint.com organized a contest with a grand prize of $1,000,000. Entrance was free. I do know a few magazines that have a similar contest fee, such as PDN and Communication Arts, however they have an audience that consists almost entirely of professionals. On the other hand, when I was at the View Camera Conference, at one point someone (maybe Gordon Hutchings) asked participants in the audience to raise their hands if they were making a living of photography or interested in doing so. I was surprised at the very few hands raised.

Since materials were not returned, one would need to have at the least a duplicate 4x5 made, which costs another $25. If one counts his own labor the cost of a fine print would be even more. This amount of money is more than a two-year subcription to the fine magazine "View Camera".

[Ralph Barker]

I can't really speak to how the VC contest was organized, but in all fairness, I think we'll find a wide variation in how contests are handled and the level of entrance fees, if any. It just depends on the nature of the organization conducting the contest, what their "draw" might be in terms of contestants, and whether there are "sponsors" for the contest.

There are real expenses involved in conducting a contest, and those expenses need to be defrayed in some manner. My assumption, for example, would be that most contest judges get paid at least an honorarium. The more notable the judge, the larger the honorarium. Meetings at which the judging takes place also have expenses associated with them (meeting room, food, beverages, etc.). The list goes on, as they say.

How those expenses are defrayed likely depends on how the contest is organized, and where the advertising benefit falls. Sponsors for the larger contests probably put up fairly substantial sponsorship fees in addition to contributing either money or products for the awards. If there is a considerable advertising benefit (real or perceived) to the contest, the sponsorship fees could easily run in the tens of thousands of dollars. And, as would be expected, the organization conducting the contest is also looking to make a profit on the enterprise.

No one can "guarantee" the return of submitted materials, as the liability would simply be too great. I might claim, for example, that my original transparency is worth $1 million, even though few would agree with me. But, most contests will make a reasonable effort to return submitted materials, often requiring that submissions be accompanied by a self-addressed, postage-paid envelope of the appropriate size. Risk of damage or loss, however, still falls on the submitter.

If there are variations between how the VC contest is run and "the norm" with other magazine-based contests, I would attribute the differences to the size of the publication (including the advertising benefit perceived by any sponsors) and the level of research that went into designing the contest. Research and conforming to generally accepted standards of business conduct may not have been the priorities at VC.

[Brian Ellis]

Steve Simmons said: "Brian predictably made a cheap shot."

I then said "I would appreciate it if you would let me know what cheap shot you have discovered in my messages."

I see no response from Mr. Simmons so I have now exhaled.

[steve simmons]

"You are aware of the fact that Steve's magazines, workshops, and conference are commercial, not charitable, ventures right? Exactly what "generosity" did you have in mind? "

this was from Brian Ellis.

This cheap shot Brian. In fact this whole thread was going along quite nicley until Ellis, Butzi, Jrge and Tuan got involved. It appeared hat peace and civility were about to break out until Ellis's remark which the prompted Jorge, Butzi and Tuan to jump in. Butzi and Jorege are longtime critics of ViewCamera but Tuan's remarks were a surprise.

I could show many examples of photo contests where there is an entry fee As I stated there are judges to pay, etc. etc., but some f my critics do not care about the truth. They repeat the same statement over and over again even after I have anwered them. We changed the rules for the second contest and returned photos even when return packaging and postage was not sent by the entrant. But the critics do not care about this because there is no fodder for them so they skip over it and repeat the same criticque of the earlier contest.

No, the problem is not my participation. It is that when I do participate Butzi, Jorge and Ellis seem to have to jump in and repeat themselves over and over again with the same material they've tried before. This thread shows sthat a high level dialogue can exist but only to slide downhill with the same 3-4 people who can't seem to let unity and civility breakout..

steve simmons

[Francesco]

About contests and entry fees: WHY? Of course there are overheads in any organised event but to pass it on to the participants just makes winning the event bittersweet. Unless of course there is prize money a la Texas hold em poker.

Whatever the contributions to LF photography in the past have been of VC or any other trad photo mag (great or not, you choose), for me at present they have been made redundant by sites like APUG, LFP and MS's AZO forum. Magazines no longer are a source of information regarding vision and technique. Free intelligent exchange of information is available much more readily in these sites. Mags are now a showcase for someone's work, past or present or new product advertising (even here the forums are getting a fair bit of interest - e.g. the new Cooke convertible).

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Include yourself and make that 5 people. As always you seem to side step the issues. BTW, I see no cheap shot here, he was not asking you and it is true, all those are commercial, what is the problem? I guess making an accurate observation bothers you.

[steve simmons]

Jorge has two lines of criticism. The article we rejected and the botched APUG sponsorship. Both are old news, really old news. Jorge won't let go of the rejected article and won't bother to check about the APUG sponsorship to see if things have been worked out. He repeatedly brings these up as if there is something new. These issues have been gone over so many times they should be abandoned.

