Fed up in the U.K.

[Pete Watkins]

Sorry lads but this is a bit U.K. based.
I've just been looking at this weeks copy of Amateur Photographer magazine and I am screwed up, P.O'd and anything else that you can think of. I don't buy this "magazine" often BUT I wasted my hard earned on it this week. In an article on page 55 a muppet named Ben Brain (you've gotta be joking) describes how to photograph urban landscapes. The whole crappy article seems devoted to promoting Photoshop for the sad pillocks who have forgotten how to "get it right in the camera". It's page 57 that has really upset me, under the heading "correcting converging lines in Photoshop" this idiot promotes the myth that "large format cameras are expensive pieces of equipment". With pea brained so called journalists pumping crap like this into the minds of the un-iniated what chance have we got. I'm gonna write to the editor and object to the fact that I have paid out some of my hard earned to read crap like this.
In 4 x 5 I have a Wista (£450 UKP), and an M.P.P.Press (£100 UKP). I recently bought an Aldis-Butcher f4.5 in a good condition Compur shutter for £10-75 on E-Bay. Last year I bought 3, yes 3, superb Reprographic lenses for £6-00 (for the three). I brought these to life with a £25-00 LUC shutter. I paid £20-00 for a superb 105mm Tominon in a good working Copal press shutter, I paid a few quid for a step up/down ring that screws into this shutter and enables me to fit enlarging lenses (they're virtually giving these away on E-Bay) to the shutter for macro photography. This is only to mention a few bargains. Yes I have spent a few quid on fancier lenses but to be honest my main lenses are 90 / 150 / 240 and I paid out for these BUT they ain't essential to produce good sharp 4 x 5 negs/trannies.
If you're in the U.K. or have access to this moronic article write to the editor and help scotch these myths. O.K. it might put lens prices up a bit but the more of us that keep film going will outweigh that problem.
Best wishes,
Pete.

[Ash]

I refuse to buy that magazine.

I saw a short tutorial in a 'photo handbook' I got for xmas a year or two back. I realised I'd never need to correct that (this was before I even knew I'd ever get large format!).

So I bought a half plate SI Mark II Ground Camera - half plate. £25, delivered to me in person. I got a Goerz Dagor for nothing. A whole bunch of various sized lenses, Ross, Cooke, etc... I spent no more than £100 for the lot. Cambo 4x5 with 5 holders, dark cloth, etc - £200 including tax and duties from Jim on this forum.

I also disagree with "but doesnt it cost £20 a photo on those things?".

If I buy a magazine I buy B&W Photography. I really like that magazine.

[roteague]

The whole crappy article seems devoted to promoting Photoshop for the sad pillocks who have forgotten how to "get it right in the camera".

A lot of US based magazines do this as well. I still like Outdoor Photography, if only because Joe Cornish writes for it (too bad they won't get rid of Colin Pryor though).

[Eric James]

Pete,

Just so I fully understand, please fill in the blank:

A lift is to an elevator,
as a "muppet" is to a BLANK

Thanks in advance:)

[Bruce Watson]

I actually feel your pain on this issue.

It seems that journalism is a rapidly fading career path. Journalism as it was, with its emphasis on finding and reporting the truth, is fading just as film usage is fading. In place of the truth, we often get truthiness. In place of actual reporting, we often get "press kits" (do a 'net search on that if you don't already know about this peculiar assault on the truth).

The only thing you can do besides writing to the editor is to vote with your pounds -- don't buy the rag ever again.

[Capocheny]

Pete,

That's why they call it "Amateur" Photography... I'll have to "look" at it at the news stand 'just for the laugh" of it.

I wouldn't buy that rag either!

Cheers

[John Kasaian]

I feel the same way about Popular Photography and Shutterbug on this side of the Atlantic. If I read a photography magazine its either View Camera or sometimes Photo Techniques (or more rarely Black and White from the UK---because it's so darned expensive here!)

About the demise of journalism, I think it has already been replaced by blogs and forums. News, information, even entertainment is more timely and often more accurate than what MSN, CNN, CBS ABC NBC etc... deliver (even with all those lunatics on line!) Certainly for large format photography there is far more to be gleaned from this site, APUG, Graflex.org and dozens of other sites than you'll ever find in the more popular magazines.

Remember that terrorist attack in Spain? A gentleman whose apartment overlooked the plaza blogged continually for something like 18 hours simply describing what he was seeing outside his window---it was absolutely superb! None of the "standards" even came close.

Cheers!

[Ash]

John, how much is it for the B&W Photo magazine where you are?

[cobalt]

I am finding that Lenswork, B&W and occasionally Picture are the only magazines able to attract and hold my interest, as it relates to photography. Seems to me that most other photo mags exist for the sole purpose of advertising and promoting the latest digital gear, no matter how thoroughly my decades old Yashica Elecro 35 trounces all the digital cameras I've owned (and I've owned the "best" 12mp...la-de-da).

[roteague]

John, how much is it for the B&W Photo magazine where you are?


$9.65 at Barnes & Nobles, in Hawaii.

[Ash]

Not bad, it isnt much cheaper for us brits!!

[roteague]

Not bad, it isnt much cheaper for us brits!!

I don't see it as outrageously expensive for what you get. I don't buy it every month, simply because I don't have much interest in B&W. I buy Outdoor Photography every month - I find the UK to be very beautiful (unfortunately, it has been several years since I visited there).

[Aaron van de Sande]

Why the need to attack traditional/LF photography?
He could of simply said that you can duplicate many of the movements in large format photography and left it at that....sounds like someone is doing some rationalizing to me.

[Bill_1856]

What a bunch of sour grapes.

[stompyq]

That certainly is sad. I learn't all my basics from that mag. My uncle had a huge stack of them that ran through the 70's and early 80's. It was a outstanding mag then especially if you were fiddling around in the darkroom. I picked one up last year when i was passing through heathrow and was shocked. Half the mag is full of ad's and the rest like you say is full of 'corrective remedys ' for bad photography.

[MJSfoto1956]

That's why they call it "Amateur" Photography... I'll have to "look" at it at the news stand 'just for the laugh" of it.

Aw, leave the poor rank amateurs alone guys. Using PS to "fix" your photo is what sites like flickr are all about. There is no need to print such photos. They only need to be 1000 pixels tall and everyone ooohs and ahhhs. IMHO, there is nothing wrong at all with that. Today's digital revolution is nothing more than the extension of the Brownie camera and Polaroid camera taken to its logical (ephemeral) conclusion. Rest assured, no matter how many faves they get in flickr, these will always remain snapshots, now and forever after.

The upshot of it is that nobody is attacking LF. And while you may feel threatened, there is no reason to feel that way. In fact, this is one of the best times ever to be in LF. You should thank your lucky stars that people are dumping wonderful equipment at bargain prices. The opportunity to have a professional "killer" setup that would have cost an arm and a leg just a few years ago is simply too good to pass up.

I say AMEN to the rank amateurs! They (and ironically the professionals) have left the playing field to those who are truly dedicated and have checked in to the digital house of worship where annual tighting is required.

[John Kasaian]

Ash,
$9.95 is what it goes for in California too.

FWIW I used to enjoy Shutterbug, they nearly always had at least one LF article a month (usually by Roger Hicks) and an entire issue featuring LF during the year, plus Stephen Shuart, George Ury and other LF equipment advertisements (my first 8x10 film holders came from Clayton Classic Camera which always had an ad in Shutterbug---woodies went for 3/$25, plastics were 2/$30 :) IIRC) Unless something has changed, those days are long gone! :(

[BrianShaw]

... a muppet named Ben Brain (you've gotta be joking) ...

I don't get the joke.

I have friends here in America, the Brain family: Michelle, Bob, Josh, and a couple of other annoying kids. They are smart, good looking, and fun to be around.

Sincerely yours,
Brian (often mistakenly called 'Brain')

[Eric James]

For those concerned with the price of rags with - maybe - one good article, that's what those big chairs are for at Barnes and Noble. I see little out there worth standing in line at the register - that's mostly the fault of the great members here. Like Robert T., I have found Outdoor Photography worthwhile.

Dear Brain,

My cousin's son was returning home for his birthday after a year away on his first job. She made a special cake and spelled out "Happy Birthday Brian!!!" in icing, and anxiously awaited his arrival. Meanwhile, while she was at work, Brian's father and kid brother made an identical cake but spelled out: "Happy Birthday Brain!!!" in icing, as if she had screwed up. I suppose she was made to feel like a muppet at the unveiling:)

[Curt Palm]

A lot of US based magazines do this as well. I still like Outdoor Photography, if only because Joe Cornish writes for it (too bad they won't get rid of Colin Pryor though).

i picked up a copy of outdoor photography in the library to read an article about photographing in yosemite, one of the photos was of Mono Lake, with a caption that read in part "Yosemite's Mono Lake..."