Even others think Brian should bite his lip. If he, or anyone thinks everything I do is commercial they do not understand this business at all. I have offered to sell it to people like he and Jorge so they can run it correcly but, oddly enough, it is easier for them to sit on the sidelines and throw stones rather than either buy the magaizne or make a positive contribution.

Again, thi thread was goong nocely wth gveand take until Jorge, Ellis, and Butzi got involved and rescued us from peace and unity and cooperation

steve immons

[Wayne Crider]

I personally see no point in publishing another dedicated b&w magazine. I read Black and White out of England and it suits me just fine, and then of course there's the excellent Lenswork. There's also a number of b&w articles in other magazines on the newsstand.

AFAIK, I read VC at the bookstore over a hot cup of Java. Outside of Thalmann's articles on lenses, there hasn't been anything that I wanted to have access to on my shelfs; Of course I do have too many magazines in filing cabinets now, which reminds me to buy no more.

As far as articles, I enjoy anything on old cameras, camera construction and parts, and I'd appreciate more reviews of readers submissions as I enjoy seeing others works. I do think that a monthly contest with a prize would be nice. It doesn't have to be a large prize, but something is better than nothing, and filters and film are always handy.

[steve simmons]

Several people here have taken time and given a lot of thought to their answers ad I appreciate their efforts. As I stated before we have printed out this thread and passed copies around the office. We will go over the comments in this next week.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Again, thi thread was goong nocely wth gveand take until Jorge, Ellis, and Butzi got involved and rescued us from peace and unity and cooperation



Nope, you just want to bring this up again so you can deflect the real issues. Sorry but no dice, you fired the first broadside, to QT no less. I was happy to stay away from this on QT's request, but once again your arrogance needed to be diisplayed for everbody to see. Keep it up, I am sure is doing wonders for your reputation.

[QT Luong]

If Mr Simmons objects to Brian asking Jason about the alleged generosity of View Camera Magazine, a question which was asked in a perfectly professional language, the professional way for him to respond would be to explain in detail why he thinks that he as been generous, instead of using repeatedly the term "cheap shot", which is derogatory, uncivil, and unprofessional, to characterize Brian's remarks.

[steve simmons]

OK here goes.

from Brian Ellis "You are aware of the fact that Steve's magazines, workshops, and conference are commercial, not charitable, ventures right? Exactly what "generosity" did you have in mind?"

How about spending time on this and otherforums answering questions such as the one you asked when you thought you bought an LF Deardorff and Son lens board but instead got one with the marking DPPI instead. I came on and explained the evolution of the company so you could know what you had. No reference to the magazine, no reference to the web site, no reference to the conference, etc. Just a straightfoward and simple answer to your question. This occured just a few weeks ago.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

How about spending time on this and otherforums answering questions such as the one you asked when you thought you bought an LF Deardorff and Son lens board but instead got one with the marking DPPI instead. I came on and explained the evolution of the company so you could know what you had. No reference to the magazine, no reference to the web site, no reference to the conference, etc. Just a straightfoward and simple answer to your question. This occured just a few weeks ago.



This is nothing different than many contribuitions done by many other people in this forum. DJ,QT, Brian, Paul, Sandy King, Bob Solomon, Atherton, Thalmann, me, etc, etc, regularly contribuite answers in order to help other people. Given that most of us do it without adevertising our photography, cameras, conferences, and /or other ventures, I would say we are far more generous than you are.



If you think you are generous just because you gave a straight answer once without advertising your magazine, you are sadly mistaken. As I said, in your arrogance you refuse to behave just like any other member of this forums, and when you do, you feel you deserve praise and special treatment.

[Michael Jones]

Steve:

I know you love photography; its shows in your dedication and single minded vision to VC (notwithstanding you are able to make a living from it now).Regardless of the differences you have with several posters, you are missing an incredible opportunity by not seeing Brian’s work in person.

Brian:

VC is Steve’s baby (his first born, if you will) and quite naturally, willing to defend it to the death. You’ve take that same approach with a client’s position as have I. Rise above this fray. You are a fantastic photographer with a keen eye and stunning technique. Steve is missing an incredible opportunity by not seeing your work in person.

QT:

"Moderator" means censoring and deleting threads and posting that serve no purpose beyond venting. In spite of personal feeling or disagreements, it requires taking the middle ground and preserving neutrality. Just as Steve is willing to defend the position he takes on VC, you need to step up to the plate do the same with this forum; It’s either your forum or everyone is free to do and say whatever they please. But be neutral and consistent.

Jorge:

Just as I cannot change everyone’s minds or opinions on a topic, neither can you. It’s obvious you feel deeply about these topics; I’m sure your passion could be channeled into amazing images.