[roteague]

i picked up a copy of outdoor photography in the library to read an article about photographing in yosemite, one of the photos was of Mono Lake, with a caption that read in part "Yosemite's Mono Lake..."

I don't believe that there has been an article on Yosemite in Outdoor Photography in quite a few years. I think you are thinking of Outdoor Photographer, which is a different magazine. Outdoor Photography is published in the UK.

[Pete Watkins]

Many thanks for all your comments. I will write to the mags editor and some of the comments will help me to enhance my critisms.
Eric, in the U.K. we currently use the word Muppet as a derogoratory comment, think Muppet Show. If you have never seen it you ain't missed much.
Bill1856, your helpful and constructive comments are really appreciated.
Brian, any comments that you percieve as offensive to members of the Brain Dynasty I apologise for. I will probably lie awake tonight worrying about all the offence that I might have given to members of this historic clan. Sorry.
Best wishes,
Pete.

[collarge]

I worked in a publishing company for 5 years and did freelance for the latest digital camera magazines, but my main job was repairing there macs, I would say none of the staff were really that serious photographers, often when a new magazine title is created within the company other staff that work on other mags are asked if they would work on the mag, which is normal for a company to advertise the jobs within, they are also straight out of college and its rare to see staff in the whole company older than 25.
A lot of there readers would never probably invest in a decent 35mm lens never mind a Large format camera, so the writers write for there readers and I know that the photoshop tricks pages are always popular, but don't ask me why, I would love more high res sample images on full pages myself.
I think some of the best writing is easily done on forums like these as these are passionate people writing on the subject's they love, your also not on deadline on low pay churning out the same reviews month after month.
I use to like a magazine called travel photographer as often the writing came from the photographers, but not sure if its still going.

Anyway this is my first trip into this forum as im now playing with a Sinar Norma 5x4.

collarge


http://www.davehacker.co.uk

[Robert Hughes]

Magazines are in the business of selling advertising space. Of course they run more articles about digital cameras (and fixing their shortcomings), because of their advertiser base. How many full-page spreads of LF cameras are you going to find in one of those magazines? How many of you even buy new LF camera gear, rather than used? All my gear is used.

[steve simmons]

View Camera is now available in the UK from Mike Walker at Walker Cameras.

mike@walkercameras.com

or you can subscribe to the electronic version directly from us.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

[al olson]

I have to agree that there are fewer and fewer photo magazines that are truly interested in photography. I am hoping that Photo Techniques and View Camera don't also fall into the morass of promoting digital goo-gahs.

I will be dropping my subscriptions to Shutterbug and Popular Photography and Imaging when they expire. There is very little good writing nor any emphasis on making a good photograph anymore. I don't see many articles nowdays from Hicks or Shultz or Tony Sweet. There are very few photos reproductions that are real grabbers. The whole emphasis is to make your snapshot and fix it in PS.

What is worse is the articles where they claim they are testing the equipment. For the most part they are simply parrotting the manufacturers specs. For example, in their test articles of scanners they never test for the true dMax. They will cite it as being 4.0 and everyone knows that that value is way off!

I will keep my subscription to B&W a while longer. The reproductions are high quality, but half of the images are blurry trash masquerading as "fine art."

This thread has created a great opportunity to vent and rant. Thanks.

Now if only the publishers would read this thread!!!

[steve simmons]

I've read it and View Camera does not do digital goo-gaws.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

[Richard Kelham]

It is rather ironic that about a year or so ago Amateur Photographer actually did an article extolling the virtues (and affordability) of LF photography. Obviously this contributor didn't read it.

The editor Garry Coward-Williams claims to be a fan of LF photography, and does sometimes publish LF landscape work. My beef is the barely literate morons they employ on the subs bench...

My regular weekly read is the BJP. Other than that View Camera, Ag, Portfolio, and whatever I can find at Barnes & Noble in Norwich.




Richard

[Stan. L-B]

Sadly it seems it is the status quo for the so called popular magazines - to print anything that will fill the pages both in copy and otherwise with often no regard to accuracy or quality.
I gave up supporting such publications years ago. Now and again I glance through those magazines displayed on news stands and regretfully conclude, nothing has changed over the past thirty years. It just goes to prove how low people can stoop to get copy published, it does nothing to promote the good name of journalism.