Everyone:

Look at the time, energy and creativity that was expended here. To what end? Anyone have an image this energy could have been better used to create and refine? Did anyone’s position change or did you learn any thing new? Was everyone civil in either their posting or response? To paraphrase Jefferson, you should always write the letter your heart dictates. You should also then throw it away and write the appropriate letter. It appears this needs to be directed to postings on electronic forums.

Mike

[Rick Russell]

I've just completed the reading of this topic. As has been my habit for the past 2 months, I have sought to read everything I could on the subject of large format photography. I have done so, and continue to do so, because I am a "newbie".

Like the accident on the freeway, which inevitably causes "gawkers block" and causes me to be late to my destination, over the course of my reading of the topic I was fascinated by the vitriol. All the more interesting is the fact that a number of the participants are the very individuals who provided the content which has caused a great deal of excitement in me as I begin the process of involving myself in large format, namely Mssrs. Luong, Butzi, Simmons, Gasteazoro and Ellis. Despite what I read in this article I suspect you are all good citizens because of your choice of avocation.

I suppose though, that the "vinegar" exposed in this forum topic is of little benefit to each of your individually, or large format photography. You may think that I am but a mere "pollyanna" who is unnerved by tough talk. However, in my day job as a lawyer specializing in litigation for the past 20 years, I see (and undoubtedly spew) a great deal of vituperative. I was particularly drawn to the comments of Mr. Jones as a read the topic, who in large part asked for peace, at least on the forum pages.

I've now joined apug.org, subscribed to View Camera, and continue to read every new forum topic in an effort to increase my base of knowledge. I hope to meet each of you as I proceed as a large format photographer, and hope that your disagreements among one another do not diminish you or your craft. I have a great deal of things to learn, and questions to ask so as to refine my craft.

Meanwhile I will continue to research whether to purchase the Ebony RWE or Ebony SVTE.

rick russell

[Brian Ellis]

Steve - I said that your magazine, workshop, and conference were commercial ventures, which they are, but I was at pains to make it clear that I wasn't suggesting there was anything wrong with that. I don't see how you even find any criticism of you in that message, much less any basis for calling it a "cheap shot." And yes, you did answer a question that I asked and I appreciated that but I don't think your participation here should be cause for praise any more than anyone else who participates here deserve praise (i.e. none of us deserve praise for doing something we voluntarily choose to do).

Mike - Thanks very much for the compliment but as far as Steve defending View Camera magazine, I understand that he will do that as I would in his position. But I didn't say anything about the magazine that was derogatory or that was cause for defending it. My only comment at all about the magazine was that I'm a long time subscriber and I like it. Possibly you were confusing me with someone else.

[Kirk Keyes]

Kirk Gittings wrote, "I think that I have a great track record as an instructor, but at a party one time a young man came up to me a little drunk and started yelling at me that I was a terrible teacher and had unfairly given him a bad grade. I barely even remembered him and frankly I am an easy grader so if he got a bad grade he must have really deserved it. Anyway if that guy ever found this forum he would attempt to tear me to shreds publically. One guy out of maybe a thousand students from university classes and workshops and I could look like a complete jerk."

Kirk, you would only look like a complete jerk if you responded like a complete jerk. Everyone should keep that in mind when posting on the Internet.

And again, I suggest that these types of threads NOT be deleted, as I like the idea of people's behaviour being a public record. I beleive that deleting them only promotes poor behaviour.

Sincerly, the other Kirk (who has also been called a "jerk" at times).

[steve simmons]

From Jason

“I'm very thankful for Steve's work and generosity to the LF community”

From Brian Ellis You are aware of the fact that Steve's magazines, workshops, and conference are commercial, not charitable, ventures right? Exactly what "generosity" did you have in mind?

This is the sequence Brian. You were the recipient of my taking my time and answering your question without making any type of pitch for anything. Yes, I agree that anyone who comes on and contributes an answer is generous and should be appreciated. It is just that I don’t see the hostility towards the other people.

If my coming on here was a money maker all of the other people in the lf industry would be here as well. It is not profitable from a business standpoint. When you then add in the jealousies of some people who can not seem to stand peace and cooperation breaking out and have to come in with off topic and uninformed comments (Tuan with his remarks about the contest, Jorge repeating the problems with his article – I know he claims not to care but then why bring it up over and over again , and the APUG sponsorship which he could clarify with a simple e-mail which he refuses to do), and Ellis ignoring the help he has received from me (and others I agree) then one has to wonder about the real agenda of this forum. If it is to help encourage large format then anyone who makes a contribution should be welcome. This and other forums would be much better, and have the participation of some real experts in many topics that would be interesting and helpful to the people here but they are not willing to put up with the baiting and ugliness that has become part and parcel of this type of forum. No, I am not going to take the blame. Yes, I can take criticism. The first part of this thread was constructive and professional. There are many suggestions and comments on the View Camera forum that are done in a very professional manner. Nobody questions anyone’s motives, nobody accuses anyone of anything. Cross references are made to other sites with info and no one gets protective or territorial.