[John Kasaian]

Just a thought over my 2nd cup o' joe (late night last night!):

If the "old line" photography magazines aren't using up any ink on the subject of LF, perhaps it is because they don't have anything to publish. Since this forum is a treasure chest of LF knowlege, I am wondering if anyone here has submitted articles or proposals to these magazines, and if so what was the reponse?

[tim atherton]

Just a thought over my 2nd cup o' joe (late night last night!):

If the "old line" photography magazines aren't using up any ink on the subject of LF, perhaps it is because they don't have anything to publish. Since this forum is a treasure chest of LF knowlege, I am wondering if anyone here has submitted articles or proposals to these magazines, and if so what was the reponse?

as far as I can recall, they never really did that much on LF in the first place - an article on Linhof or MPP every now and then, something on a photographer who uses LF for landscape, once every few months, but I don't ever remember it being a mainstream topic even before digital was a twinkle in any one's eye

[John Kasaian]

as far as I can recall, they never really did that much on LF in the first place - an article on Linhof or MPP every now and then, something on a photographer who uses LF for landscape, once every few months, but I don't ever remember it being a mainstream topic even before digital was a twinkle in any one's eye

That was the case with Popular Photography, but Shutterbug used to have at least one LF article an issue and once a year (I'm thinking it was in March) they had an issue loaded with LF articles.

I'm not the smartest tool in the shed, but when making a pitch to a publisher an author needs to explain why an article would attract readers. With (apparently) all the new LF cameras being sold in a digital market that is, by all accounts "SFC" or "Sheet Film Challenged" I'd think there would be some interest'''an itty bitty bit of interest anyway.

[tombob]

alot of the ametore and semi pro aimed mags are all digi baised, i bought outdoor photography magazine last week as they didnt have bjp in stock and every thing was shot on canon eos 1d and what not, tempted to submit some 5x4 work see what they think of that.

does anyone know some decent photography magazines other then the over priced BJP as all i can find is the digital can do everything rubbish and why not use photoshop elements and the clone tool (no healing brush) to fix all the problems

[Colin Robertson]

Black and White Photography (UK). Only magazine I subscribe to.

[scrichton]

I bought the magazine to read Roger Hick's column. Now he's parted company and they've "tarted" up the look to run with the boys of titles such as "digital photography weekly for people with little time" or "I have a cracked copy of photoshop so I'd better buy a camera" it frankly is sickening to read. I know there is a certain need to follow the crowd, but the makeover is too far removed.

Also the remove probably has removed too much of the feeling that kept AP like a friend talking over a business talking.

[paulr]

The real goofiness is that How to Photograph Urban Landscapes is treated as a technical topic rather than an esthetic/sociological/philosophical one ... as if anything you do with your camera, darkroom, or computer is especially relevent to the genre of your imagemaking.

But if you're going to get angry about it, the best remedy is to walk away from that mag and all other pop-photo mags, because they're all pretty much the same ... tips, tricks, and buying advice, all aimed at instant gratification (for you, but especially for the advertisers).

[Ernest Purdum]

Very many years ago, AP was a fine magazine and a good resource for anyone interested in photography. Times change.

[J Peterson]

I also am fed up with the photographic press. I don't buy much of it anymore.

Articles are usually driven by the advertisers. And i'm so sick of fence-sitting camera reviews. It's another problem with the digital age. Only the big companies are surviving...there's less and less competition and there-fore less and less advertisers with the cash. So inevitably review conclusions are ridiculouosly luke warm.

Muppets everywhere!

[roteague]

I bought the magazine to read Roger Hick's column.

He said over on APUG that he was still writing for them, but only for 1 issue out of 4. That may have changed, you could always ask him.

[Dawid]

The UK B&W Photography is by far the best photo magazine I've come across. I get it delivered to South Africa.
Of late though I've seen that in the "readers gallery" section, by far the most ( in the latest one all ) the published works sent in by readers was printed with photo printers. I don't know wheter it shows on a trend away from printing on traditional papers or whether it's just easier if you want to submit a print to a magazine as you can zip off two copies, not needing to dodge&burn another one ?
Being a " luddite" it does irritate me as finding anything meaningful in magazines related to the inside of a trad. darkroom is getting increasingly difficult.

Cheers
Dawid

[scrichton]

He said over on APUG that he was still writing for them, but only for 1 issue out of 4. That may have changed, you could always ask him

So it I can play a very watered down un-exciting game of russian roulette if it like most magazines is sealed into a plastic envelope if I wish to read his article. Damn.