Lets let peace break out and stop being so divisive and territorial.

Steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I suppose your approach is to ignore any other comments and just go on responding what you want. Maybe you will wear us down. Sorry to dissapoint you but I am haging in there.

I understand Brian attended your workshop, if at anytime you gave him any advice, it is just good business sense to clarify anything that might not have been well explained at the workshop, this is not generosity, it is your obligation after taking his money. From what I understand the particular workshop Brian attended was not very well run, one wonders where the "generosity" comes from.

I mentioned the article I wrote for you as an example of your lack of professionalism and ignorance in the role of an editor. My problem with you is your arrogance and your refusal to behave like any other member of this forum. You love to dish out trash, but whine about being targeted when the same is done to you. Take for example your sentence:

"This and other forums would be much better, and have the participation of some real experts in many topics"

Sorry, but if the "real" experts are anything like you, I think this forum is lucky not to have them. And BTW please dont complaint about "cheap shots."

I guess peace has to "break out" on your terms or not at all. There had been a couple of nice posts and this thread was dying, but no, Simmons could not leave well enough alone, you had to answer, make a couple of cheap shots and then demmand "peace." I guess we are supposed to do as you say not as you do, uh?

As many people have pointed out to you, you have your own forum now, peace can exist there on your own terms, if you want to go to any other forum, then behave and respect other people as you would want them to respect you.

[steve simmons]

You have publically said you like to try and provoke fight. That is all you have to offer. You post is completly nonsensical.

steve simmons

[Kirk Gittings]

After participating in this forum for a relatively short time, and having made some (albiet ineffectual and obviously lame) attempts to steer these VC diatribes into what I consider a more constructive direction, it is now clear to me that some people thrive on this kind of interaction or they would simply stop participating in it. This includes Steve of course. I think this is useless and a bad reflection on all of us. But it is clear that this will continue off and on because people need it for some obscure reason.

Let me exit with the following observation. If VC is such a lousy magazine and Steve is such an idiot who is raping the LF community to line his own pockets, why do world class photographers like John Sexton come back to VC over and over again looking for exposure and press for no compensation. The list of such luminaries who approach Steve over and over again with their latest projects are many of the most successful photographers in the business. What do they understand that so many in this forum do not.

Steve, these threads go on so long because of your continued tit-for-tat participation in them. You could simply choose not to participate.

[Ellis Vener]

Jorge,

Do you really think there is anyone here who has participated in this forum for more than two nanoseconds who doesn't clearly understand that you have a grudge against Simmons for rejecting an article you submitted to one of his magazines?

No, neither View Camera or Camera Arts are perfect photographic magazines. I've told Simmons exactly that in my conversations with him. But if you think you can do a better job, why don't you ante up the time and the cash and start your own magazines and put his magazines out of business.

Or if you can't or won't do that then might I suggest you redirect the energy you pour into your vendetta against him into doing some real photographic work, work that can't be ignored. Work that will make Simmons beg to have your work in his magazines.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Hey Vener, I thought we had agreed to ignore each other, what is the matter, cant you keep your word? As to the article, seems you are unable to read or comprehend english so I will just abstain from explaning it to you one more time. I have been fed up with Simmons and his arrogance way before the article incident, anybody can see that.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

You post is completly nonsensical



The pot calling the kettle black, uh?...oh brother!

[Ellis Vener]

I have been fed up with Simmons and his arrogance way before the article incident, anybody can see that.

So start your own magazine and stop reading his.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So start your own magazine and stop reading his.



LOL, you are starting to sound like him, who told you I read his magazine? I have not bought VC in 5 years, dont plan to in the future. Look, if you want to kiss a$$, dont get me involved. There must be another meter you want to talk about......but c'mon, there has to be a better way for you to brown nose than defending him here.



BTW, what happened with ignoring my comments?

[Ellis Vener]

I changed my mind.

[Brian Ellis]

"Let peace break out and stop being so divisive and territorial."

That's a fine sentiment but frankly when you consider a message in which I praised you and your magazine as being a "cheap shot" because I didn't realize you thought your participation here was an act of generosity there is little hope of that sentiment becoming reality. I'm frankly amazed that you think your participation here is an act of generosity or that I'm supposed to be eternally grateful because you answered one question that I asked. I appreciated the answer but now I wish I had never asked the question since I'm getting beaten over the head with it. I certainly didn't think that you did something so out of the ordinary that you deserved praise for being generous - that's what we do here, we answer people's questions when we can. I doubt that many of us think we deserve praise for our generosity when we do that.

[Barry Trabitz]

To the LF Moderator:

Please, Please, Please cut this thread off. It has not only become vicious and repetitive, it is cluttering up our inboxes to NO useful purpose.

Thank you.