[Marko]

I really don't understand what the fuss is all about - isn't it plain to see that not just photomagazines but ALL the traditional press has become a shadow of its former self, just as the (public) radio and most of TV have long become wastelands of narrow, middle-of-the-road consumer-oriented commercial drivel? Save for a few very specialized publications that have become exception rather than a rule, of course.

If it is useful and meaningful information, look it up on the Internet. No matter how luddite you may be, you must know what that is and how it's done if you're reading this! And it's free, so you don't have to feel as if you've been had.

That's all just a part of the greater scheme called Information Age in which computer-based processes are increasingly displacing and will ultimately replace all the 19th-century (and earlier) ones, such as hand-writing or photography... ;)

[Seagoon]

I bought the magazine to read Roger Hick's column. Now he's parted company...

AIAIK he's still there, although on a 4-week rotation...


Very many years ago, AP was a fine magazine and a good resource for anyone interested in photography. Times change.

How far back are you going? The days of 'Amateur Pornographer', 70/80s, the only T&A mag not on the top shelf! :D

[Richard Kelham]

Very many years ago, AP was a fine magazine and a good resource for anyone interested in photography. Times change.



I can't remember that far back – I'm only 61.

[CantikFotos]

This is why I like MAGNAchrom.

http://www.magnachrom.com

[Doug Dolde]

What's a "pillock" ?

[CantikFotos]

What's a "pillock" ?

A petite hillock?

[tim atherton]

I bought the magazine to read Roger Hick's column..

Is this the same Hicks who is on apug and was described as - and I quote "a bloviated old fart"? Surely they aren't one and the same?

BTW Amateur Pornographer has been the same old rag for as many of my 47 years as I can remember. Before the days of the internet, the only good thing about it was all the stores listing used equipment in their ads

[tim atherton]

"pillock n. Idiot. You could almost decide having read this dictionary that any unknown British word is most likely to mean "idiot". And you could almost be right. We have so many because different ones sound better in different sentences. On the subject of the word in hand, I am told by a contributor that it's a contraction of the 16th century word "pillicock" (describing the male member) and by another (who admits to not being completely sure) that this may be a male animal with one lone testicle and derived from "bullock". It's funny, even if it's not true... "

http://english2american.com/dictionary/p.html#pillock

[paulr]

[QUOTE=Marko;248230isn't it plain to see that not just photomagazines but ALL the traditional press has become a shadow of its former self, just as the (public) radio and most of TV have long become wastelands of narrow, middle-of-the-road consumer-oriented commercial drivel? Save for a few very specialized publications that have become exception rather than a rule, of course.[/QUOTE]

it seems that way, but i also doubt it's true. it's one of those complaints that people have been making forever ... that these things always seem worse than they were way back when.

i was astonished when i read an article about journalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. some of the great founders of the u.s. actually became newspapermen so they could spread propaganda and gain political influence. unbelievably shady, unethical practices ... and these were our nation's good guys!

before catching glimpses of this, i thought rupert murdoch had invented this stuff.

but more on topic, i have some copies of popular photography from the 1950s (my grandfather was an amateur photographer and professional writer, and he contributed to a few issues). not only was the magazine every bit as bad back then as it is now, but it was bad in PRECISELY the same ways. clearly their brand of drivel is a sustainable formula. and they don't seem to be alone.

[Los]

a little off topic, but i've seen a handful of new photo books with 8x10 camera images in them. maybe you can keep yourself occupied with thoes for awhile, try amazon:

"where we live"

"cape light"

[Pete Watkins]

Hi Tim,
Now we've sorted out "Pillock" lets investigate "Mawkin", I havn't used this word yet 'cos I didn't want to confuse the Colonials, BUT according to local folk law in this area (within a half a mile of the Gate Inn) the word was made popular by local Methodist coal miners as they wern't allowed to swear in the conventional sense but often found the need to cuss a bit. If you don't agree with this blame Wolverhampton and Dudley Breweries Barley Gold. It's won medals, which is more than I'll ever do.
Best wishes,
Pete.

[Struan Gray]

I once had to try and explain the subtle but important distinction between being a 'right wanker' and being a 'sad wanker'. I'm not sure I succeeded, but it was an enjoyable whisky-fuelled stroll through the minor cuts and ginnels of twatness.

Anyway, for those who are not afraid of a bit of artspeak I can recommend "Modern Painters" for a refreshing look at photography. The magazine jumps right over the tired debates about whether photography is art and instead asks if it is good art.

Don't blame me if you learn something.